HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-8-05
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
AUGU ST 5, 2009
9:00 A.M., LAN E AU DITORIU M
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – Presentations/Information Items:
8. Annual Housing R eport.
10:00 a.m. A ction Item:
9. Appeal: Denial of Plat: SUB 2008100. W yant Family Division. Proposal to subdivide an existing
5.2 acre parcel into tw o lots (2.7 and 2.5 acres). The propos ed division has been submitted as a
Family Division. Tax Map 26, Parcel 42. White Hall Magisterial D istrict.
10:15 a.m. – Public H earings:
10. FY 2010 Budget A mendment.
11. ZTA 2008004. Beauty/Barber Shops in C O D istrict. Amend Sec. 23.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning,
of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 23.2.1 to add beauty shops and barber
s hops as permitted accessory uses in the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district.
12. ZTA 2009008. Body Shops and Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District. Amend Sec. 28.2.1,
By right, of C hapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 28.2.1 to
add body shops and the towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles as by right uses in the Heavy
Industry (HI) z oning district.
13. ZTA 2009011. Definitions, including Home Occupations. Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions , of C hapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by amending the definitions
of H ome Occ upation, C lass A and Home Occupation, Class B, by expressly requiring that the home
occupation be conducted within the same dw elling unit in w hich the members of the family conducting the
home occupation reside.
14. WPTA20090002. Water Protection Ordinance. Amend Sec . 17203, Erosion and sediment control plan,
Sec. 17204, Rev iew and approval of erosion and sediment c ontrol plan, Sec. 17207, Issuance of permit;
s urety, Sec. 17304, R eview and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan, and Sec. 17306,
Issuance of permit; surety, of C hapter 17, W ater Protection, of the Albemarle County Code.
15. Ordinance to amend Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Albemarle C ounty Code. The
ordinance would establish a traffic signal enforcement program and authorize the installation of traffic light
s ignal violation monitoring systems.
11:30 a.m. W ork Session:
16. ZTA200802. Planned Developments and N eighborhood Model District.
17. Closed Meeting.
18. Certify Closed Meeting.
19. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies /Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Transportation Matters
20. a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
2:30 p.m. Public Hearings:
21. PROJECT: SP 200800025 Earlysville Service Center. PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to relocate an
existing vehicular repair garage from the east side of an 11.833 acre parcel (zoned C1 Commercial) to the
w est side of the subject parcel (zoned RA Rural Areas); the exis ting garage is c urrently located on the
property would remain, but the garage use would be abandoned. LOC ATION : W est side of Earlysville Rd.
(Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd. (R t. 660. TAX MAP/PARC EL: TMP 3114. MAGISTERIAL
D ISTRICT: R io.
2:50 a.m. Work Session:
22. Zoning Ordinance Fee Amendments.
23. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: April 1, May 6 and June 10, 2009.
7.2 Resolution to approve the County ’s participation in the Virginia D epartment of Transportation (VD OT)
R evenue Sharing Program for FY 0910.
7.3 Approval of FY 2009 ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisitions.
7.4 FY 2009 Appropriations.
7.5 Health Department Lease Amendment & Charlottesville Free C linic Licens e.
7.6 ZTA 200913 Home Occupations and ZTA 200912 Churches . R esolutions of Intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow certain churches and home occupations to be permitted as byright uses.
7.7 Authorization to charge direct project management expenses inc urred by the Office of Facilities
D evelopment against the Capital Fund.
7.8 Resolution of Endorsement for New Amtrak Pas senger Servic e through the Region.
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.9 BoardtoBoard, August 2009, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
C hairman.
7.10 Department of Social Services Workload Update.
7.11 Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) Grant Update.
7.12 Copy of letter dated July 8, 2009 to Hunter Lew is, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, D epartment of
C ommunity D evelopment, re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development Rights – Tax Map 27,
Parcel 6 (property of Hunter Lewis) – White Hall Magisterial District.
7.13 Copy of letter dated July 8, 2009 to Brian S. R ay, LS, c/o Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc., from R onald L.
H iggins, Chief of Zoning, Department of Community Development, re: Official Determination of Parcels
and D evelopment R ights – Tax Map 56A2(1), Parcel 12 (property of Tabor Presbyterian Church) –
W hite Hall Magisterial District.
7.14 Copy of letter dated July 14, 2009 to C atherina J. Womack, Esq., c/o Feil, Pettit & Williams, PLC, from
R onald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, Department of Community Development, re: Official Determination of
D evelopment R ights – Tax Map 99, Parcel 52 (property of Ronald Scott & Kathy Y. W oodson) –
Samuel Miller District.
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Rev enue Sharing Program Applic ation,
FY 2010
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to approve the C ounty’s participation
in the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) R evenue Sharing Program for FY 0910
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Benish, Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program (“Program”) is a competitive funding program for road improvements
which requires a minimum dollar for dollar match from participating localities. The C ounty has participated in
this Program s ince 1988. The Program provides an opportunity for the C ounty to receive an additional $1.0
million for road improvements. Last year, the County provided a $1.5 million match and rec eived the full award
of $1.0 million, which was applied to the Meadow Creek Parkway project.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
DISCU SSION :
The Revenue Sharing Program funding priorities (Tiers) were modified last year to make projects that are
administered by the locality the highest priority for funding (Tier One) and projects in which the locality has
provided a match in ex ces s of a dollar for dollar matc h the second highest priority for funding (Tier Two). The
County is not administering any projects eligible or viable for grant funding this year. In order to qualify under
the sec ond highest criteria (Tier Two) for this competitive program, the C ounty should provide more than a dollar
for dollar match. The C ounty has prov ided a $1.5 million match for the past two years .
VDOT res idency staff recommends applying any FY 2010 Revenue Sharing funds toward the Jarmans Gap
Road project to ensure that s ufficient funds are available for the project to s tay on s chedule for construction. If
the VDOT Revenue Sharing request is awarded, the project would rec eive the full $2.5 million in funding, which
would consist of $1.0 million in State funding and $1.5 million in loc al funding. The County has previously
provided $ 483,600 in revenue sharing fund matc h for this projec t, bringing the total rev enue sharing match from
the County to $1,983,600 or 12% of the total project cost, if this lates t request is approved.
The estimated cost for the Jarmans Gap Road project (from Crozet Avenue to Jarmans Lake Road) is
$16,462,050. The project has rec eived a c umulative total of $14,268,596 (including previous funding and the
FY0910 Secondary Program allocation), resulting in a s hortage of $2,196,454 to c omplete the project. VDOT
and staff believe that the full $2.5 million in requested Revenue Sharing funds will be needed for the project by
the time it reaches construction to cover potential cos t increases and/or pos sible reductions in the FY0910 Six
Year Secondary Plan allocations.
The c urrent estimated adv ertisement date to bid the Jarmans Gap Road Project for construction is 2011. As
noted, this project has been a previous recipient of R evenue Sharing funds.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A total of $1,074,698 in previous appropriations is av ailable in unencumbered funds in the CIP’s Revenue
Sharing R oad funds. To fully fund the $1.5 million matc h, an additional $425,302 w ould need to be appropriated
from the Transportation Improvement ProgramLocal fund (950136) fund balance, whic h currently has an
unobligated fund balance of $3,705,730. This appropriation will not need to be made until after the County is
notified of the grant award (OctoberNov ember, 2009) and staff rec ommends that this item come back to the
Board for final c onsideration if approved due to uncertainties in the ultimate status of this project and the
County’s overall financial condition. It is important to point out that this proposal does not make use of any
Revenue Sharing funds in the current fisc al year (FY200910) which have been specifically obligated as a
reserve for the General Fund if the County should experience further rev enue shortfalls in FY 200910.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to participate in VDOT’s Revenue Sharing
Program for FY 2010 which s hall include $426,000 from the Local Transportation Improvement Program funding
in the CIP in addition to the current unencumbered balance in Revenue Sharing funds to provide sufficient
funding to cover the $1.5 million local match. If this funding reques t is approved, staff w ill bring this item back
for final cons ideration after more information is available regarding the project’s status and the County’s overall
financial condition.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to $1.0
million of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year
2010/11 Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $1.5 million match in order to compete for
Tier Two funding; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the Jarmans Gap Road improvements
project between Crozet Avenue and 0.597 miles east of Route 684 – Half Mile Branched Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby commits to provide $1.5 million of matching funds in its application for $1.0
million of revenue sharing funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue
Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation approve the
County’s application.
Return t o ex ec s ummary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Approv al of FY 09 ACE Appraisals and
Easement
Acquisitions
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of six apprais als from Round 9 ACE
properties (FY 09) and purchase of the top five
ranked properties
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg,
Benish, Goodall
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On March 11, 2009, the Board approv ed the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to
have the top six ranked properties from the R ound 9 applicant pool (FY 09) appraised: the McDaniel, E.N. Garnett,
Hudson (Michael), Magerfield, Hudson (Charles) and Thurman properties (see Attac hment A). Based on estimated
easement values for thes e properties prior to the offic ial appraisals, the AC E Committee believed that the ACE
Program fund balance w ould be enough to purchase most or all of the easements. Even if it were not, the
Committee believed it w ould be prudent to obtain appraisals on extra properties in the event that any applications
were withdrawn.
The Board of Supervisors’ role in the ACE program is to select the easements to be purchased. County Code §
A.1111(A) provides in part: "From the list of applications received under section A.1110(D ), the board of
supervis ors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation easements to be purc hased. The
size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement purchases in the current fisc al y ear and the
purchas e price of each conservation easement in the pool established under section A.1111(B)." Because it is
unlikely that every invited applicant w ill submit an actual offer to sell, if one or more applicants drop out of the pool,
other applic ants would be substituted until the eligible applicants or available funding w ere exhausted.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s rural c haracter”
Goal 2.2 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s natural resources”
Objective 2.1: By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent conservation easements and
qualifying public parkland by 30,000 acres (50%) using public and private means.
Acquis ition of these s ix properties from the FY 09 clas s w ould add another 849 acres in conservation easements
and significantly further the C ounty’s goals.
DISCU SSION :
All six appraisals were completed in midMay and submitted to the Appraisal Review C ommittee (ARC) (Attachment
B). After a few minor revis ions, the ARC formally approved the revised appraisals on J uly 14, 2009.
For FY 09, funding of $1,614,000 was appropriated to the ACE program in addition to the $29,000 of unencumbered
funds c arried over from FY 08. In addition, two separate grants hav e been aw arded recently that together would add
almost $315,000 to the program’s funding ($49,900 from the state Offic e of Farmland Preservation and $265,000
from U SDA’s Farm and Ranchland Protec tion Program). The $49,900 state grant will likely be applied toward an
easement purchase from Round 8. Though both grants have been tentatively approved by the grantors, neither has
been allocated yet. A C ooperative Agreement, currently under staff rev iew, must be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and signed by the County Ex ecutive before USDA will release its funds. With this grant, the total funds
for acquiring R ound 9 easements would be nearly $1,900,000, enough for the six applicants from FY 09 and a
significant amount to be c arried over to FY 10’s restricted budget (Attachment C).
Because neither grant has been officially approved or allocated yet, staff recommends approval of the purchase of
the firs t five ranked properties. The s ixthranked property is the Thurman property. In the absence of one or both
grants, the FY 09 budget has funding sufficient to acquire these first five properties. The Thurman property can be
authoriz ed for acquisition after the grants are officially approved. The ac quisition of all six appraised properties
would result in the follow ing resource protection:
Protection of 849 acres of farm and forestland
Elimination of 65 development lots
7,404 feet of state road frontage
8,112 feet of riparian buffer, inc luding 2,154 feet on the James R iver
140 acres of mountain top protection
15,533 feet of common boundary w ith other protected lands, including 541 feet on W alnut Creek Park
471 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
5 of 6 properties have significant tourism value
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of these cons erv ation easements comes from the C IPPlanningConservation budget (line
item 901081010580409) and the CIPTourismConservation budget (lineitem #901072030580416), a budget
previous ly approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with “touris m value”. The Mc Daniel, E.N . Garnett,
Hudson (Mike), Magerfield, and Hudson (Charles) properties all qualify for the use of tourism funds because they
either prov ide mountaintop protection or lie on the James R iver. In addition, it is antic ipated that the County will
receive a $265,000 grant from the USDA’s Farm and Ranchland Protec tion Program that can be used for R ound 9
acquisitions.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the six (6) appraisals by Pape and Company for applications from the year FY 09 applicant pool (s ee
Attac hment B);
2) Approve the purchase of ACE easements on the top five ranked properties for Round 9, (namely: McDaniel,
E.N. Garnett, Hudson (Mike), Magerfield, and Hudson (C harles); and
3) Authorize staff to invite these five applicants to make written offers to sell conservation easements to the
County.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Rank ing Order of ACE Applicants for Round 9 – FY 09
B Easement Values and Acquisition Cos ts for Round 9 – FY 09
C ACE Budget for Round 9 – FY 09
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 9 (FY 2008-09)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Eligibility
McDaniel, James TM 135, Parcel 15A ( 0.902 acres) 36.77 points yes eligible
(Scottsville) TM 135, Parcel 18 ( 24.371 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 “A” ( 87.481 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 “B” ( 24.785 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 22 ( 39.720 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 22E ( 15.715 acres) - omit this parcel
Total (177.259 acres)
Garnett, E.N. TM 73, Parcel 25 (113.000 acres) 33.36 points yes eligible
(North Garden)
Hudson, Michael TM 100, Parcel 1 217.140 acres 32.01 points yes eligible
(North Garden)
Sarah Magerfield TM 73, Parcel 42 ( 38.000 acres) 31.31 points yes eligible
(North Garden) TM 73, Parcel 42A ( 70.860 acres)
Total (108.860 acres)
Charles P. Hudson TM 100, Parcel 20B ( 55.997 acres) 26.45 points yes eligible
(Walnut Creek) TM 100, Parcel 21 ( 68.990 acres)
Total (124.987 acres)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no eligible
(Milton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes eligible
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 23.09 points no eligible
(Walnut Creek)
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes eligible
(Crozet)
Sobel, Jeff & Linda TM 57, Parcel 75 40.460 acres 12.01 points no ineligible
(Crozet)
White, Brant & Barbara TM 51, Parcel 2A 37.195 acres 11.48 points no ineligible
(Cismont)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 11 applicants 1,254.427 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria making
certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following:
contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia
scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection
Attachment B
Easement Values and Acquisition Costs for Round 9 – FY2008-09
Applicant Appraised Property Value Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
McDaniel, James $1,510,000 $ 445,000 (29%) $ 178,000 (40%)
(Scottsville)
Garnett, E. N. $ 847,500 $ 113,000 (13%) $ 106,220 (94%)
(North Garden)
Hudson, Michael $1,900,000 $ 600,000 (31%) $ 564,000 (94%)
(North Garden)
Magerfield, Sarah $1,143,000 $ 381,000 (33%) $ 358,140 (94%)
(North Garden)
Hudson, Charles $1,187,500 $ 312,500 (26%) $ 312,500 (100%)
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma $1,080,000 $ 245,000 (23%) $ 245,000 (100%)
(Milton)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Total Easement Value $2,096,500
ACE Acquisition Cost $1,763,860 (84%)
Notes:
1) The “Appraised Property Value” is the total appraised fair market value (FMV) of the land
before the easement
2) The “Easement Value” is the total value of the easement.
3) The “ACE Payment” is what ACE will pay a landowner after applying the income grid.
4) FMV = Fair Market Value
5) EV = Easement Value.
Attachment C
ACE Budget for Round 9 (FY 2008-09) Applicant Pool
Appropriation for FY 2008-09 (ACE Program) $ 1,614,000.00
Carryover from FY 2007-08 (approx.) 29,000.00
County Funds Available for FY 2008-09 Easements $ 1,643,000.00
Acquisition Costs of Top Five (5) FY 2008-09 Properties: $ 1,518,860.00
Projected Closing Costs (title insurance, recording fees etc.): 3,000.00
Net Acquisition Costs of Top Five (5) FY 2008-09 Properties: $ 1,521,860.00
County Funds Left After Top Five (5) Easement Acquisitions: $ 121,140.00
Additional Funds from Farmland Preservation Grant: 49,900.00
Additional Funds from Farm & Ranchland Protection Grant : 265,000.00
Total funds Available for Thurman Easement (County & Grants): $ 436,040.00
Acquisition Cost of Thurman Easement (FY 2008-09): 245,000.00
Projected Carryover to FY 2009-10: $ 191,040.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009 Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Appropriation #2009067 for various
school programs
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGA L REVIEW : Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Virginia Code § 15.22507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fis cal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such
amendment w hich exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be
accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The
Code section applies to all C ounty funds , i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School SelfSus taining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2009 appropriation is $30,200.00. A budget amendment public hearing is not required
because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs
DISCU SSION :
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 2009 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriations (#2009067) totaling $30,200.00 for various Education programs and projects.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the budget amendment in the amount of $30,200.00 and the approval of Appropriation
#2009067.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Appropriation #2009067
$ 30,200.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $
30,200.00
The Virginia D epartment of Education (VDOE) selected Albemarle County Public Schools to participate with
twelve public school div isions and act as fiscal agent for the Professional Partnership for School Leadership
Preparation Grant. The other tw elve participating school divisions are Charlottesv ille, Fredericksburg, Staunton,
Waynesboro, Clarke, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Manas sas Park , Orange, R ockingham, and Warren County.
This grant program offers an alternative approach to administrative preparation that will give candidates the
knowledge and s kills they need to bec ome effective s chool administrators. W e receiv ed $200 in c andidate fees
which may be used for professional staff development.
The mis sion of the Community Charter School Grant is to provide an alternativ e and innovative learning
environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through eight learn in w ays that matc h their learning
styles; developing the w hole child intellec tually, emotionally , physic ally, and socially. Seek ing to serve students
who hav e not succeeded in school, the program w ill close their achiev ement gap by offering a balance of literacy
tutorials and an artsinfus ed curriculum in support of the D ivision’s strategic plan. The C ommunity Charter School
Grant is responsible for the following major programs and/or services : 6th and 7th Grade Instructional Program,
Literacy and Arts Infus ed Education, Choice Theory School Development, and Mas tery Learning. We received
donations in the amount of $30,000 from anonymous donors to be us ed for payroll and benefits.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Health Department Leas e Amendment &
Charlottesville Free Clinic License
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to approve an amendment to the
Health Department Leas e
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, and D avis; and Dr.
Peake
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On January 7, 2009 the Board of Supervisors approved a request from the Charlottesv ille Free Clinic (C FC ) to
proceed with its plan to renovate approximately 2,800 square feet of offic e space located in the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Health Department building on Rose Hill D rive to:
Provide a fulltime dental clinic with paid staff to treat lowincome adults and children
Increase the s ize of its pharmacy in order to continue to offer free medications to patients
Offer two additional exam rooms
Double existing office space to acc ommodate a grow ing number of staff and v olunteers.
CFC es timated that the cost of these improvements would total $400,000 and accommodate its operational needs
for the next 510 years. See attached January 7, 2009 executive summary (Attachment D ).
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The City and County jointly ow n the Health Department building and property on Rose Hill Drive and lease it to the
Health D epartment on a y eartoyear basis pursuant to a 1995 Deed of Lease (Attachment E). The Lease currently
authoriz es the Health D epartment to License the CFC to occupy 1,426 square feet on the second floor of the
building.
Based upon the Board’s J anuary 7, 2009 action, staff proceeded with developing a 5 y ear amendment to the existing
City/County Lease with the Health D epartment (Attachment B) and a License Agreement between the Health
Department and CFC (Attachment C). Likewise, CFC proceeded with bidding and constructing the improvements
described above and is nearing completion of this work . On July 20, City Council approved the ex ecution of the
new 5y ear Lease amendment, which incorporates the C FC License.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no financial impac t to the County as the result of this action. CFC will continue to seek C ounty and City
financial assistance through the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process to partially fund its annual operating
expenses. Moreover, both the City and County reallocated its funding for the Dental Clinic from the Health
Department to C FC effective fiscal y ear 2010. These transfers and funding reques ts are currently programmed and
accounted for in the C ounty’s 5year financial plan.
RECOMMENDA TION :
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment A) to authorize the C ounty Executive
to exec ute the 2009 Firs t Amendment to the Deed of Lease between the City of Charlottesville, the County of
Albemarle and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of H ealth.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution
B – Firs t Amendment to D eed of Leas e (without Exhibit B)
C – License Agreement (without Exhibit A)
D – January 7, 2009 Ex ecutive Summary (without Attac hments)
E – 1995 Lease
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEED OF LEASE
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle jointly own the Health
Department property and building located at 1138 Rose Hill Drive leased to the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Thomas Jefferson Health Department); and
WHEREAS, the current lease authorizes the Health Department to license the Charlottesville
Free Clinic, which offers free or reduced cost medical care to qualifying residents of the community, to
occupy 1,426 square feet of the Health Department facility; and
WHEREAS, the current lease, dated July 1, 1995, renews automatically unless either party
terminates the lease; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a request
from the Charlottesville Free Clinic to renovate approximately 2,800 square feet of office space located
in the Health Department facility to expand its office and dental clinic space; and
WHEREAS, the attached First Amendment to Deed of Lease extends the lease term to June 30,
2014 and consents to the execution of the License Agreement between the Health Department and the
Charlottesville Free Clinic for the Clinic’s sole use of 3,386 square feet of the facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the
Amendment to the Lease Agreement between the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and
the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health to allow for the expansion of the Charlottesville
Free Clinic and to extend the Health Department Lease through June 30, 2014.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
Page 1 of 5
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEED OF LEASE
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEED OF LEASE (“this Amendment”), dated
___________________, 2009, by and between THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the “Lessors”) and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ("Lessee"), amends that certain Deed of Lease dated July 1, 1995 (the
“Lease”) by and between the Lessors and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Charlottesville/Albemarle
Health Department (as lessee therein).
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the proper name of Lessee is the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Health; and
WHEREAS, the initial term of the Lease terminated on June 30, 2000 and the Lease
automatically renewed and continued in full force and effect thereafter from year to year; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Lease as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Lease be amended as follows:
1. Lease term shall be extended for an additional period of five years from the termination of
the current renewal term of June 30, 2009 until June 30, 2014. The parties acknowledge that
Sections 10 and 11 of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
2. Attachment No. 1 to Deed of Lease is hereby deleted. In lieu thereof, Lessors consent to
execution of a new license agreement by and between Lessee and the Charlottesville Free
Clinic as shown on Exhibit A.
3. Lessors and Lessee acknowledge and consent to the Charlottesville Free Clinic’s alterations
and additions to the premises described in the above-referenced license agreement at the sole
cost and expense of the Charlottesville Free Clinic. The alterations and additions are
described in Exhibit B.
4. All notices to Lessee required or permitted under this Lease shall be given in any manner set
out in Section 12.(b), with additional copies addressed to:
Virginia Department of Health
ATTN: Director, Purchasing and General Services
109 Governor Street, 12th Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
and
Division of Real Estate Services
ATTN: Director
1111 East Broad Street, 2nd Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Attachment B
Page 2 of 5
Except as amended herein, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment shall not be effective or binding unless and until signed by all parties and approved
by the Governor of Virginia pursuant to Section 2.2-1149 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures and seals.
LESSOR: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By:
Title:________________________________________
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________, to wit:
The foregoing First Amendment to Deed of Lease was acknowledged before me this ___ day
of ____________ 2009, by __________, acting in his/her capacity as ______________ of the City of
Charlottesville.
My commission expires:
Registration Number: __________________
Notary Public
Attachment B
Page 3 of 5
LESSOR: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By:
Title:________________________________________
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________, to wit:
The foregoing First Amendment to Deed of Lease was acknowledged before me this ___ day
of ____________ 2009, by _____________, acting in his/her capacity as ___________, of the
County of Albemarle.
My commission expires:
Registration Number: __________________
Notary Public
Attachment B
Page 4 of 5
LESSEE: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
By:
Title:________________________________________
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF __________________, to wit:
The foregoing First Amendment to Deed of Lease was acknowledged before me this ___ day
of ____________ 2009, by ___________, acting in his/her capacity as ___________on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health, on behalf of said agency.
My commission expires:
Registration Number: __________________
Notary Public
Attachment B
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMEND APPROVAL:
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
and its Division of Engineering and Buildings
By:
Director
APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR
Pursuant to Section 2.2-1149 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and by the authority
delegated to me under Executive Order 88(01), dated December 21, 2001, I hereby approve this First
Amendment to Lease Agreement and the execution of this instrument for and on behalf of the
Governor of Virginia.
Secretary of Administration Date
Attachment C
(Lease Exhibit A)
License for the Use of the Charlottesville Offices of
the Virginia Department of Health
(Thomas Jefferson Health District)
by the
Charlottesville Free Clinic
This license (“License”) is made this ___ day of ________, 2009, by and between the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health (“VDH”) and the Charlottesville Free Clinic,
a Virginia corporation, (“CFC”) for use of portions of a leased facility located at 1138 Rose Hill
Drive in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. The building located at this site (the “Building”) is
jointly owned by the City of Charlottesville (“City”) and the County of Albemarle (“County”)
(together, “Lessor”) and is leased to VDH for use by the Thomas Jefferson Health District
(“TJHD”). The lease between Lessor and VDH (“Lease”), is dated July 1, 1995, and had an
initial term that terminated on June 30, 2000. The Lease automatically renewed and continued in
full force and effect thereafter from year to year. The First Amendment to Deed of Lease dated
______________, 2009 (“First Amendment”) extends the Lease term for an additional period of
five years from the termination of the current renewal term on June 30, 2009 until June 30, 2014.
In the First Amendment, Lessor consents to the use of these facilities by CFC as specified in this
License and subject to the terms of the Lease and Lease Amendment.
1. Exclusive License.
VDH hereby grants CFC a license for the sole occupancy of office and dental clinic space
totaling 3,386 square feet as shown on Exhibit A (the “Licensed Premises”). The term of the
License shall begin on the date hereof and remain in full force and effect through June 30, 2014,
after which it shall automatically renew for successive one year terms unless either party shall
give written notice of non-renewal at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the term or renewal
term, as the case may be. The permitted use of the Licensed Premises shall be to provide health
care services to persons without other resources, provided such use does not interfere with the
regular operations of VDH at the Building. CFC agrees to pay its share of the costs described in
§ 7 of the Lease (which includes utilities, trash disposal and custodial service as provided in §
5(k) of this License. CFC agrees to keep the doors from its offices into the TJHD offices and
clinic suite locked or under direct supervision at all times except during the times that use of the
medical clinic suite is licensed (see § 4 below).
2. Non-exclusive License.
In addition to the exclusive use by CFC of the space described above, VDH also grants to CFC a
non-exclusive license to use the medical clinic suites, including patient waiting areas, located in
the space leased by VDH from Lessor, to provide health care to persons without other resources,
on the terms herein recited. The term of the License shall begin on the date hereof and remain in
full force and effect through June 30, 2014, after which it shall automatically renew for
successive one year terms unless either party shall give written notice of non-renewal at least 90
days prior to the expiration of the term or renewal term, as the case may be. The right to use the
space licensed under this provision shall exist only when the medical clinic suites are not in use
by TJHD and further subject to the terms set out in § 4 below. Restrooms adjacent to the TJHD
clinic and other public use areas such as corridors, stairwell and elevator which are not locked
off from the clinic suite areas are included as well in this License for use, subject to non-
interference by CFC staff and patients with the operations of the TJHD clinic. As used in this
2
License, the term “CFC staff” shall be understood to include both paid and volunteer staff
involved in providing services for CFC patients and in conducting related business operations for
the CFC. TJHD employees may volunteer for the CFC and will be considered as CFC staff
when engaged in such volunteer efforts.
3. License Subject to Lease.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, it is expressly acknowledged and agreed by
CFC that all licenses herein granted are subject to the provisions of the Lease. This
License shall automatically terminate upon the expiration of the Lease. Nothing herein shall be
construed as requiring VDH to exercise any option set out in the Lease, or to allow the Lease to
go into any automatic renewal term.
4. Hours of Operation under Non-exclusive License.
CFC may use the TJHD clinic suite on the second floor from 5:15 PM to 10:15 PM every
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, as well as the use of two (2) examination rooms
during such hours four (4) days per week, and at other such times as may be mutually agreed for
either a one-time or on-going use. CFC agrees that the on-going operations of TJHD which
overlap into these time periods, specifically the regular WIC clinic on Monday evenings until
7:00 PM and the occasional public health clinic on Tuesday and Thursday extended by excessive
caseloads, or other such activities that TJHD deems necessary, shall have priority of use and that
CFC operations shall be conducted in the unused areas of the TJHD clinic suite at such times.
5. General Provisions.
(a) Patient Records. TJHD and CFC will maintain separate patient records and will
share patient information only as is requested and agreed by the patient or his/her legal
representative. Should staff of either entity see or discover the contents of a patient’s
medical record from the other entity in the course of the use of the same clinic facility,
the information will be held in strictest confidence except that the staff member,
including volunteers, will notify a paid staff person in charge of the record in the other
entity.
(b) Telephone and Computer Use. Computers located in the TJHD clinic suites shall
not be used by CFC staff, subject to any subsequent agreement between CFC and TJHD
regarding such use, it being understood that VDH and TJHD are under no obligation to
make any such agreement. The telephones in the TJHD clinic suites are available for use
by CFC staff for local calls only. Long distance calls by CFC staff shall be made only
from the telephones under the control of CFC within the space licensed exclusively to
CFC.
(c) Locking of Other Building Areas. TJHD staff will assure that all areas of the
Building, other than the TJHD clinic suites and adjacent public areas, are locked from
access by patients during the hours licensed for CFC use of the TJHD clinic suites.
Should an area not covered by this License be left accessible at any time, CFC staff will
attempt to restrict access to the non-licensed areas by locking them, notifying the
custodial staff or a TJHD contact or by other means as appropriate. CFC staff will assure
that dental suite, clinic facilities and the outside exits from their offices and the clinic area
3
are locked and secured when leaving the facility for the evening unless the custodian is
present and has agreed to accept responsibility for a particular area.
(d) Use of Consumable Supplies. Each entity will furnish and separately maintain its
own supplies for the medical clinic operations. However, when it is mutually agreed that
certain items would be better managed jointly, an agreement specifying the item(s),
responsibility for ordering and tracking and cost-sharing arrangements will be placed in
writing. Any such agreement shall be subject to and in compliance with Commonwealth
procurement laws, regulations and guidelines. For the dental clinic operations, CFC will
provide the necessary supplies that it requires to operate the CFC dental clinic.
(e) Signs and Literature. All signs and literature or other materials used by CFC in
the clinic areas during its operations will be removed after each clinic session. If CFC
desires to leave such items in place between its clinic sessions, approval must be given by
TJHD.
(f) Liability. VDH, TJHD, the County, and the City shall have no professional,
personal, commercial, general or other liability of any kind for any acts or omissions of
CFC employees, staff, patients or volunteers in the course of CFC’s medical, dental or
other services and/or activities (“operations”). CFC shall indemnify and hold VDH,
TJHD, the County, and the City harmless for any act or omission causing damages or
injury as a result of CFC’s operations. TJHD staff members, when acting as CFC
volunteers, are considered to be CFC staff and are operating as private persons outside
their employment with VDH. CFC shall have no liability for any acts of TJHD staff
carried out within the course of their TJHD employment. CFC’s general liability policy
shall cover all CFC operations in the Building to assure that CFC employees and staff,
including volunteers, and patients are fully covered for any accident, damages or injury
which may occur at the site. CFC shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
$1,000,000 in liability coverage on the leased space and $2,000,000 in casualty
coverage.
CFC maintains insurance through the Division of Risk Management that includes
$1,000,000 per occurrence with unlimited aggregate and $2,000,000 per occurrence with
unlimited aggregate for medical malpractice.
CFC maintains an additional policy through Zurich North America for commercial
general liability and workers compensation, which is a general aggregate coverage at
$2,000,000.
CFC shall provide proof of the insurance coverage listed above at execution of this
document and each year on March 31st. CFC shall provide additional insurance coverage
at the reasonable request of VDH.
VDH and CFC shall each cause the other to be named as an additional insured on their
respective policies of casualty and commercial general liability insurance.
(g) Equipment. Both VDH and CFC shall retain ownership of their respective
furnishings and equipment purchased and installed on the premises by each entity. All
4
medical and dental equipment installed in the clinic suites is available for use by both
TJHD and CFC staff during their separate clinic operations unless expressly noted in
writing and posted upon the item. Upon termination of this License, CFC will make
arrangements for prompt removal of its equipment, including installed dental equipment,
from the Building, or at its option, transfer ownership to VDH. Each entity shall insure
the furnishings and equipment that it owns against theft, fire or other damage and shall
apply usual and customary care in the housing and use of all furnishings and equipment.
CFC shall indemnify and hold VDH, TJHD, the County, and the City harmless from loss
due to any injury resulting from the use of equipment or furnishings owned by or
belonging to VDH, TJHD, County or City during CFC operations.
(h) Laboratory Operations. Each entity will maintain licensure or certification
separately as required by federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment of 1998
(CLIA) regulations to conduct the type of clinical testing required for its own operations.
(i) Equipment Maintenance. CFC will perform or cause to be performed all
necessary and appropriate maintenance of all dental equipment, including dental
equipment owned by VDH. VDH is responsible for maintenance of medical (non-dental)
equipment it owns. The CFC accepts responsibility for maintenance of all equipment
used exclusively by CFC staff. CFC and VDH will each follow established protocols for
use and customary care of shared medical equipment.
(j) Standards: CFC will apply generally accepted practice standards in the use of the
clinic facilities and will leave the facilities and all equipment clean and in good order.
CFC staff will follow standard OSHA and CDC infection control and universal
precaution guidelines as well as any related guidelines requested by VDH.
(k) Utilities and Custodial Service. VDH will assure that utilities and custodial
service are provided for the dental, clinic, and office suites. In recognition of the excess
use and demands imposed by CFC’s use of the dental, clinic and office suites, CFC
agrees to pay a prorated share of the costs of water, sewer, gas, electric, and trash as well
as a prorated share of the custodial staff costs and janitorial supplies. The prorated share
is 10.6% (which calculation is based on CFC space of 3,386 square feet divided by total
Building square footage of 31,822 square feet total). CFC agrees to pay the prorated
share of the costs to VDH on a quarterly or other basis as mutually agreed effective on
and after the date hereof. Share formulas and costs will be evaluated and revised by
amendment to this License. VDH shall provide a quarterly invoice to CFC for CFC’s
share of the above-stated expenses, and CFC shall pay the amount due within 21 days
thereafter.
6. Other Accommodations.
The meeting rooms in the Building outside of the CFC office area or clinic suites are not
included in this License. Meeting rooms are made available for the use of health-related
community agencies on an intermittent basis when previously scheduled and not in conflict with
the needs of TJHD. Routine and regularly scheduled use of meeting rooms by groups not
affiliated with TJHD are not permitted during business hours but may be permitted after those
hours when appropriately scheduled. (CFC Board meetings may be routinely scheduled when
held after 5:00 PM.) The use of the meeting room space during TJHD business hours is limited
5
by the meeting and parking needs of TJHD staff, patients and clients. The CFC may request use
of meeting room space in the Building the same as other community agencies.
7. Parking.
During the daytime operations of TJHD, CFC staff and visitors will park in the lot areas
somewhat removed from the Building, except for staff and visitors with handicapped licenses or
permits. During CFC clinic sessions, restricted parking areas will be observed and efforts made
to accommodate the parking needs of others using the facility’s meeting rooms or other areas.
8. Emergency Contacts.
TJHD and CFC will each designate paid staff who will act as emergency contacts for the other
and will assure that the means of contacting these persons is known to those in charge of
operations at any time. Emergency contact with the City Public Works Department and the City
Fire Department should be made first when appropriate and those phone numbers will be made
available to all CFC staff. Each will inform the other of contacts for other specific purposes.
9. Written Notice.
(a) VDH will provide written notice of any concerns or issues that could jeopardize this
License so that they may be jointly addressed with CFC. VDH acknowledges its responsibility
to work with CFC to continue this sharing of clinic facilities because of the community need for
CFC services and the dependence of CFC on use of the TJHD clinic facilities following its
investment of funds in the construction and renovations at this site.
(b) VDH and CFC will work together to assure that the joint use of this facility for public
health and the care of those without other health care resources is conducted in a manner
beneficial to the community. By the signatures below, both entities commit to this principle and
CFC agrees to the terms and conditions placed upon it by the License which TJHD grants while
TJHD agrees to the conditions it is placing upon itself with this License.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, CFC acknowledges that VDH may terminate this License
if there are repeated violations of the provisions hereof after written notice by VDH.
For Virginia Department of Health: For the Charlottesville Free Clinic,
a Virginia Corporation:
______________________________ _____________________________
Title: _________________________ Title: Executive Director
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville Free Clinic/Health Department
Propos al
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board approv al for the Charlottesville Free
Clinic to proceed with plans to modify /renovate the
Health Department building to expand the Free
Clinic
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott and Davis; and Dr.
Peake
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
January 7, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On December 6, 2006 the Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval to the Charlottesville Free Clinic (CFC) to
initiate a preliminary evaluation of the feas ibility of cons tructing a new 12,600 square foot building on County and
City jointly owned property adjacent to the Health Department. The City retained a loc al architectural firm to
examine this option and the C FC staff, in conjunction with C ounty, C ity and Health D epartment repres entatives
determined that the property w as not c apable of supporting such a facility. Following this evaluation, CFC continued
to explore other building and site options in the City for development of a new and expanded facility; however, CFC
was unable to secure a viable alternativ e. With the loc al C HIP (Comprehensive Health Investment Project)
attaining its nonprofit status earlier this year and vacating approximately 2,800 square feet of space in the Health
Department building, an opportunity now exists for CFC to assume this office area to meet and expand its program
needs.
The CFC was founded in 1992 to provide high quality health care to working people w ithout health ins urance or
access to free care elsew here. The founding C FC Board of Directors initially hoped that an increase in viable health
insuranc e options would allow the CFC to close its doors w ithin 5 years , although the CFC is now in its sixteenth
year of operation with annually increasing demand for services. In 1997, the County and City agreed to allow the
CFC Board to construc t, at its sole c ost, a 1,400 square foot second floor addition to the Health Department building
which is jointly owned by the City and County. The C FC also utiliz es the Health D epartment dental and medical
clinic spaces, including some waiting areas, in the ev enings when the space is not being used by the H ealth
Department. The CFC and Health D epartment have a license agreement for the us e of the shared s pace w hereby
the CFC pays a percentage of the utilities and maintenance based on usage and square footage. This arrangement
has been extremely beneficial to the c ommunity and has been an effec tive and efficient use of public medical spac e.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The CFC proposes to fund all costs of renovations to the Health Department building, generally es timated to be
$400,000, to provide the CFC additional s pace. Approximately 2,800 square feet of office space w hich previously
housed CHIP personnel w ould be renovated. It is envisioned that the project will acc ommodate the space needs of
CFC for the next 510 y ears and will achieve the following:
Creation of a fulltime dental c linic with paid staff to treat low inc ome adults and children without
FAMIS/Medicaid. It is expected that in 2009 the Health Department will trans ition the operation of its Dental
Clinic to CFC and funding from the C ity and C ounty for the health department dental clinic will be transferred
to CFC.
Doubling the size of its pharmacy in order to allow CFC to continue to offer free medications to patients. CFC
has witnessed a 700 percent increase in number of prescriptions dispensed s ince it opened its operation at
the Health Department in 1997; however, its pharmacy space has remained the s ame.
The addition of tw o exam rooms .
Doubling office s pace to accommodate a grow ing number of staff and volunteers.
With approval of the City and County, CFC w ill submit a bid package to three local contractors in the 1s t quarter of
2009 and c omplete all w ork in a phased manner primarily during nonoperational hours for both the Health
Department and the Free C linic so as to minimize construction impacts . It is estimated that the projec t w ill take 36
months to complete.
The City and County jointly ow n the Health Department building and property and leas e it to the Health Department
pursuant to a 1995 Deed of Lease. Currently it is a year to year leas e. The Lease authorizes the Health
Department to license the CFC to oc cupy 1,426 square feet on the s econd floor of the building.
The CFC wants assuranc e from the Health Department that it can occupy the expanded space for at lease five
years. To address this request, the C ity, County and Health Department w ill need to modify the 1995 Deed of
Lease to extend the term beyond a year to year lease and to authorize the additional space to be available for use by
the CFC. At such time as this amended lease is finalized, it will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There should be no financ ial impact to the C ounty as the result of these building renov ations as CFC will utilize
private donations to complete this work. CFC will continue to seek C ounty and City financial assis tance through
the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process to partially fund its annual operating expenses. Moreover, both
the Health Department and C FC are requesting that the C ity and County reallocate its existing funding for the
Dental C linic from the H ealth D epartment to CFC effective fiscal year 2010. These transfers and funding requests
are currently programmed and accounted for in the County’s 5year financial plan.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board grant approval of the CFC Board’s request to proceed with its plan to renovate the
existing Health Department building to accommodate its medical clinic and pharmac y as w ell as ass ume operation
of the Dental clinic in general accordanc e w ith the N ovember 2008 floor plans developed by the architectural firm of
Daggett and Grigg of C harlottesville (Attachment A). It is further recommended that staff be authorized to proceed
with dev elopment of a new lease with the Health Department to extend the term of its c urrent Deed of Lease and
allow for oc cupancy of additional space by CFC. The amended lease will be brought back for Board consideration
at a future meeting.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Proposed Floor Plan
B – CFC Proposal
C – City /County Summary
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
ZTA 200912 Churches and ZTA 200913 H ome
Occ upations
SUBJECT/PROPOSA L/REQUEST:
Res olutions of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinanc e
to allow certain churches and home occupations to be
permitted as byright us es
STA FF C ONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley , D avis, Kamptner, Cilimberg,
Benis h, Ms. McDow ell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFOR MA TION:
CONSENT A GENDA:
ACTION: X INFOR MA TION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In a joint w ork session of the Board and the Planning Commission to dis cuss the Rural Areas Implementation on
June 3, 2009, staff was given direction to proceed w ith two zoning text amendments to allow certain churches,
church expansions and home occupations to be permitted as byright uses in the R ural Areas, subject to
supplementary regulations. The Board identified limitations on the size, scale, and intensity of uses as important
considerations.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal Three: Manage Growth By June 30, 2010, inc rease the protection of the County's rural areas by
implementing the key s trategies of the R ural Area Plan.
DISCU SSION :
Currently, churches, c hurch expansions, and Home Occupations, Clas s B uses are allowed by spec ial use permit in
the Rural Areas zoning district. Standard conditions for these uses have been routinely employed to address
anticipated impacts. W ith appropriate amendments to definitions and supplementary regulations to address the
nature, sc ale and intensity of these uses , smallscale churches, church expansions and certain Home Occupations,
Class B uses could become byright uses in the Rural Areas.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Allowing smallscale churches, church expansions and certain Home Occupations, Clas s B would reduce staff time
spent in processing special use permits for these uses (only a portion of w hich is recov ered by current fees),
allowing s taff more time to devote to policy related w ork program initiatives.
RECOMMENDA TION :
Staff rec ommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent for Churc hes and Home Occupation,
Class B.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Resolution of Intent Churches
B – Resolution of Intent Home Occupation, Class B
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, c hurc hes a re permitte d by spe c ia l use pe rmit in the Rura l Area s zoning distric t; and
WHEREAS, se ve ra l sta ndard c onditions ha ve be e n impose d ove r the ye ars in c onjunc tion with the
approva l of spe c ia l use permits for proposed churche s a nd c hurc h structure s, a nd minor cha nge s to c hurc h
struc ture s or use s; a nd
WHEREAS, a lthough the te rm “churc he s” has a longstanding a nd consistent a dministrative
interpre tation tha t inc ludes a ll re ligious uses a nd religious structures, it ma y be de sira ble to e xpre ssly define the
te rm in the Zoning O rdina nc e ; a nd
WHEREAS, the County’s a nd the churc he s’ re sourc e s would be more e ffic ie ntly use d if propose d
church struc tures a nd use s mee ting spec ified crite ria , a nd minor c ha nge s to church struc tures a nd use s, we re
allowe d by right in the Rura l Area s z oning distric t, subje c t to supple me nta ry re gula tions unde r Se ction 5 of the
Zoning Ordina nc e .
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, conve nie nce ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the A lbe ma rle County Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a
re solution of inte nt to amend Zoning Ordinanc e §§ 5 a nd 10 and a ny other regula tions of the Zoning Ordinanc e
de e med appropria te to ac hie ve the purpose s de sc ribe d herein; a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Go to next a tta chme nt
Re turn to exec summa ry
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, home occ upa tions, Cla ss A, are permitte d by right in the Rura l Are as z oning distric t; a nd
WHEREAS, home occ upa tions, Cla ss B, a re pe rmitte d by spec ial use pe rmit in the Rura l Are as z oning
distric t; a nd
WHEREAS, se ve ra l sta ndard c onditions ha ve be e n impose d ove r the ye ars in c onjunc tion with the
approva l of spe c ia l use permits for home oc c upa tions, Class B; a nd
WHEREAS, County and a pplic a nt re sourc es would be more e ffic ie ntly used if the e ligibility for a home
oc c upation w a s more fully de linea te d a nd if propose d home oc cupa tions, Cla ss B, mee ting spe cified crite ria we re
allowe d by right in the Rura l Area s z oning distric t, subje c t to supple me nta ry re gula tions unde r Se ction 5 of the
Zoning Ordina nc e .
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, conve nie nce ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the A lbe ma rle County Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a
re solution of inte nt to amend Zoning Ordinanc e §§ 3.1, 5 a nd 10 and a ny othe r regula tions of the Zoning
O rdina nc e de emed appropria te to ac hie ve the purpose s de scribe d he re in; and
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Re turn to exec summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Project Management Funding Facilities
Development
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorization to change how the Offic e of
Facilities Development is funded.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Tucker, Foley, D avis, and Letteri
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In 2005, the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) was established to provide general oversight and execution of
the County ’s C apital Improvement Program, including s chool construction. The need for the office was the result of
the growth in both the volume and complexity of the capital program. Currently, for ex ample, OFD is directly
respons ible for managing the design and/or construction of more than 38 active projec ts with total commitments of
over $40 million.
The office is comprised of a Director, an Administrative Assistant, a Capital Program Manager (vacant), five Project
Managers and tw o Project Inspectors. Two of the Project Manager positions are outs ourced and engaged as
“contract employees”. OFD also currently utilizes 50% of the time of three Building Ins pectors employ ed with
Community Development to perform project inspection s ervices.
OFD’s c urrent budget for costs associated with operations ($658,002) is funded from the General Fund, except for
the cos ts associated w ith the Capital Program Manager position ($106,238) and the two contract employees
($195,506) which are c harged directly to applicable projects in the Capital Fund.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
3. Dev elop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing N eeds.
DISCU SSION :
As one of the measures to address the current budget challenges and after review of best practices from other
localities, staff is proposing to change how OFD is funded. The propos al is to charge direct projec t management
expenses incurred by OFD for a project to that project’s funding in the Capital Fund. In addition, staff proposes that
the employ ment status of the two “contract employees” be changed to permanent FTE s tatus and that 50% of the
salaries of the three Projec t Inspectors from C ommunity D evelopment assigned to OFD be transferred to OFD.
The work load and demands of OFD are directly proportional to the volume of approv ed projects in the Capital
Improv ements Plan (CIP). Overall grow th in the CIP has created challenges for OFD and the need to outsource
project management s erv ices. Despite recent reduc tions in the volume of CIP projects , OFD antic ipates a
continuing need to supplement its project management s taff to effectively manage current and future project loads .
A survey of similar municipalities and school districts, as well as UVA, has shown that their project management
costs are 4 to 6% of total project cos ts. C omparable s ervices secured privately would cost 6 to 7%. OFD’s current
personnel c osts are approximately 2 to 3% of the adopted C IP. In addition, surveys indicate that the typical ratio of
Projec t Managers to as signed projects is approximately 1 to 3, depending on the size and complexity of the
projects . OFD’s current ratio of managers to projects is 1 to 7.6.
To more directly allocate costs, accommodate staffing needs, and more closely match staffing levels to the projec t
volume in the CIP, staff s eeks authorization to charge direct project management cos ts to the Capital Fund rather
than to pay these cos ts from the General Fund. Capital project budgets would include an appropriate “Project
Management Fee” line item to fund OFD c harges. Adjustments to OFD’s staffing lev els would be driv en by the
relative activity in the C IP. Conversion of the two contracted employ ees to permanent status would a) reduce the
County’s costs associated with privatized project management services; b) ensure retention of trained/developed
staff; and c) avoid inc ons istency in the quality and effec tiveness of project management services.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval of this item would have no overall impact on the County’s budget. Revenues to support project
management operations in OFD, including the funding for Community Development employees being used by OFD,
would be funded by the Capital Fund rather than the General Fund. Since current capital budgets do not include a
Projec t Management fee c omponent, it w ould be necessary to utilize sav ings from c urrent projects for FY 10; capital
budgets beyond FY 10 would include a project management fee component.
Annual costs associated with privatized project management services w ould be reduced with the conversion of
contrac t employees to regular FTE’s.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board:
Authorize OFD to c harge direct costs associated with Projec t Management services, including the Capital
Program Manager position, to the Capital Fund;
Convert two contracted employees to permanent FTE’s;
Transfer 50% of s alaries of three project inspectors from Community Development to OFD;
Direct staff to inc lude a 4.5% Project Management fee in all future C IP budgets;
Des ignate a portion of savings from completed projects in the C apital Fund to a “Project Management” line
item in the Capital Fund to fund FY 10 project management ex penses.
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Reso lution o f En d o rsemen t
For
New Amtrak Passenger Rail Service th ro u g h th e Reg ion.
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, Charlottesville and the Central Virginia Region have enjoyed a rich
history of passenger r ail service connecting the r egion to Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C.; and
WHEREAS, the railroads were vital to the growth of Central Virginia’s economy and to the
development, strength and diversity of its educational, cultural and civic institutions; and
WHEREAS, these historical ties to Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. continue to be critical to
the strength of our economy, to the health and vitality of our academic and research institutions, to our
tourism industry, and to Central Vir ginia’s increasing role as host to feder al defense agencies and their
allied contractors; and
WHEREAS, the Amtrak Crescent is the only daily passenger train connecting Charlottesville to
Washington, D.C. and the Northeast Cor ridor, supplemented three days a week by the Amtrak Cardinal;
and
WHEREAS, neither of these Amtrak trains provides peak hour service to Northern Virginia and
Washington, D.C., nor do they, as part of Amtr ak’s national system, provide a sufficient level of ontim e
performance to meet the needs of the business or nonbusiness traveler who m ust arrive early in the day,
arrive ontime, and r eturn the same evening; and
WHEREAS, in spite of these limitations, Charlottesville maintains one of the highest, most
consistent ridership levels of any Amtrak station in Vir ginia; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Com m erce found that 63 percent of its
member businesses regularly send employees to Northern Vir ginia and Washington, D.C. for business
purposes, 84 percent of the time they travel there by car , and 66 percent said they would use a reliable
passenger rail link if one were available; and
WHEREAS, m ultiple statefunded studies over the past decade have identified Charlottesville
Washington as the route segment having the greatest potential for ridership growth in the US29/I81
corridor ; and
WHEREAS, in a 2008 r eport to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public T ranspor tation (VDRPT),
Amtrak r ecommended new service in the LynchburgDC corridor "as soon as possible," describing it as
"underserved" and "a route segment that frequently sells out." and Amtrak proposed a new service
structure, along with a schedule; and
WHEREAS, both VDRPT and Amtrak expressed interest in providing peak hour service for
Washingtonbound passenger s; for example, Amtrak descr ibed the proposed schedule as offering "...a
good service pattern for business tr avel to Washington a first for the region."; and
WHEREAS, Central Virginians rallied around the Amtrak proposal, providing broadbased public
input to the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to demonstrate that current Amtrak service is not
currently meeting the region’s needs, particularly for business and nonbusiness travel to Washington,
D.C.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Greene, Nelson, Fluvanna,
and Louisa unanimously joined twentytwo political subdivisions in the US29 corridor that executed a
resolution of suppor t for the proposed LynchburgDC service; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2008, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, expressed
support for additional passenger r ail service from Central Virginia to Washington, D.C. by adopting a
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, Governor Timothy M. Kaine has secured the necessary agreements with the host
railroads, Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express, and the Commonwealth T ransportation Board has
appropriated the funds to operate LynchburgDC intercity passenger service for three years as a
Demonstration Project; and
WHEREAS, VDRPT recently released the approved schedule for the LynchburgDC train, but this
schedule is not useful for the business traveler or for a day trip to Washington, D.C., having a 7:43 a.m.
depar ture from Lynchburg and 11:20 a.m. arrival in Washington; and
WHEREAS, according to DRPT , “…the actual schedule for the new trains was developed based on
the available time slots for new trains to be added in each corridor and compatibility with Amtrak Northeast
Corridor service schedules, as defined in the agreements executed with the applicable host r ailroads and
Amtrak.” ; and
WHEREAS, with the approved schedule, the LynchburgDC train will add to the rail options
available for recreational travelers and others making extended stays, but will perpetuate the existing
situation wherein passenger rail is of limited utility to the business, professional, academic, government
and defenserelated sectors of the Charlottesville and Central Virginia region, and will not serve the citizens
of the US29 corr idor who would choose the train for a daytr ip to Washington, D.C. if an early morning
arrival were available; and
WHEREAS, in or der to demonstrate success and to justify future investments in the corridor, the
ridership for the LynchburgDC train must mater ialize;
NOW THEREF ORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
urges VDRPT to closely monitor ridership performance of the LynchburgDC train, providing or igin and
destination figures during the first year to determine if it is meeting expectations, as well as support the
conduct of a comprehensive, valid market study to determ ine if a peak hour schedule, such as the
schedule originally published by Am tr ak, would result in greater use of the service, as well as generate
additional r evenue; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Boar d of Supervisor s of Albemarle County, Virginia, urges
Governor Kaine, Secretary Homer and the VDRPT to do everything within the State of Virginia’s legal
power and authority to negotiate additional, peak hour slots in Northern Virginia, including an appeal with
the Surface Transportation Board, if necessary, to mediate additional access for this and future trains
serving the US29 corr idor.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Board!to!Board
"""""""August"2009"
A!monthly!report!from!the!Albemarle!County!School!Board!to!the!Albemarle!County!Board!of!Supervisors!!
!
EduStat"University:"EduStat!University!2009,!a!national!education!leadership!conference,!was!hosted!
by!Albemarle!County!Public!Schools!in!partnership!with!SchoolNet!and!the!University!of!Virginia s!
Curry!School!of!Education!during!the!week!on!July!20th.!!The!university!offered!principals,!executive"
level!curriculum,!technology,!assessment!and!professional!development!staff",!and!other!education!
leaders!three!days!of!thought"provoking!keynote!sessions,!workshops!and!discussions!led!by!learning,!
curriculum!and!technology!experts!on!how!data!is!and!can!be!used!to!help!create!the!most!effective!
environments!of!21st!century!learning.!!!
!
This!year s!theme!was!!Reimagining!Education"!and!leaders!from!across!the!country!gathered!to!
design!solutions!to!support!educators!in!preparing!all!students!to!excel!in!the!digital!and!global!
economy.The!conference!was!particularly!relevant!this!year,!as!the!Obama"Biden!Education!Reform!
Plan!calls!for!school!divisions!to!!develop!better!student!assessments!that!allow!teachers!and!parents!to!
focus!on!individual!needs!and!talents,"!to!!integrate!technology!throughout!the!classroom"!and!!use!
technology!to!allow!teachers!to!work!collaboratively!with!their!peers!across!the!country!to!share!best!
practices."!!
Safe"Schools/H ealthy"Students"G rant:"""The!Charlottesville/Albemarle!community!will!receive!nearly!
$6!million!in!federal!funds!over!the!next!four!years!to!support!healthy!childhood!development!as!well!
as!violence!and!substance!abuse!prevention!in!schools.!
!Charlottesville!City!Schools!and!Albemarle!County!Public!Schools!received!a!2009!Safe!
Schools/H ealthy!Students!(SS/H S)!grant!from!the!U.S.!D epartments!of!Education,!H ealth!and!H uman!
Services,!and!Justice.!!
The!two!school!divisions!collaborated!with!other!local!agencies,!including!Region!Ten,!the!Curry!
School!of!Education,!the!Charlottesville/Albemarle!Commission!on!Children!and!Families,!and!
city/county!police!departments!and!local!governments!to!create!a!unified!program!that!will!serve!35!
schools!and!17,000!students!in!both!Charlottesville!and!Albemarle.!
Only!29!localities!nationwide!were!selected!for!this!highly!competitive!grant.!!
August"M eetings:!!The!School!Board!will!hold!its!regular!meeting!on!August!13th!and!a!work!session!
on!August!27th.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Department of Social Serv ices Workload Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary Indicators of the Department of Social
Services W orkload
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs Tucker, Elliott, Davis and Ms. Ralston
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In the Fall of 2008, the Board requested that the Department of Social Services (ACD SS) provide a periodic
summary of workload indic ators due to the continuing ec onomic conditions and resulting impact on the department’s
programs. The Board specifically requested to see c aseload information for Benefit Programs as well as a multi
year trend of caseload growth and the impact of overtime resulting from this growth. ACDSS presented its first
report to the Board on April 1, 2009. The data presented w ith this report is representativ e of activity for the quarter
ending J une 30, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal One of the Strategic Plan – Enhance Quality of Life for all Citiz ens
Strategy 1.3 Increas e the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in low er income hous eholds, to
become selfsufficient.
DISCU SSION :
The following graphical information is provided:
Attachment A – Applications and case trends for Benefit programs as w ell as C hild Protec tive, Foster C are
and Adult and Adult Protection Services programs;
Attachment B – Workload Measures for Benefit programs, as well as Adult , C hild Care, Child Protection,
Foster Care and Adoption Servic es programs; and
Attachment C – Overtime hours and overtime payouts for selected programs
In terms of applications and case trends for Benefit programs as well as C hild Protec tive Services programs, the
number of both applications received and active cases are trending upward since October 2007, with the exception
of Medicaid applications. Temporary Assistance for N eedy Families (TAN F) applic ations have shown a slight
upward trend. Employee c aseloads during this period remain above state standards. The only exception to these
trends is the Foster Care c aseload, whic h dropped s lightly below state s tandards during September 2008 to April
2009, but has since ris en slightly above the standard.
During the period of July 2008 to July 2009, ACDSS has w itnessed the following changes in workload:
Food Stamp Applications: increase of 43%
TANF Applications: inc rease of 22%
Food Stamp Active Cases : increase of 32%
TANF Active Cases: increase of 45%
Medicaid Active C ases: increase 10%
Ongoing CPS C ases: increase of 46%
Adult Servic es: decrease of 21%
Since the last report to the Board in April 2009 the follow ing changes in w orkload have occurred within the quarter:
Food Stamp Applications: inc rease by 4.5%
TAN F Applications : increase by 2%
Food Stamp Active Cases: increase by 10%
TAN F Active Cas es: decrease by 3.5%
Medicaid Activ e C ases: increase by 3.8%
OnGoing CPS C ases: increase by 6%
Adult Services: decrease by 15.5%
As explained to the Board during its FY09/10 budget work sessions, these caseload increases are occurring at the
same time that the County has expanded its hiring freeze to 55 positions through vac ancies and retirements. The
Department of Social Services experienced nine retirements in FY 2009 and all nine positions are being filled. The
Department currently has one frozen position.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
The Executive Summary if for the Board’s information only.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Applications and Case Trends
B – W ork load Measures
C – Overtime Information
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
July 16, 2009
Benefits (Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF): Applications
Food Stamps: Applications Received
176
156
87
157
109
141
155
133 143
194
168 172
215
167 161
196 187 196
229
199 205
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09NumberMedicaid: Applications Received
149
102
94
137
107
118
125
103 101
128 125
114
139
97
87
103 106 109
133
111
105
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09NumberTANF: Applications Received
48
43
28
32
25
53
31
38 37
42
56 53 54
34
46
33 36
44
48
33
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Number
Attachment A
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
July 16, 2009
Benefits (Food Stamps, TANF): Active Cases
Food Stamps: Active Cases
1535 1551 1546 1552 1555 1548 1562 1586 1611 1663 1670 1701 1746 1775
1841 1858 1877
1935
2025 2025
2134
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09NumberTANF: Active Cases
99 104
92 91
103 104 106 114
125 131
143 150 151 156
145 146
159
171
154 154
93
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09NumberBenefits (Medicaid): Active Clients
Medicaid Clients
4742 4812
4717 4726 4810 4826 4821
4943 4990 5014
5113 5066 5115
5271 5193 5210 5214 5304 5361
5478 5506
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
5600
5800
6000
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Number
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
July 16, 2009
Child Protective Services
Valid Referrals
33 31 29
41
53
19
25
32 32
53
39
28
53
32
37 37
39
29
32
27
32
47
29
39 37 38
44
41
45
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09
On-going Cases
10 11 11
23 23 23 23 22
19
23
25 24
28
31 32 31 32
28 27
29
33
31
35 35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
July 16, 2009
Foster Care
Placement Type
28 27 27 27 26 27 23 22 18 17 16
74 70 69 69 68 64 66 67 66 68 69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Number of ChildrenCongregate Care Non-congregate Care
Congregate Care Trendline Non-congregate Care Trendline
Adult Services/Adult Protective Services
Open Cases
364
316
342
366 368
384
367
386
376 374 372 368 364364
327
347 351 356 362
373
334
315
304
289
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
1
Workload Measures1
Adult Benefits Workload Measures
171.39159.39177.03169.78141.75158.28189.95188.22186.52216.81195.91177.61213.69189.51179.37213.96191.85201.47192.3192.21196.71208.57190.4204.23210.29170.98131.84130.25123.78147.80152.90166.34151.68152.55203.50184.76161.81211.17177.06180.14146.15129.17160.33180.13159.74171.36199.65150.76186.85201.25201.70181.49189.19179.77195.120
50
100
150
200
250
Dec-04Feb-05Apr-05Jun-05Aug-05Oct-05Dec-05Feb-06Apr-06Jun-06Aug-06Oct-06Dec-06Feb-07Apr-07Jun-07Aug-07Oct-07Dec-07Feb-08Apr-08Jun-08Aug-08Oct-08Dec-08Feb-09Apr-09Jun-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
1 Workload Measures is a standard, expressed in the number of hours required to handle a case, applied to existing
caseloads. The standard was first developed for Virginia in 2000 and updated in 2008 by Hornby Zeller Associates
for the Virginia Department of Social Services. These graphs are based on the 2000 standard set at 104 hours
allocated for direct casework in a month. The new standards which ACDSS will use effective July 2009, allocate
108.5 hours/month to Benefit Program casework and 106.6 hours/month to Social Work casework. The exception to
this is SDM (Structured Decision Making) agencies of which Albemarle is one. SDM is a model for CPS that the
state intends to deploy statewide. The hours allocated per month using SDM criteria will significantly alter the
standard requiring a higher number of staff to follow the SDM model.
Attachment B
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
2
Long Term Care Workload Measures
204.57199.61200.08215.41223.42196.99205.05214.5211.77187.91203.32199.8268.33215.14245.32207.21246.78238.64250.35208.95217.72227.17205.76224.95235.04248.72266.54257.78225.74254.4190
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
Family and Children Benefits Workload Measures
156133.61149.18138.86123.7499.42118.18109.1123.43121.35122.8125.24135.94137.09137.83153.56131.96125.37135.26138.23146.96157.77146.29154.280
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
3
Adult Services Workload Measures
202.14203.77199.84213.40204.12186.02197.51191.97192.91208.93197.49205.50202.40202.07194.38184.05184.05191.55186.73184.88205.07190.24183.04189.42192.58209.4198.95199.01201.13182.820.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
Child Care Workload Measures
163.35148.83136.73127.05123.42121127.05134.31130.68121120.06133.1133.1133.1143.99152.46159.72164.56162.14156.09159.72165.77147.62143.99141.57141.57148.83148.83130.68129.47136.73136.73143.99145.2143.99139.15100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Jul-06Aug-06Sep-06Oct-06Nov-06Dec-06Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
4
CPS Workload Measures
104.60125.29108.65144.07121.64109.26137.71123.22100.95115.96144.59107.84121.32116.33128.32152.13118.73133.31123.51129.20147.64127.97147.38119.730.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
July 07Aug 07Sept 07Oct 07Nov 07Dec 07Jan 08Feb 08Mar 08April 08May 08June 08July 08August 08Sept 08October 08Nov 08Dec 08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Average Workload Target Workload
Foster Care and Adoption Workload Measures
108.19119.45116.01112.29112.88110.73133.93133.31131.41127.07122.35125.35125.96125.59125.59124.11122.20121.76132.35127.7384.1585.0783.7683.1981.4675.39101.36103.80105.69107.780.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09Jun-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload
Overtime Hours - Social Work**
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09
MonthHours Adult Protective Services CPS Foster/Child Care/Adption
** Does not include on call hours for CPS
Overtime Hours - Benefits Programs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09
Month
HoursAdult Benefits Families and Children Benefits
Attachment C
Overtime Costs - July 2007-June 2009**
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Jul -07SepNovJanMarMay Jul -08SepNovJanMarMayMonthAmount ($)Adult Benefits Adult Services F&C Benefits CPS Foster Care
** Does not include on call time for CPS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA)
Grant Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the Status of the SEEA Grant
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Shadman, Ms.
Lyttle, Ms. Temple
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The following is relevant background information for an update on the s tatus of the SEEA Grant:
In December 2007 the Board adopted the U.S. Cool C ounties C limate Stabilization Declaration, pledging to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions countywide by 80% by 2050. The C ity adopted a similar agreement in
2006.
By J anuary 2009, both the County and C ity had c ompleted IC LEI (International C ouncil for Local
Environmental Initiatives, now known as Local Governments for Sustainability) Milestones 1 and 2, which
include 1) a bas eline inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and 2) setting a reduction target. Both the
County and City iss ued baseline reports.
In January 2009, County and City staff and elec ted officials (David Slutzky from the C ounty and D ave Norris
and David Brown from the City) met with the Director of Virginia’s Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
(DMME), Steve Walz, and dis cus sed a competitive $500,000 grant opportunity through the Southeast Energy
Effic iency Allianc e (SEEA), to be aw arded to a community who had the best plan and support in place to
dev elop and implement a comprehensive, communitybased energy efficiency program whos e goals were a
2040% efficiency gain per building; a 3050% market penetration; and a 57 year timeframe for the goals.
Shortly thereafter DMME funded a consultant to work w ith the C ounty and C ity to develop a proposal for the
grant competition.
On January 14, 2009 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution (Attachment A) requesting that the
Virginia General Assembly enact legislation to enable the County of Albemarle and the City of C harlottesville
to develop and implement a clean energy financing program (see Discussion s ection for more information on
Va. Code § 15.2958.3).
On January 14, 2009 the Board als o adopted a resolution (Attachment B) in support of the C ounty, City and
Univ ersity working cooperatively to discuss energy and climate change opportunities, including c ollaborating
on developing a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant. As part of this
res olution the Board also resolved to appoint a representative (Chairman David Slutzky) in discussions and
working groups related to energy efficiency and c limate protection initiatives.
On January 28, 2009 SEEA offic ially released a R equest for Proposal (RFP) for the grant competition.
On May 6, 2009 the Board adopted a resolution (Attachment C) to authorize the C ounty, jointly with the City,
to apply for SEEA grant funds and to help “es tablish a model community energy efficiency program.”
Betw een the months of January and May 2009, County and City staff worked with the Statefunded
consultant to c ompile a propos al for the SEEA grant, which was s ubmitted on May 15, 2009.
On June 17, 2009 the County and City w ere notified that they had been awarded the SEEA grant.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1 Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
Goal 2 – Protect the County’s Natural R esources
DISCU SSION :
SEEA Proposal
The entire SEEA Grant Proposal is inc luded as Attachment D (linked electronically, but hard copy not attached
because of the length of the document). In summary , the proposal requests funding from SEEA to support the
administrative elements of implementing a local energy alliance program (LEAP) that, as envisioned, would be a
community based partnership between the C ounty, C ity, State and other public and priv ate organizations. The main
purpose of LEAP would be to help property owners significantly lower their energy usage and reduce energy costs
by coordinating energy audits, followup improvement work, and managing a loan fund. LEAP would make loan
money available to property owners to cover the upfront c osts of implementing improvements, and then the money
would be paid back by property owners with interest from the money s aved through lower energy bills. Job creation
estimates in the proposal include between 9151,271 new jobs created over seven years in the residential sector
alone. This range corres ponds with the 30%50% mark et penetration goals set forth in the proposal and the
calculations are based on EPA’s statistic of 18–25 jobs created for ev ery $1 million spent in home energy
performance. Greenhouse gas reduction estimates, updated after the proposal was s ubmitted, are between 20,902
and 69,685 metric tons for the seven y ear period. SEEA has cited the Letters of Support in the proposal as a very
compelling case for community support. Letters were received from Governor Tim Kaine, Congressman Tom
Perriello, Dominion Power, UVa, and many other loc al organizations and stakeholders. See Appendix N in
Attachment D for all of the letters of support.
Va. Code § 15.2958.3
Although it is not disc uss ed in detail in the proposal, Va. Code § 15.2958.3, adopted by SB 1212 in the 2009
General Assembly, effec tive July 1 2009, enables loc al governments in Virginia to adopt an ordinance to “authorize
contrac ts to provide loans for the initial acquisition and installation of c lean energy improvements with free and
willing property owners of both existing properties and new construction.” See Attac hment E for Va. Code § 15.2
958.3 language. The details for implementing such a loan program and how it would function or fit into LEAP, as
LEAP is envisioned in the proposal, w ill need to be further researched by staff.
Current Status
Potential legal barriers to establishing LEAP as an “operating company” as set forth in the SEEA RFP have been
identified and are currently being evaluated by County and City legal staff. In addition, C ounty and C ity legal staff
are currently reviewing the grant contrac t provided by SEEA. One pos sible solution provided in the draft contract is
for SEEA to act as the temporary fiscal and operating agent until LEAP has become a legal entity under Virginia
law. This option is being evaluated. It is anticipated that a recommendation on how to form an “operating company”
will be presented in September or Oc tober.
In a parallel effort, County and City s taff have begun w orking with the original SEEA Proposal team [D avid Slutzk y
(County ), Dave Norris (City), David Brown (City), Bill Dunnington (State consultant), Steve W alz (State)], now
called the “Transition Team,” to work through the financial and adminis trative logistics of the program in an effort to
implement LEAP.
Related Grants
1) The C ounty has submitted its Energy Efficiency and C onservation Block Grant (EECBG) applic ation and
strategy for use of funds to the Department of Energy (DOE) for approv al. Included in the strategy is a designation
of $60,000 to support LEAP through monies used towards energy effic iencyrelated education and outreach. The
City intends to designate all $195,300 of its EECBG funds to support the LEAP initiativ e.
2) County and C ity environmental staff are currently w orking on a cooperative propos al for a City Grant application
to the Environmental Protection Agenc y’s (EPA) Climate Showcase C ommunities grant, which is a $500,000
competitive grant that seeks to award funds to a community that has designed a replicable community program
focused on energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. City staff is proposing to use the SEEA
Grant funds as the required 50% matc h if such use of SEEA Grant funds is allowed per the SEEA Grant contract,
and would use the EPA funds if awarded to further s upport LEAP.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact of the SEEA Grant and related program is dependent upon how LEAP is created and funded.
It is not anticipated that additional direct County funding beyond Grant funding would be required.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This update is presented for the Board’s information only .
ATTAC HMENTS
A – January 14, 2009 R esolution to Request Enabling Legislation
B – January 14, 2009 R esolution to Support Collaborative Efforts
C – May 6, 2009 Resolution to Support SEEA Grant Application
D SEEA Grant Proposal
E – Va. C ode § 15.2958.3
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
C i t y o f C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , V i r g i n i a
+
C o u n t y o f A l b e m a r l e , V i r g i n i a
G r a n t P r o p o s a l f o r
La u n ch i n g a C o m m u n i t y E n e r g y A l l i a n ce
M a y 1 5 , 2 0 0 9
May 12, 2009
On behalf of the proposal team, community partners, colleagues and the many contributors from
our region, we are very pleased to submit our proposal in response to the Request for Proposal
Launching a Community Energy Alliance from the Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance.
We wish you the best in your review and deliberations. Thank you in advance for your
consideration. We look forward to your feedback.
Sincerely,
Index to Appendices
Proposal Contents Required Response Format
Acronyms .............................................................................................................................i
A. Applicant and Contact Information........................................................................1
B. Intended Implementation Organization.................................................................5
B1: A View to the Future..........................................................................................5
B2: A Perspective on the Present..............................................................................8
C. Technical Approach....................................................................................................10
C1: Key Stakeholders - Top Down and Bottom Up Support for LEAP...................10
C2: Provide Evidence of Preliminary M ilestones.....................................................14
Executive Summary of the LEAP Technical Approach................................14
Preliminary M ilestone #1: LEAP Program Details......................................17
Context: A Climate Protection Plan...................................................17
A Commitment to Collaboration.......................................................18
Overall Goals and Strategies..............................................................18
Approach to the M arkets....................................................................21
Customer Experience - !The Story of Jim".......................................22
Designing Energy Star into the LEAP Residential M arket...............24
Designing Energy Star into the LEAP Commercial M arket..............28
Financing Customer Projects.............................................................32
LEAP Customer Funding...................................................................34
M arketing Approach..........................................................................36
How M anagement Adds Value..........................................................42
LEAP Financial Framework..............................................................43
Preliminary M ilestone #2: Developing the Training Program ....................46
Preliminary M ilestone #3: Charlottesville$s Home Energy
Conservation Program ......................................46
Preliminary M ilestone #4: Ongoing LEAP Projects with UVa....................46
Preliminary M ilestone #5: Ongoing LEAP Projects with SPARK%
(Green Conservation Corps).............................47
Preliminary M ilestone #6: Ongoing LEAP Community Projects
(EcoREM OD !Energy House")........................48
C3: M arket Characterization Summary....................................................................49
C4: Utility Support....................................................................................................55
C5: Funding Support from Governments and Foundations......................................57
C6: In-Kind Support.................................................................................................58
C7: Support from the Governor................................................................................60
C8: Support from Local Partners..............................................................................61
D. Commitments and Resolutions................................................................................63
Appendices
Index to Appendices
Index to Appendices
Appendix A ! 2009 Senate Bill 1212
Appendix B ! A Framework for Drafting the M odel Ordinance to Implement SB 1212
Appendix C ! UVa "Top Ten# List
Appendix D ! City/County January 2009 Resolutions
Appendix E ! City/County M ay 2009 Board/Council Reports and Resolutions
Appendix F ! Home Performance with Energy Star W hite Paper
Appendix G ! Preliminary M arket Survey
Appendix H ! Positive Energy W rite Up
Appendix I ! How a LEAP Energy Project Happens
Appendix J ! Residential xls (soft copy only)
Appendix K ! CCDC/SPARK$ Green Conservation Corps Energy Efficiency Campaign
Appendix L ! ecoREM OD "Energy House#
Appendix M ! Dominion Power%s Energy Efficiency Programs
Appendix N ! Letters of Support
Acronyms
i
Acronyms List
ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy
AECP Association of Energy Conservation Professionals
AFU E Annual Fuel U tilization Efficiency
AM I Advanced M etering Infrastructure
AR R A American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
BPI B uilding Performance Institute
BRH B A B lue Ridge H ome Builders Association
CATEC Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center
CCD C Charlottesville Community D esign Center
CD B G Community D evelopment Block G rant
CEA Cambridge Energy Alliance
CECP Community Energy Conservation Program
CFL Compact florescent lightbulb
CO 2 Carbon dioxide
CO P Coefficient of Performance
CR EB Clean R enew able Energy B ond
CR H A Charlottesville R edevelopment and H ousing Authority
D CL D irect Load Cycling
D M M E D epartment of M ines M inerals and Energy
D O A D epartment of Agriculture
D O E D epartment of Energy
D O L D epartment of Labor
D V P D ominion V irginia Pow er
EE Energy efficiency
EECBG Energy Efficiency and Conservation B lock G rant
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESCO Energy Services Company
G H G G reenhouse gases
G PM G allons per minute
H ERS H ome Energy Rating System
H PA H ome Performance Assessment
H Pw ES H ome Performance w ith Energy Star
H SPF H eating Seasonal Performance Factor
H U D D epartment of H ousing and U rban D evelopment
H V AC H eating, V entilation, and Air Conditioning
IH D In H ome D isplay
ISO International Standards O rganization
JAB A Jefferson Area Board for the Aging
JR G B C James R iver G reen B uilding Council
Acronyms
ii
kWH Kilowatt Hours
L3C low profit, lim ited liability com pany
LEA P Local Energy A lliance Program
LEA P M C Local Energy A lliance Program M anagem ent C om pany
LEA P O C Local Energy A lliance Program O perating Com pany
LED light em itting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environm ental D esign
LIHEA P Low Incom e Hom e Energy A ssistance Program
M &V M easurem ent and V erification
M E2 M ilwaukee Energy Efficiency
M U SH M unicipal, U tility, Schools, Hospital
N G O N ongovernm ental O rganization
N PR N ational Public R adio
N R EL N ational Renewable Energy Laboratory
N YSER D A N ew York State Energy R esearch and D evelopm ent A uthority
PHA Piedm ont Housing A lliance
PHEV Plug in Hybrid Electric V ehicle
PPA Power Purchasing A greem ent
PV C C Piedm ont V irginia C om m unity College
Q A Q uality A ssurance
Q C Q uality Control
Q CC C harlottesville Q uality C om m unity C ouncil
Q ECB Q ualified Energy Conservation B onds
RD EE Program R apid D eploym ent Energy Efficiency Program
REC Renewable energy credits
RFP Request for Proposal
RLF R evolving Loan Fund
RO I Return on Investm ent
SB Senate Bill
SEEA Southeastern Energy Efficiency A lliance
SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency R atio
SEO State Energy O ffice
TJPD C Thom as Jefferson Planning D istrict Com m ission
U SG B C U S G reen B uilding Council
U V a U niversity of V irginia
V A CO V irginia A ssociation of Counties
V EIC V erm ont Energy Investm ent
V HD A V irginia Housing D evelopm ent A uthority
V M L V irginia M unicipal League
V SBN V irginia Sustainable Building N etwork
WA P Weatherization A ssistance Program
Section A Applicant Information
1
A: Applicant Information
Grant Proposal Submitted by the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle,
Virginia
Applicant Contact Information:
Gary O!Connell David Norris
City M anager " City of Charlottesville M ayor, City of Charlottesville
434 970-3101 434 970-3113
Robert Tucker David Slutzky
County Executive " County of Albemarle Chairman, Board of Supervisors
434 296-5841 County of Albemarle
434 296-5843
Grant / Program Coordinator and Proposal Co-Author:
Bill Dunnington
Virginia Energy Project
(434) 977-4526, cell 434 245-5267
billdunnington@ msn.com
Key Staff Contacts: Program Design Team and Proposal Co-Authors:
Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Administrator
City of Charlottesville
(434) 970-3631
riddervold@ charlottesville.org
Cynthia Adams, Climate Protection Program Coordinator
City of Charlottesville
(434) 970-3909
adamsc@ charlottesville.org
Lance Stewart, Energy M anager
City of Charlottesville
(434) 970-3665
stewartl@ charlottesville.org
Sarah Temple, Environmental M anager
County of Albemarle
(434) 296-5816
stemple@ albemarle.org
Section A Applicant Information
2
This page intentionally left blank.
Section A Applicant Information
3
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
A Message from Governor Kaine, May 11, 2009
Section A Applicant Information
4
This page intentionally left blank.
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
5
B1: A View to a Future
W hile there are many models for energy efficiency programs, including Cambridge Energy
Alliance (CEA) and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority!s
(NYSERDA) Energy $mart, one business model we find compelling is taken from Vermont.
Somewhat analogous to the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) and Efficiency
Vermont, our thought is to create a separate organization to house the Local Energy Alliance
Program M anagement Company (LEAP-M C) and its delivery system, the Operating Company
(LEAP-OC).
In the Vermont construct, VEIC is the parent, management company 501(3)c, funded in part by a
public benefit charge. VEIC primarily manages Efficiency Vermont, which delivers energy
programs and services according to a contract awarded by the State. Setting their organization up
this way has allowed Efficiency Vermont to focus on implementing the energy efficiency
program, while VEIC houses other service functions such as energy consulting, development,
and engineering. VEIC also manages ventures and supply, as they now bid and sell capacity on
the New England forward capacity market. Our forward capacity wholesaler, PJM , has recently
begun taking bids for negawatts as well. Efficiency Vermont is viewed as an energy efficiency
utility, because it has consistently supplied 2% of the Vermont!s power capacity for years
through the sale of negawatts. Efficiency Vermont is organized by market " residential and
commercial " and has marketing/account management functions.
In our Charlottesville/Albemarle, Virginia version, the Alliance model applies at both the level
of LEAP-M C and LEAP-OC, but with slightly different members in each. LEAP-M C Alliance
Partners make up the Governance Board which oversees the strategy, direction, and finances of
the regional alliance. In LEAP-OC, the Operating Board!s Alliance Partners guide the
operational services and delivery of the program. The exact legal designations are yet to be
determined, but will likely be a non-profit 501(3)c or an L3C. M embers for each entity could be
as follows:
x Proposed LEAP-M C Governance Board: M embers are representative of the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, University of Virginia, Division of M ines,
M inerals and Energy, Dominion Virginia Power, Virginia Energy Project, and one or
two selected local Foundations.
x Proposed LEAP-OC!s Operating Board: M embers are representative of the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Piedmont Virginia Community College, and
three or four selected local bankers, builders, and trade partners.
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
6
The construct of the Alliance model is shown in the following graphic:
LEAP OC Proposed
Operating Board
City of Charlottesville
County of Albemarle
University of Virginia
CCDC/SPARK!
PVCC Training Center
Key Technologies
Energy Star
Smart Grid/Renewables
Positive Energy
Financing Leverage
Capital pool
Multiple sources
LEAP M C Proposed
G overnance Board
City of Charlottesville
County of Albemarle
University of Virginia
Dominion Power
VA DMME
VA Energy Project
Local Foundations
Lead this together
R em ove financial
barriers for localities
and citizens
Sponsorship
City/County play a pivotal
aggregating role.
Service O rganization
Market centric Strategy
Public Interest Goals
Operating Com pany
!By improving the
performance of our
buildings and reducing
their operating costs, I
believe LEAP can play an
important role in helping
to reinforce the
preservation of our built
environment and raise
aw areness of the energy
embodied in these
structures."
David N euman, UVa
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
7
We can conceive of two phases in LEAP s development: ARRA Stimulus and beyond. Below, is
a conceptual schematic depicting a desirable service delivery mechanism for the near term
ARRA Stimulus era.
We believe this organization model will evolve beyond the ARRA Stimulus era, increasingly
toward an economic development engine, possibly as depicted below:
! Marketing:
customer acquisition,
communications
! Operations:
implement energy
programs
! Quality:
Audits, M&V, process
management
! Finance:
manage capital needs,
cash flow, risk, returns
! Customer Service
Community relations, partner relations,
alliance management, marketing
communications, grants clearinghouse
Manage, audit, support training and
certification programs ! some direct,
some RFP. Program manage special
campaigns and initiatives
Classic QC / QA functions, standards,
auditing with ISO frameworks and 6 sigma
tools, M&V plus customer surveys
Classic contract, program and financial
management but with both public and
private sector expertise
Help desk and website maintenance
Mission is Service
Value Proposition: Easy, one stop shop for
energy solutions that pay for themselves.!
LEA P O C O peratin g B o ard
LEA P O C
O perating
Co m pany
Capabilities / D aily W ork
Technical A dvisors
Governance Board
En ergy
Institu te
O perating
Com pany
LEA P M C G o vern an ce B o ard
V entures
G roup
! Marketing
! Operations
(Residential &
Commercial)
! Quality
! Finance
x Energy experts
products services,
tools, technologies
x "r & D !
x EE Education U VA,
CATEC, PVCC,B PI,
Energy Star, U SG B C
x D emonstration
Projects
COO, Market & Program Managers, IT, Quality, Technical Staff
x Finance local
ventures in EE and
renewables
x VC like team for
economic
development
x G rants
Clearinghouse
E commerce portal for information, service processes, and quality.
Service Innovation Funding
! Marketing:
customer acquisition,
communications
! Operations:
implement energy
programs
! Quality:
Audits, M&V, process
management
! Finance:
manage capital needs,
cash flow, risk, returns
! Customer Service
LEA P "M C G overn ance B o ard
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
8
B2: A Perspective on the Present
In the near term, we have several issues to work through:
1) There is no public benefit charge in Virginia, so initial capitalization will have to
come from several sources including ARRA stimulus funds, other grants, or initial
investments.
2) In its energy-related legislative code, Virginia is stranded somewhere between
regulated, deregulated and re-regulated in its relationship with its utilities.
3) It is unclear what localities are legally able and unable to create with respect to
public-private partnerships along the lines of community-based versions exemplified
by VEIC and Efficiency Vermont. As a Dillon Rule state, localities are limited in
their actions unless explicitly given permission by the State legislature to act in a
specific manner.
As will become clear in the Technical Approach section, this comprehensive energy efficiency
program (LEAP) has deep roots in the community. The Alliance partners which make up its
respective Governance and Operating Boards will inform, support, and help market it as they all
stand to gain from its success. SEEA!s intention for the Implementation Organization, (that it be
a stand alone entity apart from government, but in partnership with it) is integral to our vision.
This intention is incorporated in Resolutions recently passed by the City and County on M ay 4
and M ay 6, 2009 respectively (see the Resolutions in Section D). LEAP seeks to leverage the
credibility and aggregating authority of government, as well as its capacity for relationship
building and access to funding sources. W e also believe that LEAP must function like an agile,
market-responsive business or be doomed to the fitful stutter-step of government program
funding or handicapped by the clock speed of its processes. To that end, the LEAP-M C is the
governance body which provides strategic intent and money to LEAP-OC. LEAP-M C focuses on
the community value of the energy alliance. LEAP-OC!s staff drives that strategy into
community campaigns and programs which save money, energy, and emissions " creating jobs,
thriving businesses and a sustainable energy future.
W ithin 6 months time, we hope to stand up LEAP as a 501(3)c or an L3c. As discussed in the
near term list of issues, funding and legal details are still forthcoming. Neither the City nor the
County is financially able to fund a new department, and it is clear that agility and scale
efficiencies are critical success factors for LEAP. Both the City and County naturally want to
control the services they fund, but have limited experience in public private partnerships the likes
of which we have discussed. Several options appear possible as ways to begin:
1) W e are legally enabled under existing Virginia code to #exercise joint powers$ to
implement SB 1212, a newly-legislated Virginia version of Berkeley First, which
#authorizes localities to create contracts to make loans$ for energy efficiency and
renewable projects in residential and commercial sectors (See Appendix A for the full
approved text of this bill).
B: Implementation Organization: LEAP (Local Energy Alliance Program)
9
2) Both the City and County are currently enabled with industrial development authorities to
!make loans"to promote industry and develop trade by inducing manufacturing,
industrial, governmental, nonprofit and commercial enterprises and institutions of higher
education to locate in or remain in the Commonwealth and further the use of its
agricultural products and natural resources, and to vest such authorities with all powers
that may be necessary to enable them to accomplish such purposes.# Because both are
already legally enabled to do this, this option could be explored.
3) Organizational arrangements such as 501(3)c$s structured for multiple partners or L3Cs
structured for multiple members are potentially very attractive, but also require further
exploration and clear due diligence for charitable or educational aims. As a point of note,
there is an existing 501(3)c (SPARK%) doing energy efficiency work in Charlottesville.
Also as a point of note, there is an L3C, (Virginia Energy Project) incorporated in
Vermont, operating in Charlottesville, with a VSCC-registered purpose to promote
energy conservation, efficiency and renewable generation. Either or both of these might
be adapted.
4) The Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) and the Virginia Department of
Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME) have offered to explore how they might play a
constructive role.
Because there is more than one way by which the Founding Partners can connect legally and
financially to LEAP, and because it is important to get this right, one of the very important
outcomes of grant funding from SEEA would be the ability to hire a short-term consultant to
help us explore these options based upon their expediency, legal implications, and long-term fit
with our LEAP vision.
Commercial energy use accounts for 20% of City/County
greenhouse gas emissions.
C1: Technical Approach > Key Stakeholders
10
!The energy w asted in existing building represents a huge untapped energy
source and econom ic opportunity. W eatherizing and renovating hom es and
businesses for energy efficiency w ill save consum ers and businesses m oney and
create good jobs in our com m unities that cannot be outsourced overseas."
Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris
C: Technical A p proach
C1: Key Stakeholders Top Dow n and B ottom U p Support for LEA P
W e welcome our current presidential administration!s championing of energy efficiency for
mitigating climate change, saving money, putting Americans back to work, and lowering our
dependence on foreign oil. They have provided more funds for energy efficiency (EE) than ever
before, with the possibility of more in the future. LEAP has a future in part because of America!s
national conversation, the Federal Stimulus Bill, and the support of key stakeholders such as our
5th District Congressman, Tom Periello. Importantly, the ARRA federal Stimulus funding will
help our region move forward with energy improvements, even in this difficult economy, even as
new energy legislation is being moved forward in W ashington.
Forward thinking leaders, like Virginia!s Governor Kaine, have endeavored to make great strides
on the EE front. Kaine!s Renew Virginia initiative, Energy
Plan, and Climate Change Report all cite the importance of
focusing on EE and renewables. Other proposal writers
undoubtedly look to leverage Stimulus funding to sustain
long-term programs for energy efficiency, to "evergreen# the
one-time influx of dollars. However, one of the attributes
which makes our program unique is our intent to create a
replicable community-based approach.
The Virginia Department of M ines, M inerals, and Energy
intends to use our program as a model for other localities.
Steve W alz, DM M E!s Director, funded a grant coordinator
to assist in the development of this proposal. DM M E!s
intentions with LEAP are to support the development of an
effective program in this region, with an eye toward creating
an easily adapted program to offer to other localities. As
such, the grant coordinator actually has three deliverables:
the SEEA grant application, plus a toolkit called "EE in a
BOX# to help other Virginia localities mobilize community-
based energy programs expeditiously, and, additionally,
"State EE Supports,# the tools and services that are best
supplied at a state level so that localities don!t have to
reinvent and pay for things that could be cost effectively
supplied as shared supports.
!As a com m unity based energy
program com bining a public
private partnership w ith a broad
system ic approach, LEAP is
designed not only to m eet the
m arket penetration and
efficiency gain goals of SEEA, but
also to offer an adaptable
program m odel that prioritizes
m arket centric strategies and
self sustainability.
N ew program m odels, like LEAP,
that w ill both encourage the
generation of green energy jobs
and prepare a skilled w orkforce
to perform the efficiency
im provem ents are essential to
econom ic recovery and a future
green econom y."
U .S. 5th District
Congressm an Tom
Periello
C1: Technical Approach > Key Stakeholders
11
By way of illustration, some examples being developed as part of the LEAP effort (and cited in
this proposal) include: a model ordinance to implement Senate Bill 1212 (see Appendix B); the
Commonwealth Loan Program with the Virginia Municipal League / Virginia Association of
Counties (VML/VACO) Finance Company, bonding options through the Virginia Resources
Administration (VRA) and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VDHA); the local loan
making and servicing arrangements with the Virginia Bankers Association; and sponsorship of
Home Performance with Energy Star (HPwES). EE Toolkit items include the training
curriculum link between our local Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) and the
Building Performance Institute (BPI), the SPARK! educational programs, the e-commerce
enabled website, a basic market research survey, and so on. The final deliverable for the EE
Toolkit will include a description of an energy hub, in effect the start up guide for a
community-based energy program.
It is no accident that the Virginia entry in the SEEA contest is a community-based energy
program in a city/county/college context; there are at least 20 such combinations around the
Commonwealth. All of the items in the State Energy Plan, Governor s Climate Commission
Report, the September 2008 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) study
of Virginia, and Renew Virginia - that require the grass roots, on-the-ground work and traction in
community are about to have an implementation vehicle. In other words, should SEEA decide
to fund us, they fund not only our region, but in many ways the whole state.
As we work our way down through the governmental chain of leadership from national to state
to local, we also find tremendous support from our municipalities. Charlottesville s Mayor,
David Norris, was the originator of Virginia Senate Bill 1212, a new law which gives local
governments the ability to authorize contracts with property owners for funding EE and
renewable measures for their buildings, residential or otherwise. This bill also enables localities
to attach the payback of this loan to the property tax,
along the lines of Berkeley First. Mayor Norris,
Councilman David Brown, and County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors Chairman David Slutzky have
participated on LEAP s Steering Committee for
grant/program development. They have all actively
supported our efforts and worked to help us overcome
hurdles along the way. As is evidenced by both the
City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle’s
additional resolutions passed in early May,
commitment at the local government level is strong.
Our community, in particular, is ripe for this program. Both the City and County have conducted
greenhouse gas baseline studies and signed onto agreements to lower their emissions. Both
municipalities are implementing Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) to incorporate
environmental compliance, pollution prevention and continual environmental improvement into
their programs. They are growing hybrid fleets, have installed green roofs on civic buildings, are
leaders on storm water quality and watershed management issues, and have executed or are
exploring energy performance contracts for their own buildings. We have run the gamut of good
sustainability demonstration projects and are ready to build on our successes by establishing a
Berkeley FIRST is a solar financing
program operating in the City of
Berkeley. It provides property owners
an opportunity to borrow money
from the City s Sustainable Energy
Financing District to install solar
photovoltaic electric systems and
allow the cost to be repaid over 20
years through an annual special tax
on their property tax bill.
C1: Technical Approach > Key Stakeholders
12
strong sustainability program focused on resource efficiency and clean energy strategies. Aside,
though, from the overall receptivity of our citizens, the LEAP working group has met with our
local WAP/LIHEAP weatherization organization, commercial and residential contractors,
volunteer and nonprofit organizations which work with the disadvantaged owner/rental
community (e.g., Quality Community Council), property managers, real estate associations, the
Chamber of Commerce, and other interested stakeholders to discuss this program and gauge
support. As you will see by the many strong letters we have received (compiled in Section C6),
the support is there from top down and bottom up.
Casting a wider net in terms of this support, we also have reached out to the Department of
Energy (DOE) , the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , the Building Performance
Institute (BPI), the Association for Energy Conservation Professionals (AECP), the Virginia
Sustainable Building Network (VSBN), state level program leaders from Wisconsin (Milwaukee
Energy Efficiency [ME2]) and New York (New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority [NYSERDA]), and established training centers like Community Housing Partners in
southwest Virginia to help us craft a program that builds on established successes and good
ideas. You will find letters of support written from a number of the organizations listed above in
Section C.6. We have more than letters, though, we have built relationships people we know by
first name whose cell phone numbers are on our contact list. And of course, our discussion of
wider net support would not be complete without mentioning our Alliance partners.
Alliance Partner - Dominion Virginia Power
Our first meeting with Dominion came a few weeks after the RFP was issued, and it catalyzed
the development of a productive collaboration. In 2008, Dominion piloted a number of efficiency
and incentive programs, evaluated their efficacy, selected the ones with the most value, and
budgeted them for expansion in 2010. They will file these with the State Corporation
Commission in July. In other words, in opening themselves up for coordination and collaboration
with LEAP, all of us had to be willing to negotiate a ball in play. With the help of DMME and
EPA, we have done so. Details on our partnership come under section C4 and in Dominion!s
letter of support. We will conclude here by saying that we are grateful to have Dominion!s
commitment in moving forward as a LEAP founding partner.
Alliance Partner - The University of Virginia
The University of Virginia is a treasure trove of assets and potentials, both on the facility side
and the academic side. We are actively exploring all manner of engagement possibilities in
discussions with its schools, energy researchers, faculty committees, sustainability offices,
entrepreneurship groups, and community engagement offices. There is a working list of "top ten#
major areas of engagement and a routine monthly "clearinghouse# discussion between the
University and the proposal team (see Appendix C). Also, in C2 Evidence of Preliminary
Milestones Section, we have listed several ongoing projects with UVa.
Alliance Partner - Piedmont Virginia Community (PVCC) College Construction Academy
We are fortunate, indeed, to be able to include Piedmont Virginia Community College!s
Construction Academy in our Alliance. A healthy training program will be absolutely critical to
LEAP!s success, and PVCC is on the road to becoming a Building Performance Institute
Affiliate. BPI is the premier organization for training and certifications when it comes to
C1: Technical Approach > Key Stakeholders
13
building performance and the residential building stock. PVCC will act as our local training
center for our energy efficiency professionals, offering BPI training certifications as part of their
core Construction Academy curriculum and in periodic seminars for the contracting community.
They will also be able to hold less costly and time-sensitive courses for other segments of the
construction industry to expose, update, and educate a range of building trades people on best
practices to build or remodel for energy efficiency. Additional resources which will inform
PVCC s curricula and training include:
x NYSERDA ! they have a well-developed curriculum for the community college system
we can license (as M aryland will be doing).
x Community Housing Partners - Anthony Cox is a nationally known trainer and building
science specialist located in Christiansburg, VA who has worked for years training
weatherization crews in and outside of the state.
x Association of Energy Conservation Professionals ! AECP s Bill Beechy and Billy
W eitzenfeld have committed to helping in any way they can with developing seminars
and curriculum tailored to our weather and building stock.
Alliance Partner: SPARK!
Last but far from least, there is SPARK" W e are indeed fortunate to have this energy efficiency
program underway already in our region doing education, outreach, and a pilot program auditing
25 low income homes. Please visit www.spark-change.org to learn more. SPARK" has
established a brand locally for energy efficiency education and outreach through their Energy
Matters seminars and website. W e envision their role particularly related to public education,
outreach, and marketing.
Thus far, energy efficiency programs administered at the state or utility level
have been challenged to carry out community-based energy initiatives because
of gaps in local knowledge and relationships. It is precisely because we know our
community our local government is made up of people who are the community
that we have the unique place from which to engage it on a scale that will
hopefully outpace what has been done before and meet the considerable
challenge of 30% - 50% market penetration. We are ready to tackle a bigger
problem with a larger reward, one that requires a sustained effort and
redefines our level of commitment to a greener vision for us all.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Executive Summary
14
C2: Provide Evidence of Preliminary Milestones
Executive Summary of the LEAP Technical Approach
A. Goals
Self !funding; sustainable
30-50 % market penetration in all sectors
20-40% efficiency gains for each participant
80% of the commercial buildings benchmarked (Portfolio M anager) by 2011
5-7 year program period: start July 1, 2009; go to market January 1, 2010
Reduce GHG emissions from regional buildings on an 80% by 2050 pace
W e believe it is realistic to secure an initial capitalization of $750,000 from formula and
competitive grants and other Stimulus funding. W e are designing LEAP to become profitable
and cash positive in three years. Our program"s economic model targets a $7,000 average project
size per house and an 65% loan take rate, with 2% project fees and 2% of the projects" financing
as key (not the only) sources of revenue from operations. The year 1 target is 500 houses. W e
will lift the pacing of two service tiers in the first two years toward a 20% share pace, enough to
discover the implications and requirements of that scale. Once the program"s core components of
marketing, training, customer support, loans, quality, M &V work well in sync, we plan to ramp
up to a 40% market share pace.
Target results ! Seven Year Initiative:
1) Leverage $2.158 million in capitalization into $123 million of energy improvement
projects done in the community over 7 years.
2) Incentivize the market through packaging Federal, State, and Utility rebates for energy
efficiency.
3) Drive the development of roughly 1,535 job years of incremental employment (@ 12.5
job years per $1M projects).
4) Save 115 million kW H and avoid 121,000 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions.
5) Create a new business, with positive return on sales and positive cash flow in year 3.
We have already completed a general design for LEAP. Because the RFP
doesn t specifically ask for a program approach or description, we present
ours in this section Preliminary Milestones as evidence of our commitment
to this Community based Energy Alliance. We begin with the following
Executive Summary of the program. Details of the program follow.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Executive Summary
15
B. Organization
x Public private partnership for LEAP M anagement Company: 501(3)c or L3C, with 5 - 8
potential founding partners (City of Charlottesville; County of Albemarle; University of
Virginia; Division of M ines; M inerals and Energy; Dominion Virginia Power; local
Foundations; Virginia Energy Project).
x Delivery organization LEAP Operating Company: marketing, operations, quality control
and assurance, finance, customer service, staff of 6 (4 Building Performance Institute
certified)
C. Target M arkets
Residential 60%
Commercial 25%
M USH 15%
D. Custom er Acquisition
- Positive Energy (high tech), SPARK! (high touch), BoldM outh (viral marketing)
- M arketing expense is 10% of sales
- Ecommerce website
E. Key Partners
- Dominion " Smart Grid, Energy Star, Positive Energy, ecoREM OD Energy House
- EPA - Energy Star: Home Performance and Commercial Challenge
- PVCC/ Building Performance Institute " workforce training; contractor certification
- VM L / VACO and VA Bankers Association " program financing and project funding
- City / County Environmental Staffs - VA Senate Bill 1212, LEAP #First
- University of Virginia " ecoREM OD, Green Conservation Corps, Renters, Renewables
- SPARK! " Green Conservation Corps, Community Outreach and Education, Renters
- Local Partners " City/County Staffs, 2RW (M &V), BoldM outh (M arketing)
The MUSH component of
a community s building
stock consists of buildings
owned by the municipalities,
utilities, schools,
and hospital.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Executive Summary
16
F. Programs and Campaigns
G. Top Level Estimates
A Target Scenario:
High Level Residential Market View - Years 2, 4, 6 are omitted here for simplicity
Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 7 To tal
End of Year Custom ers 500 5,120 11,360 17,600 17,600
A nnual Project $ V alue (000) 3,500 21,840 21,840 21,840 123,200
Job Years A dded/year 43 273 273 273 1,540
kW H saved (000) 750 7680 17,040 26,400 115,350
G H G saved (tons) 786 8049 17,858 27,667 121,000
O perating Revenue $(000) 136 874 1036 1198 6213
Expenses $(000) 262 490 543 596 3364
G &A $(000) 357 367 375 382 2,981
O perating Profit $(000) (437) 64 171 284 312
M arketing & O utreach
Energy Star / B PI
Partnership s
Contractor Trainin g &
Certification
Project Financing
A rrangem ents
Energy Specialist
Technical Supp orts
W ebsite, e com m erce
Q u ality / M &V
H om e Perform ance w ith En ergy Star
D o m inion Initiatives
LEA P First R en ew ab les
Capability
G reen Conservation Corps
Positive Energy
Energy Star Com m ercial Challenge ecoR EM O D
Energy H ouse
PV CC ! B PI
W orkforce
Training
R enters Program
R egional U tility
Scale R enew able
In itiatives
A Po rtfo lio of Co re P rogram s and C oord inated Cam paign s
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
17
Preliminary Milestone #1: LEAP Program Details
At the crux of the matter are three fundamental challenges:
1) the systemic incentives and habits of cheap, proximate, coal-generated electric power
2) a large number of buildings as the primary sources of energy waste and inefficiency
3) a construction sector struggling in this economy and generally still geared to new
buildings versus retrofits
M aking the changes to get on a path toward an independent, sustainable energy future is our
greatest energy challenge. W e believe that we have the resources to train and retrain our
construction industry, and we are ready to break new ground on educating our populace about
the importance of energy efficiency and how get there.
Context: A Climate Protection Plan
In the spirit of !for us all," the City, County, and UVa have begun working together on
recommendations for their climate action plans, forming a Steering Committee and Focus
Groups to develop and vet options for reducing greenhouse gasses. W hile the impetus for this
action pre-dates the SEEA RFP, it is an important milestone in that it authorizes and legitimizes
our EE program on the grounds of signed commitments. Our combined emissions inventory
includes 43% from residential and 20% from the commercial building stock # municipal
emissions constitute only 3% of the total. W e must therefore focus on our community$s energy
use; we must tighten up our buildings. Because we are trying to pool resources and efforts, the
City and County are supplementing their respective, ongoing environmental protection programs to
tie together, enhance, and achieve scale efficiencies through a productive collaboration # and thus
jointly applying for a grant from SEEA. In time, we hope our energy efficiency program can
expand to include our entire planning district, manifesting a hub and spoke approach favored by
the State for energy program delivery throughout the Commonwealth. This regional approach
leverages tools which will be available statewide, but focuses its attention to detail on the very
local level.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for the City and County 2006
M unicipal
3%
Agriculture
3%
W aste
1%
29%
Industrial
1%
Commercial 20%
(includes UVa)
43%
Transportation
Residential
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
18
A Commitment to Collaboration
In January 2009, in response to and anticipation of the SEEA grant RFP, both the City and the
County passed resolutions committing to work collaboratively to address energy efficiency and
climate change. These resolutions specifically addressed collaboration on developing a joint
proposal for the SEEA grant (see Appendices D and E).
A proposal team was formed, as shown in the table below:
Guidance Team W o rk Team
David Norris Mayor of Charlottesville
David Brown City Councilor,
Charlottesville
David Slutzky Chair, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
David Neuman Architect, University of
Virginia (UVA)
David Toscano Delegate, Charlottesville
Steve Walz Director, Division of Mines,
Minerals, Energy, State of Virginia (DMME)
Bill Dunnington Virginia Energy Project
Cynthia Adams Charlottesville
Kristel Riddervold Charlottesville
Lance Stewart Charlottesville
Sarah Temple Albemarle County
Andrew Greene University of Virginia
Mandy Burbage SPARK
Eric Gilchrist SPARK
Paul Orentas Think Box
The work team quickly coined the effort !LEAP" # the Local Energy Alliance Program # and itself
the !LEAP Team." W orking from existing energy initiatives and GHG emissions plans, the team
carried out 9 component work plans, informed by over 80 interviews with citizens in 7
stakeholder groups. Over the course of the last 5 months, we have conducted in depth research
on the programs and players in this field. Our design approach blends ideas and best practices
from models like the Cambridge Energy Alliance, NYSERDA, Efficiency Vermont, and M E2
with the appropriate adaptations. Team members also attended the February 2009 Good/Jobs
Green Jobs Conference in W ashington D.C. and the April 2009 Energy Star Symposium and
American Comfort Institute Conference in Kansas City. W e have spent many, many hours in
meetings and on the phone learning from those who have gone before. W e are now receiving
phone calls from other Virginia localities (Roanoke, Blacksburg, Arlington, and Fredericksburg),
who want to know what we$re doing, how we$re doing it, and who have consistently expressed
their intentions to pursue similar efforts once an effective model and roadmap is available though
our efforts.
Overall Goals and Strategy
Our overall goal is to tie together, strengthen, and leverage the locality$s unique assets
into a community-based Alliance that creates a sustainable energy future for our region. There
are three essential strands in this strategic rope:
1) Design a sustainable approach to energy defined by a:
Viable alliance model and a market-making approach
Broad systemic performance-based view of shells, systems, and behavior
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
19
!LEAP represents a model
opportunity for V irginia"s local
governments to enact public
private partnerships to achieve
energy efficiency and w ater
conservation on a community
w ide level.#
Mike Amyx, VML
Performance contracting strategy adapted to residential and small business retrofit
markets
Relentless focus on energy efficiency ! at an
unprecedented scale
Deliberate development of
alternative/renewable generation
Goal of putting people to work, revitalizing
our local construction industry, developing a
clean tech workforce
Development of a new economic sector,
businesses, and infrastructure
Approach that incentivizes audits tied to
action, is self-funding and a vibrant, attractive investment
2) Implement it in core programs and deliberate campaigns over a 5-7 year period, aimed at
achieving very aggressive goals
x 30-50 % market penetration in all sectors
x 20-40% gains for each participant
x 80% of the commercial buildings benchmarked, using Energy Star"s Portfolio
M anager, by 2015
x Reduce GHG emissions from regional buildings on an 80% by 2050 pace
3) Embrace the contributions of each sector ! public, private, NGO ! to operate, learn, and
continuously improve LEAP"s impact and community value.
Our first design task was to engage the resources, wisdom, and energies of people in the
community. The approach was to form an Alliance of key stakeholders (public, private and
NGO) as founding partners to help us design a program that was economically sustainable,
operated like a business (not a grant or subsidy), and created community value (more than
shareholder value). This kind of approach will require us is to work #on$ the market, as well as
#in$ the market. Particularly for SEEA"s aggressive goals, market-centric means adapting
performance contracting principles to three segments: residential, commercial, and M USH
(municipal, utility, schools and hospitals). W hile we will focus on the highest and best energy
improvement opportunities the joint exercise of resources and capabilities will allow, the
emphasis will be on residential home performance to start. W e also seek to leverage ESCOs and
certified trade partners for delivery, and systematically manage quality by using ISO frameworks
and measurement/verification disciplines.
For each market, we will coordinate the development of a core foundational program of energy
efficiency, available only through certified contractors/trade partners. W e will also:
x M ake it easy for customers to find, learn about, and use this program.
x M ake it affordable by providing well-conceived choices for financing that takes down the
high initial cost barrier.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
20
x Make sure improvements yield savings.
x Make it a profitable and attractive market for contractors, trade partners, and local
businesses.
x Put a market-making system in place that pushes on these components every day.
In each market segment, we!ll seek to periodically carry out campaigns aimed either at achieving
sharply-defined step up goals or introducing innovation. For example, one idea to retrofit a house
as a demonstration site to educate people about current energy efficiency products, technologies,
resources and practices is already a work in progress (see Preliminary Milestone #6). Another
idea is to start a water conservation campaign to double the adoption rate of water-saving
products. Taking a page from our SEEA experience, we might even run a retrofit contest to find
better, faster, cheaper ways. As appropriate, we will turn successful campaigns into standing
service offerings.
It is true that the intensity of energy use from the commercial sector is greater, but it is also true
that due to churn, businesses are more likely in their turnover to make efficiency upgrades than
are residences. The bottom line numbers are compelling for business, while on the residential
side, people are more likely to invest in granite counter-tops than attic insulation. In any case,
our residential building stock is more than double our commercial on greenhouse gas emissions,
and so we have made a conscious decision to land heavily, but by no means exclusively, on it at
the program!s onset.
Knowledge of Dominion!s intent to wire
Charlottesville and its urban County ring
for smart-metering caused us to integrate
smart grid interactivity into our planning
process sooner rather than later. We
thought to use the data collected from it to
drive learning and behavior change for
home and business owners " as well as to
inform quality management and
continuous improvement.
Beyond energy efficiency, we knew also that we wanted to encourage the adoption of renewable
energy: solar, small wind, whatever was appropriate and economically sensible to build interest,
examples, capabilities, and a distributed mindset. As we imagined moving from the $reduce% to
the $produce% end of the energy spectrum, we knew we needed to develop renewable literacy in
the community. In the long term, LEAP may serve to help coordinate and catalyze the
development of a regional strategy for distributed renewable generation at scale.
As a final design principle, we sought to deliberately manage LEAP!s transition from a Stimulus
era start up, to a sustainable business: from workforce and economic development, to a thriving
new clean tech sector.
!O ur schools and families are energy
consumers" launching a community energy
alliance w ill benefit individual households"and
allow students to see classroom energy and
w ater conservation lessons come to fruition in
their ow n homes.#
Lindsay Snoddy,
A lbem arle County Public Schools
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
21
Approach to the Markets
It is important to appreciate our intention to act !on" the market, as well as !in" the market and
to add value either by leveraging either existing resources or market-making (versus direct
service delivery). Our approach to the markets is summarized as follows:
x Strong Home Performance Residential Emphasis
o Use Home Performance with Energy Star as the core foundation
o Support, not duplicate, existing low end capacity (W AP program, LIHEAP, etc.)
o Build a robust market for tiered energy efficiency services
x Develop Light Commercial EE Capability - Implement the Energy Star Commercial
Challenge program to catalyze energy improvements in the commercial sector.
o As possible, promote bundling of customers in service cohorts to attract the
service of large ESCOs.
o Develop !esco-light" capabilities among local trade partners by supporting cross-
selling and teaming arrangements, provide training, technical conferences and
joint new product/technology demonstration projects.
x Large Business Segment - Served by the 15 large national ESCOs already certified by the
Commonwealth and already working with our region#s largest organizations such as
UVa, GE and State Farm. For example, the City of Charlottesville has already carried out
a very successful performance contracting project with ConEdison. LEAP should
encourage, inform and facilitate this, but not deliver these services.
LEAP Concept of Operation: A Portfolio of Capabilities, Programs and Campaigns
Marketing & Outreach
Energy Star / BPI
Partnerships
Contractor Training &
Certification
Project Financing
Arrangements
Energy Specialist
Technical Supports
Website, e commerce
Quality / M&V
H ome Performance w ith Energy Star
D ominion Initiatives
LEAP First R enew ables
Capability
G reen Conservation Corps
Positive Energy
Energy Star Commercial Challenge ecoR EMOD
Energy H ouse
PVCC ! BPI
Workforce
Training
R enters Program
R egional U tility
Scale R enew able
Initiatives
A Portfolio of Core Programs and Coord inated Campaigns
22
H o w A L E A P E ne rg y Proje ct H ap p e n s:
!T h e S to ry of J im - A C u stom e r E x p e rie nce "
I #m J im , and I live in th e C ounty. I #m a D om inion custom e r, and w h e n I o p e ned m y m onth ly e le ctric
b ill it said th at m y e ne rgy use w as w ay ab ove ave rag e com pare d to oth e r h om e ow ne rs w h o live in
sim ilar structure s and h ave a sim ilar h eating syste m . S o I w ond e re d , w e ll w h at d o I d o ab out th at?
A lso on m y b ill w as inform ation o n a local p rogram (L E A P), e nd orse d b y g ove rnm e nt, w h ich can h e lp
m e ge t a com p re h e nsive h om e e ne rg y aud it to figure out w h y m y e ne rg y use is so m uch h igh e r th an
m y ne ig h b o rs#. L E A P says th e S tate ene rgy office w ill re b ate $2 5 0 off th e cost of m y aud it and
th at th e re are oth e r S tate and F e d e ral re b ate s availab le to h e lp offse t th e cost of th e w o rk .
S o I call th e m and le arn from
E ric, th e guy from L E A P w h o
too k m y call, th at th e program I
w ould use is calle d H om e
Pe rform ance w ith E ne rgy S tar.
L E A P qualifie s contractors w h o
w ant to participate in th is
program , and it h as nationally
re cognize d stand ard s and
ce rtifications re quire d for
pe ople to w ork in it. O ve r 2 0 %
of all job s p e rform e d are 3 rd
party te ste d for quality of
se rvice s and accuracy of
testing. I k now th e E ne rgy S tar
b rand lab e l, and th e quality assurance part m ak e s m e fe e l le ss lik e I #m g oing to ge t ripp ed off in
th is proce ss. E ric h as h ad an aud it d one o n h is h om e too & h e w alk e d m e th rough it ove r th e ph one ,
and it re ally sound s inte re sting. I live in an old e r h om e b uilt in 19 5 3 , and b oth of m y k id s h ave
ch ronic coug h s or alle rgies & m ake s m e w ond e r if I h ave m old or m ild e w issue s. W e talk e d also ab out
financing, and I told E ric I w as inte re ste d in th at. T h e ir loan rates so und re ally co m pe titive .
I got on th e L E A P site and pick ed out a com p any I w ante d to w ork w ith . I like d th e profe ssionalism
of th e ir w rite up , and I se e th e ir trucks around all th e tim e. T h e y also said th e y w ould cove r th e
ad d itional $10 0 o n th e aud it co st if I p re -qualifie d for financing and m y w ife w as th e re w ith m e
w h e n w e d id it. W e ll, w h y not, if I h ave m ajor prob le m s, I w ant to ge t th e m fix ed , and b etw e e n th e
S tate re b ate and th e contractor, th e aud it w ould b e fre e . S o I gave L E A P m y inform ation, and th e y
told m e I w as good to go. A w e e k late r a coup le of g uys com e out to m y h ouse to d o th e aud it &
b low e r d oor, sm ok e pe ncils, infrare d cam e ras & all k ind s of stuff.
23
T h e y go o ve r m y e le ctricity b ill and m y w ate r b ill, and w e talk a lot ab out h ow th e h ouse !s d iffe re nt
"syste m s# are inte grate d . I !m no e ngine e r, b ut I ge t th e b asic id e a. T urns out m y h ouse h as a h ole in
it th at!s 5 fe e t-w id e w h e n you quantify all th e le aks in m y w alls and d ucts. N ot only th at, it turns
out m y d rye r ve nt isn!t actually ve nte d to th e o utsid e , so all th at m o isture w as going b e h ind th e w all
and grow ing m old in th e insulation,
m ak ing us all just a little sick . I d on!t
h ave ne ar e nough insulation in m y attic
and m y w ater h e ate r is an e nerg y h og.
T h e total pack ag e w ill cost m e $7 2 0 0
w ith inte re st to d o an e ne rgy e fficie ncy
re trofit, p lus I b o ugh t E ne rgy S tar
p rod ucts, so I !ll get a $3 0 0 tax cre d it on
a ne w w ate r h e ate r and an $8 0 0 tax
cre d it for m y insulation. T h e S tate w ill
re b ate m e an ad d itional $14 4 0 (2 0 %) off
th e cost. I d on!t h ave to p ay anyth ing up
front. A ccord ing to w h at th e y w e nt ove r
w ith m e , I sh o uld b e ab le to p ay th e loan
off in 4 ye ars, and if you tak e th e tax
cre d its into account, I !ll b re ak e ve n o n
m y cash flow b e tw e en th e loan paym e nt
and low e r e ne rg y b ills & 3 0 % low e r. I t
took th e contractor!s cre w th re e d ays to
d o th e w ork, and th e y w e re ve ry care ful
and cle an ab out it. O n th e last d ay, w h e n
th e y te ste d out, a re p re se ntative from
L E A P joine d th e m and m ad e sure th e y
d id w h at th e y said th e y w ould . H e also
spe nt som e tim e talking w ith m e and m y
fam ily ab out our e ne rgy use . W e le arne d
ab o ut som e oth e r th ing s w e could d o
w h ich can h e lp low e r our b ill e ve n m o re .
S o it!s still F e b ruary, and it se e m s like m y h e at is kick ing ab out h alf as m uch as it use d to. T h e
h ouse d oe sn!t fe e l as cold e ve n th oug h I h ave n!t ch ang e d th e th e rm ostat se tting . E ve ryone is le ss
cong e ste d , and w e all are sle e ping b e tte r. C an I count le ss trip s to th e d octor in m y e ne rgy savings?
I !m luck y to live in a C ounty th at h as se e n th e ne e d for a p rogram lik e th is; it!s nice to se e m y tax
d ollars going to som e th ing th at h e lps m y fam ily so d ire ctly, and I !ve said so to e ve ryone in m y job
office . L E A P got th re e ne w aud its o n m y re com m e nd ation, and th e y d e se rve it.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
24
Designing Energy Star into the LEAP Residential Market
For a number of key reasons - efficacy, consistency and scalability - we want to establish EPA!s
Energy Star as LEAP!s fundamental efficiency toolkit. (Appendix F for more details on this
program.) Home Performance with Energy Star (HPwES) is a comprehensive energy efficiency
program for existing residential building stock with clear requirements and standards for
participation. It incorporates building science best practices such as:
x an in depth energy audit (called a Comprehensive Home Energy Audit)
x Building Performance Institute standards and certifications
x testing in and out procedures
x third party quality assurance and conflict resolution procedures
x programmatic reporting requirements
HPwES was conceived as a
market-based approach to
promote the "house as a
system.# It uses highly
trained Building Analysts to
perform audits and diagnose
energy efficiency, health, and
safety problems in a house.
HPwES was first
implemented by the New
York State Energy Research
and Development Authority
(NYSERDA). Of the
approximately 40,000 homes
retrofitted through the
program to date, 25,000 have
come through NYSERDA.
NYSERDA!s HPwES
program was also the
birthplace of the Building
Performance Institute!s (BPI)
standards and certifications,
which have now become the
industry standard for
contractor performance and quality assurance. HPwES has a proven record of rigor and results
which we believe are essential to an effective and credible program.
Evidence from Energy Star!s most successful HPwES contractors suggests that HPwES calls for
a subtle but significant shift in construction businesses. The transition from energy component
work to home performance expands the view from a technician just "switching out boxes# to a
professional understanding of the complexity of the building systems, which translates to include
comfort and health solutions, as well as energy. This calls for an enhanced level of performance
!Efficiency and conservation are strongly held
business values"w e embrace these values, and
w e support these efforts.#
Timothy Hulbert,
Chamber of Commerce
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
25
!This effort represents a
w onderful "next step# as w e
w ork to help educate local
builders, contractors and
the public on the
advantages of energy
conservation.$
Jay Willer, Blue Ridge
Home Builders Association
contracting: a step up in professionalism and capability. It also offers broader benefits and more
value.
W e are working with our three major construction professional organizations: Associated
General Contractors of Virginia, Blue Ridge Home Builder!s Association, and the James River
Green Building Council, and as is evidenced from their letters (Section C6) have their support in
implementing the HPwES program.
LEAP!s deployment of BPI and HPwES will involve some key expectations:
1) All property owners who participate in HPwES must have a Comprehensive Home
Energy Audit as the due diligence needed to plan properly and secure a loan to finance
the energy improvement. (The various audit funding scenarios are described later.) This
assures a consistent set of proven standards for homeowners, contractors, and lenders to
count on.
2) All contractors who want to participate in LEAP HPwES must commit to additional
training at one of two levels:
Tier 1 " A full day course on basic building science or #Home
Performance 101$ is required for all contractors. In this
instance an independent BPI certified Building Analyst must
perform the audit for their jobs.
Tier 2 " To be eligible to work on LEAP-financed HPwES
jobs, the contractor must be BPI Accredited. Because BPI
Accreditation includes its own 3rd party quality assessment in
addition to LEAP!s quality assurance follow up, Accredited
Contractors may perform their own audits if they desire.
LEAP!s staffing will include 4 BPI-trained Energy Efficiency Technical Advisors who will both
mentor and perform 3rd party verification functions for the program. BPI offers several types of
certification, affording a range of choices for contractors, all of which take a #building as a
system$ approach:
x BPI Certified Building Analyst Professional
x BPI Certified Envelope Professional
x BPI Certified Heating Professional
x BPI Certified AC & Heat Pump Professional
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
26
Distinctions between HPwES and LEAP funded HPwES projects are seen in the chart below:
Program Requirement H Pw ES LEA P funded H Pw ES
Sign and annually renew their Participation A greement X X
B PI certified B uilding A nalyst performs all CH EA s X X
B usiness must be BPI A ccredited X
Follow homeow ner complaint/dispute procedures X X
Follow program specified w ork standards X X
Q uality control procedures X X
Programmatic 3rd party verification of w ork performed X X
B PI 3rd party verification of w ork performed X
Promptly file program paperw ork X X
Participate in the H Pw ES mentoring program X X
Contractor investment for training and diagnostic equipment ranges between $8,000 -$25,000,
depending on what equipment is already owned. LEAP will subsidize some of the training for
contractors thought Department of Labor grants and in conjunction with our partner Dominion.
W e will, though, link the training rebate to participation in the program, the point being to
reward participation. After the contractor has completed 5 projects successfully, LEAP would
refund part or all of the associated training costs.
The entoring program requirement is a critical component to HPwES. In it, a LEAP Energy
Efficiency Technical Advisor works directly with a contractor in the field on their first 3 jobs.
These mentors would also be available for specific questions on subsequent jobs should the
contractor need them.
Third party verification, which is required for LEAP and HPwES, would work as follows:
x The first 5 jobs for every contractor new to the HPwES program require programmatic
QA, and the associated cost for this would be covered by LEAP if the contractor is
Accredited and funded partially by the contractor if he is not.
x After the first 5 jobs have been approved, 50% of a contractor!s subsequent work would
be periodically sample checked through the following 6 months, tapering off to 20%
thereafter.
Again, our intent is for the LEAP Energy Efficiency Technical Advisors to perform these
inspections. BPI Accredited Contractors are also subject to BPI!s independent QA process,
which is currently set at 5% of their work.
To reach a 30% market penetration goal, we will have to audit approximately 45 homes a week.
This will require us to have at least 8 BPI certified auditors to administer the home performance
audits. Currently we have 5 businesses which provide home energy audits and services, and
several of them have auditors who have completed the BPI written test and will be following up
with the field test in a few weeks.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
27
It is no accident that DMME, Dominion, the Virginia Sustainable Building Network (VSBN),
and the Association of Energy Conservation Professionals (AECP) are also converging on
HPwES as the system of choice for large scale retrofit work. We are in active discussions with
these major stakeholders, as well as EPA and DOE about opportunities for collaboration.
Residential Program Timeline for Remainder 2009 and into 2010 (500 Homes in Year 1)
Activity 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Program
Developm ent
Establish Advisory
Board
Stand up Program
Sponsor
Develop Curriculum
Train the Trainers
Contractor
Recruitm ent
Begin HPw ES
M arketing
Rem odel Energy
House
1000 Hom es
Research
EE Sem inars
Launch HPwES
Enroll 1st 100
Enroll 200 m ore
Enroll 200 m ore
Virginia DMME has submitted their State Energy Plan to DOE as of May 13th, 2009.
In it, they delineate plans to use their Stimulus funding to rebate energy efficiency
measures to Virginia residents as follow :
x $250 tow ards a home energy audit
(contributes to the $2000 total below )
x 20% for Residential, up to $2000/home
x 20% for C ommercial, $4000/building
Betw een EPA !s energy efficiency rebate of 30% up to $1500 for cost and the State!s
audit and energy efficiency rebate, a person doing $10,000 w orth of w ork in LEA P!s
program, w ould actually ow e only $6500. W e think these numbers w ill be
compelling drivers for program participation in our early start up.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
28
W ater conservation is also an important goal for our community as well as the proposal. Climate
change predictions for our area warn of longer drought periods and greater storm intensity when
we do get precipitation. W e also know that current growth charts more demand than supply of
this natural resource. Accordingly, we plan to integrate a water use audit into the home energy
audit. It will be a requirement of our HPwES program that every residential and small
commercial audit will include a water component that checks the condition of pipes and looks
for signs of leaks, looks at age and efficiency of the hot water heater, notes faucet and shower
fixtures, toilets, clothes and dishwashers, pools, hot tubs, and irrigation devices for their water
use and efficiency. Free water conservation kits will be distributed with these audits (the City
already gives them away to residents) which include faucet aerators, a low flow shower head, a
toilet tank balloon, and die strips to check for leakage. Also available through LEAP will be
$100 rebates on toilets (the City and County already provide these) and, of course, we would
make the property owner aware of applicable Energy Star tax credits.
Designing Energy Star into the LEAP Commercial Market
Our market characterization efforts indicate that our commercial sector universe consists of
2,679 businesses and 33,402,832 square feet. Very little hard data is currently available
regarding heating and cooling equipment commonly used in the Charlottesville /Albemarle
Commercial and Industrial Sector. Anecdotal evidence suggests that small businesses utilize
strategies and equipment similar to those in the residential sector: heat pumps for both heating
and cooling are most prevalent in newer homes, except in those instances where natural gas is
available for use in gas furnaces. Larger commercial and industrial facilities! heating and air
conditioning systems are anecdotally similar to those used throughout the M id-Atlantic states.
The proximity of building automation system service providers located in Richmond and
Charlottesville are a boon that more rural areas may not enjoy. In addition, Southern Air in
Lynchburg is a commercial resource.
Given the dearth of current data, we will outline our current thinking about "typical energy
efficiency retrofits for both small and large commercial and industrial entities.#
In the parlance of the Energy Service Company (ESCO),
"energy conservation measures# (ECM s) will vary
broadly, based upon the energy use model of a specific
business. As long as the flame broiled W hopper is in
demand, Burger King restaurants will be high
consumers of natural gas. (Our regional energy study
revealed a similar constraint for local crematoriums.)
Building codes vary broadly in respect to ventilation
requirements for various business types. To
appropriately and professionally assess even a 5,000
square-foot commercial establishment requires the
services of a team of mechanical, structural and
electrical engineers.
!LEAP w ill help solve an ongoing
challenge faced by companies
like ours " how to cost
effectively address the small
commercial market. This model
w ill very effectively address an
unmet need w hich has existed
for years in many communities.#
Dennis Clough,
ConEdison Solutions
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
29
ESCO s have in recent years well served very large commercial, industrial and governmental
customers needs in this respect, however, they have not had the opportunity make a profit or
present a cost-reasonable project to small and mid-sized clients. We believe it may be possible to
bundle customers to attract the services of large ESCOs, an idea explored more below.
Though the cost of an energy audit can be normalized when spread over, say, 134 program
participants, constituting 1.6 million square feet of space, ECM audit recommendations are just
that: recommendations. The City s experience shows that the resultant project may be
considerably less than the original proposal. As Wayne Bader of Local ESCO Avid Energy
recently wrote, We find it s reasonable to expect 20% savings (% of utility bills cost) from a
typical facility without breaking a sweat. More than that is usually possible, but requires some
sweating. Sweating gets expensive. Avid Energy and ConEdison Solutions both confirm in their
letters of support that, broadly speaking from a budgeting and program development perspective,
the average commercial/industrial customer can achieve a 20% reduction for an investment of
$3.00 per square foot. A project of this size would likely entail the following ECM s:
x Lighting retrofit
x Weatherization
x Low-flow water fixtures, new and
retrofitted
x Replacement of some small HVAC
equipment
x Retro-commissioning of existing
building automation systems and
major HVAC equipment
x Solar water heating, in high-use
applications
x Installation of simple controls to
reduce energy during non-business
hours
x Education
Reaching the top end of the target of 20-40%
energy savings will require an investment
averaging $8.00 per square foot. In addition to
those shown above, ECM s typical of this
level of investment might include:
x Major HVAC equipment replacement
x Building systems re-engineering
x Window replacements
x Roof replacements
x Building automation system
installation/improvement
Solar thermal installation at
Albemarle County office building.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
30
The following table outlines the potential for this approach in Charlottesville-Albemarle. It
details target participation rates, estimated audit costs, and take rates for 20% versus 40%
efficiency gain. For this purpose, we have assumed a 70/30 split between those participants who
opt for a relatively light pass and those willing to invest more to save more.
YEAR 1 2 3 To tal
P articip ation Rate 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 30.0%
P articip ants 134 268 402 804
C um ulative Participants 134 402 804
Est. Year’s Square Feet 1,670,142 3,340,283 5,010,425 10,020,850
C um ulative Square Feet 1,670,142 5,010,425 10,020,850
Au dit Co st/SF $ 0.10 $ 0.104 $ 0.107
A verage Participant A udit C ost $ 1,247 $ 1,290 $ 1,336
To tal Ann u al Audit C ost $ 167,014 $ 345,719 $ 536,729 $ 1,049,463
CO N STRU CTIO N PH ASE
20% Savings $/SF Investm ent $ 3.00 $ 3.11 $ 3.21
% of Participants This Level 70%70%70%
C onstruction Cost $ 3,507,297 $7,260,106 $11,271,314 $22,038,717
A verage Participant Investm ent $ 37,405 $ 38,714 $ 40,069
Savings/SF $ 0.60 $ 0.62 $ 0.64
A verage Participant Savings $ 7,481 $ 7,743 $ 8,014 $ 23,238
C um ulative Savings $ 701,459 $ 2,178,032 $ 4,508,526
Average Simple Payback Years 5.0
40% Savings $/SF Investm ent $ 8.00 $ 8.28 $ 8.57
% of Participants This Level 30%30%30%
C onstruction Cost $4,008,340 $ 8,297,263 $12,881,502 $25,187,105
A verage Participant Investm ent $ 99,747 $ 103,238 $ 106,852
Savings/SF $ 1.20 $ 1.24 $ 1.29
A verage Participant Savings $ 14,962 $ 15,486 $ 16,028 $ 46,476
C um ulative Savings $ 601,251 $ 1,866,884 $ 3,864,450
Average Simple Payback Years 6.7
To tal Ann ual Investm ent $7,682,651 $15,903,088 $24,689,545 $47,225,822
To tal Cum ulative Savings $1,302,710 $ 4,044,916 $ 8,372,976
To address our energy efficiency needs in this sector, we plan to implement the EPA Energy Star
Challenge Program. Energy Star’s web-based energy management system, Portfolio M anager
(already being used by both the City and County) will help establish a baseline for comparison
and tracking of improvements made. There are excellent program guides and case studies of how
it has been successfully implemented in many cities to engage commercial property owners.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
31
The key to our program will be the leadership of a design team of local business leaders. Tim
Hulbert, a former NYSERDA manager and current president of the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce, has expressed interest in championing the design effort for the
commercial program. We are in active discussions with four other business owners as team
members to give this shape and strong sponsorship (Bob Somers, 2RW; Tom Kavounas,
Albemarle Heating and Air; Martin Horn, Martin Horn Construction, and Jay Kessler, RE Lee
Construction) and selected financial board members drawn from the City and County Industrial
Development Authorities.
Initially, this Challenge is intended as a forum to motivate and educate area businesses regarding
energy efficiency. A great many small businesses in our region are in buildings that were thrown
up quickly (in order to get open quickly), and we believe there are substantial opportunities for
improvement in shell performance, heating and cooling, lighting (technology plus rethinking
hours of operation), refrigeration, motors and data center efficiency. Local knowledge and the
2008 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) study of Virginia suggests
very substantial opportunities exist. We intend to use this Challenge as a springboard to
encourage businesses to make the necessary investment in their facilities and equipment to
improve their efficiency and save money ! and to broaden and accelerate gains in energy and
water efficiency.
We hope to raise sufficient interest to have a group of businesses agree to take part in a
"bundled" energy audit. As is typical in a college town, we have many restaurants, grocery and
convenience stores, dry cleaners, and small office clusters. We think that aggregating groups of
small- and mid-sized business would together comprise a project of sufficient size to attract the
services of ESCOs with the capacity to analyze complex building systems and business models.
Armed with the results of this energy audit, we again hope to bundle the audit recommendations
into one or more projects, to take best advantage of economies of scale. This approach will
ensure that audits are performed by the right professionals, that audit results are provided in such
a way that they demonstrate a sound business investment, and that the resulting improvement
projects accurately reflect both projected costs and projected savings.
We have also consulted with Brad Hollomon, currently working for NREL and a former
NYSERDA executive, on a DOE-sponsored alliance of major commercial building owners Brad
is helping to identify and select target technologies and to facilitate collective procurement
actions to stimulate demand. We anticipate gaining insights from his experience.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
32
For Customers: W e w ant you to implement the sensible energy
improvements that w ill save you money. W e w ill provide the delivery
system, financing and risk management to make it safe to invest, make
sure it w orks and make sure it pays for itself.
For Contractors and Trade Partners: W e w ant you to get certified to do
this energy w ork w ell, to guarantee your w ork, and in return, w e w ill bring
you motivated customers that have prearranged financing.
For Lenders & Financial Partners: W e w ant you to make a market in your
community by making energy project loans, enjoy a solid return, and w e
w ill take virtually all the risk off the table.
Financing Customer Projects
Obviously, we want to offer customers good choices for financing their projects. The goal is to
take down the obstacle of high initial cost, reduce payback uncertainty, and have savings reliably
offset costs. At the core of LEAP!s project financing are three value propositions:
W e think three tiers of residential loans may well reflect and appeal to the three market segments
evident in our market research to date. W e are working with local bankers and the Virginia
Bankers Association to develop the details. See chart on next page.
TIER D ESC RIP TIO N
Tier O ne
(encouraged for virtually every
homeow ner
A basic w eatherization and energy efficiency loan, for
improvement measures up to $7,000, a 7 year term, at 5%
interest. M onthly payments are under $100. This w ill permit
substantially effective energy efficiency gains in most homes,
in most cases w ith a 2 3 year payback or less
Tier Tw o
(for more extensive retrofits)
A robust energy improvement loan, permitting substantial
improvements (for example, Tier one, plus H V A C upgrade,
appliance upgrade, possibly solar hot w ater; or if Tier w as
previously completed, H V A C or a renew able generation
application such as solar or ground source) up to $25,000, a 15
year term, at 5% interest. M onthly payment is under $200.
Tier Three
(for major retrofits)
A loan program for major retrofits, w ith a loan amount (large
enough to encourage solar, ground source or other
appropriate renew able application) up to $50,000 over 25
years and 5% interest. M onthly payment is under $300.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
33
Our preliminary market research indicates the inclination for very high take rates. When
presented with descriptions of the types of measures that could be installed for these tiers:
100% of people surveyed, making an annual household income over $100,000 reported
being willing to participate by taking with either a tier 2 or 3 loan to make energy
improvements.
80% of people surveyed, making $60,000-$100,000 said they!d take a tier 1 or 2 loan.
80% of people surveyed, making $30,000-$60,000 said they!d take a tier 1 or 2 loan.
As a result, we are continuing our efforts to build a portfolio of project financing arrangements
as illustrated on the following chart.
Figure 4: Illustrative Portfolio of Project Financing Arrangements Work in Progress
Tier 1
Weatherization,
Insulation, Appliance
Upgrade
0 7K
Tier 2
Major Insulation,
Window Upgrades Solar
Hot Water
8 25K
Tier 3
Major Retrofit & Solar,
Wind or Ground
26 50K
Residential Low Covered by WAP/
LIHEAP program
!Green Match"
Stim ulus Supported
Guaranteed Loan
and Match
Residential Middle
Market
C om m ercial
Po rtfo lio o f Fin an cin g M ech an ism s
Local bank loans
SB 1212
Power Purchase Agreem ents
Com m ercial Leasing
Working through the Virginia Banking Association, we are engaging local banks to provide loan
making and servicing capability using the capital pool. So instead of having on bill financing
with a few utilities, we would like to offer ubiquitous financing at extremely attractive rates,
involving many of Virginia!s wholesale and retail banking organizations. We believe this
approach is perfectly suited to local banks with branches around the Commonwealth who are
standing strong in this economy and are keen to contribute in their communities.
Project Cost
(in 000s)
Market
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
34
LEAP Program Funding
Our funding strategy is to develop a pool of capital from diverse sources and use it to finance
LEAP!s start up and customers! energy projects. Initially we will capitalize the program with
federal Stimulus funds (including energy block grant distributions) and, we hope, SEEA grant
support. Both Charlottesville and Albemarle County have AAA bond ratings but are cautious
about adding to their debt load in the near term. However, we are already looking past the
Stimulus era by exploring and evaluating a variety of funding arrangements with state-level
organizations with bonding authority: the Virginia M unicipal League (VM L), Virginia Resource
Authority (VRA), and the Virginia Department of Housing Authority (VDHA) are three. So, for
example, VM L!s
Commonwealth Loan
Program allows localities to
borrow flexibly (as little as
$500,000 at a time, or up to
$150 million at a time, and
repeatedly, meaning "just
in time# as project loan
applications aggregate)
from the VM L/VACO
Finance Company at low
rates (moral obligation,
1.25%). This and similar
arrangements with VRA
and VDHA will help take
down funding hurdles for
localities, not just for
Charlottesville and
Albemarle, but also for
other cities and counties
across the State.
In a similar fashion, at the retail level, we are in discussions with the Virginia Banking
Association to develop a master services framework for their members - and with local banks to
engage their partnership in both loan making and loan servicing in our region.
W e are already seeing tremendous willingness from "state-level# organizations to get behind our
regional effort, but in ways that directly and immediately benefit localities across the
Commonwealth. In the graphic below, LEAP!s sources of operating income include:
- 2% of project fees
- 2% of project financing
- membership revenue, tiered by market
- website advertising
- fees from special programs, seminars, conferences
- eventually, subscription data sales from its database
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
35
LEAP s diversification strategy for revenue is depicted below:
Federal Stimulus & State
Agency Funds CDFI Treasury Fund / N ew Market Tax Credits, LEAP
as a CDE, Community Development Entity
Funds offered by the City,
the County, U V a to fund
regional energy programs
Private Investments
G rants and Foundation Support
Create a capital pooI
from diverse sources
to fund LEAP and its
operations
Income from O perations
Funds from V A organizations
w ith bonding authority
(V H DA, V RA, V ML/V ACo
Finance Company, etc)
CREBs and Q ECB s
In M arch, the V irginia A ssem bly passed SB 1212, a V irginia version of B erkeley First. The
bill w as suggested initially by C harlottesville M ayor D avid N orris, quickly expanded to
include all state localities, and passed virtually unopposed in both houses. Localities
around the State are now !authorized to provide contracts to m ake loans" for energy
efficiency and renew able projects for hom e and business ow ners. W e are very excited
by the potential im pact of this innovation and already w riting the ordinance to
im plem ent it locally. In addition, w e are w orking in parallel w ith V M L to w rite a m odel
ordinance of SB 1212 and an im plem entation guidebook to suppo rt its rapid adoption
across the C om m onw ealth. The action plan due date for these texts is June 1. O nce
again, w e believe w e can help leverage and scale in the near term .
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
36
Marketing Approach
The effective marketing of our energy efficiency program requires synergy between the different
but related market segments of property owners who need the work and the contractors who will
perform the work ! not to mention available financing arrangements, incentives, and the
regulatory arrangements which will shape the legal and economic context. W e are heartened by
the fact that according to market research done by the Shelton Group, whose clients include the
AIA, Dominion Power, and BP Solar, 90% of respondents in their national survey think that the
government should be doing more to solve our energy problems.
W e"ve had a number of discussions with Congressman Tom Periello (5th District ! see support
letters). He has recently met with Secretary Chu, proposing that DOE develop a new program
using the 5th District, not as a model for #New Cities,$ rather as a model for #New Economies.$
W e are hopeful that this conversation will lead to a productive collaboration we can help carry
forward.
W ith that said, the first grass roots marketing challenges
are always gaining #mindshare$ in the prospect"s
agenda and establishing #proof of the need$ ! an
imperative greatly aided by Dominion"s 18% residential
price hike last year, concurrent with gasoline prices
over &4 per gallon ! plus the growing attention to
federal energy policy and legislation. Even so,
according to Suzanne Shelton, 66% of Americans think
their house is energy efficient, but that same group lives
in housing which is over 20 years old. Clearly there is
much work to be done on the education and awareness
front. W ith apologies to Boone Pickens and Al Gore,
this is where LEAP will begin, with activities to bring
energy issues into close and convenient personal
contact. To acquire customers we will make use of by
high tech (viral) and high touch (grass roots
neighborhood involvement) means. W e seek to inject
humor, edge, learning and fun into a dynamic portfolio
of marketing activity.
Nothing creates impact like seeing something directly with your own eyes. W e are contemplating
working with local TV stations to add a short spot feature, possibly called #Leaker.$ Twice a
week, in the cooling fall evenings, we"ll provide them with thermal images of very leaky local
buildings with a voice-over learning point ! plus an invitation: guess the address, the owner or
the builder and get a free energy audit. Posting the images on You Tube will help build the viral
side of an awareness campaign ! and keep the campaign costs down. W e are fortunate to have
very sophisticated marketing firms here, notably BoldM outh Communications, and expect to
engage them to help us get the marketing right.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
37
We have designed and pilot tested an online survey, (The Charlottesville/Albemarle Solar and
Energy Efficiency Survey, see Appendix G) to assess and quantify:
reasons for prospect!s interests in energy improvements
(to help us frame and message the marketing properly)
willingness to participate in particular loan arrangements
(to help us assess take rates and plan for programmatic activities! pace, scope and timing)
willingness to release their billing records from utilities
(to help LEAP understand usage profiles)
One of the key next activities in developing LEAP will be to conduct a broad, rolling
implementation of this survey to inform planning and scale up efforts.
Alliance partner Dominion Virginia Power will introduce an innovative program called Positive
Energy in January 2010 (see Appendix H). As many as 25,000 people in Charlottesville and
Albemarle will receive letters providing direct, actionable information on how their use of
electric power compares to anonymous cohort neighbors with similar home characteristics. The
program has been shown to drive 2% sustainable change in energy usage behavior, simply by
anonymously sharing comparative information. We believe Positive Energy will drive people to
LEAP!s website, as information about our program, incentives, and the like will be co-marketed
with Dominion!s programs on Positive Energy!s feedback report. We believe this will lead to
very efficient customer acquisition for the HPwES offering. In addition, we think its feedback
effects " knowledge of results " will inform and support behavior change over time. We
anticipate it will become part of the community!s daily culture and language (#How many faces
did you get? Frowns or smiles?$).
Another of our Alliance partners, SPARK&, has been doing energy education and outreach in the
community over the past year. Since starting, they have connected with virtually all of the local
trade partners, held a number of workshops, panels, demonstration exhibits and educational
programs for home and business owners, establishing a base level of awareness about energy
efficiency. With a budget, additional marketing focus, and the imagination and energy of people
eager to help, we expect to leverage and expand SPARK!s platform immensely.
Students from our Alliance partner the University of
Virginia have a long standing tradition of service in the
community, from tutoring to active support of Habitat for
Humanity. We intend that LEAP expand the range of these
contributions very considerably. A number of these notions
(ecoREMOD energy house, the Green Conservation Corps,
Jefferson Scholars, a renters program, drafting legislative
recommendations are not just effective contributions) are
also components of an intentional strategy of student
engagement. University officials and LEAP team members
see great merit in providing a broad variety of opportunities.
!I believe LEAP w ill create a
sustained community dialogue
on energy savings, reduction
of carbon emissions, and
renew able energy that w ill
w ork to integrate these values
into our community"s culture.#
David Neuman, UVa
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
38
In the commercial sector, we plan to reach out to commercial building owners to achieve 80%
benchmarking of all commercial buildings in our community by 2016 through EPA s Portfolio
Manager as a community wide energy efficiency goal. This will provide basic information to
building owners that tells them whether or not they have a real problem which should be
diagnosed by an energy audit.
Marketing 101 tools LEAP would immediately make use of:
- Positive Energy program placement
- Google ad words
- Search engine optimization
- Energy Star templates for marketing
- BPI templates for marketing
- NPR/radio program sponsorship
- LEAP representative talks at the Chamber of Commerce, non-profit meetings,
homeowner association meetings, trade shows and professional meetings
- Contractor seminars on: sales, successful business operations, marketing themselves
through marketing the program
- Community seminars on energy efficiency given at our program s Energy House
- Work with Dominion and City of Charlottesville Gas and Water to advertise rebates
they offer to people who participate in their and our program
Education and Outreach High Touch Marketing
Citizens need to understand first of all that much can be done to improve the performance of a
typical home or building; unfortunately, even people s assumptions on what should be done are
often off the mark. The Shelton Group found that when people were asked what they would do if
given $10,000 to make their homes more energy efficient, most answered they would replace
their windows or furnace. The biggest efficiency gains on average are seen, though, through air
sealing and insulation. This is one aspect where customer education is needed. The way to
achieve this education is to help the general public understand the basics of building science or
the !house as a system" approach, which is key to achieving comprehensive energy savings in a
safe and measurable manner. The general public may not need to know the details of this
interaction, but they do need to know that there is a system in the first place, and a trained
professional should be involved to assess the efficiency and health of this system for them. The
way a trained professional does this is through a comprehensive energy audit.
Single point of entry customers (!I want windows"; !I want a new furnace"), unknowingly do
themselves a disservice. Changes made to the building shell (windows) can affect combustion
safety, putting the health of the building s occupants at risk. Sizing HVAC equipment without
first ascertaining where efficiency gains can be made through air and duct sealing and insulation
may result in too large a system with little measurable gain in efficiency. The consistent message
needs to be that all structures should receive a comprehensive energy audit before any other
work takes place to the shell or systems, and LEAP will work with the contractors to make the
general public aware of this.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
39
Other methods for educating the public on energy audits (thus marketing LEAP) which have had
good success in programs nationwide, are to make use of celebrity energy audits (like the
Mayor s house) and high profile commercial case studies (like one of our bank buildings on the
Downtown Mall). Involving the visual media in these events and making available videos online
after the fact bring community attention to the topic and provide reference material for citizens to
view later.
So, step one in education and outreach as a marketing method is to inform the public of the
problem (inefficient buildings); step two is to make them aware of the solution to this problem: a
comprehensive energy audit and remodel (LEAP). An implied step three is to resolve concerns
that impede action. Successful building performance contracting is predicated on selling
solutions: to homeowners, comfort and safety are important drivers; to business owners, bottom
line numbers are what matters most. Our program has to communicate to the public that we have
certified contractors who can diagnose what ails your structure and fix it, quality and
accountability are built into the whole process, and financing mechanisms are in place to help
make it all happen.
Another important point related to
education and outreach is that over
half of the performance contracting
business done comes from
referrals, in particular on the
residential side. People share what
they ve learned and what they ve
had done with others. In our
conversations with successful
performance contracting
companies, such as Green Homes
America and Sustainable Spaces,
we routinely hear satisfied
customers gladly refer friends and
neighbors, and dissatisfied
customers tell their story to at least
nine people. The success of these
referrals extends to broadening our
contractor base as well. Similarly,
if contractors have a positive
experience they recognize the value in being a LEAP certified contractor, they know we set a
high bar but provide a level playing field and offer support and training along the way - they will
drive participants to our program through their word of mouth.
More complicated but necessary to reach deep market penetration will be to aggregate customers
on both the residential and commercial side. On the residential side, there are whole
neighborhoods of homes built around the same time and in a similar manner, and this makes
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
40
them good candidates for saving money through economies of scale. Research done by the
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions shows that people are more willing to wait for
the payback when they, as a group, see the benefits for that group in acting together. Given this,
holding EE seminars at a homeowner association meeting not only increases understanding and
raises awareness, it also encourages folks to act in the best interest of the group (e.g., take the
neighborhood approach to doing your EE retrofit: do the work together and save money). The
same logic can be applied to clusters of business property owners, such those located on
Charlottesville s downtown pedestrian mall for instance.
There are hundreds of stellar marketing ideas out there, which as part of R & D (rob and
duplicate), we will definitely make use of. However, in outlining a public education and outreach
strategy for marketing purposes we will have to:
- Use both !high tech" and !high touch" tactics
- Focus on educating both the consumer and contracting community on basic building
science with stories and tangible examples
- Provide sales training to the contractors so that they can better educate property
owners and sell more jobs
- Continually engage the community on the subject of energy efficiency through
seminars, speaking engagements, contests and the like
- Focus on the end-to-end customer experience, so that when asked for success stories
and referrals, we will get them
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
41
Web Support for Marketing and Program From Education to E-Commerce
Our Alliance partner SPARK! has
created a superb web platform on
which to build (http://spark-
change.org/).
However, for the scale and volume we
seek, we will need to enhance its
capabilities, extending its educational
tools and providing e-commerce
capabilities. A preliminary notion of
its additional capabilities is depicted
below. For information on how a
LEAP project happens via the website,
see Appendix I. The development
requirements and database connections
are currently being specified and
estimated.
Link to browse and
track usage
Set up on line or
automatic bill
payments
.
Prove savings
exceed payments
Pay bill / pay loan
Customer survey
Learn about audits,
browse certified
auditors
Schedule audit
Review results
Cost benefit
comparison of
choices
Complete customer
survey
Contact
certified EE
contractors
Request
estimates
Schedule
work
Complete
customer
survey
Access web
based toolkit
Find local sources
of help
Browse cost
estimator
Review financing
programs
Create plan
Make
Change
Energy
Audit
Measure
Savings
Co m m ercial Enter zip code ______
About LEAP Join_____ Login _____
Assess
and P lan
Search topics,
products,
events,
workshops
Positive Energy
link
Link to Energy
Star
Tips, stories,
videos, case
studies
B row se EE Info
Lib rary
Contact SPARK
Call
http://www.leap va.org
Contractor Login R esidential Enter zip code______
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
42
How Management Adds Value
Experience suggests that management adds value primarily by regularly facing reality and acting
on conclusions to three questions, or variations thereof:
1) Are we doing the right things and how do we know?
2) W hat is our plan for attaining these goals and how well are we implementing it?
3) Do we have the right people involved and properly resourced?
W e intend to put program management metrics in place to inform this regular review. By way of
illustration, these high level metrics might resemble the scorecard below:
Financial
- Operating earnings, cash flow
- Average $ per project
- Loan financing size, take rates
- $Available loan pool/$Project
Applications (backlog, frontlog)
- Loan defaults, % and absolute $
Customer
- Inquiry to audit conversion rates
- Audit to project conversion rates
- Customer acquisition cost
- Project savings vs. estimates
- Satisfaction survey scores
(before, during, after)
Value for $? Refer others?
Process
- # of buildings completed per day
- # of loan applications per day/# of
same days approvals
- training pipeline / certificate rates
- # available auditors/audit requests
- # available contractors/approved
applications
- % first pass test out
- contractor call backs
Contractors/Trade Partners
- Contractors certified / applied
- % H PwES jobs above 10% return
- % buildings benchmarked
- % commercial jobs above 15%
return
- Satisfaction survey scores
(growth rate, profitability, hassle
factor, value for effort)
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
43
LEAP Financial Framework
LEAP is more than a loan program to fix buildings. W e believe the start up business plan,
subject to funding and legislative enablement, should aim to:
Start with an initial capitalization of $750,000 from grants and stimulus funding.
Incremental funding of $1,408 million will be secured from incremental stimulus
grants, foundation and private investors.
Target the first two year!s pacing at something approaching a 20% share pace "
aggressive enough to find out what scaling up is going to require, but measured
enough to get the quality system, workforce/contractor training, marketing and the
overall program components working and in sync. Thereafter get on a 40% market
share pace. The retrofit pace implied by the SEEA goals, now ours, is more than 10
times the pace of the region!s fastest ever new construction pace. W e have no
illusions about this challenge.
Achieve a $7,000 average project size per house and a 65% loan take rate.
W e have developed solid economic planning models for residential and commercial sectors (See
Appendix I). It is very clear that this is a scale business, with the drivers being the number of
buildings tackled, the pace of the effort, project fees, the mix of measures, and the efficacy of the
work. Rather than focusing on serving #in& a market, we intend to focus more #on& making a
market more effective and efficient, while bringing quality and capacity together through the BPI
and Energy Star home performance systems.
W e think that in this economy, it is realistic, even conservative, to expect that overall, 65% of
customers will finance their projects. In practice, the financing rate is likely to co-vary with
project size, a phenomenon we expect to assess in our market survey (see Appendix G). The
chart below shows the residential market!s operating profit, in year 3, as a function of volume
(how many houses done, expressed as % share) and average project fees (implying the size of the
retrofit work.) For purposes of this illustration, the initial capitalization is fixed at an assumed
$250,000, and G’A costs are held constant to make the point.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
44
Target results Seven Year Initiative:
1) Leverage $2.158 m illion in capitalization into $123 m illion of
energy im provem ent projects done in the com m unity over 7
years.
2) D rive the developm ent of roughly 1,535 job years of increm ental
em ploym ent (@ 12.5 job years per $1M projects).
3) Save 115 m illion kW H and avoid 121,000 tons of C O 2 equivalent
em issions.
4) C reate a new business, w ith positive return on sales and positive
cash flow in year 3.
Operating Profit in Year 3 as a function of # of houses and average project size.
Average
Pro ject Size
30% share
(2,340 hou ses in year 3)
40% share
(3,120 ho uses in year 3)
50% sh are
(3,840 houses in year 3)
$1,000 ($433,200) ($392,173) ($347,855)
$5,000 ($212,785) ($98,300) $14,781
$7,000 ($102,577) $64,087 $196,099
$10,000 $62,735 $269,042 $468,076
$15,000 $338, 254 $636,384 $921,371
$20,000 $613,774 $1,003,726 $1,374,665
The previous chart explains why marketing Home Performance with Energy Star effectively,
providing attractive financing and encouraging tiered services (broad weatherization and !retrofit
with renewables" (to boost average project fees), is such an attractive strategy.
Looked at in another way, preliminary indications are compelling: even in a !worst-case"
pessimistic scenario, a joint residential community-based initiative with a total capitalization of
$2.158 million will, over 7 years, drive significant regional impact. Estimates would include:
x $66 million in energy improvement projects,
x $87 million kW H saved and, at $0.10 per kW H average, save citizens $87 million (a
return of 31.8%)
x Save 91,000 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions
x Create an estimated 825 job years of incremental employment
x Bring on the gearing of an unknown multiplier # commonly and conservatively 2 or 3
times project fees. (Clinton Climate Initiative multipliers have been documented as high
as 15 or 20.)
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones > LEAP Program Details
45
At this point, Virginia legislative code prohibits attributes as a revenue source for LEAP.
While this may change, it certainly does not preclude LEAP s customers from taking full and
appropriate advantage of their RECS, offsets and existing incentives. If our business plan is
successful, LEAP will have leveraged $2.158 million in capitalization into $123 million of
energy improvement projects done in the community over 7 years. It will have driven the
development of roughly 1535 job years of incremental employment (@12.5 job years per $1M
projects and saved 185 million kWH of electricity, and avoiding 193,000 tons of CO2 equivalent
emissions.
!The LEAP initiative offers a tool,
unmatched in scale, to realize significant
cuts in energy w aste and G H G emissions
in the region"s existing building sector.#
David Neuman, UVa
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones
46
Preliminary Milestone #2: Developing the Training Program
The training program for contractors is obviously a key component for LEAP!s success. W hile
working with industry leaders to develop various levels of training curricula, we are also
supporting PVCC in Step #:1: Train the trainers. Plans are for faculty at PVCC!s Construction
Academy to complete BPI training in all levels of certification by fall of 2009. W e are looking at
holding joint training sessions with faulty in other community colleges around the state to lower
costs and better equip our state to meet the performance contracting training demand. Anthony
Cox from Community Housing Partners, Billy W eitzenfeld from the Association for Energy
Conservation Professionals, and Jason Fisher from SunPower will also be consulting with PVCC
on curriculum development. These meetings are ongoing and driven by a goal to have the
structure in place with students moving through it by the Fall 2009 or Spring 2010 session. W e
hope to begin holding contractor training in "Home Performance 101$ also in the fall of 2009.
Preliminary Milestone #3: Charlottesville!s Home Energy Conservation
Program
In January of 2009, the City of Charlottesville passed a resolution to grant fund %125,000 in
energy efficiency for low income City residents. This Home Energy Conservation Program was
meant to supplement our current W AP and LIHEAP programs by allowing for the money to be
used for necessary repairs not covered by W AP and LIHEAP, but that were nonetheless
necessary in order to weatherize. An example of this would be the removal of knob and tube
wiring in an attic. Since passing this resolution, the rules of the federal programs have changed,
and they now allow W AP and LIHEAP funds to be used for a whole host of repairs formerly off
of the table. In spite of the large sum of money the Stimulus has made available for low income
weatherization programs, the need is still greater than the allotment for it. Thus we look forward
to the evolution of our Home Energy Conservation Program to help fund Assisted Home
Performance with Energy Star for our low income residents. This program was funded in 2009
and also in the City!s 2010 budget.
Preliminary Milestone #4: Ongoing LEAP Projects with UVa
Two projects are already in the works (presented in greater detail in the next two preliminary
milestone summaries):
1) the ecoREM OD project with Professors John Quale and Paxton M arshall, and
2) student participation in the Green Conservation Corps.
In addition, Professor Paxton M arshall, who has been working with SPARK& will help in the
transition program this summer and assist LEAP going forward on developing a data base on the
existing building stock. Students will catalogue the most common needs and appropriate
measures for the types of houses that recur frequently. The goal is to understand and document
critical information needed by LEAP to inform its priorities, plan its campaigns, assess its
success and manage its business. Efforts to bring together gas company data cross-tabbed with
tax department data have yielded very helpful insights so far. W e believe building out this
database will become an invaluable asset and a platform for many kinds of student engagement
going forward.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones
47
A very high percentage of renters in our community are university students. Some portion of our
commercial businesses rent space for offices, operations and storage. It s clear we need a renters
program. We have been researching and benchmarking approaches in other cities with energy
programs for landlords/renters and frankly haven t found the robust, effective approach we seek.
A current discussion (one of the top ten areas of engagement) is how the University and LEAP
might co-sponsor further study, reach out to students and landlords to shape a preferred approach
and an action learning project to from which to learn.
In the fall, UVA created an Energy Leadership Group, co-chaired by Phil Parrish, Associate Vice
President for Research. This interdisciplinary group of Deans, faculty and researchers from
across the University takes a comprehensive approach to energy and sustainability issues, from
research to technology demonstrations to policy, and involves University-wide initiatives to
reduce UVa s carbon footprint. In addition to overseeing UVa s energy research portfolio, Phil
has recently led very substantial grant additions in nanotechnology, biofuels research, and
batteries. LEAP will benefit enormously from this research engine as it shapes a renewables
strategy and UVa will benefit enormously from the demonstration project and
commercialization potentials LEAP provides.
Given the imperative for legislative enablement, the LEAP proposal team has begun to explore
helping to design and pilot an independent study course this fall where interdisciplinary teams of
students (architecture, business, law, engineering, leadership and public policy, etc.) propose the
slate of various energy bills that might be submitted to the next Virginia Assembly. David
Toscano, a LEAP Guidance Team member, former Charlottesville Mayor, and a current
Delegate to the Assembly is interested in sponsoring this, which would be a marvelous form of
student engagement. We believe the intellectual energy of students and their passion for energy
as an issue is an incredible resource for ongoing implementation and evolution of LEAP.
Preliminary Milestone #5: Ongoing LEAP Projects with SPARK!
(Green Conservation Corps)
One key goal of our program is to have 80% of all residences weatherized by 2017. In our
community, this will require us to mobilize and manage the weatherization (basic air sealing and
insulation) of a universe of 35,200 units. (80% of 44,000 living units translates to 20 houses per
day for 7 years.) This one goal may well prove to be highest efficiency energy saver per dollar of
investment. To accomplish this, we envision creating a standing community campaign the
Green Conservation Corps involving students, workers in transition, neighborhoods,
community service groups, volunteer seniors, churches, etc. Using the ideas, tools and support of
Green for All, the Apollo Alliance, and the administration s emerging program for community
service and college tuition reimbursement, we expect the Green Conservation Corps to become a
signature LEAP initiative. We also hope to funnel many new customers into the HPwES
component of the program through this broad, light pass. The expected funding streams are
Stimulus and foundation grants to pilot and launch, and operating income from LEAP for
ongoing operations after year two.
C2: Technical Approach > Preliminary Milestones
48
With expanded funding and an injection of Stimulus dollars, SPARK will ramp up and run a six
month transition campaign while we are standing up LEAP. This campaign will target, clipboard
audit, and light-weatherize the 1000 largest gas users of the Charlottesville Gas Utility (air seal,
pipe/jacket wrap, water kit). Where appropriate, crews will mention existing programs and
incentives that could be helpful. While in peoples homes, crew members will also gather
invaluable granular information on the housing stock and further energy improvement
opportunities beyond the scope of this first pass. This information will be logged into a database
LEAP will build to help develop building stock inventory assessment data and a backlog of
potential repeat customers. In effect, we will the pilot the launch of the Green Conservation
Corps, a campaign we intend to develop into an annual core program. Thus, we will be
supporting the expansion of an existing program, piloting a new service, and employing newly-
trained people (from PVCC- BPI training) while standing up the new operating company. See
Appendix K for further details on the planned Green Conservation Corps Energy Efficiency
Campaign.
Preliminary Milestone #6: Ongoing LEAP Community Projects
(EcoREMOD !Energy House")
This summer, the City of Charlottesville, UVA students, SPARK!, Dominion, and various
sponsors will collaborate to turn a 1920 s drug blight house from a community nuisance and
eyesore into a resource to promote sustainability and energy efficiency. The ecoREM OD
Energy House will be a practical application of the program s goals, as well as an educational
demonstration project which can be used by the program, local schools, the University of
Virginia, Piedmont Virginia Community College, the CATEC technical high school and others
to learn more about means and methods to using less energy and saving money. Dominion will
donate a solar photovoltaic installation with battery backup and showcase smart grid
applications. Over 80% of the City s character-rich housing stock is built before 1970, so it will
be a practical project: preserve the historical character of the home while striving for as close to
net zero energy use as possible given our remodel budget. We expect ongoing coverage by the
local TV stations and hope to open at Christmas. (See Appendix L for related information.)
C3: Market Characterization Summary
49
C3: M arket Characterization Sum m ary
Background
The Charlottesville/Albemarle region is an example of the many small communities around the
country which are home to a major university. The University of Virginia is the major employer,
its cultural heart, and its primary tourism draw. Charlottesville/Albemarle has become a
vacation destination, with a busy pedestrian mall, excellent music venues, and a thriving arts
community. A high percentage of citizens possess advanced degrees. Perhaps also typical of the
American College Town, many of our citizens who serve in support roles to the University, the
areas hotels, restaurants, shops, etc., are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living
outpaces wages.
Our program reflects the region and its situation ! Charlottesville is a small city, and both it and
surrounding county have a rural character; composed of a relatively old, largely residential
building stock of 45,000 buildings. It embodies the range of renter/landlord living
accommodations and typical businesses found in a college town. W e have virtually no heavy
manufacturing or large industrial companies. Our population of 130,000 people is politically and
economically diverse, passionate about their green spaces and inclinations. They operate
collegially, but fairly independently. W e have a heritage of Jeffersonian architecture, including
some very famous (and very leaky) iconic buildings like M onticello and the Rotunda at UVa.
The Community Building Stock ! "As-Is#
As reflected in the following chart, Charlottesville proper experienced its first housing boom in
the 1920"s, and like many communities across the country, experienced dramatic growth
following W orld W ar II. W ith fixed geographical limits, Charlottesville"s urban ring began to
grow in that same era, as did smaller outlying communities such as Crozet and Scottsville.
Charlottesville Albemarle
Residential Stock
by Construction Date
C3: Market Characterization Summary
50
The early years of the current century saw the rapid redevelopment of Charlottesville s
dilapidated properties and infilling what little green space remained. In Charlottesville,
condominiums, apartment buildings, and mixed-use developments have been the order of the
day. Albemarle County s building stock has grown at a steady pace since the 1970 s, though the
advent of large-scale housing developments has alarmed some. Albemarle County now has
approximately three times as many residences as Charlottesville, and due to larger average home
sizes, almost four times the total square footage.
Charlottesville A lbem arle R egion
M arket Sector Count Sq . Ft. Cou nt Sq. Ft. Count Sq. Ft.
Sm all Res. <2,000 SF 8,753 10,880,171 20,086 26,739,861 28,839 37,620,032
Large Res. 1,866 4,792,435 11,672 33,786,018 13,538 38,578,453
Total R esidential 10,619 15,672,606 31,758 60,525,879 42,377 76,198,485
Sm all C&I <5,000 SF 1,377 2,771,795 982 2,024,416 2,359 4,796,211
Large C&I 561 10,498,436 742 22,600,219 1,303 33,098,655
Total C&I 1,938 13,270,231 1,724 24,624,635 3,662 37,894,866
Total 12,557 28,942,837 33,482 85,150,514 46,039 114,093,351
It is important to note that, in 1973, Virginia adopted a construction code that required all new
residences to be insulated to minimum standards. As most existing homes in Albemarle County
were constructed after that date, it stands to reason that they will by and large consume less
energy for heating and cooling. As most f the City s housing stock was constructed before 1973,
efforts to improve energy efficiency in the City will either call for a greater level of investment,
or a lowering of savings expectations.
Charlottesville A lbem arle R egion
D ecade Count % Coun t % Cou nt %
Pre 1973 8,854 74.3% 8,710 27.4% 17,564 40.2%
! 1973 3,061 25.7% 23,077 72.6% 26,138 59.8%
Total 11,915 31,787 43,702
C3: Market Characterization Summary
51
Very little hard data is available regarding heating and cooling equipment commonly used in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commercial and Industrial Sector. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
small businesses utilize strategies and equipment similar to those in the residential sector
(detailed below): heat pumps for both heating and cooling are most prevalent in newer homes,
except in those instances where natural gas is available for use in gas furnaces. Many older
homes in Albemarle County still rely on dirty burning fuel oil, as well as wood stoves and
electric baseboard heaters.
Primary Heating Technology City County R egion Percent
Heat Pump 2,287 17,620 19,907 46.3%
Forced Hot A ir G as 5,903 5,331 11,234 26.2%
Electric Baseboard 764 2,738 3,502 8.2%
Hot W ater
Radiator/B aseboard 1,937 951 2,888 6.7%
Forced Hot A ir O il 2,531 2,531 5.9%
Forced Hot A ir Electric 905 905 2.1%
Floor or W all Furnace 586 170 756 1.8%
W ood Stove 640 640 1.5%
O il Stove 354 354 0.8%
R adiant Floor 55 73 128 0.3%
Heat Pump G eothermal 88 88 0.2%
N o Heat 10 13 23 0.1%
Larger commercial and industrial facilities! heating and air conditioning systems are anecdotally
similar to those used throughout the Mid-Atlantic states. The proximity of building automation
system service providers located in Richmond and Charlottesville are a boon that more rural
areas may not enjoy.
C3: Market Characterization Summary
52
In preparation for this proposal, an analysis was performed of all natural gas customers of the
City of Charlottesville, including those customers operating/residing in Albemarle County.
Results were categorized by neighborhood, decade of construction, primary heating technology,
assessed value and relative gas usage. Dominion Virginia Power cooperated by providing a
summary of address-specific electrical consumption, based on sampling in specific
neighborhoods, of no fewer than 10 addresses for each of the 15 groupings shown below. This
data is believed to be representative of the majority of homes in the region.
City of Charlottesville
Prim ary H eat
Source
D ecade
Constructed
A ssessm ent
V alue G as U se Ft3 N atural
G as/SF kW h/SF BTU /SF
G as 1950 H igh A verage 47.36 5.50 67,736
G as 1950 H igh H igh 60.60 5.26 80,613
G as 1950 H igh Low 31.21 7.42 57,578
G as 1950 Low A verage 58.24 7.20 84,774
G as 1950 Low H igh 89.88 8.73 122,702
G as 1950 Low Low 39.74 10.85 78,115
G as 1950 M iddle A verage 42.85 7.97 71,492
G as 1950 M iddle H igh 76.18 9.15 109,998
G as 1950 M iddle Low 25.87 6.07 47,460
G as 1980 M iddle Low 30.95 6.61 54,552
A lbem arle Cou nty
Prim ary H eat
Source
D ecade
Constructed
A ssessm ent
V alue G as U se Ft3 N atural
G as/SF kW h/SF BTU /SF
Electric 1960 H igh n/a 9.47 32,309
Electric 1960 M iddle n/a 14.27 48,679
Electric 1980 90 H igh n/a 11.55 39,414
Electric 1980 90 Low n/a 9.27 31,646
G as 1980 90 M iddle A verage 38.51 6.52 62,054
From the above chart can be drawn several interesting conclusions. M ost notably, the difference
in energy consumption between homes constructed before and after the 1973 zoning change is
nothing short of remarkable. If one presumes that energy use for non-heating and cooling
applications ! that is, energy used for lighting, cooking, bathing, clothes washing, and various
electronic devices ! is relatively equal among residences in each "Assessment Value# bracket,
the impact of the insulation code requirement is irrefutably large. Average annual British
Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot in those older homes with a median assessment value are
nearly twice similarly priced homes built in the 80s and 90s.
C3: Market Characterization Summary
53
Not surprisingly, energy consumption in homes with low assessed value is markedly higher than
that in higher priced homes. There is a clear correlation between assessed value and the income
level of residents. Homeowners struggling to cover their basic bills are historically unlikely to
invest in high-efficiency heat pumps or furnaces. The high percentage of rental property in these
areas likely contributes to this problem, as landlords currently have no incentive to invest in
efficient equipment replacements.
Water An Overview of As-Is
The City and the County!s municipal water is all surface water, collected in reservoirs. Since
1973, the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority has been responsible for providing a safe and
dependable water supply to its customers in the City of Charlottesville and the surrounding areas
of Albemarle County. It currently operates five reservoirs that serve this area.
The City of Charlottesville Utility Division provides municipal water distribution services within
the City of Charlottesville and to the University of Virginia. The Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) provides water utility services on behalf of the County of Albemarle and also
serves some portions of the University. All City properties are served by a municipal system.
11% of City water accounts are commercial; the rest are residential. ACSA serves over 15,500
customers in the urban ring of the County surrounding the City of Charlottesville, the Town of
Scottsville, and the villages of Crozet, Hollymead and Rivanna. Approximately 43% of all
County households rely on private, individual wells, and many other County residents rely on
water from small, private, groundwater-dependent water systems. M any businesses, industries,
schools, and recreational and cultural sites also utilize groundwater for water supply.
C3: Market Characterization Summary
54
City municipal water customers
x In the 2008-2009 Utility Rate Report,
the average water usage for a City
residence is presented as 204 gallons
per day, or 64 gallons per capita per
day.
x The average Charlottesville W ater
Residential Customer uses 763 cubic
feet of water per month which is equal
to 5,722.5 gallons. Broken down
further, each account serves roughly
3.2 people, which means 238 cubic
feet (1,788 gallons) per person, per
month.
County municipal water customers
x In the 2008-2009 Utility Rate Report, the average water usage for an ACSA residential
customer was approximately 56 gallons per capita per day.
x According to information published on the ACSA website, an !average" of all single
family water use as 4,900 gallons/month. This does not include apartments, condos, etc.
Last year ACSA billed 809 million gallons of water to single-family residences.
Assuming 2.5 persons per unit, that is 61.4 gallons of water per day per person (1,850
gallons per month, per person).
C4: Utility Support
55
C4: Utility Support
Active support for our Local Energy Alliance from our major utility, Dominion Power, is evident
in many technical, programmatic, and financial ways. Firstly, they have committed to co-
applying to for money to subsidize energy audits (plans for this may change depending on
DOE!s approval of DM M E!s State Energy Plan, which specifies State funding for audit rebates).
They have also committed to funding some training for contractors. In addition to the program
LEAP will roll out, 11 energy conservation initiatives piloted last year will be implemented in
our region at scale next year. Specific descriptions of these 11 initiatives are shown in Appendix
M .
Dominion has already written a
contract with a supplier to
perform "Residential Low
Income Energy Audit and
M easure Improvements,#
which will appropriately
supplement and add capacity in
the low income segment where
existing programs are effective,
but seriously undersized,
especially as a result of the
expanded new eligibility
income limits. LEAP can and
will play a coordination and
clearinghouse role.
Significantly, Dominion will
pay for audits and improvement measures (up to $1,105 for all residential customers who meet
the low income standards as defined by State social service agencies). Audits for higher end
homeowners and businesses are expected to be covered as a marketing cost, or rolled into a
financing arrangement, or credited back against subsequent measures work performed.
W ith respect to Charlottesville becoming a Smart-grid City, the AM I meters are going in now
and 50,000 will be installed by year end. This is a first in Virginia and in Dominion!s footprint %
enabling an immediate step up in demand management results and a large step forward in
creating a distributed energy infrastructure. Governor Kaine will join the special announcement
festivities on June 16. It is a rare opportunity to have a measurement system like this going into
place at the outset of an energy initiative. W e all stand to significantly enhance and accelerate
our understanding of adoption patterns, gain very granular insights about results, and see how
information influences behavior. W e are already in early conversations with EPA, Dominion,
DOE, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory about this live lab. NREL is very excited
by the opportunity to collect real time data to establish a baseline before EE retrofits so as to
compare energy use in the building after retrofit.
!D om inion is pleased to be the City"s and County"s
clean energy partner, and w e look forw ard to this
public private partnership w hich reduces energy use
through efficiency, helps consum ers better understand
their energy use and tests innovative technologies that
m ay im prove electric service and reliability. W e stand
together at the beginning of this journey, com m itted to
strengthening our relationship and collaborating on
opportunities for LEA P"s success to the m utual benefit
of our custom ers and their citizens.#
R obert H . Burnette
D om inion V irginia Pow er
C4: Utility Support
56
In addition, as was referenced earlier in
the proposal, Dominion will introduce an
innovative program called Positive Energy
(see Appendix H) which sends letters to
residents providing direct, actionable
information on how their use of electrical
power compares to anonymous cohort
neighbors with similar home
characteristics. The program has been
shown to drive 2% sustainable change in
energy usage behavior, simply by
anonymously sharing comparative
information. We believe Positive Energy
will drive people to our LEAP program s
website and lead to very efficient customer acquisition for the HPwES offering. In addition, we
think its feedback effects knowledge of results will inform and support behavior change over
time.
There are a number of other productive collaborations on the drawing board with Dominion,
including support for the ecoREMOD Energy House Project with solar PV and Grid Point
battery storage included in the demonstration.
We are very excited and encouraged by the convergence of what Dominion was already
doing/planning and what we wish to do with LEAP. We are likewise excited about where this
kind of productive collaboration can go. We feel very good about this relationship, thanks in no
small part to Bob Burnette.
Lastly, looking at gas and water usage, the City of Charlottesville s Utility Division has also
been very supportive of our effort. Both divisions are housed in Public Works, and Judith
Mueller, the Director of Public Works, presented our grant proposal to City Council for
resolution approval. City staff has also discussed doing its own version of Positive Energy for its
customers, and its water utility has recently compiled a report on conservation initiatives it
would like to push forward, many of which could be channeled through and bolstered by LEAP.
Charlottesville s Utility division is looking forward to working with LEAP to build on its already
excellent customer service and to provide its citizens with a compelling program to save energy
and money.
C5: Funding Support Governments and Foundations
57
C 5: Fu nding Suppo rt ! G overnm ents and Fou ndations
Funding support from the City of Charlottesville includes:
x If awarded the $500,000 SEEA grant, the City will use its share of these funds towards
establishing the local energy alliance,
x Designation of ~$195K of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
funds for energy efficiency improvements in residential and commercial sectors
x Continuation of the Home Energy Conservation Grant Program ($125K per year) to link
with LEAP,
x Capital Improvement Program funds ($100K) for the renovation/remodel of a blighted
residence to serve as an educational, community resource for energy efficiency and
renewables (!ecoREM OD Energy House")
Support from the County of Albemarle includes:
x If awarded the $500,000 SEEA grant, the County will use its share of these funds towards
establishing the local energy alliance
x As stated in the Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors, the County intends to consider
using a portion of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds in
support of applicable energy efficiency-related programs in the residential and commercial
sectors
Additional start up funding will result from applying for grants under ARRA to a number of
agencies and a number of different relevant programs we are eligible for, including:
x Virginia DM M E
x HUD
x EPA
x DOL
x Education
x Small Business Administration
x DOE (competitive grants)
x DOA (REAP program)
x Temporary Loan Guarantee Program (Title XVII section 1702)
x Transmission and Smart Grid Funding
x CREB / QECB bonds
W e believe that a number of foundations may be interested in joining us in some fashion for
grant or PRI funding. The Dominion Foundation, Oak Hill, and Blue M oon for example are all
actively interested in LEAP, aware of our application effort, but we intend to seek federal
stimulus funding before approaching them for financial support.
C6: In Kind Support
58
C 6: In Kind Sup port
W e are, in fact, already the fortunate recipients of help from many people in the community,
most of whom have already been mentioned in some fashion. However there are four entities in
particular whose contributions have ! and will be ! enormously helpful.
x Government: The City of Charlottesville has three staff positions: Facilities M anagement,
Environmental Administrator, and Climate Protection Program Coordinator, who have
been hard at work on LEAP program development. It is expected that these three
individuals will continue to play an important role in the future. City of Charlottesville
Director of Public W orks and Director of Economic Development have also been active
in moving LEAP forward, as has the City M anager. Also, the County of Albemarle"s
Environmental M anager has had an active role and will contribute as much possible to
the future development of LEAP.
Also within the government support role, Chandler von Schrader, Program Coordinator
for Home Performance at EPA, and Al Christopher, Energy Director at DM M E, have
played and will continue to play important support roles. As a mentor and enthusiastic
supporter, Chandler"s help in crafting our residential program has been critical. Al
Christopher has been tasked to promote energy efficiency statewide and has invited our
participation in the critical statewide discussion on setting standards and certifications as
they pertain to performance contracting.
x The Charlottesville Community Design Center is a force for the future here. W e have met
and will continue to meet in their facilities, and they are the force behind SPARK, the
energy efficiency program that has already done so much. A letter of support from Jane
Fisher, the Executive Director is included in Appendix N.
x The VM L/VACo Finance Company offers a perfectly suitable financing arrangement to
help its members finance their community"s energy projects.
x Their Commonwealth Loan Program could be a pivotal and core source of funding for
LEAP. See Appendix N for a letter from the VM L/VACo Finance Company outlining
clean energy financing opportunities through their organization.
x Finally, it is hard to overstate the value of in-kind contributions we anticipate will flow
from the faculty and students from the University of Virginia. Another key letter of in-
kind support from Phil Parrish, AVP for Research and Graduate Studies is provided in
Appendix N.
Our substantial collection of Letters of Support have been assembled in Appendix N.
C6: In Kind Support
59
!I am very interested to hear your plans regarding a new clean energy
initiative for V irginia local governm ents. V M L/V A Co Finance has been
follow ing this issue closely for som e tim e, and w e actively participated in the
2030 Challenge D iscussions held at the V irginia Center for A rchitecture in
R ichm ond in 2007 to develop recom m endations for reducing greenhouse gas
em issions. A s a non profit program sponsored by V M L and V A Co, w e are in a
unique position to assist local governm ents in financing clean energy
initiatives".
It seem s to m e that the Com m onw ealth Loan Program w ould be w ell suited
for the type of clean energy initiative that you envision. If offers:
Financing for term s from a few m onths up to the useful life of the
project or equipm ent being financed;
The ability to share costs of issuance w ith other participants;
Flexibility in scheduling a closing date that best suits your schedule;
M inim um loan size around $500,000 and no m axim um loan size
(Previous program participants have financed as m uch as $75 m illion);
A n ongoing source of financing to use for a variety of projects
throughout the year;
A n easy process in w hich w e handle all the details.#
Bob Lauterberg,
VML/VACo Finance
C7: Support from the Governor
60
C7: Support from the Governor
C8: Support from Local Partners
61
C 8: Suppo rt from Lo cal Partners
Letters of support are compiled in Appendix N
List of Collaborators for LEAP
Federal
Environm ental Protection A gency C handler von Schrader, D ale H offm eyer,
Jerry Law son; Energy Star H om e
Perform ance, Corporate Challenge
D epartm ent of Energy Patricia Plym pton H Pw ES pilot
Congressm an Tom Periello!s O ffice R idge Schyler " A R R A funding
N ational R enew able Energy Laboratory M arcus B ianchi " Special study on H Pw ES
and Sm art G rid integration
State
V A D epartm ent of M ines, M inerals, and Energy Steve W alz, A l Christopher, B arbara Sim coe,
R obin Jones " O verall sponsorship and
training, H Pw ES support, SB 1212, State
Services, V M L/V A CO rollout
V irginia M unicipal League B ob Lauterberg " Com m onw ealth Loan
Program , Joe Lerch " G reen Cities, M ark
Flynn " Legal/SB 1212 m odel ordinance
V irginia R esource A uthority, V irginia H o using
D evelopm ent A uthority
Cheryl B ailey, Susan D ew ey Bonding
V irginia B ankers A ssociation Bruce W hitehurst, R ichard O w en " Loan
m aking and servicing w ith banks across
V irginia
U tilities
City of C harlottesville City G as and W ater Judith M ueller " C ity of Charlottesville
Sponsor, G as & W ater U tility executive
A lbem arle County Service A uthority G ary Fern "W ater program
D om inion V irginia Pow er B ob B urnette " Key A lliance partner
M odel Program s
N YSER D A R esidential Efficiency Program John Jones " Com parative inform ation
CO W S/M E2 Elissa Berger " Com parative inform ation
V EIC /Efficiency V erm ont B lair H am ilton " Com parative inform ation
O regon Efficiency D iane Ferington " Com parative inform ation
Professional A ssociations
Building Perform ance Institute Larry Zarker " B PI A ffiliation, training
standards, curriculum , certification
Com m unity Energy Conservation Program Linda R aynor " Coordination w ith local W A P
program , training exchange
A ssociation of Conservation Professionals B illy W eitzenfeld " Education and outreach
Blue R idge H om ebuilders A ssociation Jay W iller " Contractor training
C8: Support from Local Partners
62
Professional Associations continued
Jam es R iver G reen B uilding Council Charles H endricks ! Contractor training
V irginia Sustainable B uilding N etw ork Annette O sso ! Contractor training
Charlottesville / Albem arle Cham ber of Com m erce Tim H ulbert ! Corporate Challenge lead
Thom as Jefferson Planning D istrict Council B illie Cam pbell, Aubrey W atts, M ichael
H arvey, Susan Stim art Econom ic
developm ent
Charlottesville/Albem arle Association of R ealtors D ave Phillips ! M arket analysis, G reen
D esignation Realtor program
Academ ic Institutions; Trainers; Education/O utreach
Piedm ont V irginia Com m unity College B yron Sorg ! BPI training, contractor
certification, w orkforce developm ent
U niversity of V irginia D avid N eum an ! Sustainability;
Phil Parrish ! Energy Leadership G roup;
M egan R aym ond ! Student Com m unity
Services;
Pace Lochte ! Licensing and
Com m ercialization
Com m unity H ousing Partners Anthony Cox ! Education and training
Charlottesville C om m unity D esign C enter
CCD C/SPAR K" Initiative
Jane Fisher; Am anda B urbage; Eric G ilchrist
! SPAR K" integration, G reen Conservation
Corps, education and outreach, w ebsite,
special events
Q uality Com m unity C ouncil Karen W aters ! N eighborhood engagem ent
and com m unity developm ent training
Private Sector
Albem arle H eating and Air Tom Kavounas ! Corporate Challenge,
contractor training, com m unity education
and outreach
BoldM outh Scott H ildebrand M arketing
ConEdison D ennis Couch ! Com m ercial program
benchm arking
Local B anking Institutions B rian Thom as ! B B T, R od G entry ! U nion
B ank Shares, G lenn Rust ! V irginia N ational
B ank
2R W B ob Som ers ! Com m ercial program
developm ent; W ayne B ader ! C om m ercial
program developm ent, overall LEAP M &V ;
Carlene Conner Kueck ! AR RA
Energy Consultant B rad H ollom on ! C om m ercial program
RE Lee Construction Jay Kessler ! Corporate Challenge
G reen H om es Am erica D ick Kornbluth ! Contractor training
H ughesco D arin H ughes ! C ontractor training
D: Commitments and Resolutions
63
D: Commitments and Resolutions
As mentioned earlier, the City and County passed Resolutions in January 2009 reflecting their
intent to apply for the SEEA grant (see Appendix D).
In early M ay 2009, both the City and County again considered the SEEA grant application and
passed resolutions to support the grant submittal. See Appendix E for the two complete agenda
packet materials, including the Resolutions listed in the SEEA Grant RFP Scope of W ork,
Section IV.
64
A Message from the LEAP Proposal Team
65
A Message from the LEAP Proposal Team
Hello Ben, May 14th, 2009
Back in January, members from our LEAP team sat with you in the lobby of the Omni Hotel to talk about your
presentation and the as of yet unreleased SEEA RFP. Tasked with building something very complicated and
well, we found the vision both compelling and empowering: government, private business, and citizens
working shoulder to shoulder to lift our regional economy, transform the marketplace, and address climate
change in a way that was effective and palatable. While the rendering of this vision inspired us, the reality
check was that what we really needed to do was walk the property line and put a stake in the ground.
It is now May, and the proposal is due. In the last four months, we have been continually amazed at the
insight and support we have received from countless folk in this process. We know from our conversations
with other professionals in the field, that everyone is talking about the importance of getting to scale and
how do we do it. We have found that our alliance approach to scale has to include stakeholders both within
and outside of our immediate community ! national as well as local networks. We need the synergy and
amplification of message, training, delivery, and quality assurance.
With these thoughts in mind, we are very pleased with the network of relationships and opportunities we
have seen grow through this process. Here"s where we have come in just four months time:
Dominion Virginia Power and the State are now discussing ways they can coordinate roll out of
energy efficiency programs w ith the localities.
We have successfully constructed a model program which on paper delivers to communities
throughout Virginia the scale and deep energy savings we all need and desire.
LEAP has been selected for a Dominion State EPA pilot for Home Performance w/ Energy Star.
Our LEAP initiative has gotten us a seat at the table to help the State plan for required standards
and certifications to make these programs successful.
Dominion has honored our community with the first Smart grid installation in Virginia, giving us a
tremendous opportunity for customer education (and an outstanding research opportunity for
DOE /NREL and LEAP).
PVCC is stepping up to develop a model training center for BPI, solar, and other energy efficiency
subject matter for the contracting community.
The Virginia Municipal League is working with our group and others across the state to develop
financing and loan servicing tools for communities wanting to develop EE programs modeled on
LEAP.
Circling back to our building metaphor, the foundation is in, the contractors are lined up, and the
homeowners are ready to build. Imagine what we could accomplish with this much support and the financing
to continue the project? A grant award from SEEA would enable us to continue moving forward framing our
vision, providing a structure Virginia can point to as a model energy efficiency program. The momentum is
here, the commitment is real, and the hope is palpable.
Thank you.
The LEAP Proposal Team
Appendices
Index to Appendices
Appendix A 2009 Senate Bill 1212
Appendix B A Framework for Drafting the Model Ordinance to Implement SB 1212
Appendix C UVA Top Ten List
Appendix D City/County January 2009 Resolutions
Appendix E City/County May 2009 Board/Council Reports and Resolutions
Appendix F Home Performance with Energy Star White Paper
Appendix G Preliminary Market Survey
Appendix H Positive Energy Write Up
Appendix I How a LEAP Energy Project Happens
Appendix J Residential xls (soft copy only)
Appendix K CCDC/SPARK! Green Conservation Corps Energy Efficiency Campaign
Appendix L ecoREMOD Energy House
Appendix M Dominion Power s Energy Efficiency Programs
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A ! 2009 Senate Bill 1212
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- CHAPTER
An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-958.3, relating to
clean energy financing programs.
[S 1212] Approved
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-958.3 as follows:
§ 15.2-958.3. Financing clean energy programs.
A. Any locality may, by ordinance, authorize contracts to provide loans for the initial acquisition
and installation of clean energy improvements with free and willing property owners of both
existing properties and new construction. Such an ordinance shall include but not be limited to
the following:
1. The kinds of distributed generation renewable energy sources or energy efficiency
improvements for which loans may be offered;
2. The proposed arrangement for such loan program, including (i) a statement concerning the
source of funding that will be used to pay for work performed pursuant to the contracts; (ii) the
interest rate and time period during which contracting property owners would repay the loan;
and (iii) the method of apportioning all or any portion of the costs incidental to financing,
administration, and collection of the arrangement among the consenting property owners and
the locality;
3. A minimum and maximum aggregate dollar amount which may be financed;
4. A method for setting requests from property owners for financing in priority order in the event
that requests appear likely to exceed the authorization amount of the loan program. Priority
shall be given to those requests from property owners who meet established income or assessed
property value eligibility requirements;
5. Identification of a local official authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the locality; and
6. A draft contract specifying the terms and conditions proposed by the locality.
B. The locality may combine the loan payments required by the contracts with billings for water
or sewer charges, real property tax assessments, or other billings; in such cases, the locality may
establish the order in which loan payments will be applied to the different charges. The locality
may not combine its billings for loan payments required by a contract authorized pursuant to
this section with billings of another locality or political subdivision, including an authority
Appendices
operating pursuant to Chapter 51 (§ 15.2-5100 et seq.), unless such locality or political
subdivision has given its consent by duly adopted resolution or ordinance.
C. The locality shall offer private lending institutions the opportunity to participate in local loan
programs established pursuant to this section.
D. Prior to the enactment of an ordinance pursuant to this section, a public hearing shall be held
at which interested persons may object to or inquire about the proposed loan program or any of
its particulars. The public hearing shall be advertised once a week for two successive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the locality.
Appendices
Appendix B ! A Fram ework for Drafting the Ordinance to Im plem ent
SB 1212, now 15.2-958.3
General Intent: This is an elegantly simple idea: enable energy-saving capital improvement
loans by municipalities to their qualifying building owners to be repaid through property taxes.
Why This is Important and Innovative
Whether done in homes, businesses or institutions, saving energy can also save money, and, at
the same time, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus addressing multiple objectives. Money can
be spent on a wide variety of energy efficiency measures, including, for example: weatherization,
sealing air leaks, improving insulation, heating and cooling system improvements, upgrading to
more efficient lighting or appliances, replacing old windows and the like. Increasingly, people
are also interested in using renewable technologies to generate electricity. Examples can be solar,
wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, combined heat and power, burning biofuels or other alternative
approaches.
This program has the potential to solve the key financial hurdles facing property owners
interested in making these kinds of improvements. First, loans help remove the barrier of initial
high cost. Second, when properly done the resulting savings can be structured to offset the loan
payments, thus making the improvements pay for themselves. Third, the total cost of the system
may be less when compared to financing through a traditional equity line or mortgage
refinancing because the contracts will be secured by the homeowner!s property and commitment
to pay property taxes, and thus should provide lower interest rates than are commercially
available. Fourth, the tax assessment is transferable between owners. Therefore, if one sells a
property prior to the end of the repayment period, the next owner takes over the assessment as
part of their property tax bill.
LEAP FIRST. (Financing Initiative for Renewable or Solar Technology)
Overall Programmatic Goals
Design the 1212 financial tool to help target (by eligibility) and finance (by the loan contract
structure) the most cost effective improvements in energy (thus greenhouse gas emission)
possible. There are four important implications.
1) The first is to direct the tool at the high leverage energy improvement opportunities by
sector.
2) The second is to direct the tool at the relatively high usage (absolute and per square foot)
opportunities within sector
3) The third to arrange a system of market making around the tool so that over a five to
seven year period, 30-50% market penetration is attained, and finally,that 20-40% gains
are realized by participating customer.
Appendices
4) Fourth, there will likely be an intentional phased use of this tool. For example, in a broad
brush sense, we want to promote actions that focus on energy efficiency, that are widely
known to produce the highest return and fastest payback, before promoting widespread
5) adoption of longer payback actions, such as renewables. This means that program
guidelines will evolve and change to reflect emerging needs and programmatic intentions.
These elements are designed in to the proposed framework.
Eligibility
In order to be considered for and to receive financing, the property owner(s) must meet the
following requirements:
x Property must be located in the City of Charlottesville or County of Albemarle
x The Program applicant must be an owner on the property title
x All owners on the property title must agree to the terms of the program and sign the
required documents
x Before requesting funding, the property owner must ensure that their property meets the
all applicable ordinances
x Property owners must use a qualified and accredited contractor, registered as such with
the City of County, or prove comparable efficacy with comparable measurement and
verifications protocols as would an accredited contractor
x Other than meeting credit requirements for a given loan application, annual household
income for property owners must exceed $55,000, (above the cutoff for WAP eligibility)
to be eligible for financing under this program.
x Property owners have not declared bankruptcy in past 7 years
x Property owners are current on all property related debt, plus all Federal, State, local
taxes
x Property owners do not have significant involuntary liens, defaults or judgments on their
property
x Property may be used be for residential or commercial purposes. If the property is
residential, the property owner(s) do not have to occupy the property as their primary
residence.
x Property owners must participate in program surveys and program evaluations as
requested
THE BASIC PROCESS (See the companion guide, Energy Improvement Project Schematic !
Walk Through)
A homeowner gets an energy audit from a certified and program-approved auditor.
Based on audit results, homeowners get estimates to perform the recommended energy
improvement measures. Certified, program ! approved contractors provide these. A website
provides educational tools, planning assistance, forms, and tools. Program support staff can be
contacted to answer questions, provide energy education resources and economic counseling as
Appendices
if desired. With these supports, the homeowner prepares an energy loan application contract, and
submits it to a participating lending institution. The lending institution reviews required
documentation (see Eligibility), the audit results, the loan application contracts, the homeowner s
credit, and approves the application.
The homeowner is then granted an approval to proceed with a 180 day completion window. The
building owner acknowledges acceptance by signing the contract covering responsibilities,
payments and procedural arrangements.
With the approved loan contract and financing in hand, the customer contracts with an accredited
contractor, registered as an approved program trade partner to do the work.
On completion on the work, an inspection is made by the contractor who submits the test out
results to the lending institution, with copies to LEAP. Approval triggers the repayment process,
either to:
1) the lending institution, which services these energy loans just like a car loan, or a home
equity loan, or at the homeowner s choice if available,
2) by arranging a line item on the property tax, in second position on the property, and if
desired, an escrow arrangement with the property owner s mortgage servicer.
Utility bills come as normal monthly bills. Customers can check their usage with their respective
utility. Payments are made either as mortgage escrow amounts or as direct property tax
payments.
Failure to pay property tax payment obligations on time can lead to foreclosure.
Note: to assure program quality and integrity, we think it s important that contractors be
accountable for their work and responsible for testing and correcting that work. We also believe
that it s necessary for LEAP to design and manage a quality system using ISO frameworks to sit
on top of the whole effort. (Beyond the scope of this paper) This will involve sampled third party
testing, among other things.
Energy Improvement Loans (Illustrative Numbers)
For people who want financial help for their energy improvements, people can apply, in person
or online to participate, in one of three tiers in a given year, depending on their energy
improvement needs, as identified in an initial energy audit by a certified energy auditor. Their
audit-informed loan applications are for one of these tiers:
Appendices
Tier One (encouraged for virtually every homeowner)
A basic weatherization and energy efficiency loan, for improvement measures up to $7,000, a 7
year term, at 5% interest. Monthly payments under $100 ($97.94).This loan tier will permit a
house-appropriate selection of substantially effective energy efficiency measures. For this sum,
most homeowners could implement some combination of measures such as air sealing
weatherization, pipe and duct insulation, rim joist and attic insulation, a water heater upgrade,
programmable thermostat, an appliance upgrade, and/or an HVAC upgrade. This is meant to
combine with, and not supplant, other incentives such as the federal $1500 tax incentive for EE,
or special promotional manufacturer incentives for appliances, for example. We know from
studying other programs that the house-appropriate combination of these types of measures
universally returns more than 20% in energy savings within 5 years.
Tier Two (for more extensive retrofits)
A robust energy improvement loan, permitting substantial improvements (for example, Tier one
type measures, definitely an HVAC upgrade, appliance upgrade, and quite possibly solar hot
water; or if Tier was previously completed, a renewable generation application such as solar,
ground source, small wind) up to $25,000, a 15 year term, at 5% interest. Monthly payment is
under $200 per month ($197.70)
Tier Three (for major retrofits)
A loan program for major energy retrofits, with a loan amount large enough to encourage solar,
ground source or other appropriate renewable application - up to $50,000 over 25 years and 5%
interest. Monthly payment is less than $300 ($292.30). We imagine this might encourage a
substantial energy improvement, or part of a complete house renovation.
These tiered loan packages can and should be structured to meet local energy program strategies
! and complement other local programs. For example, in the City of Charlottesville, homeowners
whose audit results show their structures are 30% more energy efficient than the building code
are eligible to receive a one-time, first year reduction of half of their property tax. So this
particular program might be marketed to homeowners as an extra incentive provided by the City
in addition to these loan arrangements.
Assessment of the economic potentials and paybacks are, of course, house specific. This service,
energy education, planning and economic counseling, is an essential component of any local
energy program ! but beyond the scope of this particular paper. A particular program might
decide to allow people to roll the cost of energy audits into their loan package to encourage their
participation.
Appendices
APPROPRITE LOAN CONTRACT GUIDELINES
We suggest that other programmatic guidelines can and should be defined and incorporated in
structuring energy loan contracts. Some examples:
- No energy improvement loan can be made for more than 15% of the building!s
assessed value (don!t fix things that shouldn!t be fixed)
- The useful life of the proposed energy measures should be less than 75% of the
useful life of the property (make sure there is opportunity for payback)
- The loan payments should be less than 75% of the anticipated savings expected
from the energy improvements (build in cash flow breathing space for the
homeowner)
- The proposed energy measures will produce at least a 20% return within 7 years
(a requirement of Home Improvement with Energy Star)
Program Financing, Planning and Prioritization Arrangements
SB 1212 enables localities to authorize contracts to provide loans. The City of Charlottesville
and the County of Albemarle can provide stimulus funds as the source for this. Alternatively,
funds may be borrowed from the VML/VACO Finance Company, the Virginia Resources
Authority, or the Virginia Housing Department Authority, all of whom have bonding authority.
This fund is then the pool of money from which loans might be drawn, as applications from
citizens become contracts. This fund is managed by the program administrator, which are then
dispensed as applications are approved.
If applications exceed the amount of funds available, additional borrowing can be made. On the
other hand, if the choice is to slow down, limit or ration capital access, (perhaps because demand
is outpacing contractor supply or capacity) the preferred method of prioritization recommended
(4. above) is based on the highest absolute reduction of kWH, as indicated by the applicant!s
energy audit and proposed measures.
Since at the outset, we do not yet know how many property owners will participate in this
program (and therefore how much funding will be needed for their projects), we suggest that a
simple market research survey should be taken to assess interest, identify critical program design
issues, and estimate participation rates. The survey should ask: under what circumstances would
you participate in this energy improvement program? In which of these loan tier programs would
you be willing to participate? (see C.1.7)
Other municipalities (Berkeley, Boulder, Palm Desert) that are implementing this:
- attach various administrative fees (application fee $25, for example)
- have run an initial pilot (suggest we do this as well)
- open the application period for defined periods of time, like 6 weeks
- have routinely found that they!ve significantly underestimated customer demand for this
financing for energy improvements " by a factor of 10 in each case, sometimes in the first
week or two. It seems there are a larger number of early adopters usually interested
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
Appendix C - UVA !Top Ten" List
Excerpt from correspondence between Bill Dunnington and UVA staff and LEAP proposal team
members
By way of follow up, attached are potential ways that UVA and the LEAP are exploring how to engage
each other at least the current top ten list.
These are not wistful notions. Each of these targets a substantive issue in creating a sustainable energy
future in our region. Every one of these is on our LEAP work plan and is a candidate for Federal stimulus
funding. Every one of these has UVA faculty members we believe are interested, as well as "project
sponsors" on our LEAP team. Every one of these can be "chunked and segmented" into manageable sized
project initiatives.
I would add that each of these could begin here, in Charlottesville/Albemarle - and possibly be extended
to the 5 th District, as Tom Periello and his staff are actively pushing this forward for the 5 th District.
Additionally, Steve Walz, (the Director of the Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy for the
Commonwealth) and I are actively looking at ways to scale these into state-wide initiatives. To the extent
we can shape an effective collaboration between a city/county/university here, we may be building a
scaleable effort which teams of students could help migrate to other similar places around the state going
forward. A way to plug into the whole Power Shift dynamic that students are already driving.
1) A Viral Marketing Program for Energy Conservation and Efficiency
We need to develop, test, implement, measure and support a viral marketing approach to get people
interested in, and acting on ways to use energy better. There are clearly different market segments,
including the UVA Student community. Our team sponsor for this is Scott Hildebrand, Boldmouth
Communications, the creator of the "what’s in your wallet?" campaign for Capital One, and a seasoned
marketing professional. A terrific opportunity to apply social networking tools to a significant issue while
learning from a top tier marketeer.
2) A Renters/Landlords Program for Energy Efficiency
We have a very large proportion of renters in the City’s houses, many of them students. Cynthia Adams,
the Climate Protection Coordinator for the City of Charlottesville would be keen to work with a team of
students to crack the code on this issue, which will involve understanding how to get renters and
landlords past the split incentive problem and tracking on a more productive collaboration. This will
involve energy usage analysis, defining and advocating changes to the building codes that apply to
commercial renters, and finding out through action learning what it takes to influence the behavior of
renters and landlords to save energy, save money, and help save the planet. This gordian knot is about
policy, economics and behavior.
3) The Green Conservation Corps
We welcome help defining and implementing a green conservation corps for our region. See for
example www.greenforall.org as the national version of what we wish to create locally. We anticipate
creating a partnership with Van Jones’ Energy Council Office to implement a version here. I’m thinking
this could be a great project for a team of students to hook into a national program, and carry it out here
by adopting a local neighborhood (JPA, 10th and Page, Rose Hill, etc) and crafting a green conservation
Appendices
corps - students, neighborhood members, retirees, youth at risk - to engage in energy improvement.
Cynthia Adams is the point on our team for this initiative. This is a community and leadership
development pearl. I’m thinking Ed Berger would potentially be very interested in this. Count me in as
well.
4) Understanding the Regional Building Stock
We have 44,000 houses in our community, about 80% of them built before 1970. That’s about all we
know. We need an accelerated action research project to identify the high potential improvement
opportunities, to do energy audits, to catalog and build a data base of the most cost-effective energy
improvement strategies for the particular types of buildings we have here. SPARK has begun this effort
with a grant to do 25 houses, and some UVA students are already involved with Eric Gilchrist. LEAP will
be broadening and accelerating this effort - working with Paxton Marshall. There will need to be both a
residential version and a commercial building version. Paxton and I will likely be approaching DMME in
Richmond about proposing a regional and state-level version of this in the next few weeks.
5) ecoREMOD
For a variety of reasons, most of the thrust of the building, architecture and lending world has
aimed at the construction of new buildings - until recently, when the bottom fell out of the construction
market. We need to redirect this and help revive the construction cluster by retrofitting the
existing building stock. John Quale and Paxton Marshall have suggested crafting a new version
of ecoMOD : "ecoREMOD." It would focus on innovations to find out what it takes to renovate standing
buildings better, faster, cheaper using new materials, new building technologies and new craftsmanship
techniques. We have identified a handful of houses as candidates and are in the early stages of designing
this program. Just as in ecoMOD, there is ample room for teams of students. A first project could be to
put together a conference on the state of the art in retrofits. Myself and Cynthia Adams are the LEAP
point people for this.
6) Green Junior Achievement
We believe an outstanding concept for a student project (architecture, education and business students)
would be to design and implement a new version of a well established program - "green" junior
achievement to engage high school students in learning to start and run green businesses. Several
business organizations in town, (the Chamber, CBIC, Charlottesville Venture Partners) have expressed
interest in this - but I think it is the energy of university students that will make this work. Bob Pianta
(Curry) and Mike Lenox (Darden) may well be interested in this idea. In fact, no reason not to try a UVA
version as the pilot, perhaps with the E*Entrepreneurship Society. I am keen to lend my support to this.
7) Looking Ahead to Renewables
Several renewable generation technologies (solar, biomass, combined heat and power, ground source,
and to a lesser extent wind and small hydo) are candidates for further development and use in our region,
and some within the University itself. (contact Andrew Greene). Each one could become a design,
develop, deploy project for a team of students. Each could begin with a research phase, move to a
feasibility assessment, design conduct and assess results of a demonstration project, etc. I’m thinking that
the UVA Energy Leadership Group would probably take an active interest in a portfolio of such
initiatives. We at LEAP would be very pleased to cosponsor an initial charette to frame and focus this
area of initiative-taking, perhaps as soon as mid to late June for a first colloquium. Cynthia and I are the
point people for this on the LEAP side.
Appendices
8) Smart Grid
We are close to an agreement with Dominion about helping accelerate the deployment of smart meters
in our region. With installed smart meters come the possibility of any number of technology-centric
projects: to design and test new products for energy management; to understand consumption and
conservation behavior in a very granular fashion, to prepare the "smart garage" for plug in hybrids and
so on. I’ve not had a chance to contact Ron Williams about this, but I’m told he’s very knowledgeable in
this area. With some thinking and collaboration with Dominion, this might become a robust area of
learning - and the first research project would be to simply understand consumer perceptions, uptake and
use for home energy management as it rolls out this summer. I am the point on this for the LEAP team.
9) Water
Most of the Southeast, and much of the country is challenged with water conservation, efficiency and
supply issues. A most useful project would be to identify and understand the most cost effective practices
and programs around the country (or world) and to design demonstration projects. As an example,
tripling the rate of adoption of low flow toilets would make for an incredibly useful action learning
project, not to mention good t shirts. A larger and darker issue is how much growth our community can
continue to experience until we exceed the capacity of conservation, watersheds and groundwater. Kristel
Riddervold is the point on water for the LEAP team.
10) Research on the Most Effective Energy Efficiency Programs (or Components thereof)
Last summer, Efficiency Vermont hired a student, Merrian Fuller, to research the most effective
financing mechanisms for energy efficiency programs. She produced an incredibly valuable catalog of
funding schemes in use around the nation. I would be open to this for us, or almost any best practice,
state of the art research effort. Some other topics that leap to mind are:
- Effective green collar job training programs,
- A continuum of energy auditing techniques and their relative effectiveness/reliability,
- Best websites for energy efficiency;
- Most effective new customer acquisition methods;
- Most creative community marketing strategies....and the list goes on....
Megan, please circulate and post this list in the seven groups you!d identified as being highly interested.
If you think it would be helpful, I’d be happy to hold a couple of information/brown bag/exploratory
sessions at UVA. Just let me know.
Thank you in advance for being open to extending this collaboration of UVA and our community to this
energy and sustainability area. We agreed to meet monthly # so I!ll look forward to seeing you on the 17
of April.
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
Appendix D ! January 2009 Resolutions from the City and County
This section includes January 2009 resolutions from the City and County regarding commitments
to work collaboratively to address energy efficiency and climate change and specifically to
collaboration on developing a joint proposal for the SEEA grant.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY, CITY AND UNIVERSITY
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO ADDRESS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
WHEREAS, addressing energy efficiency and climate change will promote a cleaner
environment, a more prosperous economy and a higher quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia
have committed to promoting energy efficiency and climate change programs within their
respective organizations; and
WHEREAS, the County, City and University desire to work collaboratively to promote
energy efficiency and address climate change goals for the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville supports the County, City and University working cooperatively to discuss energy
and climate change opportunities, including collaborating on developing a joint proposal for the
Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance grant; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council will appoint a member of the City
Council and a member of the Planning Commission to be the City!s representatives in such
discussions and working groups.
Appendices
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY, CITY AND UNIVERSITY
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO ADDRESS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
WHEREAS, addressing energy efficiency and climate change will promote a cleaner
environment, a more prosperous economy and a higher quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia
have committed to promoting energy efficiency and climate change programs within their
respective organizations; and
WHEREAS, the County, City and University desire to work collaboratively to promote
energy efficiency and address climate change goals for the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors supports the County, City and University working cooperatively to discuss energy
and climate change opportunities, including collaborating on developing a joint proposal for the
Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance grant; and
FURTHER RESOLVED to appoint a member of the Board of Supervisors and a
member of the Planning Commission, to be the County!s representatives in such discussions and
working groups.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
M r. Boyd ____ ____
M r. Dorrier ____ ____
M s. M allek ____ ____
M r. Rooker ____ ____
M r. Slutzky ____ ____
M s. Thomas ____ ____
________________________________________________________________________
Appendices
Appendix D ! M ay 2009 County Board of Supervisors &
City Council Reports and Resolutions
County of Albemarle Executive Summary for the Board of Supervisors
AGENDA TITLE:
SEEA Grant Proposal Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Passing of SEEA Grant Resolution
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Shadm an, Tem ple
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
M ay 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On Decem ber 5, 2007 the Board of Supervisors unanim ously adopted the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization
Declaration com m itting to reduce the County"s greenhouse gas em issions by 80% by 2050. A baseline greenhouse
gas em issions inventory has been com pleted by staff. This inventory data, along with the City of Charlottesville"s data,
reveal that energy consum ption by the existing building stock (residential and com m ercial) is the m ajor contributor to
greenhouse gas em issions. As such, a clear strategy is needed to address cost savings, energy savings and em ission
reductions by property owners in the com m unity.
On January 14, 2009 the Board passed a resolution authorizing the County to work collaboratively with the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia to address energy efficiency and clim ate change, including collaboration
on the developm ent of a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant. SEEA is a non-
profit organization that prom otes energy-efficient policies and practices by bringing together governm ents, businesses,
environm ental organizations, low-incom e energy advocates, large energy consum ers, universities and others to
prom ote energy-efficient policies and practices.
This grant opportunity, issued in February 2009, will provide up to $500,000 to a city, county or regional organization in
one of the eleven southeastern states to design and im plem ent a com m unity energy alliance (the Request for
Proposals, or RFP, also refers to this as an #operating com pany’) that would work to achieve unprecedented gas,
electricity, and water savings by retrofitting buildings and installing renewable technologies in all end-use sectors.
Goals outlined in the RFP include 30-50% m arket penetration, 20-40% com prehensive efficiency gain / conservation, a
5-7 year perform ance period, and a replicable m odel.
According to the letter of intent sent to SEEA, the proposed local energy alliance would help tie together, leverage, and
accelerate local efforts in energy efficiency and clim ate protection, com m unity design, and workforce developm ent.
Supporters of the proposal m ay include the County, the City of Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Com m unity Design
Center / SPARK* Initiative, Piedm ont Virginia Com m unity College, and the University of Virginia. The grant proposal
deadline is M ay 15, 2009.
The RFP suggests that this com m unity energy alliance could be m odeled after the Cam bridge Energy Alliance (CEA),
a non-profit corporation that provides financing and assistance for Cam bridge, M assachusetts residents and
businesses in the form of loans to m ake energy efficiency im provem ents, the costs of which are anticipated to be offset
by utility bill savings.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1 - Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
Goal 2 ! Protect the County"s Natural Resources
Appendices
DISCUSSION:
Enabling Legislation Issue
The overall purpose of the SEEA grant is for a locality to use the awarded funds to establish a com m unity energy
alliance or !operating com pany" to im plem ent the program . Currently the County and the City do not have the enabling
authority from the State to establish an !operating com pany" as part of a com m unity energy alliance as envisioned by
the RFP and as dem onstrated by m odel program s such as the Cam bridge Energy Alliance. The goals of a com m unity
energy alliance, however, are com patible with existing City and County environm ental sustainability goals, therefore
the approach the City and County will take in respect to the RFP will be unique.
The current approach the County and City plan to undertake is to identify in the proposal the legislative constraints and
barriers to establishing an operating com pany as described in the RFP, identify strategies towards addressing these
roadblocks, and continue the developm ent of partnership opportunities and links between the range of local and
regional interests involved with this proposal.
Although the City and County are not currently authorized to establish an operating com pany as described in the RFP,
the recent passing of SB 1212 by the Com m onwealth of Virginia enables the County and City to authorize and issue,
by ordinance, contracts to provide loans for the initial acquisition and installation of clean energy im provem ents. It
enables Virginia localities to establish public-private financing initiatives to help property owners to m ake energy
efficiency and renewable energy im provem ents to their hom es and businesses.
Therefore, if awarded the grant, the City and County#s approach m ay include:
x Using of a portion of the awarded funds to draft m odel legislation and obtain enabling authority so that
cities and counties in Virginia are able to form independent local entities or !operating com panies" to
act as local energy alliances and undertake activities currently prohibited by the State. This would
also help m ake this a replicable effort (one of the goals identified in the RFP).
x Using the authority granted to localities in SB 1212, enter into a !joint exercise of powers" agreem ent
with the City to establish a unified loan program that could finance the private acquisition and
installation of clean energy im provem ents in the com m ercial and residential sectors.
x Designating a tem porary !operating com pany" (i.e. the State of Virginia itself or the grantor, SEEA)
until the County and City have the enabling authority to form an operating com pany for this endeavor.
x Evaluating a range of other adm inistrative and logistical steps necessary to im plem ent this type of
program .
Benefits and Opportunities
The proposal team , consisting of a consultant hired by the State, State representatives, City and County elected
leaders and staff, and University of Virginia representatives and staff, believes this is a tim ely venture given all of the
recent national attention regarding energy efficiency and clim ate protection. Significant efforts are underway to analyze
the energy characteristics of the com m unity#s building stock. The team has been in discussions with Dom inion Virginia
Power in order to gage their support, and Piedm ont Virginia Com m unity College (PVCC) is interested in being the local
sponsor for the hom e perform ance assessm ent program , building in quality assurance and work credibility. They see
this effort as one that would create and support !good green jobs," and could help to revitalize the area#s construction
sector. At this m om ent, there is significant public and private interest regarding the developm ent of a local energy
alliance (see Attachm ent A for a non-exhaustive listing).
Com pelling cases have been m ade that an effort of this kind and m agnitude can be extrem ely effective in order to
reduce greenhouse gas em issions in the residential and com m ercial sectors on an 80% by 2050 pace. An additional,
practical reason to pursue this grant is that the work, analyses, and initiatives undertaken for the developm ent of the
SEEA application are relevant to the preparation of applications for Federal Stim ulus funds from other sources, such as
the Departm ent of Energy.
Resolution
The RFP calls for a Resolution addressing the localities# support towards subm ission of this proposal.
(See Attachm ent C).
Appendices
If the Board chooses to apply for the SEEA Grant, staff agrees that it would strengthen the application to include a
reference in the Resolution that the County would consider using a portion of the formula Energy Efficiency Block
Grant (EECBG) funds (additional information regarding the County s EECBG funds is included in Attachment B)
the County expects to receive in stimulus funding in support of applicable energy efficiency-related programs in
the residential and commercial sectors, which are efforts consistent with the SEEA grant goals. Given that a
resolution is called for in the RFP, this would help demonstrate the County s commitment to the establishment of
a community-wide energy efficiency effort, and ensure that the SEEA grant proposal is as competitive as
possible. Staff further recommends that, while it is listed as an eligible activity, the County s federal stimulus funds
should not be included in a revolving loan fund or other activity that will result in long-term monitoring and
compliance requirements. In addition, the County s EECBG funds would need to be allocated to activities that
meet all federal, state and local requirements, including applicable procurement laws
Timeline
According to the RFP, the County and City will be informed by M ay 30th as to whether they have been selected as
a finalist for the SEEA grant, and the grant will be awarded by June 20th. Since the County is not required to
submit an application and strategy for its EECBG funds until June 25th, staff will still have time to make
adjustments, if desired, to its strategy included in our EECBG application, if the SEEA grant is not obtained.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If awarded the $500,000 SEEA grant, the County would use its share of these funds in accordance with the
potential uses described above.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - List of organizations with which local energy alliance discussions and planning have occurred
Attachment B - EECGB Fund Information
Attachment C - Resolution
Appendices
Attachment A: List of organizations with which local energy alliance discussions and planning
have occurred
x Charlottesville City Council members
x Albemarle Board of Supervisors
x Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
x Environmental Protection Agency!s ENERGY STAR (Residential and Commercial)
x Dominion Virginia Power
x Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
x Charlottesville Community Design Center (CCDC)/SPARK
x Piedmont Housing Alliance
x Community Energy Conservation Program
x City Neighborhood Development Services (NDS)
x Director of Planning for County of Albemarle
x Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA)
x Jefferson Area Board for the Aging (JABA)
x United Way
x Charlottesville Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Task Force
x City’s Housing Advisory Committee and County’s Chief of Housing
x TJPDC, Economic Development Departments, Charlottesville and Albemarle County
x Principal, Hearthwood Apartments
x Charlottesville Quality Community Council (QCC)
x Habitat for Humanity
x Building Performance Institute (BPI)
x Earth Craft
x Blue Ridge Building Council
x US Green Building Council, James River chapter
x Virginia Sustainable Building Network (VSBN)
x Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors
x Virginia Housing Development Authority
x Virginia Resource Authority
x VML/VACO Finance Company
x University of Virginia
o Provost/Academic Community Engagement
o Office of the Architect
o Miller Center
o Architecture, Curry, Darden, McIntire, Engineering, Environmental Studies,
Public Policy and Leadership
x Numerous local construction firms, architects, energy consultancies, HVAC companies
and other trade partners.
Appendices
Attachment B - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Information
Due to its population size and other factors, the County has been notified of its eligibility to received a
$406,000 appropriation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program from the Department of Energy (DOE)..
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), EECBG funds can be used community-wide, not only
for government owned facilities and infrastructure.
The following activities are eligible to be funded with EECBG stimulus funds, however, the County may or
may not have enabling authority to undertake all of them:
x Development of an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and Technical Consultant
Services to assist in the development of such a strategy.
x Residential and Commercial Building Energy Audits.
x Financial Incentive Programs and Mechanisms for energy efficiency improvements such as
energy savings performance contracting, on-bill financing, and revolving loan funds.
x Grants to nonprofit organizations and governmental agencies for the purpose of performing
Energy Efficiency Retrofits.
x Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs for Buildings and Facilities.
x Development and Implementation of Transportation Programs to conserve energy.
x Building Codes and Inspections to promote building energy efficiency.
x Energy Distribution Technologies that significantly increase energy efficiency, including
distributed resources, combined heat and power, and district heating and cooling systems.
x Material Conservation Programs including source reduction, recycling, and recycled content
procurement programs that lead to increases in energy efficiency.
x Reduction and Capture of Methane and Greenhouse Gases generated by landfills or similar
waste-related sources.
x Energy efficient Traffic Signals and Street Lighting.
x Renewable Energy Technologies on Government Buildings.
x Any Other Appropriate Activity that meets the purposes of the program and is approved by DOE.
The DOE emphasizes that this one-time stimulus-funded EECBG funding will have a maximum impact if
they create and/or retain jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term while also establishing a
foundation for a long-term and sustainable clean energy economy. While localities can expend their
formula block grant funds on any eligible activity best meets the locality!s needs, DOE encourages
recipients to prioritize programs and projects that will:
x Leverage other public and private resources.
x Enhance workforce development.
x Persist beyond the funding period.
x Promote energy market transformation such as revolving loans, low-cost loans, energy savings
performance contracting, advanced building codes, building and home retrofit incentives and
policies, and transportation programs and policies.
The County will be required to report regularly to the DOE on: 1) Jobs created and/or retained , 2) Energy
savings on a per dollar invested basis (ROI), 3) Renewable energy capacity installed, 4) Greenhouse gas
emissions reduced and 5) funds leveraged.
The County may also be eligible to submit competitive applications for additional EECBG grant funding.
Appendices
Attachment C County Resolution
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE SEEA GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2009, the County of Albemarle passed a resolution to
support the County, City and University working collaboratively to address energy efficiency and
climate change; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2009, the County of Albemarle passed a resolution
requesting enabling legislation to implement a clean energy financing program, which has been
realized in the passing of the State of Virginia!s Senate Bill 1212; and
WHEREAS, a clean energy financing program is a key component of an effective local
energy alliance, as described in the SEEA grant RFP; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a local energy alliance or "operating company# as
described in the SEEA grant RFP by localities is dependent upon enabling legislation and can
only be developed if permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, with the acknowledgement of Virginia local governments! current limitations,
the County is pleased to support a SEEA grant proposal; and
WHEREAS, the creation and implementation of a local energy alliance or operating
company would assist the community in achieving important goals and underscores our
commitment to energy efficiency, affordable housing, renewable technologies, and greenhouse
gas emissions reduction; and
WHEREAS, the County may request that SEEA or the State of Virginia act as a
temporary operating company for the purposes of the grant, until enabling legislation can be
obtained; and
WHEREAS, the County would collaborate with the operating company to develop the
capabilities, programs, and services our community needs with respect to its energy use $
education, conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable generation; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to work closely with the local energy alliance, if
established, and operating company to promote a variety of energy efficiency campaigns and
programs (e.g., for owner-occupied residences, the business/commercial sector, rental
properties, neighborhood campaigns, etc.), and to incorporate workforce and economic
development into these campaigns, as well as into the overall regional effort, through both
systemic and episodic strategies; and
WHEREAS, the County will continue to implement an aggressive internal energy
conservation program towards our goal of 30% energy reduction from County buildings by 2012,
which includes a goal of increased use of renewable energy such as solar panels, and the
continuation of maintaining our community demonstration green roof and rain garden projects;
and
Appendices
WHEREAS, the County intends to consider using a portion of the Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds in support of applicable energy efficiency-related
programs in the residential and commercial sectors; and
WHEREAS, the County plans to demonstrate financial support in the near term by
pursuit of competitive energy-related grants, and will continue to contribute staff time,
information and resources towards this overall effort; and
WHEREAS, the County will continue to evaluate opportunities for future financial support
of this effort on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, the County looks forward to working with our partners on the continued
development and implementation of this effort, and are hopeful for the successful award of the
SEEA grant.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the County, jointly with the City of Charlottesville, applying for
SEEA grant funds and will provide support, in all of the ways described above, helping establish
a model community energy efficiency program so that other localities in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, as well as throughout the southeastern U.S., will be able to replicate this effort.
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: May 4, 2009
Action Required: Endorsement of SEEA grant letter of support
Presenter: Judith Mueller, Director of Public W orks
Staff Contacts: Cynthia Adams, Kristel Riddervold, Lance Stewart
Title: Local Energy Alliance Program Proposal Update
Background:
In 2006 the City Council supported the City as a signatory to the US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Data and reports published in
2008/2009 regarding community (City/County) greenhouse gas emissions clearly state that
energy consumption by the existing building stock (residential and commercial) is the major
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. As such, a clear strategy is needed to address both
cost/energy savings and emission reductions by property owners in the community.
In Jan 2009, Council passed a resolution to work collaboratively with the County of Albemarle
and the University of Virginia to address energy efficiency and climate change, including
collaboration on the development of a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency
Alliance (SEEA) grant (County passed a similar resolution). This grant opportunity, issued in
February 2009, is a call to cities and counties in the eleven southeastern states to design and
implement an effort to achieve unprecedented gas, electricity, and water savings by retrofitting
buildings and installing renewable technologies in all end use sectors.
According to the letter of intent that was sent to SEEA with partner signatures, the proposed
local energy alliance initiative, will help tie together, leverage, and accelerate local efforts in
energy climate protection, community design, and workforce development.
Goals outlined in the grant included:
x 30-50% deep market penetration
x 20-40% comprehensive efficiency gain / conservation
x 5-7 year performance period
x Replicable model
Proposed program founders include:
x City of Charlottesville
x County of Albemarle
x University of Virginia
x Charlottesville Community Design Center / SPARK! Initiative
x Piedmont Virginia Community College
x Dominion Virginia Power
Appendices
The grant proposal deadline is May 15, 2009
Discussion:
The following points are relevant to the development of a local energy efficiency program:
x The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy is funding a local consultant to
assist in the development of this grant. An important underlying goal is to create a local
energy efficiency program model that is appropriate to our region, but also adaptable to
and replicable in other Commonwealth communities.
x Governor Kaine recently signed SB1212. This bill enables localities to authorize, by
ordinance, contracts to provide loans for the initial acquisition and installation of clean
energy improvements. It enables Virginia localities to establish public-private financing
initiatives to help property owners to make energy efficiency and renewable energy
improvements to their homes and businesses.
x Local workforce development opportunities are timely. PVCC is interested in being the
local sponsor for Building Performance Institute (BPI) Home Performance Assessment
program ! building in quality assurance and work credibility. This is further endorsed
and being pursued with EPA"s Home Performance with Energy Star program.
x Significant efforts are underway to analyze the energy characteristics of our existing
building stock. The better we understand it and peoples" interests in participating, the
sharper our energy goals, program design, and delivery mechanisms can be defined.
x W e are in discussions with one of our largest utility providers (Dominion Virginia
Power) to align their energy management initiatives (to be filed with the Virginia State
Corporation Commission this summer) with our grant proposal and its proposed energy
initiatives. Significant progress is being made.
x There is an important connection between this program and priority goals of affordable
housing because energy costs are often highest in this type of housing and its occupants
are often least able to absorb energy cost increases.
x The program proposal aims to establish a market-centric, self-sustaining approach that
realizes greater outcomes than the traditional grant-based approach and has investment
appeal.
x Based on the involvement of the local public education education/outreach program
known as SPARK# in the LEAP effort, the opportunity exists to leverage its excellent
work in forging the proposed local energy alliance and creating the delivery mechanism
for broad-range and broad-scale energy efficiency strategies (i.e., weatherization,
retrofits, renewable energy)
x In the near term, we believe such an effort can create good $good green jobs,% and that
the retrofitting / energy efficiency effort will help revitalize our construction sector which has
been so devastated in this recession. Looking ahead to a recovering economy, prospects for
Federal energy legislation, and President Obama"s clear intention to build a new economy
around energy, we believe this effort positions us well to play our part in and benefit from
creating a new energy sector in our regional economy.
Appendices
The overarching goal in forming this local energy alliance (LEAP) is to tie together, strengthen,
and leverage the region s unique assets into a community-based alliance that contributes to a
sustainable energy future.
At this moment, there is significant public and private interest and momentum regarding the
development of a local energy alliance (see Attachment A for a non-exhaustive listing of the
many organizations with which discussions and planning efforts have been underway).
The SEEA Grant Proposal Team anticipates being able to craft a program proposal that is
substantive enough to submit in response to the SEEA grant opportunity. It is important to note
that award of the grant would fund development of the fuller program (this proposal is the plan
for the plan ).
The proposal team has also come to believe that this effort can and should be pursued on its own
merits, even if we don t win the SEEA grant. As mentioned above, an effort of this kind and
magnitude is needed in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the existing residential and
commercial sectors on an aggressive pace of 80% by 2050. An additional, practical reason is that
the work, analyses, programs and initiatives needed for the SEEA application are completely
relevant to the preparation of applications for Federal Stimulus Funds from other sources,
including the Department of Energy.
Budget Impact:
x If awarded the $500,000 SEEA grant, the City will use its share of these funds towards
establishing the local energy alliance,
x Designation of ~$195K of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
funds for energy efficiency improvements in residential and commercial sectors through
revolving loans and other related needs/opportunities),
x Continuation of the Home Energy Conservation Grant Program ($125K per year) to link
with LEAP,
x Focus Capital Improvement Program funds ($100K) for the renovation/remodel of a
blighted residence to serve as an educational, community resource for energy efficiency
and renewables (Energy House ).
x Continue to provide support towards this overall effort through staff time and information
sharing, and participation in pursuit of other energy-related grants and other funding
opportunities.
Alternatives: Do not proceed with the local energy alliance program proposal. Determine how
to address this challenge/need/expectation/strategy in the near future in an as yet undetermined
fashion.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council endorse the SEEA grant proposal letter
of support
Appendices
Attachment A - List of organizations and entities with which
local energy alliance discussions and planning has occurred
x Charlottesville City Council
x Albemarle Board of Supervisors
x Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME)
x Environmental Protection Agency!s ENERGY STAR Program
(Residential and Commercial)
x Dominion Virginia Power
x Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Construction Academy
x Charlottesville Community Design Center (CCDC)/SPARK" Initiative
x Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
x Community Energy Conservation Program (CECP)
x City Departments of Public Works and Neighborhood Development Services
x Director of Planning for County of Albemarle
x City’s Housing Advisory Committee and County’s Chief of Housing
x Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA)
x Charlottesville Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Task Force
x Charlottesville Economic Development Department
x Jefferson Area Board for the Aging (JABA)
x United Way
x Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
x Principal, Hearthwood Apartments
x Charlottesville Quality Community Council (QCC)
x Habitat for Humanity
x Building Performance Institute (BPI)
x EarthCraft
x Blue Ridge Building Council
x US Green Building Council, James River chapter
x Virginia Sustainable Building Network (VSBN)
x Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors
x Virginia Housing Development Authority
x Virginia Resource Authority
x VML/VACO Finance Company
x University of Virginia
o Provost/Academic Community Engagement
o Office of the Architect
o Miller Center
o Architecture, Curry, Darden, McIntire, Engineering, Environmental Studies,
Public Policy and Leadership
x Numerous local construction firms, architects, energy consultancies, HVAC companies and other
trade partners.
Appendices
Attachment B SEEA Grant Letter of Support
Appendices
Appendices
Attachment C City Resolution
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE
SOUTHEAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE (SEEA) GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville passed a resolution in January 2009 to support
the County, City, and University working collaboratively to address energy efficiency and climate
change; and
WHEREAS, the authorization for localities to establish clean energy financing programs
has been realized in the recent passing of Senate Bill 1212; and
WHEREAS, a clean energy financing program is important component of an effective
local energy alliance, as described in the SEEA grant Request for Proposal; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a local energy alliance is dependent upon enabling
legislation and will be developed within the current legal parameters of the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the City is pleased to submit a letter of support and commitment as part of
our SEEA grant proposal; and
WHEREAS, the creation and implementation of a local energy alliance will assist us in
achieving important community goals and underscores our commitment to energy efficiency,
affordable housing, renewable technologies, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction; and
WHEREAS, the City will collaborate with and support a new, separate, alliance-based
organization (currently referred to as !LEAP") to develop the capabilities, programs, and
services our community needs with respect to its energy use # education, conservation, energy
efficiency, and renewable generation # to create a sustainable energy future for us all; and
WHEREAS, the City commits to working with LEAP in a sustained effort of five to seven
years to achieve comprehensive gas, electricity and water savings by retrofitting buildings and
installing renewable technologies in all end use sectors and to help define and pursue energy
and water conservation initiatives in support of our current imperatives as well as emerging
needs, interests and priorities, including, as appropriate, evaluation of opportunities to modify
policies, practices, incentives and building codes to accomplish the above; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to work closely with LEAP and its founders to sponsor and
promote a variety of discrete energy campaigns and programs (e.g., for owner-occupied
residences, the business/commercial sector, rental properties, neighborhood campaigns, etc.)
and to incorporate workforce and economic development into these campaigns, as well as into
the overall regional effort, through both systemic and episodic strategies; and
WHEREAS, the City will demonstrate financial support in the near term through
designation of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds (~$195K for
energy efficiency improvements in residential and commercial sectors through revolving loans
and other related needs/opportunities), continuation of the Home Energy Conservation Grant
Appendices
Program ($125K per year), and the use of Capital Improvement Program funds for the
renovation/remodel of a blighted residence to serve as an educational, community resource for
energy efficiency and renewables (Energy House - $100K); and
WHEREAS, the City plans to provide further support in the near term by assisting LEAP
in the pursuit of competitive energy-related grants, and we will continue to contribute staff time,
information and resources towards this overall effort; and
WHEREAS, the City looks forward to working with our partners on the continued
development and implementation of LEAP and are hopeful for the successful award of the
grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville hereby supports the City, jointly with the County of Albemarle, applying for SEEA
grant funds that will allow us to provide critical funding to help take LEAP from concept to reality,
establishing it as a functioning model program for other communities in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, as well as other communities in the southeastern U.S. to follow.
Appendices
Appendix F ! LEAP and Hom e Perform ance with Energy Star W hite Paper
HPwES: A Brief Description
Home Performance with Energy Star is a comprehensive energy efficiency program for
residential building stock with strict requirements and standards for sponsor and contractor
participation. It incorporates building science best practices such as:
- an in depth energy audit (called a Comprehensive Home Energy Audit)
- Building Performance Institute standards and certifications
- testing in and out procedures
- third party quality assurance and conflict resolution procedures
- programmatic reporting requirements
A well-capitalized and well-marketed HPwES program is a powerful driver for economic
development, as well as reducing homeowner utility bills and a community!s contribution to
global warming. HPwES was conceived as a market-based approach to promote the house as a
system heuristic and uses highly trained building analysts to perform audits and diagnose
efficiency, health, and safety problems in the home. Sponsors for the program are typically
utilities, state energy offices, and municipalities. Because of the time and budgetary commitment
needed to implement the program successfully, sponsors must submit a formal application to
EPA, and with it detail their approach to roll out, marketing, training, implementation, and
quality assurance.
HPwES was first implemented by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, or NYSERDA. Of the approximately 40,000 homes retrofitted through the program,
25,000 have come through NYSERDA. NYSERDA!s HPwES program was also the birthplace
of the Building Performance Institute!s (BPI) standards and certifications, which have now
become the industry standard for contractor performance and quality assurance. HPwES has
expanded to include programs in 22 states. When considering the merits of HPwES, one source
we have begun directing folks to is the Rapid Deployment Energy Efficiency Program Planning
Guide jointly published by DOE and EPA. This document was written specifically to provide
guidance to state energy offices in allocating Stimulus funds to energy efficiency programs.
These are the points it makes concerning HPwES:
- Im pact on Jobs. Per dollar spent, HPwES results in perhaps more new job
opportunities than any other program. Leveragable training staff and curricula for this
program exist in many parts of the country. Further, these jobs often entail skills that
prepare the employee for a broad range of potential future opportunities in the fields
of home services and energy efficiency. In addition, bill savings by residences tend to
recirculate in the economy to a greater degree than do savings by commercial or
industrial customers, and therefore have a greater multiplier effect on jobs and
economic activity.
Appendices
- Collaboration and Leverage of Funds. HPwES provides an excellent opportunity to
collaborate with EPA/DOE, utility companies, state and local agencies, local trade
allies and their associations, as well as the building science and consulting
communities. The program also benefits from the considerable brand recognition and
value associated with the ENERGY STAR program.
- Significance of Program Savings. On a !per job" basis, HPwES provides a lesser
impact on energy and environmental emissions than many commercial or industrial
programs. However, the potential participant base is very large, consisting of all
owner-occupied dwellings older than just a few years, and the measures installed by
the program typically have long lives and persist even if home ownership changes.
Not only does this large base provide an opportunity for large impacts, it also
provides an equitable and highly visible opportunity for the largest single group of
tax-payers to participate in a program and benefit from ARRA stimulus dollars.
Further, the potential impact of the program is (after the initial introduction) largely
scalable and a function of the budget dedicated to the program.
- Sustainability and Market Transformation. Through its broad outreach and
education components, HPwES creates a more educated and aware public. The need
to be sensitive to energy issues and the basic understanding of energy systems and
financial payback principles will be retained by participants long after their initial
contact with the program. This will result in spillover benefits to other energy
investments or behavioral changes they may consider in the future, even if they are
not elements of the HPwES program.
LEAP has been working with several individuals at EPA, notably Chandler von Schrader, who
has provided advice and networking to us in this process. DOE has also funded a LEAP team
member#s attendance at the Home Performance with Energy Star Symposium in Kansas City
held in April this year. (Knowledge gleaned and connections made from this Symposium, as well
as the American Comfort Institute#s conference, have been invaluable to our program
development.) EPA is committed to growing HPwES in Virginia and coincidentally will be
launching a pilot in Northern Virginia in fall of 2009. The Northern Virginia Pilot
implementation scheme has not been tried before: it will take a direct to the contractor approach,
i.e., it is unsponsored. Our program falls on the complete opposite end of the spectrum in terms
of management and coordination. We will have clear goals for numbers of contractors trained
and homes completed, and we will be actively working to meet those goals. A last to be decided
concerns our partner Dominion Power. Dominion is being strongly encouraged by the state,
DOE, and EPA to sponsor HPwES, and so they are now considering sponsoring both the
Northern Virginia pilot and LEAP as they ascertain which direction might be best for them to
follow should they decide to fully sponsor HPwES in the future.
Appendices
Program Goals for LEAP and HPwES
Goals for LEAP s HPwES program are based on SEEA s RFP:
20% - 40% efficiency gain per structure
30% - 50% market penetration
5 ! 7 years to do it
Admittedly these are very aggressive goals; no other HPwES program has done anything to this
scale before. However, if one talks to others in the industry, the consensus is that scale is just
what we need. We need it to grow home performance contracting, and we need it to make a
noticeable dent in our country s energy use. Fortunately for our program, because EPA, DOE,
BPI, and other large stakeholders are focused on getting to scale, there will be resources devoted
to this in the coming months and years, which we in LEAP will of course take advantage of. We
may not have the advantage of a "to scale# role model, but we will be working our way through
this process together.
The Rapid Deployment Energy Efficiency Program Planning Guide estimates that the average
cost per completed home in Year 1 of a HPwES program is $7500, lowering to $7000 in Year 2,
and to $5000 by Year 3. However, the scale associated with these costs is 250 homes in Year 1,
750 homes in Year 2, and 1500 homes in Year 3. For our particular application of HPwES, we re
assuming that the economies of scale LEAP s goals are driving would also drive down the cost
and learning curve rather quickly, given that the least number of homes we would do in the first
year is 500. Notably, though, we also have a large potential client base which we think will be
interested in renewables. Given this, we have averaged estimated energy retrofit cost to
$7000/home. Breakdown of trade/work performed typically in HPwES Program:
HVAC 40%
Window replacement 25%
Air sealing 95%
Duct sealing 75% - 85%
Adding insulation 75% - 85%
Appendices
Sample Ramp Up of Homes and Nominal Dollars Spent to Fund EE Retrofits
M arket
Goals
Total
Residential
# W AP/LIHEAP
Eligible # Yr 1 # Yr 2 # Yr 3 ! 7 ea
51,000 16,000 homes
eligible at 200% of
median income
50%
25,500
25,146
minus those
grant funded
W AP: 290 homes
Stimulus funded;
$6500 per home;
pro-rated by
population from
CECP $6,500,000
funds)
LIHEAP: 64
homes/yr (3 yr
contract)
700
(24,446)
2100
(22,282
includes 64/yr
from LIHEAP)
4,444
(0 includes
64/yr from
LIHEAP)
Cost for retrofits:$4,900,000 at
$7,000/home $14,700,000/yr $31,108,000/yr
$155,540,000
Total for retrofits: $189,840,000
40%
20,400
20,046
minus those
grant funded
W AP: 290 homes
Stimulus funded;
$6500 per home;
pro-rated by
population from
CECP $6,500,000
funds)
LIHEAP: 64
homes/yr (3 yr
contract)
500
(19,546)
1500
(17,982
includes 64/yr
from LIHEAP)
3,584
(0 includes
64/yr from
LIHEAP)
Cost for retrofits:$3,500,000 at
$7,000/home $10,500,000 $25,088,000/yr
$125,440,000
Total for retrofits: $149,940,000
30%
15,300
14,946
minus those
grant funded
W AP: 290 homes
Stimulus funded;
$6500 per home;
pro-rated by
population from
CECP $6,500,000
funds)
LIHEAP: 64
homes/yr (3 yr
contract)
500
(14,382)
1000
(13,318
includes 64/yr
from LIHEAP)
2,664
(0 includes
64/yr from
LIHEAP)
Cost for retrofits:$3,500,000 at
$7,000/home $7,000,000 $18,648,000/yr
$93,240,000
Total for retrofits: $110,740,000
Appendices
Critical Component: Workforce Development
In the many conversations we have had in researching the workforce development of other s
programs, the most important concern has been: Do you set the bar high for your contractors in
terms of training and quality knowing it will take longer to build your contractor base, or do
you invite a larger crowd in to begin with and follow up with heavy duty quality assurance in
the back end? Obviously there are pros and cons with each perspective, and most programs do
some of both. It is, however, a critical decision point from a program development perspective.
We believe that LEAP s goals will be better served by setting the bar higher on the front end.
Because there are health and safety issues in involved, because our community is close-knit,
because our local governments reputation/credibility is attached to it ! for these reasons and
many others, we will set our standards high and get the jobs done correctly the first time. The
opportunity for abuse exists whenever large sums of money are involved. With the passage of the
Stimulus bill, many program implementers have been overwhelmed with interest from
contractors, "Everyone wants a seat at the table, but they don t even know what they re eating or
how much it will cost,# as one program manager put it. A well-trained and competent workforce
is something we have to get right.
To that end part of LEAP s staffing will include 3 energy efficiency technical advisors, also BPI
trained, who will both mentor and perform 3rd party verification functions for the program. BPI
offers several types of certification, all of which take a "building as a system# approach:
x BPI Certified Building Analyst Professional
x BPI Certified Envelope Professional
x BPI Certified Heating Professional
x BPI Certified AC & Heat Pump Professional
We are fortunate, indeed, to be able to include Piedmont Virginia Community College s
Construction Academy in our Alliance, for PVCC is on the road to becoming a BPI Affiliate.
PVCC will act as the training center for our energy efficiency professionals, offering BPI
training certifications as part of their core curriculum and in periodic seminars for the contracting
community. They will also be able to hold less money and time intensive courses for other
segments of the construction industry to educate framers, painters, air sealers, and insulators on
best practices to build or remodel for energy efficiency. Resources we will rely on for training
needs include:
x NYSERDA ! they have a well-developed curriculum for the community college system
we can license (M aryland will be using theirs too)
x Anthony Cox ! Anthony is a nationally known trainer and building science specialist
with Community Housing Partners in Christiansburg, VA
x Association of Energy Conservation Professionals ! AECP s Bill Beechy and Billy
Weitzenfeld have committed to helping in any way they can with developing seminars
and curriculum tailored to our weather and building stock
Appendices
We are also working with our three major construction organizations: Associated General
Contractors, Blue Ridge National Home Builders, and the James River Green Building Council,
and have their support in implementing the HPwES program.
Currently we have 5 businesses which provide home energy audits and services, and several of
them have auditors who have completed the BPI written test and will be following up with the
field test in a few weeks. An auditor must be BPI Building Analyst certified to perform a
Comprehensive Home Energy Audit (CHEA). All property owners who participate in HPwES
must have a Comprehensive Home Energy Audit, regardless of from where they receive their
funding. Additionally, we will have two tiers of contractor certification and relative involvement.
Tier 1 ! To participate at all in HPwES, contractors must complete a full day course on
basic building science or Home Performance 101. An independent Building Analyst must
perform the CHEA.
Tier 2 ! To be eligible to work on LEAP financed HPwES jobs, the contractor must be
BPI Accredited. Because BPI Accreditation includes its own 3rd party quality assessment
in addition to LEAP"s quality assurance follow up, Accredited Contractors may perform
their own audits if they desire.
Through this system we are seeking to balance our desire to see accreditation take root with our
knowledge that the additional certifications required to become accredited may be out of reach
for some contractors for a time. Those who do achieve accreditation will receive recognition,
additional marketing kudos, and the ability to offer financing to their customers.
Program Requirement HPwES LEAP funded HPwES
Sign and annually renew their Participation Agreement X X
BPI certified Building Analyst performs all CHEAs X X
Business must be BPI Accredited X
Follow homeowner complaint/dispute procedures X X
Follow program specified work standards X X
Quality control procedures X X
Programmatic 3rd party verification of work performed X X
BPI 3rd party verification of work performed X
Promptly file program paperwork X X
Participate in the HPwES mentoring program X X
Approximate contractor investment for training and tools ranges between $8,000 - $25,000,
depending on whether the contractor is beginning from scratch. We are proposing that LEAP
subsidize some of the training for contractors but link it to participation in the program, i.e.,
reward participation. After the contractor has completed 5 projects successfully, LEAP would
refund $1000 of associated training costs.
Appendices
The Mentoring Program requirement is a critical component to HPwES. It will require that a
LEAP Energy Efficiency Technical Advisor work directly with a contractor in the field on their
first 3 jobs. This mentor(s) would also be available for specific questions on subsequent jobs
should the contractor need him. Sample subjects we expect to come up with this include:
remediation, tricky front end diagnostics, and structure specific issues (how to block-and-seal a
Cape Cod, for example).
3rd party verification, which is required for LEAP and HPwES, would work as follows: the first 5
jobs for every contractor new to the HPwES program must be inspected, and the associated cost
for this would be covered by LEAP if the contractor is Accredited and funded partially by the
contractor if he is not. After the first 5 jobs have been approved, approximately 50% of a
contractor s subsequent work would be inspected through the following 6 months, tapering off to
20% thereafter. Again, our intent is for the EE Technical Advisors to perform these inspections.
BPI Accredited Contractors are subject to BPI s independent QA process, which is currently set
at 5% of their work.
To reach a 30% market penetration goal (the minimum required for the SEEA grant RFP), we
will have to audit approximately 45 homes/wk. This will require us to have at least 8 BPI
certified auditors to administer the HPA. Numbers of workers required to do this work are based
on interviews with Community Energy Conservation Program. CECP is a local nonprofit which
has been doing grant funded weatherization for over twenty years for 12 counties and cities.
They average 7 homes/month per 4 person crew, and they have additional administrative staff for
payroll, scheduling, estimates, and public outreach. EPA estimates that for every $1 million
spent in a HPwES program, 18 25 jobs are created. See Appendix F for estimated specifics
for our program. Minimum job creation at the 30% market penetration runs between 526 ! 731
new jobs by the end of Year 3 in the program.
Appendices
Residential Program Timeline for Remainder 2009 and into 2010 (500 Homes in Year 1)
Activity 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Program
Developm ent
Establish Advisory
Board
Stand up Program
Sponsor
Develop Curriculum
Train the Trainers
Contractor
Recruitm ent
Begin HPw ES
M arketing
Rem odel Energy
House
1000 Hom es
Research
EE Sem inars
Launch HPwES
Enroll 1st 100
Enroll 200 m ore
Enroll 200 m ore
Appendices
LEAP HPwES Targets and Job Creation (Chart reflects jobs created over time.)
CECP rate
7 hom es/m onth 84 hom es/yr 1 - 4 person crew 4 w orkers
LEAP target 50%: 25,146 total hom es
Year 1 700 hom es/yr 8 new 4-person
crew s
32 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $4,900,000 88 ! 123 new
jobs
Year 2 2100 hom es/yr 17 new 4-person
crew s
68 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $14,700,000 265 ! 368 new
jobs
Years 3 ! 7 ea* 4,444 hom es/yr 28 new 4-person
crew s
112 new
w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $31,108,000 562 ! 780 new
jobs
Total job creation over life of the program :915 ! 1271 new
jobs
*In all market penetration scenarios, money spent is represented as yearly, as in each year from Years
3 ! 7.
However, the market will be saturated from a job creation perspective once the pace levels out in Year
3.
LEAP target 40%: 20,046 total hom es
Year 1 500 hom es/yr 6 new 4-person
crew s
24 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $3,500,000 63 ! 88 new jobs
Year 2 1500 hom es/yr 12 new 4-person
crew s
48 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $10,500,000 189 ! 263 new
jobs
Year 3 3,584 hom es/yr 25 new 4-person
crew s
100 new
w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $25,088,000 452 ! 628 new
jobs
Total job creation over life of the program :704 ! 979 new
jobs
LEAP target 30%: 14,946 total hom es
Year 1 500 hom es/yr 6 new 4-person
crew s
24 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $3,500,000 63 ! 88 new jobs
Year 2 1000 hom es/yr 6 new 4-person
crew s
24 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $7,000,000 126 ! 175 new
jobs
Year 3 2,664 hom es/yr 20 new 4-person
crew s
80 new w orkers
EPA Estim ate of total jobs created/$1 m ill spent: 18 - 25 $18,648,000 337 ! 468
Total job creation over life of the program :526 ! 731new
jobs
Appendices
Staffing and Expenses to Meet Mentoring and QA Requirements
Number of Homes
Completed
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yrs 3 ! 7
ea
50% penetration 700 2100 4444
40% penetration 500 1500 3584
30% penetration 500 1000 2664
Description Training Yr 1 Yr 2 Yrs 3 ! 7
ea
EE Technical Advisor #1 $16,000 Salary Salary Salary
EE Technical Advisor #2 $16,000 ------- Salary Salary
EE Technical Advisor #3 $16,000 ------- ------- Salary
EE Technical Advisor #4
(only needed at 50%)
$16,000 ------- ------- Salary
Training Rebate Amount Yr 1 Yr 2 Yrs 3 ! 7
ea
50% penetration $1000 $8000 $17,000 -------
40% penetration $1000 $6000 $12,000 -------
30% penetration $1000 $6000 $5000 -------
Program Goals/M entoring
50% penetration # of Jobs:24 51 84
40% penetration # of Jobs:18 36 75
30% penetration # of Jobs:18 15 31
Program Goals/3rd Party QA
50% penetration # of Jobs:160 488 1,028
Cost @ $200 average:$32,000 $97,000 $205,600
40% penetration # of Jobs:124 348 817
Cost @ $200 average:$24,800 $69,600 $163,400
30% penetration # of Jobs:160 224 610
Cost @ $200 average:$24,800 $44,800 $122,000
Appendices
Appendix G - Prelim inary M arket Survey
Test batch 1, N=20
Test batch 2, N=20
Test batch 3, N-20
Test Survey: Charlottesville & Albemarle Homeowners: Solar-
Energy Efficiency Interest Survey
The City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and UVA are developing a plan to save energy,
save money, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs/businesses - toward building a new
energy future for our region.
We want to understand your interests and priorities in order to create the right approach,
services and pricing for our region. Please complete this survey to help us bring out the
most effective, practical and accessible program for you as a homeowner. Thank you in
advance. Please respond by _________ .
1. Are you a resident of
Are you a resident of the City of
Charlottesville, or
Albemarle County
2. I would participate in a program to save energy and m oney if (check all that apply)
a free energy assessment was available at the outset
cost-and-gain options for energy improvement were easily compared
some do-it-yourself steps were possible for quick results
certified contractors would guarantee their energy improvement work
financing was available that avoided a large initial expense
savings more than offset the costs - net,net, this saves money every month
payments could be made through my property taxes
payments could be made through utilities (electric, gas, water)
payments would transfer to the next owner/renter if I moved
ways to conserve and become more energy efficient were an important focus
ways to generate solar energy from panels and sell power back to the grid was possible
through this program
ways to generate savings from wind, geothermal, or other alternatives were also
possible in this program
I could save energy and money while learning from/with my neighbors, people in my
community or circle
Appendices
3. The really important things that would cause me to participate in an energy program
would be: (check the top three)
it’s easy to do
cost-effective way to save money, save energy, save the planet
financing program eliminates high initial cost
payments for energy-related home improvements would transfer to the next owner
if/when I move
get into solar (or other appropriate renewable) power generation
protect myself against future energy cost increases
4. I heat with: (check one)
natural gas
oil
propane
electric heat pump
other
5. W hen it gets hot, I cool primarily with: (check one)
central air conditioning
window air conditioners
without any AC, any which way I can - fans, awnings, shade curtains, etc
6. My/our average annual household income is:
$30,000 or less
$30,000 to $60,000
$60,000 to $100,000
$100,000 or more
Appendices
7. Here are three fairly typical energy scenarios for people. Please indicate which of
these most closely resembles your situation:
My living space and appliances are pretty energy efficient. My energy bill is rarely more
than $100 per month, even in hot/cold seasons
Between the age/condition of the place, age of appliances, heating/cooling system
efficiency, our living habits and practices, we probably spend about $120-150 per month for
energy, even in hot/cold seasons.
For various reasons, we use a lot of energy. Watts are us. Because of the age, size or
condition of the house, family size, lifestyle,appliances, etc, we probably pay over $150 per
month for energy, often a good bit more.
8. W e’re looking into ways to reduce the initial costs of energy projects by arranging for
various kinds of loans. W ould you prefer to make payments:
on a monthly basis, like a car loan or a home equity loan, or
added to your property taxes, escrowed into your mortgage payment, potentially
assumable by the next owner if you decided to move and sell your current house
in one initial payment
9. W hat are the chances you’d sign up for an energy program, if it helped you plan,
prepare and finance it as suggested in an earlier question? Assume for purposes of this
question that your plan involved a fairly major house retrofit; adding solar panels (or
geothermal, or another appropriate fossil-fuel alternative); that you could get up to a 25
year loan, borrow up to $50,000 at 5% or better for the installation, that the savings
would offset the payments over this time; the payments would effectively be $300 per
month. W hat are the chances you’d sign up for and participate in this program...?
less than 10%
50/50
better than 80%
What would keep you from signing up?
10. W hat are the chances you’d sign up for an energy program, similar to above, except
intended for much less extensive improvements, and with different financing :
up to a 7 year loan, up to $7,000 at 5% or better for the installation, with payments
about $100 per month. W hat are the chances you’d sign up for and participate in this
program...?
less than 10%
50/50
better than 80%
What would keep you from signing up?
Appendices
11. Lastly, the middle option - What are the chances you’d sign up for an energy
program, similar to above, except intended for substantial improvements, and with
another different arrangement:
up to a 15 year loan, up to $25,000 at 5% or better for the installation, with payments
about $200 per month. What are the chances you’d sign up for and participate in this
program...?
less than 10%
50/50
better than 80%
What would keep you from signing up?
12. Would you be willing to sign a release granting Dominion Power permission to
release your electric energy usage records to the City/County for purpose of planning an
effective energy program for our region?
Yes
No
Only if :
13. The information requested below about you is completely voluntary. If you think you
might want more information about this energy program as it develops, thanks for
letting us know how to contact you.
Name:
Address:
City/Town:
ZIP/Postal
Code:
Email Address:
Thank you for your time and thoughtful responses. If you are interested in learning more
about this effort, or getting involved, please contact:
Cynthia Adams adamsc@charlottesville.org
Sarah Temple stemple@albemarle.org
Bill Dunnington billdunnington@msn.com
Appendices
Appendix H - Positive Energy
Positive Energy has developed the utility industry s first behavioral science driven, customer-
centric, data analysis and communications software platform, the Home Energy Reporting
System. This platform is becoming a core element of energy efficiency portfolios around North
America, and is helping forward-thinking utilities better engage their residential customers to
become more energy efficient, target specific and relevant efficiency recommendations to each
of their residential customers, and make it easier for each customer to take action on these
recommendations.
To date, the results achieved with the Home Energy Reporting System have been dramatic:
! The Home Energy Reporting System is an energy efficiency resource program which
provides critical information to customers. This information is allowing tens of thousands
of customers to reduce their energy consumption by 200 ! 300 kwh per year. When the
program is run at recommended initial sizes, the results are impressive. For example, we
expect one Utility client achieve energy savings in excess of 9,000 MWH as a result of
the Home Energy Reporting System, over a 12-month period, with a deployment to
35,000 homes within their service territory. These savings are being measured with the
rigor of industry-standard M & V.
! The Home Energy Reporting System is a channel with which utilities can target market
all of their residential energy efficiency initiatives and programs. Using the platform s
customer analysis and segmentation capabilities, utility Energy Efficiency managers can
ensure that the right customers are receiving the right program offer at the right time. The
effect of this is increased program participation. For example, one Utility client is seeing
increases in program participation in excess of 5x for offers they have targeted using the
Home Energy Reporting System to over 25,000 of their customers.
Methodology
Positive Energy works with our Utility clients, usually Energy Efficiency Portfolio and Program
Managers, to unlock the value of the data and information they already have about the residential
customers. This information, presented in the right way, motivates and empowers residential
customers to take action to reduce their consumption. To do this, we deploy our Home Energy
Reporting System platform, which involves 5 simple steps:
Utility clients securely transfer energy consumption data to Positive Energy s software
system (programs usually target 50,000 - 100,000 homes in the initial year)
Demographic data elements are combined with this consumption data
Energy profiles are created for each household, using rigorous segmentation and analysis
Reports are generated detailing how each residential customer is doing relative to similar
households ("neighbor benchmarking#) with respect to energy consumption, and specific
recommendations on how to continue to reduce consumption are packaged with this
benchmarking to residential customers both in the mail, online, and through a CSR tool
Savings are measured using rigorous M & V
Appendices
These initial results are delivered without any customer inputs, and the system is able to learn
over time as actions are measured, residential customers start to engage in recommended actions,
and customers communicate these actions to their Utility.
Positive Energy Program
Positive Energy is a collaboration
w ith Dominion
Usage records, housing data are
analyzed, sorted into like cohorts !
people receive comparative
feedback on their energy
consumption 6 times per year, by
mail or online
Suggested actions and potential
savings are explained
Costs $11/yr/customer ! funded by
Dominion. Results in 2-3%
sustained efficiency gains
M arketing tool for highly targeted
offers
Provides pow erful targeting and
M &V analytics ! critical program
management and reporting tool
Drives cost effective customer
acquisition ! link to LEAP w ebsite
Appendices
Appendix I - How a LEAP Energy Project Happens
The italicized text that follows reflects draft website text to explain and support customers doing
an energy project. This is a residential example, and the commercial version is very similar.
Energy Audits
After you sign up with LEAP, one of our Energy Service Company partners (BPI certified
auditor) will schedule an audit, discuss your energy saving needs, and review (with your
permission) your water, natural gas, fuel oil, and electricity consumption and cost
information. A thorough audit can take up to 4 hours.
On the day of your Audit, an Energy Professional will investigate energy, water, and
renewable opportunities in your home or business, focusing on:
Building Features e.g; insulation, windows
Lighting Fixtures
Water Consumption
Heating/Cooling
Energy Management Systems
Appliances
On-site renewable energy e.g; solar heating, solar electricity
At the end of your audit the Energy Professional will provide you with a description of all
energy measures reviewed and a recommended package of cost-effective measures. This
package will take into account installation costs, program costs, any available incentives
or other rebates, and available interest rates from our preferred lenders or other
applicable programs.
If you wish, they can provide a list of LEAP certified contractors who are qualified to do
the improvement work.
Who Pays for Audits?
WAP and Dominion will pay for audits for the low income residential community, (up to
$55,000 annual HH income.)
WAP services can cover up to $6500 in audit & measures. Dominion!s proposed
program will provide a onetime incentive of up to $1,105 to cover the audit and measures
For middle and up residential customers, and business owners, the current thinking is
that the contractor will either pay for the audit as a marketing cost, or credit it back in
follow on work". or the customer rolls it into the loan.
Market prices prevail.
Project Planning: Choices and Economics
Once you have audit results and recommendations, contact one of LEAP!s approved and
certified Energy Service partners. These contractors are certified in the Home
Improvement with Energy Star program (HPwES). They can:
Appendices
Review the audit!s recommendations. Confirm what!s actually involved, how long
it will take, what it will cost, what it will save.
Review the energy and economic aspects of your project, in the context of your
budget.
Make sure the projected energy savings will provide you with an acceptable
return in an acceptable timeframe".and be budget-friendly.
Working from your budget intentions, help you complete the loan application
contract, which is required for your loan application.
At any point, if you have questions, LEAP!S Energy Extension Specialists will also review
the process on your behalf as needed and give you a second opinion: offer you ideas
based on their expertise and experience, discuss energy improvement choices, answer
your questions, help you plan your project with confidence.
Financing Developing a Loan Application Contract
For customers interested in a little help starting their investments in energy
improvements, LEAP has partnered with local lenders to provide flexible financing
options. The financing arrangement will allow you to take advantage of a quick and easy
approval process with participating banks, with three different loan tiers, depending on
how much you wish to borrow at this time.
TIER ONE - up to $7000, at 5%, for up to 7 years
TIER TWO # up to $25,000 at 5%, for up to 15 years
TIER THREE # up to $50,000 at 5%, for up to 25 years
In all cases, we will work with you to set things up so that the savings you can expect
from the improvements in your property exceed the cost payments. LEAP loan financing
guidelines are:
1) No energy improvement loan can be made for more than 20% of the building!s
assessed value (don!t fix things that shouldn!t be fixed)
2) The useful life of the proposed energy measures should be less than 75% of the
useful life of the property (make sure there is opportunity for payback)
3) The loan payments should be less than 75% of the anticipated savings expected
from the energy improvements (build in cash flow breathing space)
4) The proposed energy measures will produce at least a 20% return within 7 years
(a requirement of Home Improvement with Energy Star)
LEAP wants to help you finance your energy investments because the availability of
money for up-front costs should never stand in the way of longer-term savings.
Appendices
Project Approval, Implementation and Follow Up
Once the loan application is approved, work begins. When it is completed, your project
must pass its test out audit. This assures you that:
The work planned was done to standard and satisfactorily completed.
The energy improvements will produce the health, comfort benefits and economic
savings as expected.
You know how to tell if things are working as intended and understand your
recourse if you think they aren!t.
The test out audit is the documentation needed to give to LEAP so that the contractor is
paid, and the lending institution begins the payments processes.
LEAP will request that you allow periodic access to your energy usage information (a
waiver required by Dominion) to verify, validate and confirm project results. It!s an
essential part of the overall quality management and financial reporting program.
At any point, if you have questions, LEAP!s Energy Extension Specialists will also review
the process on your behalf as needed: conduct inspections of completed jobs, track
metered savings at your premises, explain how much water, gas, or electric savings are
helping produce environmental results and resolving any concerns or issues.
Project Payment
Once test out results are submitted to LEAP and the lending institution, the contractor is
paid, LEAP is paid and the lending institution begins the payments processes.
You make normal monthly payments to your utility supplier, and loan payments to your
lending institution as agreed to in your loan contract.
LEAP will periodically access your energy usage information to verify, validate and
confirm project results. It!s an essential part of the overall quality management and
financial reporting program.
At any point, if you have questions, LEAP!S Energy Extension Specialists will also review
the process on your behalf as needed: conduct inspections of completed jobs, track
metered savings at your premises, explain how much water, gas, or electric savings are
helping produce environmental results and resolve any concerns or issues.
Appendices
Summary Schematic How a Project Happens
EE Customer
LEAP
Bank
Utility
BPI Certified
Auditor / M &V
HPwES / BPI-
Certified
Contractor
M oney
Information/W ork
Key
2. Pick M easures, Get Estim ates
3. Subm it Loan
Application
Contract
1. Get an
audit
4. Perform Energy M easures W ork
5
5. Post-Audit
6. Post-
Audit
Approval
7. Pay Contractor
7. Pay
LEAP
LEAP fees are
2% of project fees
2% of financing
Energy
Extension
Specialist
8.
8.
Appendices
Appendix J - Residential xls
Leap Pro Forma 090424 xls will be included in the soft copy submission to SEEA.
It is simply a planning spreadsheet, with assumptions that can be changed in order to examine
economic cause and effect. Although we have not yet done the sensitivity analyses, it s clear that
this is a scale business the economic drivers are:
- number of houses retrofitted
- average project fees per house
- percentage of projects financed
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix K - CCDC\SPARK! G reen Conservation Corps
Energy Efficiency Cam paign
Program Features
This program will address the needs of the 1000 highest (cubic feet of gas per square foot)
energy users in Charlottesville and urban Albemarle County. The target market is the top
1000 in the Charlottesville community. In most situations the houses have severe physical
energy deficiencies that can be corrected. To help them get remediation done, we need to
understand the barriers that local citizens face in regard to taking appropriate energy
efficiency measures, then design and implement creative educational tools to help them
overcome the barriers. Finally they will be guided through a easily understood process to the
best available technical and financial resources to make energy efficiency improvements a
reality.
Trained Green Corps employees in teams of two will do energy screening with clipboards,
flashlights, smoke pencils, cameras, hand tools, step ladders, etc. once invited in a home.
The goals of the team are to do quick low cost effective energy measures; get homeowners to
sign release forms so that utility history can be studied; collect relevant physical data about
the house envelope and mechanical systems; educate the homeowners what other things they
can do to be more energy efficient; provide the homeowner with information as to where they
can get a complete energy audit; and give them an easy path through LEAP to get additional
help.
The low cost energy measures include:
x Changing incandescent lighting over to CFLs wherever feasible, 2 to 8 lamps/home
x Providing two power strips per home to be plugged into standby-electronics
x Install lo-flow showerheads in place of ones greater than 2.2GPM
x Wrap the water heater or
x Optionally install a programmable thermostat
x Wrap the first 3-4! of the pipes coming in and out of the water heater
x Seal any major and easily accessible holes in the building envelope that are over ‰"
in diameter
x Make notes of other major air leaks and possible sources
x Weather strip leaky doors
x Inspect the attic for insulation levels and quality
x Inspect and replace air filter
x Record data on age and models of refrigerators, dishwashers, and washing machines
x Record data on age and models of heat pumps and central AC units
The educational components for the occupants include:
x Why investing in EE will provide them with one of the highest and safest rate of
return on their money
x Explaining why turning down thermostats during heating and turning them up in
cooling season will save x% per degree
x The value of ceiling fans
Appendices
x Why turning off lights and unneeded appliances is an easy step to make
x How to shade windows during the summer and allow sunlight in during the winter.
x Cooking, laundry, and dishwashing tips
x Water management and stopping water leaks
x Free workshops on energy management that they can attend through SPARK
x The value of a professional audit
x What grants, loans, and or tax credits they may be eligible for
x Which local contractors will professionally handle more complex and labor intensive
EE measures.
Eligibility Requirements
Homeowners and all renters with landlord permission. Lower income households will
receive the service and materials for free. Those above median income will pay $40; a
bargain for a $200+ service.
Benefits
The opportunity to more quickly tackle the easiest high return energy efficiency measures
of the top 1000 energy users. Being able to understand the occupants and what barriers
they are facing so that LEAP can adapt its program. The ability for LEAP to capture
additional data about items like refrigerators, ages/efficiencies of furnaces, heat pumps,
air sealing issues, quality and quantity of insulation.
Incentives
Free EE installed materials; more understanding of where energy losses are happening;
what can be done about them; and a path after the visit to achieve substantial energy
savings through the LEAP program.
Resources Needed
M arketing Tools: Publicity, advertising, messaging, branding, mailers, telemarketing,
Equipment: Small tool kits, flashlights, CO meters, smoke pens, step ladders, etc.
Labor: 1 manager/trainer, 1 marketer, 8 green corps workers, 1 office
administrative/support
Partners: Certified contractors, BPI certified building analysts, local building suppliers,
social service organizations, the media.
Appendices
Donations: CFLs, water saving devices, water heater wrapping, foam cans, caulk guns,
air filters, weather stripping, power strips, programmable thermostats!.
Print Information: Local "top ten tips#, financing information, tax incentives, grants,
rebates programs, where to attend workshops, where to get additional help!!
Budget Narrative
SPARK! M anager $18,000
20 weeks, 40hr/wk
M arketing $12,000
M arketing materials include: graphic design,
brochure printing costs; advertisements.
Green Corps Labor $69,120
8 people for 2 person crews,18 weeks, 40hr/wk @ $12/hour
Support Staff Labor $ 9,600
10 weeks (2 people)
Equipment $750
(smoke pens, small tool kits)
Travel $ 1,000
Indirect Costs
Rent, utilities, phone, office supplies, etc $ 8,000
Insurance $ 2,500
EE Incentive Giveaways $25,000
TOTAL: $111,400
Donations from local building suppliers $15,000
Revenue from EA Fees
Of the 1000 homes getting the clipboard audit, $12,500
Those who are above low income will be asked
to donate $25 (500 homes)
Total Remaining Need: $ 83,900
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
Appendix L - ecoREM OD !Energy House"
Excerpt from April 21, 2009 correspondence between the City of Charlottesville and key UVA
faculty, John Quale, regarding plans for the ecoREMOD Energy House project
The City of Charlottesville is very excited to w ork w ith you and U V a students on our upcom ing
ecoR EM O D Energy H ouse project. Located next to the ecoM O D 4 lot, this 1920!s drug blight
hom e w ill be turned from a com m unity nuisance and eyesore into a resource to prom ote
sustainability and energy efficiency.
As you know , the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albem arle are jointly applying for a
grant to develop an energy efficiency program for our com m unity, and w e think the ecoR EM O D
Energy H ouse w ill be a practical application of the program !s goals, as w ell as an educational
dem onstration project w hich can be used by the program , local schools, the U niversity of
V irginia, PV CC, CATEC and others to learn m ore about m eans and m ethods to using less energy
and saving m oney. O ver 80% of our character rich housing stock is built before 1970. O ne of the
best w ays to preserve this built environm ent history is to rem odel these structures to m eet
m odern energy standards and conservation goals.
Som e im portant outcom es of our m eeting this m orning include:
- City of Charlottesville com m itm ent to fund an internship position to help project
m anage our ecoREM O D Energy H ouse rem odel
- City of Charlottesville com m itm ent to devote staff tim e and funding to do a
com prehensive energy and indoor air quality audit, solar assessm ent, and to
investigate obtaining LEED for H om es certification
- N ew s that D om inion V irginia Pow er w ants to participate in the ecoR EM O D Energy
H ouse project through the donation of a solar photovoltaic installation w ith battery
backup for the hom e
- Interest on the part of PV CC and local contractors to participate in the project
- Consensus on preserving the historical character of the hom e w hile striving for as
close to net zero energy use as possible given our rem odel budget
As expressed at our m eeting, Charlottesville w ould like to pursue other goodw ill opportunities
presented by our partnership on this project. A terrific public education and outreach tool, w e
hope that the m edia organizations w ill be interested in reporting on the process as w ell as the
product. Also, w e hope this project w ill afford select U V a students the ability to apply their
know ledge to a w orthw hile civic project.
Thank you again for your input and participation,
Jim Tolbert ,D epartm ent H ead, N eighborhood D evelopm ent Services
Cynthia Adam s, Clim ate Protection Program Coordinator, D ept. of Public W orks
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
Summary Memo of the ecoREMOD Energy House for the
City Manager and City Council
City of Charlottesville
MEMO
"A W orld Class City
www.charlottesville.org
TO: Gary O!Connell, City M anager
FROM : James E. Tolbert, AICP, Director
DATE: April 23, 2009
SUBJECT: 608 Ridge Street ! Eco Remodel Project
I have been meeting regularly with Kristel Riddervold and Cynthia Adams regarding our
property at 608 Ridge Street about the idea to do an energy efficient remodel and demonstration
project. You and I discussed this briefly a couple of weeks ago, but I wanted to give you more
details at this time. W e have put together an incredible team I think to make this happen. Those
involved to date include: Kristel Riddervold, Lance Stewart and Cynthia Adams from Public
Service, Jim Tolbert and Jerry Tomlin from NDS, Eric Gilchrist from SPARK and the Design
Center, John Quale from the UVA School of Architecture, Paxton M arshall, UVA Engineering
School, Byron Sorg of PVCC Housing Trade Construction Program, and Bill Dunnington of
Virginia Energy Project, and Chris W eatherford from Barton M alow who has agreed to work
pro-bono as the project manager supervising the UVA student project manager.
Our goals for this project are to do a remodel to turn this back into a quality single family home
that meets zero energy standards. W e plan to achieve LEED certification and also want to
incorporate other certifications such as EarthCraft and others. In fact, we would like to have one
of the UVA students involved to document all the things that have to be done to achieve each of
the standards and to evaluate which is the most cost effective. Other important factors that we
will be using or following include:
x This is a partnership between the City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia and
PVCC. I think it shows real innovation and an opportunity for all of us to work
together for an important community goal.
x There will be immeasurable work force development achievements with this project.
The PVCC program provides City residents training in the construction trades and
this will give them hands-on experience on a high visibility project.
x W e propose to utilize best practices in all aspects and to incorporate substantial
landscape into the design of the house.
Appendices
x There will be detailed documentation of the existing house and all its historic
relevance prior to beginning.
x We will provide detailed documentation of the work that goes on including film, still
photos and notes. This will be a part of the media effort and the educational
component of the project.
x The Virginia Dominion Power company has agreed to donate all solar for the house
as a demonstration project.
The next steps to get this moving include:
x We would like to engage an intern with our support through housing dollars that
would work as the project manager beginning in late May at 40 hours a week and
then into the fall until the project is completed at 20 hours a week. We would pay
this from the housing funds already approved for this project.
x Kristel and Cynthia are beginning an energy audit and solar analysis immediately.
x John Quale will begin in May with students, the design process to include
construction documents. This will take four weeks and be completed approximately
July 1st.
x Historic Documentation by UVA students will begin mid-May and run concurrently
with the design process.
I see this as an amazing opportunity for the City to take the lead in demonstrating how residential
energy efficiency can be achieved. We will be able to take a home in the historic district and
achieve zero energy use or somewhere very close to that while still respecting the historic
character of the home and the neighborhood. At completion, we will have a house worthy of
ownership by any of our citizens and one that will be very easy for them to maintain. We will
create an educational opportunity for the two or three years that we use it for the demonstration
purposes, but with quality documentation, will maintain educational opportunities for years.
We plan to have a press conference on May 13th, jointly with Environment Virginia which is
announcing a publication that will be released nationally that day called !Building a Better
Future: Moving Toward Zero Pollution with High Energy Homes and Businesses". This is a
chance for the City to achieve significant recognition for our efforts throughout the community,
State and County.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Appendices
Article in the local newspaper, The Daily Progress, on May 14, 2009, reporting on the press
event held the previous day by a representative from Environment Virginia at the
ecoREMOD !Energy House" site.
Environment Virginia is a statewide, citizen-based advocacy organization working for clean air,
clean water and preservation of open spaces. Their press event announced the release of a
national report !Building a better future: Moving Toward Zero Pollution with Highly
Efficient Homes and Businesses" and is available at:
http://www.environmentvirginia.org/reports.
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendices
Appendix M ! Dom inion Power"s Energy Conservation Strategy
(to be subm itted to the State Corporation Com m ission on July 1 and provided to the
LEAP program as supporting tools).
Dominion s very substantial contributions are outlined and summarized in Section C.4. A
summary of their intended energy conservation initiative, contributed as supporting tools to
LEAP is as follows:
o Smart Meter - AMI
o Voltage Conservation Program
o Energy Conservation Programs (July filing)
o Dynamic Rates (March filing)
o Green Power
o On-line Energy Audit Calculator
o On-line Carbon Calculator
o Positive Energy Direct Mail
o Community Events
o Net Metering Support
o SEEA Grant Support
o Customer Portal Energy Information
o Charlottesville Energy Conservation Blog
o UVA ! Lucid Design, Inc. (campus resource monitoring software)
o Distribution System Improvement / Automation
o Outage Management
o LED Street Lighting demonstration
o Grid Point - solar / battery storage
o PHEV ! partnership
Residential Air-Conditioner and Heat Pump Direct Load Cycling
Program Features:
The DLC program provides an external cycling switch for controlling outdoor air conditioning
and heat pump compressor units. Customers who enroll in this program will allow Dominion to
cycle their central air-conditioning and heat pump system outdoor units during peak load periods.
The cycling switch will be located on the dwelling and near the outdoor air-conditioning unit(s)
and heat pump. Dominion will initiate a signal to the unit when peak load periods are anticipated,
and the air-conditioning system or heat pump will be cycled on and off for short intervals during
these peak level periods. The air conditioning or heat pump system will return to normal
operation after the demand response cycling period. Air handling units will remain operational
during cycling events.
Dominion plans to replace all of its existing electric meters with Advanced Metering
Infrastructure, capable of two-way communications. The Suppliers are expected to provide
Appendices
solutions to utilize Dominion s AMI for communications with load cycling switches.
Dominion s AMI utilizes ZigBee wireless communications compliant with the ZigBee Alliance
Smart Energy profile, including the Direct Load Control profile.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligible participants will be AMI metered, single- or multi-family individually metered, owner
occupied residential homes with one or more of the following system types:
Central AC
Heat pump (electric or gas backup)
Incentives
The incentive proposed for this program is an initial incentive of $40 per cycling switch and an
ongoing annual incentive of $40 per cycling switch.
Commercial Distribution Generation (new or existing)
Program Features
This program will provide a financial incentive for customers to reduce their consumption of
electricity from the grid during a limited number of hours each year when demand on the
electrical supply is at or near its peak. W hen not being dispatched by the Company, the
generators may be used at the customer s discretion or to supply power during an outage,
consistent with applicable environmental restrictions.
During a curtailment event, called by the Company, supplemental power will be provided by
generators located at the customer s facility.
The program will enable backup generation service to be provided at a reduced cost to customers
with critical infrastructure requirements and will provide the Company a means to reliably
reduce electrical demand using a very robust, dependable fleet of distributed generators. The
combination of these two benefits aims to enhance overall system reliability and reduce peak
demand on the electrical grid system.
Eligibility Requirements
Commercial, Industrial and Governmental customers are eligible to participate, subject to
approval by the Company.
Electrical load which is enrolled in another load curtailment program or subject to a curtailable
rate schedule may not be enrolled in this program.
It is strongly preferred that the Supplier who implements the program own and maintain full
control of any generator in the program.
The target participants in this program are customers with needs for new backup generation
equipment.
Appendices
Incentives
The incentive will be paid to the Supplier based on the capacity enrolled and the amount of
dispatch calculated as follows:
(Load Curtailment Capability Payment) + (Fuel Payment) ! (Energy Charge Reduction) +
(Variable Operation and M aintenance Adder)
Curtailment Service
Program Features
The Curtailment Service program will be structured to allow a Supplier or Suppliers to control
energy consuming assets at the participant"s end-use facilities in order to reduce peak demand
and conserve energy during a limited number of hours each year when demand on the grid
system is high.
The Supplier will monitor participating customer facility load reductions to ensure compliance,
effective baseline load determination, quality performance, and timely verification.
Eligibility Requirements
New and existing Commercial, Industrial and Governmental customers with potential curtailable
load are eligible to participate.
Participating customers should have a minimum of 20 kW of curtailable load in order to enroll in
this program.
Incentives
The incentive used to assess the potential of this program is $35/kW -year.
The Supplier will receive an incentive based on performance of the program.
It is anticipated that this incentive will be shared in some way with the participating customer.
Residential In-Home Display M onitor
Program Features
Customers will receive an In-Home Display M onitor (IHD) that will be pre-programmed with
Company utility rates allowing participants to monitor their real-time energy consumption.
The IHD technology consists of two functional units:
o The first is a sensor unit that will be affixed, by the customer, to an existing
household utility meter with a simple ring clamp; however, future AM I
infrastructure deployment will eliminate the need for the outside sensor unit. This
Appendices
o unit needs to be compatible with both digital and electromechanical meters in
Dominion!s system.
o The second unit is a display unit, located inside the house which will be installed
by the customer. This unit receives a wireless signal from the outdoor sensor unit
and displays consumption information in dollars, cents, and kWh. The customer
will have the choice of displaying kWh consumption or rate the customer is
paying with a simple toggle switch on the in-home display.
The primary objective of this program is to increase customer awareness of personal energy
consumption, usage patterns, and costs during different periods throughout the day. This
knowledge should result in reduced energy consumption during most hours of the day. The
Company plans to gather statistical data to validate the energy savings resulting from participant
behavioral modifications throughout the life of the program.
The device must have the ability to readily integrate an AMI communication protocol utilizing a
ZigBee based home area network.
Eligibility Requirements
This program will be available to all new and existing residential customers living in single- and
multi-family individually metered and owner occupied homes.
Customer participants will pay $25 to the Supplier for the receipt of an IHD.
Residential High Efficiency Heat Pump Upgrade
Program Features
The Residential High Efficiency Heat Pump program will give customers an incentive to
upgrade their heating and cooling systems to a more energy efficient unit. Participants will
replace their existing heat pump with a similar unit with a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
("SEER#) and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor ("HSPF#) rating that meets or exceeds the
current ENERGY STAR standard. These new, more efficient units will reduce overall
consumption and lower customers! annual operating costs.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligible participants will be single- or multi-family individually metered, owner occupied
residential customers with Heat Pump systems. Apartments are not eligible.
Incentives
Participants will be given a one time average incentive of $220 per unit installed based upon the
efficiency upgrade and the installation configuration.
Appendices
Residential ENERGY STAR New Homes
Program Features
The Residential ENERGY STAR New Homes program will work with home builders and
developers to conduct in-home inspections to ensure their homes meet ENERGY STAR
standards.
ENERGY STAR qualified new homes must meet guidelines for energy conservation set by the
EPA. These homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to meet 2004
International Energy Conservation Code and include additional energy-saving features that
typically make these homes 20% to 30% more efficient than standard homes.
ENERGY STAR qualified homes can include a variety of energy efficient features and measures
that contribute to improved home quality and homeowner comfort including:
Insulation! High Quality W all & Ceiling meeting the International Residential
Code
Windows! 0.65/SHGC 0.55 to 0.40/SHGC 0.45
Infiltration! 0.50 to 0.35 ACH single-family; 0.45 to 0.35 ACH multi-family
Heat Pump! 13 SEER/7.7 HSPF to at least 14 SEER/8.0 HSPF
Duct Sealing! 9 to 4 CFM Leakage/100 sq. ft.
Thermostat! M anual & Programmable
Water Heater! 0.92 EF to 0.93 EF
Appliances! ENERGY STAR Refrigerator & Dishwasher
CFLs- Three (3) CFL bulbs installed in each home
Thermal Bypass Inspection
The key objectives of Dominion"s program are to increase customer awareness, educate builders
about the benefits of new homes built to the ENERGY STAR performance standards, and to
reduce overall energy consumption.
Eligibility Requirements
This program is available to all residential new home builders constructing single- or multi-
family individually metered, owner occupied homes. Apartments are not eligible.
The homes will be required to have an electric HVAC system and heat pump with electric
backup in order to participate.
The builder will provide inspection per Home Energy Rating System (HERS) certification
standards.
Incentives
Participants will receive a one-time builder incentive of $500 for single-family homes or $250
per unit for multi-family homes payable only upon certification. The program incentive will be
paid to the builder and will only be paid once a HERS certificate is awarded.
Appendices
Residential Heat Pump Tune-Up
Program Features
The Residential Heat Pump Tune-Up program allows participants to tune-up their existing heat
pumps in order to achieve maximum operational performance. A properly tuned system will
increase efficiency, reduce operating costs, and prevent premature equipment failures.
Professional HVAC service technicians will perform maintenance including the following duties:
Check refrigerant pressure and inspect tubing
Clean and lubricate the indoor blower unit and check fans
Clean inside and outside coils
Check thermostat, wiring, and all associated electrical parts
Check / replace air filters
Inspect condensate drains
Test and verify proper airflow
The objective of this program is to encourage participants to perform yearly maintenance on their
heating and cooling systems.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligible participants will be single- or multi-family individually metered, owner occupied
residential customers with Heat Pump systems. Apartments are not eligible.
Incentives
The intent of this program is to provide participants with a one time incentive of $105 per unit.
This is not restrictive by number of units per residence.
Residential Low Income Energy Audit & M easure Improvements
Program Features
This program will provide low income homeowners with a free energy audit that will identify
and correct areas within their residence where they can save money on their monthly energy
bills. The energy auditor will identify basic measures that the homeowner can take to improve
the home!s energy conservation. If the homeowner approves, the auditor will immediately make
the improvements while at the home. These measures can include:
x Improve envelope sealing 0.48 Air Changes/Hour to 0.43 Air Changes/Hour
(single-family and multi-family)
x Adjust domestic hot water heater temperature down from 135oF to 120oF
x W rap R-4 insulation on the water heater
x Change showerhead from 2.2 GPM or greater to low flow 1.8 GPM or less
x Change incandescent lighting to CFLs (2 lamps per home)
x Other measures, as approved by Dominion
Eligibility Requirements
All residential customers who meet the local low income criteria identified by State social service
agencies within the Company!s service territory are eligible to participate in this program.
Appendices
Incentives
This program will provide a one time incentive of up to $1,105 paid to the Supplier that will
cover the audit and the installed energy conservation measures.
Residential Refrigerator Turn-In
Program Features
The Refrigerator Turn-In program, including upright and chest freezers, is designed to provide
participants with a one-time incentive for the pick up and disposal of older refrigerators
(approximately 20 years old) that are still drawing power.
Customers will arrange for the Supplier to pick up and properly dispose of the refrigerator at no
cost to the customer and in an environmentally responsible way to include the proper
fluorocarbon refrigerant recovery, recycling and reclamation and the recycling of oils and scrap
metal where feasible.
Eligibility Requirements
This program is available to all residential customers with older refrigerators, including upright
and chest freezers, approximately 20 years old and having an approximate capacity greater than
15 cubic feet.
Incentives
Program participants will receive an incentive of $30 per unit and the free removal of the old
refrigerator.
Com m ercial Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning
Program Features
This program aims to provide system upgrades for new or existing customers in the commercial
sector by implementing energy conservation measures.
High efficiency electric HVAC upgrades will assure new or existing commercial customers that
their heating and cooling systems are running at maximum efficiency while minimizing
energy consumption. By taking advantage of the newest developments in HVAC
technologies, participants can lower energy consumption while increasing comfort and
occupant productivity.
The cooling equipment shall exceed the recommended minimum SEER or Energy Efficiency
Ratio (!EER") for the required capacity. The cooling equipment shall also exceed the
IPLV (integrated part-load value) when applicable.
Appendices
Heating equipment shall exceed the recommended minimum Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
(AFUE ) at the required capacity. For heat pump applications, the heating efficiency
shall exceed the recommended minimum HSPF or Coefficient of Performance (COP )
for the required capacity based on 47 F outdoor air temperature.
Eligibility Requirements
This program is available to commercial customers with electric HVAC systems.
Incentives
Incentive payments will be based on tonnage and efficiency improvement.
The intent of this program is to provide the participant with an incentive that will buy down their
upfront efficiency improvement premium while providing a two (2) year payback.
Incentives will average about 51% of the incremental cost (delta between standard measure
versus higher efficiency upgrade). They will also be limited to a minimum incentive of 25% and
a maximum incentive of 75% of the incremental cost of the upgrade.
Commercial Lighting
Program Features
The Commercial Lighting program provides commercial customers with an incentive to retrofit
their existing inefficient lighting systems with a more energy efficient lighting system. Overall,
the program promotes energy conservation lighting solutions that cost less to operate.
Eligibility Requirements
All commercial and industrial customers are eligible to participate in this program. Approved
upgrades include:
Incandescent to CFLs
T12 to T8, T8 to T8HO, T12 and T5 for education, large offices, and healthcare
facilities
High bay fluorescents and pulse start metal halide lamps for warehouses
Efficient ballasts
Specular and parabolic reflectors for lighting fixtures
Incentives
Incentives will be based on measured improvements.
This program provides participants with an average incentive equal to 50% of the incremental
cost (delta between standard measure versus higher efficiency lighting) of the approved lighting
upgrade using a deemed savings formula for energy efficiency.
Appendices
Appendix N ! Letters of Support
x Governor Kaine
x Congressman Tom Periello
x Dominion Virginia Power
x Charlottesville Community Design Center and SPARK! Initiative
x Piedmont Virginia Community College
x University of Virginia " Office of the Architect, David Neuman
x University of Virginia " Associate Vice President for Research and Co-Chair, UVA
Energy Leadership Group, Dr. Phillip Parrish
x Chamber of Commerce
x Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
x Building Performance Institute
x James River Green Building Council
x Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
x Association of Energy Conservation Professionals
x Oak Hill Fund
x ICLEI " Local Governments for Sustainability
x Virginia Municipal League
x VML/VACO Finance
x American Public Works Association
x 2rw
x ConEdison Solutions
x Avid Energy LLC
x BoldMouth
x Sierra Club
x Quality Community Council, Inc.
x Albemarle County Public Schools
May 5, 2009
Dear Ben Taube:
The Charlottesville Community Design Center (CCDC) is pleased to submit this
letter in support of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County s
application to SEEA to fund a Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP). CCDC
launched the SPARK! program in April 2008 in order to foster a shift toward
greater energy efficiency in Charlottesville s housing stock through broad-
based community outreach and education, technical assistance and public
policy advocacy.
Through our energy efficiency work, we recognize that in order to achieve
wide and deep market penetration of energy efficiency measures, our
community requires a comprehensive program that addresses outreach and
education in addition to financing, technical assistance and quality
assurance. We believe that a robust LEAP program that exists as a partnership
between the public and private sector is capable of delivering such a
program. CCDC stands ready to support the formation of a LEAP entity and
assist in any related energy efficiency outreach efforts.
Sincerely,
Jane T. Fisher
Executive Director
Charlottesville Community Design Center
100 5th Street NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
WORKFORCE SERVICES
501 College Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-7589
Phone 434-961-5354
Fax 434-961-5270
V/TTY 434-977-4265
www.pvcc.edu
May 11, 2009
Ms. Cynthia Adams
Climate Protection Program Coordinator, LEED AP
City of Charlottesville, Dept. of Public Works
305 4th Street NW
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Adams:
Piedmont Virginia Community College is pleased to support the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County in your joint application for the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant. The SEEA
funds will be used to establish the Local Energy Alliance Program in our locality. The LEAP program
will implement energy efficiency to achieve energy and water savings by retrofitting buildings and
installing renewable technologies in all end use sectors.
In 2006, Piedmont Virginia Community College received a Community Based Job Training Grant from
the U.S. Department of Labor to develop a Construction Academy for the purpose of training entry level
workers in entry level construction trades. Our instructors use the National Center for Construction
Research (NCCER) curriculum, and our students are eligible for NCCER certification at the completion of
the training program. For the past three years, PVCC has worked with the U.S. Green Build Council to
offer LEED training to the workforce in our region.
PVCC has been asked by employers and localities in our service region to expand the Construction
Academy to include green training for both workers and supervisors. There is also a growing demand
for green training in the energy, water and sewer, and environmental industries. PVCC is interested in
expanding the Construction Academy to enhance and increase capacity for existing programs, and to
develop new training programs in weatherization, particularly in retrofitting historical buildings.
PVCC enthusiastically supports the Local Energy Alliance Program energy efficiency program, and looks
forward to working with you to prepare workers in our service region for future energy jobs.
Sincerely,
Valerie Palamountain
Dean of Workforce Services
dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business
and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities.
cvillechamber.com
PO Box 1564 ! Fifth & Market Streets ! Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
May 6, 2009
RE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance Grant
Dear Mr. Taube:
Our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce supports the efforts of the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County to initiate a local energy alliance program to assist the energy efficiency efforts of our
community"s residents, businesses, institutions, civic organizations and the local governments themselves.
Our Chamber is dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the
quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities. Founded in downtown Charlottesville in 1913, today our
Chamber has 1,200 member enterprises. Chamber enterprises employ more than 45,000 people in our Greater
Charlottesville communities, representing an estimated total payroll of more than $1.3 billion a year.
We are informed that the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are applying for a Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance grant of up to $500,000. We understand that the City of Charlottesville has already
committed significant local resources as well as federal Department of Energy funding made possible through the
coordinated efforts of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We further understand that the City and County intend to
access energy efficiency funding available through the federal 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act.
Efficiency and conservation are strongly held business values. It makes little business sense to use
more resources needed to accomplish a task. We also know that life-cycle endurance is critical to business
competitiveness. Our Chamber embraces these values and knows that competitive marketplaces reward
efficiency. We strongly favor market mechanisms, reasonable incentives and voluntary approaches as highly
preferable to governmental regulatory or mandated mechanisms. We are pleased that the range of market
approaches is the direction these efforts will pursue. Thus, our Chamber looks forward to promoting and where we
deem appropriate, participating with this initiative.
Again, our Chamber supports the efforts of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to initiate a
market-based local energy alliance program. We are pleased to honor their request for our Chamber support for
your favorable consideration of their grant request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Timothy Hulbert
President
Mr. Ben Taube, Executive Director
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
P.O. Box 13909
Atlanta, Georgia 30324
cc: The Board of Directors, Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
The Honorable David Norris, Mayor and Honorable City Councilors
The Honorable Gary O"Connell, Charlottesville City Manager
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant
W HEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are applying for a Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant to design a program that reduces energy and water
use by consumers and businesses; and
W HEREAS, the City, the County and the University of Virginia are jointly developing a
climate protection approach that will focus on energy, particularly energy conservation and
efficiency in existing buildings; and
W HEREAS, this Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) is being designed to save money
for residents, business owners and others, to stimulate ongoing workforce and economic
development and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
W HEREAS, the grant competition, dubbed the !Southern Energy Alliance," seeks to replicate
the Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA), a private, nonprofit program established by the City
of Cambridge that is helping thousands of residential and business customers identify and
arrange financing for cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy measures; and
W HEREAS, the 2009 General Assembly, at the initiation of Charlottesville and with strong
support from Albemarle, approved SB 1212, which, similarly, allows any Virginia locality to
provide loans for the initial acquisition and installation of clean energy/energy efficient
improvements; and
W HEREAS, it is possible that many Virginia localities may establish these programs as a way
to recognize the benefits of making energy efficient improvements an attractive and
affordable option in their communities; and
W HEREAS, this local grant application reflects the SEEA#s mission to promote and achieve
energy efficiency through networking, program activities, and education; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission supports the
Charlottesville/Albemarle application for SEEA grant funding.
Adopted the 7th day of M ay, 2009
______________________________
Billie Campbell, Secretary
Ben Taube
Executive Director
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
P. O. Box 13909
Atlanta, GA 30324
Dear Mr. Taube:
The Blue Ridge Home Builders Association (BRHBA) represents approximately 250 local
businesses involved directly or indirectly in residential construction. Our representative territory
includes the counties of Madison, Greene, Albemarle, Fluvanna and Nelson, as well as the City of
Charlottesville.
BRHBA members are actively involved in the EarthCraft Homes program, with thirteen of our
builders having completed at least one EarthCraft certified home and thirteen other members
having taken EarthCraft training. Later this month, we are sponsoring our third annual EarthCraft
home tour, free to the public, as part of our on-going efforts to promote public understanding of
the design, material and construction techniques inherent in EarthCraft. There are two new
communities in Albemarle County - Belvedere and Bundoran Farms - that have committed to
being entirely EarthCraft homes.
Members also build to LEED for Homes, NAHB Green, Energy Star and other certified standards.
Members take those approaches in part because they are personally committed to those
approaches, and in part because this area is a strong market for low impact, high efficiency design.
Our public education efforts, through the EarthCraft tour, but also through a strong presence in our
annual Home Show, are all geared to help promote public awareness of the value that building
materials and techniques contribute to residential energy efficiency, whether in new or existing
construction.
The proposal here represents a wonderful next step in the process: as we work to help educate
local builders, contractors and the public on the advantages of energy conservation, the
implementation of this proposed program will help actually deliver those benefits to residents.
In addition, the proposal s opportunities for success are enhanced by having a building-related
workforce already in place with solid, long-term experience in the complexities of well-designed
and properly installed materials and techniques that will add public confidence to the process.
These attributes will benefit both the quick start-up of this process and the opportunity to
contribute existing experience into training programs for additional workforce support.
We strongly support this proposal.
Sincerely,
Jay Willer
Executive Vice President
BRHBA
jay@ brhba.org 434.981.8708
The mission of ICLEI U.S.A.is to build,serve,and drive a movement of local governments to advance deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and achieve tangible improvements in local sustainability.
ICLEI Local Governments
for Sustainability U.S.A.,Inc.
436 14th Street,Suite 1520
Oakland,CA 94612
U.S.A.
Phone:+1-510/844-0699
Fax:+1-510/844-0698
E-mail:iclei-usa@iclei.org
Website:www.icleiusa.org
ICLEI U.S.A.N ational O ffice
180 Canal Street,Suite 401
Boston,MA 02114
Phone:+1-617/960-3420
Fax:+1-617/248-3974
U.S.R eg ional O ffices
Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Boston
Midwest Chicago
Southeast Atlanta
South Central New Orleans
Western States Denver
Pacific Northwest/Islands Seattle
Texas Houston
California Oakland
W orld Secretariat
Toronto,Canada
Africa Secretariat
J ohannesburg,South Africa
East Asia
J ap an O ffice
Toky o,J ap an
K orea O ffice
J eju,K orea
Europ ean Secretariat
Freiburg,G ermany
Latin America and
Caribbean Secretariat
Buenos Aires,Argentina
R io de J aneiro,Braz il
N orth America
Canad a O ffice
Toronto,Canada
U.S.A.O ffice
Oakland,CA,U.S.A.
O ceania Secretariat
Melbourne,Australia
South east Asia Secretariat
Manila,Philip p ines
South Asia Secretariat
Delhi,India
International T raining Centre
Freiburg,G ermany
P roject O ffices
China
Indonesia
Mexico
P rinted on 1 0 0 %p ost-consumer recycled ,ch lorine-free p ap er
May 8,2009
County of Albemarle City of Charlottesville
County Executive Robert W.Tucker,Jr.Mayor David Norris
401 McIntire Road P.O.Box 911
Charlottesville,VA 22902 Charlottesville,VA 22902
Dear County Executive Tucker and Mayor Norris:
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA,Inc.(ICLEI USA),a
membership association of local governments committed to climate protection
and sustainable development,is pleased to support the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County in their Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
application to the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance.
ICLEI USA has worked with both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County as they move forward with efforts to become more sustainable
communities and a model of regional sustainability.The City and County s
commitment is embodied in Mayor Norris s appointment of a Climate
Protection Program Officer and County Executive Tucker s creation of an
Environmental Manager position both of which are responsible for overseeing
the City and County s inter-departmental,inter-organizational,and community
driven efforts to help Charlottesville and Albemarle forge a sustainable agenda
for the 21st century.
Further testament to the environmental commitment of the City of
Charlottesville can be found in their leadership role in creating Senate Bill 1212
a bill that enables localities to authorize contracts to provide loans for the
initial acquisition and installation of clean energy improvements.The City has
also significantly retrofitted their municipal buildings,built a green roof,and
created a home energy audit program that helps to finance residential energy
audits (to date,at least 25 households have received assistance).
Albemarle County has also invested significantly in energy conservation efforts,
most notably through an Environmental Management Policy,which led to the
development and implementation of an Environmental Management System
(EMS).One of the programs under the umbrella of the EMS is their energy
conservation program,which has helped the County achieve an 11.8%overall
reduction in energy usage since 2005.The County also has a large green roof,a
Water Protection Ordinance,a safer chemical policy requiring the use of green
certified cleaners and bio-based herbicides,and is pursuing LEED certification
as a standard for all new County buildings.
Following ICLEI USA s Five Milestone Methodology for Climate Mitigation,
both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County conducted an inventory of
their energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions.From this analysis they
discovered that over 65%of the total emissions coming from the region are from their existing
building stock.Being progressive,the City and County both established targets to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions 80%by the 2050.However,to accomplish this goal,the City and County
realize that major changes in the efficiency of residential and commercial units are critical.
To achieve the deep reductions in residential and commercial energy usage,the City and County are
developing the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP).LEAP is an innovative and effective
financing strategy that will help Charlottesville and Albemarle County achieve unprecedented gas,
electricity,and water savings,thereb y greatly reducing the environmental footprint of their existing
building stock.LEAP also strategically integrates energy reduction with strategies for green-collar
job creation,affordable housing,social equit y,and the advancement of public health.
ICLEI USA intends to support Charlottesville and Albemarle County in their efforts to develop this
program and to share the lessons learned from LEAP with other local governments around the
nation.In particular,ICLEI USA is committing to follow the development of LEAP and create case
studies at critical junctures to provide to other ICLEI USA members.ICLEI USA also intends to
extend invitations to representatives from the City and County to lead webinars and trainings about
LEAP to share their success with other local governments in the ICLEI USA network,when
appropriate.Through this exercise,ICLEI USA will be able to assist other local governments with
replicating LEAP s achievements,thereby helping local governments around the nation achieve
deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the residential and commercial sectors.
Given the alignment of ICLEI USA s commitment to advancing local sustainability with that of
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville,ICLEI USA is delighted to endorse their request
for funding from the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance for the development of the Local Energy
Alliance Program.
Sincerely,
Angela Vincent
Northeast and M id-Atlantic Regional Director
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA,Inc.
2rw Consultants, Inc.
100 Tenth Street NE
Suite 202
Charlottesville VA 22902
t) 434-296-2116
f) 434-977-1862
2rw.com
May 14, 2009
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
c/o Mr. Ben Taube, Executive Director
P.O. Box 13909
Atlanta, Georgia 30324
Dear Mr. Taube:
It is my pleasure to endorse the application of the City of Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia for the SEEA contest grant. I
have had the privilege to sit in on several of the planning meetings for the
SEEA application and I was excited to see both the breadth and scope of the
proposed program for our community. The town and gown alliance presented
in the application reaches all sectors of the local economy, public and private,
and has been designed for replication throughout the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
During my thirty-four years as an engineer working in the energy conservation
field, I have often been discouraged by the lack of wide-spread understanding
and concern over our society s growing energy use leading to potential energy
shortages, economically harmful increases in energy costs, and harm to our
environment. In the past, progress had to be measured in reaching one person
at a time and implementing individual improvements at a slow and painful rate.
To see an entire community galvanized into action is breath-taking.
The team that has prepared the SEEA grant application and that will implement
the program is committed to excellence. Their enthusiasm is palpable. Their
skills and determination coupled with the commitment of our local governments,
the University, and the state government will help ensure the success of the
program.
I am looking forward to working with the grant team on its ambitious agenda.
Respectfully,
Robert R. Somers II, PhD, PE, LEEDap
President, 2rw Consultants, Inc.
Chairman, Virginia Sustainable Building Network
q:\leap\SEEAendorse051109.doc
3 Chartwell Court Baltimore, MD 21117 Tel: (410) 363-0654 Fax: (240) 359-8326 www.conedisonsolutions.com
M ay 8, 2009
Ben Taube, Executive Director
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
P.O. Box 13909
Atlanta, GA 30324
RE: Support for Charlottesville/Albemarle Local Energy Alliance Program
Dear M r. Taube:
I am writing to express ConEdison Solutions enthusiastic support for the Charlottesville/Albemarle
County proposal to form a Local Energy Alliance Program. ConEdison Solutions is a leading energy
services company that provides competitive power supply, renewable and sustainable energy services,
and cost-effective energy solutions for commercial, industrial, government, and education customers
across the United States.
In support of their proposal development, I critiqued the Energy Star Commercial Challenge with the
purpose of determining if the program model was both based on realistic cost and savings projections and
potentially desirable for the private sector to participate. I compared the model with over $40,000,000 of
energy savings projects that ConEdison Solutions has completed in the last 3 years and found their project
implementation costs and projected savings to be comparable with our real world project experiences. I
also reviewed their market penetration rates and believe that, through the Energy Star Commercial
Challenge, they are readily achievable.
The program model proposed by the Charlottesville/Albemarle County team solves an ongoing challenge
faced by companies like ConEdison Solutions ! how to cost effectively address the small commercial
market. Through the approach of bundling numerous potential clients into a single project, project
implementation costs, like project and construction management, are minimized for each individual
participant, while still allowing the energy services company to profitably deliver the overall project.
This model will very effectively address an unmet need which has existed for years in communities.
As a participant in the Cambridge Energy Alliance, we have seen both the challenges and successes of the
community energy alliance approach. W e are now excited to bring our experience and expertise to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle County Alliance and actively support it to become the success that it can and
will be.
Sincerely,
Dennis Clough
Business Development M anager
ConEdison Solutions
Your Source Today for a Brighter Tomorrow
www.avidenergy.com | 1-800-273-0002 | PO Box 197, Charlottesville, VA 22902
May 11, 2009
Mr. Ben Taube, Executive Director
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
P.O. Box 13909
Atlanta, GA 30324
Re: City of Charlottesville / Albemarle County Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
Dear Mr. Taube:
Avid Energy, LLC provides support services to owners and operators who are committed to improving their
facilities. We recognize that energy performance depends on both installation of efficient equipment and occupant
behavior; thus, the commitment to improvement is important. At Avid, we strongly support the effort undertaken
by the Charlottesville LEAP team to implement efficiency improvements on a community scale, and we are pleased
to offer our support and expertise in the field.
In founding Avid Energy, our principals decided to address a segment of the economy that has gone largely
unserved small and mid!sized commercial, institutional and industrial entities. These organizations have the same
service needs as large ones, but have been unable to attract interest from large service organizations because of
their relatively small size, geographic distribution, or market orientation. This is the very same economic group that
LEAP has targeted, for many of the same reasons. Thus, the Avid Energy and LEAP have closely aligned goals. Avid
looks forward to assisting the LEAP team in meeting their goals of engaging the Charlottesville/Albemarle
community, particularly since this is the community Avid makes its home. Services that we provide that can help
ensure the achievement of those goals include: robust baseline development (providing a foundation on which to
measure the success of individual projects as well as the entire program), measurement & verification (metering
and quantifying savings), and commissioning (verifying that fully functional projects are delivered to Owners).
At Avid, we are enthusiastic about the program LEAP has developed, and believe the approach of aggregating
facilities into groups to develop larger projects is the best way to reach the broad LEAP audience. Avid is committed
to helping the LEAP team make the community program a success. We look forward to assisting the LEAP team.
Please contact Wayne Bader at (434) 242!7636 or wayne.bader@ avidenergy.com.
R espectfully,
Wayne Bader, PE
Lead Project Developer, Avid Energy LLC
- page 1 of 1 -
avid
e n e r g y
201 E Main Street, Suite G, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.220.4638 www.boldmouth.com
May 11, 2009
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
c/o Ben Taube, Executive Director
P.O. Box 13909
Atlanta, GA 30324
Dear Mr. Taube,
I am writing to indicate my strong support for the SEEA grant
application from the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. As a
member of the Charlotesville/Ablemarle business community, I intend
to work toward the implementation of such a program, should this
grant be awarded to the partnership submitting the proposal.
I am the CEO of BoldMouth Inc., an advertising agency based in
Charlottesville. Our agency would be pleased to work on behalf of this
important effort.
Execution of this program will require extensive marketing and public
relations activities. From a marketing perspective, we must think of
the program as a campaign. This begins with creating awareness of
both the problem of energy inefficiency and of the means to correct it.
As consumer inertia is our biggest challenge, the marketing program
must then advance to a call to action phase, providing citizens with
incentives to act.
A simple PR and advertising campaign limited to news stories and
public service announcements will not suffice. Rather, a high tech
and high touch approach will be utilized. Our intention is to reach
citizens through whatever form of media they consume (TV, radio,
print, web, social media) with relevant content that will grab their
attention and motivate them to take action. Additionally, the program
will be supported through training and materials for the contractors
who implement the energy savings measures.
Finally, we believe that consumers themselves will promote the
program to each other. Taking a cue from the power of social media,
we intend to encourage citizens to create their own content explaining
Charlottesville/Albemarle SEEA Proposal
Page 2
210 E Main Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.220.4638 www.boldmouth.com
the processes and success of their own energy saving efforts under the
program. There is nothing more powerful than a recommendation
from one s friends and neighbors — regardless of the product or
service.
The collaborative nature of assembling this proposal should be
evidence of the community support it has generated. BoldMouth is
proud to be among those organizations that are fully behind the SEEA
grant proposal.
I look forward to being involved in the execution of the program, and
thank you for SEAA support of our community s application.
Best regards,
Scott R. Hildebrand
CEO
BoldMouth
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 5531
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Dear Members of the Charlottesville City Council and Albemarle Board of Supervisors,
It is my pleasure to write this letter of support for your joint grant proposal to the Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance. I know that there is a real need to develop new energy efficiency programs in
the Charlottesville area and I am certain that your departments will work together to make the best use
of these funds to benefit our citizens and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As a member of the Charlottesville Citizens Committee on Environmental Sustainability for the
past two years, I have been impressed by the actions taken by the city and county to implement
programs to increase efficiency, decrease waste, reduce CO2 emissions, and eliminate the unnecessary
use of toxins in public buildings. A great deal has been accomplished since both localities signed the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2007. I know that you have already developed plans for
weatherization programs, energy efficiency retrofits, increasing public transit, a green conservation
corps, and renewable energy.
At our meeting on May 6, 2009, the Executive Committee of the Piedmont Group discussed this
grant proposal and agreed to give it our full support. A major initiative of the Sierra Club is to improve
energy efficiency and transition to renewable energy generation. Our members intend to work with the
city and county in assisting you in achieving the goals of this program. Please do not hesitate to call on
me if I can help in any way.
Sincerely yours,
John A. Cruickshank, Chair
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club
QUALITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC.
The Courage to Make A Difference
327 W. Main Street, Suite 101
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(434) 977-3045
(434) 977-3046-FAX
http://www.cvilleqcc.com
The Quality Community Council, Inc. is a 501(c)3 corporation.
Margaret Crawford
Chair
Sonia Bell
Vice-Chair
Loren Intolubbe-
Chm il
Secretary
Anthony Max-
Yeboah
Treasurer
David Simmons
At-Large
W isteria Hicks
Rosa Hudson
Alicia Lugo
Rebecca W ells
May 12, 2009
Ms. Cynthia Adams
City of Charlottesville Department of Public W orks
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: LOCAL ENERGY ALLIANCE PROGRAM (LEAP)
Dear Ms. Adams,
On behalf of the Quality Community Council s board and membership, I am pleased to write
this letter in support of the City of Charlottesville s application for funding to support LEAP.
As a community based organization with a majority representation in its leadership and
membership from Charlottesville s low wealth neighborhoods, predominately consisting of
single head of household African American families, QCC has been working hard to
educate its members on the need for energy efficiency and environmental stewardship. We
see f irsthand how many members of the community suffer from high utility bills as a result
of the energy inefficiency of our aging housing stock, and conversely, how pleased they are
to realize savings on trash collection and water bills once they are educated on recycling
and the use of water saver kits. Finally, we reco gnize the need to create green jobs which
will assist with the chronic un- and underemployment of many.
W e look forward to partnering with you to achieve the l evel of culturally competent outreach
and marketing required in our community to assure LEAP s success.
Sincere regards,
Karen C. Waters
Executive Director
Attachment E
§ 15.2-958.3. Financing clean energy programs.
A. Any locality may, by ordinance, authorize contracts to provide loans for the initial acquisition
and installation of clean energy improvements with free and willing property owners of both
existing properties and new construction. Such an ordinance shall include but not be limited to
the following:
1. The kinds of distributed generation renewable energy sources or energy efficiency
improvements for which loans may be offered;
2. The proposed arrangement for such loan program, including (i) a statement concerning the
source of funding that will be used to pay for work performed pursuant to the contracts; (ii) the
interest rate and time period during which contracting property owners would repay the loan; and
(iii) the method of apportioning all or any portion of the costs incidental to financing,
administration, and collection of the arrangement among the consenting property owners and the
locality;
3. A minimum and maximum aggregate dollar amount which may be financed;
4. A method for setting requests from property owners for financing in priority order in the event
that requests appear likely to exceed the authorization amount of the loan program. Priority shall
be given to those requests from property owners who meet established income or assessed
property value eligibility requirements;
5. Identification of a local official authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of the locality; and
6. A draft contract specifying the terms and conditions proposed by the locality.
B. The locality may combine the loan payments required by the contracts with billings for water
or sewer charges, real property tax assessments, or other billings; in such cases, the locality may
establish the order in which loan payments will be applied to the different charges. The locality
may not combine its billings for loan payments required by a contract authorized pursuant to this
section with billings of another locality or political subdivision, including an authority operating
pursuant to Chapter 51 (§ 15.2-5100 et seq.), unless such locality or political subdivision has
given its consent b y duly adopted resolution or ordinance.
C. The locality shall offer private lending institutions the opportunity to participate in local loan
programs established pursuant to this section.
D. Prior to the enactment of an ordinance pursuant to this section, a public hearing shall be held
at which interested persons may object to or inquire about the proposed loan program or any of
its particulars. The public hearing shall be advertised once a week for two successive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the locality.
(2009, c. 773.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN D A TITLE:
Annual Housing R eport
SU B JECT/PR OPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Report of 2008/09 Hous ing Initiatives
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mess rs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, White
LEGAL R EVIEW : Yes
A GENDA DATE:
August 5, 2009
A C TION: IN FORMATION: X
C ON SENT A GENDA:
ACTION : IN FORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
B A C K GR OU N D :
The Albemarle County Housing Committee and the Office of Housing are charged with rec ommending policies which
align with the Board’s Strategic Goal of increasing affordable housing opportunities for those who live and work in
Albemarle County as well as implementing programs to achieve this objective. For the fisc al year ending June 30, 2009
the County continued operating assigned programs within the Office of Housing and partnered with nonprofit agencies
to implement other programs to improve the s afety and affordability of housing for lowerincome res idents of the
C ounty.
The Committee and staff are pleased to present the attached H ousing Programs Performance Report which highlights
housing initiatives in the C ounty during fiscal year 2008/09. Among the highlights for this past year w as pres entation of
the Joint Task Force’s recommendations on Affordable Housing to the Board on February 4, 2009 and the Housing
C ommittee’s subsequent discus sions on identifying implementation measures for several recommendations included in
the report. It is the Committee’s intent to update the Board on their actions in the near future and hold a strategic
planning ses sion on August 13, 2009 to further define and prioritize affordable housing goals and objec tives for the next
five (5) years.
This year’s report does not include the level of detail on the housing market as has been provided in the past;
however, two reports from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS (CAAR ) are provided, one for calendar
year 2008 and one for the firs t half of calendar year 2009 that provide both local and regional market information.
Staff’s presentation to the Board will also include a short briefing by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AH IP) in order to highlight for Board members the successes and challenges faced by one of the C ounty’s longterm
nonprofit partners in providing affordable hous ing opportunities and services to lowerincome res idents.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all County R esidents
Objective 1.2 By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those
w ho work and/or live in Albemarle County.
D ISC U SSION:
Although the current real es tate market and financial environment impacted outcomes in various housing initiatives
during the year, housing programs funded by the C ounty continued to leverage a significant amount of other public and
private funding. The County’s Homebuyer Assistance Program assisted 18 families (20 few er than last year); howev er
C ounty funds leveraged 91.2 percent of the total costs versus 89 percent in 2007/08 resulting in a more efficient use of
C ounty funds. The County’s housing rehabilitation and emergency repair programs ex ceeded required leverage goals by
14 perc ent with a combination of funding from eleven sources and over 188 hours of v olunteer labor. Overall, County
contributions funded fourteen perc ent (14%) of the total expenditures of $7,576,311 for affordable hous ing initiatives.
Total expenditures were dow n just ov er $4 million from the previous year’s high of $11,641,875 as a result of the
reduction in the number of firsttime homebuyers.
C ounseling programs saw an increase in the number of families seek ing assistanc e with delinquencies and
foreclosures. Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) reported one hundred and s ix tynine (169) new clients with fiftysev en
(57), onethird of the total new clients, requesting assistance with mortgage defaults. The Office of H ousing work ed
w ith six default clients at the request of their lenders . Tw entyfive (25) Albemarle County families sought assistance
w ith six default clients at the request of their lenders . Tw entyfive (25) Albemarle County families sought assistance
from PHA for potential fair housing violations. W hile this does not represent a large issue, the number of complaints
appears to be inc reasing. There is no ev idence to point to the poss ibility of increased violations by landlords and
lenders s ince most of the complaints were handled by educating the landlord/lender. It is likely that increased fair
housing education is making more families aware of their rights under fair housing laws.
The housing market continues to be in a correction mode making FY2008/09 data more difficult to compare to previous
years. W ith that said, s ome meaningful highlights from the CAAR reports are as follows:
H ome sales dropped from 1,439 to 982 (32%) w hile the median price increased from $307,000 to $320,100
between CY2007 and CY2008.
For the first half of CY2009, the number of houses sold dropped 16 percent from 513 to 433 while the median
sales price dropped to $281,440. It should be noted that median sales prices likely reflect more of the type of
house sold rather than a trend toward significant decreases in value. CAAR ’s midyear report states that “Of the
719 homes sold in the 2nd quarter (2009), 509 w ere sold for $300,000 or less. This surge in the lower end of the
market will naturally pull the median sales price down.” (CAAR Market Report published by the Charlottesville
Area Association of REALTORS) These sales reflect CAAR ’s entire market and not just Albemarle County.
At this point in time both market analysts and industry observers are not ready to dec lare that real estate property
values hav e stabilized. The supply of housing on the market ex ceeds demand which may res ult in some additional
price reductions. The percent of reduction will likely differ in various mark et segments but may be in smaller
increments than those s een over the pas t twelve to eighteen months. The greatest negative impac t of the market as it
relates to the C ounty’s affordable housing is that little or no new housing will be developed until there is a reduction in
supply of available existing housing and/or a corresponding increase in demand for housing. However, there is a
possible silver lining as homebuyers have more acces s to housing options at prices under $200,000. This factor,
coupled with the availability of low interest rates, tax credits and other incentives prov ide increased opportunities for
homebuy ers to w eigh affordable hous ing options in the County.
B U D GET IMPACT:
N one
R ECOMMEN D A TIONS:
This report is for the Board’s information. There are no actions requested or required.
A TTACHMENTS
A – Annual Housing R eport
B – CAAR 2008 Report
C – CAAR 2009 MidYear Report
Ret urn to regular agenda
1
ATTACHMENT A
HOUSING PROGRAMS PERFORMANCE REPORT
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2009
Albemarle County partners with private sector housing providers as a means to implement its
affordable housing programs and initiatives. Two nonprofit providers, funded by the County,
administer programs that benefit the County’s lower-income residents. The Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program (AHIP) works primarily with existing homeowners providing housing
rehabilitation and emergency repairs. The Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) provides
counseling and financial assistance to first-time homebuyers in part with the Albemarle County
Homebuyer Assistance Program, which provides down payment assistance to eligible
homebuyers.
The Albemarle County Office of Housing directly administers the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development’s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher Program providing rental assistance
to very-low income households. The Office also offers homebuyer education through its
Homebuyer Clubs and implements the County’s Affordable Housing Policy.
The following tables show production activities for each respective housing program or initiative.
All activities are for fiscal year ending June 30, 2009
Housing Rehabilitation & Emergency Home Repair
Housing Rehab Emergency Repair
Completed Jobs 27 54
Average % Area Median 37% 27%
Range of Project Costs $4,749 - $122,838 $97 - $6951
Average Project Cost $18973 $1,790
Total Project Costs $572,443 $98,423
AHIP has generally completed twenty-five to thirty-five rehab projects annually primarily
depending on the amount and source of funding. Their goal for FY2009 was twenty-five. In
fiscal year 2009, AHIP used at least eleven different funding sources to complete twenty-seven
projects. The sources included local, state, federal and private funding.
AHIP projected completing 50 emergency repair projects for FY2009 and were able to complete
54 with successful fundraising activities from churches, individuals and foundations. Albemarle
County provided $20,000 for direct project costs.
In FY 2009, AHIP exceeded the leverage required ($618,000) for the County’s contribution to
cover staffing and operations costs by leveraging $669,581 to cover direct project costs and use of
volunteers with labor valued at $34,220.
Homebuyer Assistance Programs
A key component to prepare families for homeownership is homebuyer education and counseling.
The Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and the County’s Office of Housing both provide various
2
forms of education and counseling. In FY2009, the County’s Homebuyer Clubs provided credit
counseling to 48 households. In addition, the Office provided assistance to 6 families facing
foreclosure and 17 families who were not Homebuyer Club participants but were seeking
assistance with mortgages. Fourteen Homebuyer Club participants purchased houses during the
year with five purchasing in Albemarle, eight in the City, and one in another locality. Nine of
those purchasing houses had incomes below 50% of the area median income (AMI) and five had
incomes between 50% and 80% AMI
PHA provided counseling to 169 new Albemarle clients during the year as noted below.
• 91 home purchase clients (84 in-process, 3 purchased, 1 entered lease/purchase program,
and 3 suspended counseling)
• 57 mortgage default clients (41 in-process, 2 brought mortgage current, 4 mortgages
modified, 2 initiated forbearance agreements, 1 entered debt management plan, 1
counseled and referred for legal assistance, 1 pre-foreclosure sale, 1 bankruptcy, 1
foreclosure, and 3 suspended counseling)
• 13 reverse mortgage clients (10 in-process, 1 obtained a HECM, 1 declined a mortgage,
and 1 suspended counseling)
• 4 rental counseling clients (all in-process)
• 3 credit counseling clients (all in-process)
• 1 VIDA client (purchased a home)
At the end of the fiscal year, PHA had 230 active, in-process clients receiving the following types
of counseling assistance.
• 161 home purchase clients (exceeding the 125 projected in agency application)
• 51 mortgage default clients
• 10 reverse mortgage clients
• 5 rental counseling clients
• 3 credit counseling clients
PHA provides fair housing education and handles fair housing complaints. In FY09, PHA
offered at least ten seminars on fair housing attended by over 75 county residents. They also
received twenty-five requests for information concerning potential violations or seeking
information on specific fair housing issues. Thirteen of the requests were resolved by providing
information to tenants, landlords, and lenders. Four cases were referred to Virginia Office of
Consumer Affairs and the Virginia Fair Housing Office.
PHA also administers the Albemarle County Homebuyer Assistance Program and has been
successful in leveraging other down payment assistance dollars and below-market-rate mortgage
financing from the Virginia Housing Development Authority. The following table shows activity
for the program for fiscal year 2008 compared to production in calendar years 2006 and 2007.
2006 2007 2008
# of Loans 29 38 18
# of persons 84 94 25
Income Range $18,593 - $57,767 $23,558 - $55,684 $25,168 - $49,161
Average Income $30,806 $40,547 $38,937
Average % of Median 46% 60% 57%
County Down Payment $ $446,037 $448,861 $299,134
Other Assistance $424,100 $574,285 $254,763
Average Assistance $30,005 $26,925 $30,772
Mortgage $ $4,256,679 $6,220,093 $2,493,423
3
Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Office of Housing administers the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program which provides
rental assistance to very low- and extremely low-income households. In FY2009, the program
provided 4,677 months of rental assistance totaling $2,557,810 or approximately $547 per
unit/month. On average, 390 vouchers were under lease each month slightly fewer than in
FY2008. However, monthly expenditures were up on average by approximately $10,000 with
expenditures in May reaching $221,000 which was over $20,000 more than the previous year.
It should be noted that there was little turnover in vouchers in FY09 and the Office of Housing
discontinued issuing vouchers in June and will likely discontinue approving new lease-ups of
vouchers issued until October. The limited turnover is likely a result of the sluggish economy
and the choice of families to remain where they are.
In addition, the Office manages thirty-four project-based vouchers for the Scottsville School
Apartments with a budget of approximately $200,000 and provides County-funded rental
subsidies for 29 units at Woods Edge Senior Apartments.
Proffers
The major impact of the economic downturn has been with the lack of activity on affordable
housing proffers. No new proffers were received in FY2009 and little activity occurred for
approved developments that had offered proffers. However, seven new affordable rental units
were completed at Old Trail with four of those rented as of July 20, 2009.
An additional tool may be available for developers in meeting their affordable housing proffers.
The Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust (CLT) was incorporated and received its 501-c3
designation as a nonprofit agency on July 13, 2009. The CLT proposes to acquire land for
affordable housing including working with developers with affordable housing proffers. Once
the housing is completed, the house will be sold to an income-eligible family and the land will be
retained by the CLT and leased to the family. The lease agreement will allow the CLT to have an
opportunity to repurchase the house upon notification that the owner wishes to sell it and/or share
in the increased equity in the house upon sale.
Community Development Block Grant; Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
The County received an award of $700,000 in Community Development Block Grants from the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for site development
work at Crozet Meadows. This project will include the renovation of twenty-eight senior
apartments and the construction of thirty-eight new senior apartments. After months of
negotiation with the owners and DHCD, the County executed a contract with DHCD at the end of
April. Bids for the work were received May 28 and a contract award is scheduled for mid-July.
The County also committed $134,400 from the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund and up to
eight housing choice vouchers to this development.
The County supported an application for low-income housing tax credits for the Treesdale Park
development. This development has been under consideration by the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program (AHIP) since 2000. AHIP decided to form a joint venture with Pinnacle
Construction of Charlottesville in late 2008. This joint venture with an experienced
developer/builder of tax credit projects was instrumental in receiving tax credits and moving this
project forward. The County committed $246,400 from the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust
4
Fund and up to twenty-two housing choice vouchers to this development. On July 15, Treesdale
Park received notice that preliminary rankings indicated the development would receive the
requested tax credits.
Leveraging
Although production was lower in FY2009 than in previous years, the County maintained a high
amount of leverage with local funds accounting for fourteen percent (14%) of total project costs
of just over $7.5 million. Federal funding was the largest source of funding in FY09 with
approximately $3 million supporting the rental assistance programs, almost $300,000 providing
down payment assistance, and $114,522 funding housing rehabilitation projects. The second
largest source of funding was private funds including $2.49 million in mortgages to homebuyers.
LOOKING BACK
The year started with the Housing Committee awaiting findings and recommendations from the
Joint Task Force on Affordable Housing. The Committee continued to research options for
securing long-term affordability for proffered units and began to discuss a need to focus on
increasing the stock of affordable rental housing. The Committee received a draft of the Joint
Task Force report for comment prior to the report being made public in February 2009. Virginia
Supportive Housing made a presentation to the Housing Committee on a proposed Single Room
Occupancy development to serve the region. This development would likely be in the City of
Charlottesville but would require regional support to make it feasible.
The Committee continued its research on the use of deed restrictions as a method of ensuring
long-term affordability for proffered housing units. At a minimum, this work has shown the
disconnect between various organizations in the financial community. Some won’t accept deed
restrictions while others may accept them under certain conditions. For example, FHA would not
accept deed restrictions with a first right-of-refusal while Fannie Mae will only accept them if
provided by a nonprofit, governmental entity, or employer. The Committee is continuing to
investigate a means for ensuring or guaranteeing long-term affordability. However, finding a
method for accomplishing this will be difficult until there is some consistency in rules and
regulations from lenders and, more particularly, the secondary mortgage market. Some
Committee members have suggested that they continue to keep this on their agenda but it is not a
critical issue at this time since no new proffers are in the pipeline.
LOOKING AHEAD
Much of the focus in FY10 will be overseeing the development of Crozet Meadows through the
administration of the Community Development Block Grant. It is expected that the County’s
portion of the work will be completed in late spring or early summer of 2010. In addition, work
will begin on Treesdale Park which includes an investment of over $240,000 from the Crozet
Crossings Trust Fund. AHIP will be the recipient of this funding in the form of a grant under a
yet to be developed agreement with the County.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) will likely require increased oversight and
management as the program is not seeing the level of turnover as in the past. HUD is not
maintaining a funding stream to keep up with the per-unit increases in assistance. For the first
time, we are dipping into a reserve fund for the months of July through September and may have
5
to use the reserve fund through December 2009. It is highly likely that no new vouchers will be
issued during this time.
CONCLUSION
The uncertainties of the housing market and the concerns over adequate funding for our programs
will make 2010 a challenging year. Applicants for assistance are contacting the office concerned
over the fact that they have not been called and offered a voucher. The perception seems to be
that it must be Albemarle County’s fault because they know that new money has come from
Washington as promised by the current administration; yet, the fact is that the County is not
receiving sufficient funds to cover its current allocation of vouchers.
The Housing Committee will likely have to begin making recommendations on priorities as
funding gets tighter and demand for funding increases. The priority for use of available funds
could change from our current focus on increasing homeownership to increasing affordable rental
units and opportunities. This would be a major change from the past several years and require a
different approach in awarding funding.
Regardless of the priorities for using available funds, the Housing Committee and the Office of
Housing will continue to recommend and take action to use the funds in an efficient and effective
manner. One way of measuring efficiency is through leveraging other resources. We will work
with AHIP and DHCD to look for opportunities to use Community Development Block Grants.
Where possible, we will consider accepting cash proffers in lieu of affordable units to help fund
priority housing initiatives. And, we will continue our focus of education and counseling and
expand it if necessary to prepare our customers for participation in the County’s affordable
housing initiatives.
CAAR Market Report
2008 Year-End
Published by the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS®
Overview
It probably comes as no surprise that the 2008 Charlottesville area real estate market had a bad
year. If you have read any of the 2008 quarterly reports we produced, you know all about the
decreases in home prices and the oversupply of homes for sale. The 4th quarter - thanks to
phenomenal stock market declines, credit crunches, and bail-out mania – took the slow market
we had experienced for the first 9 months down another notch. Sales in October and November
were particularly bad as consumers froze in the face of amazing national and world-wide events.
In December, the market rebounded a bit thanks to very low interest rates and the relief that the
elections were indeed over.
All told, many homeowners and REALTORS® are glad to be finished with 2008. The small
December market rally, the Stock Market possibly stabilizing, low interest rates, and the new
hope that follows a regime change in Washington DC may give the market the momentum it
needs. Time will tell if the market will improve in 2009, but putting 2008 in the past and the
promise of the New Year gives the local real estate market some hope – or maybe relief.
Homes Sold
There were 2923 homes sold in the Charlottesville area during 2008, which was down 22% (-824
sales) from 2007. All local areas were down from last year: Albemarle -31.8%, Charlottesville -
14%, Fluvanna -26.2%, Greene -17.7%, Louisa -2.4% and Nelson -19.6%. The extremely low
sales in October and November dragged the year-end sales number down to a level we have not
seen since 1998.
New to the 2008 CAAR Market Reports are numbers from the other side of Afton Mountain.
The Staunton/Waynesboro real estate market, referred to as the Central Valley in the charts
below, now overlaps with the Charlottesville area market to such an extent that we need to report
separate numbers for that area. These numbers were generated from the Greater Augusta MLS,
which has more complete data on the Valley market than the CAAR MLS. Based on the total
number of sales, the Valley is the second largest market area in the report. Sales were down in
the Valley by 18.9% compared to last year.
Home Sales
County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Albemarle 1430 1509 1725 1973 1679 1439 982
Charlottesville 379 430 546 555 764 643 553
Fluvanna 587 558 657 639 523 423 312
Greene 260 256 305 309 291 203 167
Louisa 143 161 194 241 214 206 201
Nelson 333 360 374 399 259 194 156
Area Total* 3370 3543 4157 4673 4396 3747 2923
Staunton-Augusta** 1311 1063
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS
1
3370
3543
4157
4673
4396
3747
2923
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Year-End Sales History
2002 20072006200520042003 2008
Median Sales Price
How much have home prices slipped in this area? Most would agree that local home prices have
slipped from their high in 2006, but each area – and arguably each property - is distinct.
Although the area median price of homes is an important statistic, you should not compare a
change in the median price of homes that sold with an actual increase or decrease in home prices.
The median prices listed below are the middle of the market of properties that sold. Simply put,
this is an indication of what buyers were willing to pay and is not a true reflection of individual
home prices. It is probably safe to assume that a steady, year-to-year increase in the median price
is a good sign, but it does not necessarily mean prices are up and vice versa if the median price
decreases.
The only way to know what your home will sell for is to have a REALTOR® or appraiser prepare
a comparative market analysis (CMA) for your property. This market is changing very quickly
and to be up-to-date, you need to do a CMA every two weeks. Pricing a property correctly is the
best way to sell it!
Overall, the median home price (including attached homes) declined $14,500 (-5.2%) from last
year. Albemarle (+4.3%) was the only county to show an increase in median price, with all other
areas showing declines. Median prices for other locales include: Charlottesville (-5.4%),
Fluvanna (-6%), Greene (-9.5%), Louisa (-6.1%), and Nelson (-3.2%), and the Valley (-5.8%).
2
Median Prices
County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Albemarle $226,000 $253,636 $266,000 $289,000 $320,000 $307,000 $320,100
Charlottesville $155,500 $175,950 $219,500 $249,000 $240,000 $280,000 $265,000
Fluvanna $142,500 $165,000 $184,900 $234,000 $244,900 $260,000 $244,450
Greene $137,500 $163,725 $179,900 $234,900 $267,000 $285,000 $258,000
Louisa $137,000 $149,950 $174,950 $205,900 $234,481 $265,277 $249,000
Nelson $145,000 $171,750 $235,000 $300,000 $325,000 $310,000 $300,000
Area Median* $173,518 $194,000 $225,000 $256,884 $270,000 $279,500 $265,000
Central Valley** $213,591 $201,211
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS (note: these are average prices, not median)
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
Albemarle Charlottesville Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson Central Valley Area Median
2007-2008 Median Sales Price
2007 2008
3
Median Sales Price (Entire Area)
$265,000$279,500
$173,518
$194,000
$225,000
$256,884
$270,000
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
2002 20062003 200720052004 2008
Inventory of Homes for Sale
The inventory of homes for sale in the Charlottesville area has declined slightly for the past 6
months in a row. There are still too many homes on the market right now, but at least this is a
positive sign that the local market may be headed in the right direction. For the past 12 to 18
months, the excess inventory of homes on the market has been the most significant factor
causing local home prices to soften.
Currently, we have 3,086 homes on the market, compared to 3,072 at this time last year (see
chart below) and considerably less than the 4050 on the market at the end of May 2008. The
median price of homes currently for sale is $299,900. The average DOM (days on market) of
these homes is 189 days. It is a great time for first-time buyers, because there are 697 homes for
sale under $200,000 with an average DOM of 154. There are 259 homes currently on the market
priced at a million dollars or more with an average DOM of 260.
4
Inventory of Homes For Sale (last 4 years)
1588
2504
3072 3086
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Days on Market (DOM)
DOM for homes that have sold is perhaps the best indicator of the true market condition. In a
balanced market, the DOM should be around 90 days. In 2005, the market was a super-heated
sellers’ market due to low inventory, and DOM dropped to 62 (see chart below). That was a
significant sellers market. The 2008 market had a glut of inventory, so the 119 DOM is not a
surprise. We continue to be in a fairly strong buyer’s market, so sellers will need to price their
properties aggressively to beat the average DOM.
Average Days On Market (DOM)
County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Albemarle 71 72 69 53 69 91 113
Charlottesville 40 44 110 51 57 79 110
Fluvanna 72 71 63 60 75 88 119
Greene 73 67 80 59 79 93 109
Louisa 97 102 89 85 91 126 108
Nelson 137 97 97 71 86 111 150
Area Average* 78 75 81 62 75 94 119
Central Valley** 127 142
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS
5
New Construction
It is important to note that many “new” homes are not included in CAAR MLS statistics. It is
very common for a buyer to contact a builder directly to custom build a home. With that said, the
historical perspective of the pace of new home sales gives us a reasonably good picture of the
market for new construction. As the chart below shows, new home sales have declined sharply in
the past 24 months.
2008 New Home Sales
685
478
811
602
796
696
573
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2002 2005 2007200420062003 2008
Price Per Square Foot (Finished)
Looking at the average price per square foot of finished space in homes that have sold is
interesting, but should not be relied on as a scientific number. The averages in this section of the
report include the cost of the land, which varies greatly based on location and amenities. A lot at
Wintergreen with fantastic views of the Valley costs much more than a lot in other parts of
Nelson. With that said, the numbers in this section reflect a general sense of the cost of housing
in the areas listed. The new Central Valley area is the lowest price per square foot section of the
market. Not surprisingly, Fluvanna, Greene and Louisa are less costly than Charlottesville and
Albemarle. Nelson is heavily influenced by Wintergreen building prices and lot costs.
6
Average Price Per Sq Foot
County 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Albemarle 118 131 144 165 178 175 168
Charlottesville 112 132 146 173 202 196 186
Fluvanna 90 101 110 130 142 141 135
Greene 96 103 117 140 155 152 143
Louisa 94 103 110 132 146 151 134
Nelson 117 137 166 207 212 209 193
Area Average* 109 123 136 158 171 168 158
Central Valley** 131 133
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**based on CAAR MLS data
Condos and Townhomes
The sale of attached homes is only reported in Charlottesville and Albemarle because very few
properties in this category are located in other counties except Nelson. Since the condos in
Nelson are primarily in the Wintergreen Resort market, we have decided not to include them in
this report. Charlottesville condo sales are still reasonably strong, but Albemarle sales
plummeted 45.4% compared to 2007. The chart below shows the attached homes sold in 2008
compared to past years. Inventory levels of attached homes for sale are still high, with 362 listed
for sale in Charlottesville and Albemarle, but this number decreased significantly in 2008. This
over-supply is presented in the 204 average DOM for the attached properties currently on the
market. The median price of an attached home is $234,995.
Condo and Townhome Sales
459
568
310
156
368
217
666713
354
396
257
1058769
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Albemarle Charlottesville
2002 20072005200620042003 2008
7
Conclusions and Predictions
2008 will go down as one of the most interesting years in real estate. The market appeared to be
stabilizing in September when monthly sales did not show a decline from the previous year.
Then the Wall Street implosion slowed the market significantly heading into the already slow
holiday season. The year ended with 5% mortgage rates and a small (but welcomed) surge in
sales.
As we concluded in previous Market Reports, it is a GREAT time to be a buyer, if it is the right
time based on your personal circumstances. If you are looking to move or invest and plan to hold
the property at least 5 years, this market offers an extraordinary opportunity if you purchase a
property that is priced correctly. In this type of market, sellers need to offer a better combination
of location, amenities, and pricing than the 50 other sellers in the same price range with whom
they are competing for buyers.
There are some indicators that the market may pick up at the mid-year point of 2009. The key to
improvement in the market is a reduction in inventory. We need to reduce inventory by a third to
get to a more balanced market. The Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® now has
live statistics posted on the web at CAAR.com. Watch the inventory of homes on the market and
hope that it continues to shrink to a stable level – around 2000 to 2500.
This Quarterly Market Report is produced by the Charlottesville Area Association of
REALTORS® using data from the CAAR MLS and the Greater Augusta MLS where noted. For
more information on this report or the real estate market, pick up a copy of the Real Estate
Weekly, visit www.caar.com or contact your REALTOR®.
8
Page 1 of 7
CAAR Market Report
2009 Mid-Year
Published by the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS®
Where Are We Now?
The pace of home purchases in the Charlottesville area continues to improve from the dismal 4th
quarter of 2008, but sales lag well behind compared to last year. The sale of homes has been
increasing month to month for six months in a row. The steady improvement is easy to predict
with the seasonal upswing the market naturally experiences this time of year, but based on
pending sales in the MLS, we may continue to see sales increase beyond the seasonal selling
season. For the first time in many months, the number of contracts in June was up from the
previous year. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues.
Fueling these homes sales is the significant decrease in real estate prices. This report will detail
some statistics that indicate that home prices have fallen steeply (20% or more) and this has
resulted in an increase in sales. There is some evidence that sellers are starting to embrace the
current market environment and price their home accordingly. The average Days on Market
(DOM) has been dropping in recent months, and the median time a property takes to sell is now
only 75 days. That indicates that many homes – likely the ones priced correctly – are selling
quickly.
Mid-Year Home Sales
There were 1131 homes sold in the Charlottesville area during the first six months of 2009,
which was down 28% (-440 sales) from 2008. After the 1st quarter, annualized sales were down
33.9%, which demonstrates the 2nd quarter improvement. All local areas were down from last
year: Albemarle -15.6%, Charlottesville -35.2%, Fluvanna -34.7%, Greene -24.5%, Louisa -
38.4%, Nelson -39%, and Orange – 47.1%. Monthly sales for the region have improved slightly
each month since November 2008, but much of that can be attributed to seasonal swings.
Sales in the Central Valley region were generated from the Greater Augusta MLS, which has
more complete data on the Valley market than the CAAR MLS. Sales were down in the Valley
by 25.5 % compared to last year.
Mid-Year Sales
Year to Date (thru June)
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Albemarle 1007 843 783 513 433
Charlottesville 276 450 326 310 201
Fluvanna 315 270 226 176 115
Greene 146 168 116 98 74
Louisa 123 120 102 99 61
Nelson 184 125 96 77 47
Orange 65 59 63 51 27
*Area Total 2311 2280 2016 1571 1131
**Central Valley 529 394
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS
513
433
310
201
176
115 98
74
99
61 77
47 51
27
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Albemarle Charlottesville Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson Orange
Mid-Year Sales
2008 2009
Have Home Prices Slipped?
Based on the data from the CAAR MLS, we believe that the numbers clearly show a significant
decrease in home prices. The median prices listed below are the middle of the market of
properties that sold. Simply put, this is an indication of what buyers were willing/able to pay and
is not a true reflection of individual home prices. It is probably safe to assume that a steady, year-
to-year decrease in the median price is a good indication that prices are going down, but it is not
an exact measurement.
We believe the number displays below provide compelling evidence that our local real estate
market has experienced a noteworthy drop in home prices. The CAAR market reports have been
discussing this trend since the Fall of 2007, but this report finally shows clear evidence of the
decline. The one caveat that we need to make is that part of this median price decline is a
reflection of an increase in home sales in the lower price ranges. Of the 719 homes that sold in
the 2nd quarter, 509 were sold for $300,000 or less. This surge in the lower end of the market
will naturally pull the median price down.
Each property is affected differently by this price decline. The only way to know what your
home will sell for is to have a REALTOR® or appraiser prepare a comparative market analysis
(CMA) for your property. This market is changing very quickly and to be up-to-date, you need to
do a CMA every two weeks. Pricing a property correctly is the best way to sell it!
Overall, the median home price (including attached homes) declined $22,900 (-8.5%) compared
to the first half of last year. All areas covered in this report showed a decline. Median prices for
other locales include: Albemarle (-9.4%), Charlottesville (-6.8%), Fluvanna (-19.6%), Greene (-
3.4%) Louisa (-20.8%), Nelson (-6.7%) Orange (-29.7%) and the Valley (-8%).
Page 2 of 7
Median Sales Prices
Year to Date (thru June)
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Albemarle $264,900 $325,000 $309,900 $310,733 $281,440
Charlottesville $240,500 $238,450 $278,000 $265,000 $247,000
Fluvanna $220,000 $241,852 $253,000 $250,000 $201,000
Greene $217,250 $272,815 $291,300 $258,750 $250,000
Louisa $196,926 $249,900 $252,310 $259,000 $205,000
Nelson $270,750 $305,000 $293,500 $300,000 $280,000
Orange $210,000 $275,000 $285,000 $229,700 $161,400
*Area Median $240,000 $271,895 $274,000 $269,900 $247,000
**Central Valley $199,912 $183,912
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS (note: these are average prices, not median)
Median Sales Price (Entire Area)
$240,000
$271,895 $274,000
$269,900
$247,000
$220,000
$230,000
$240,000
$250,000
$260,000
$270,000
$280,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7
Price Per Square Foot (Finished)
Another indicator that allows us to see the drop in home prices is a major drop in the price per
square foot numbers. The average price per square foot of finished space in homes is not a
scientific number, but a downward trend over the years clearly indicates a decrease in prices (and
vice versa). According to the chart below, prices peaked in 2006 and have declined for the past
three years. The $18 per square foot drop in 2009 is by far the largest decline we have
experienced in recent years.
Price Per Finished Square Foot
Year to Date
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Albemarle 158 176 176 171 154
Charlottesville 168 204 189 189 168
Fluvanna 125 143 141 134 119
Greene 135 155 155 147 132
Louisa 122 149 147 143 108
Nelson 191 214 210 191 171
Orange 131 169 181 135 113
*Area Average 151 173 167 161 143
**Central Valley 136 113
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**based on CAAR MLS data
Inventory Heading in the Right Direction
The inventory of homes for sale in the Charlottesville area generally increases in the first half of
the year, with many homes coming on the market for the spring selling season. The good news is
that in 2009 we have seen the inventory of homes shrink – not enough, but it is heading in the
right direction. Having this excess of inventory is causing many of the problems with our local
housing market. Until we are able to reduce the number of homes for sale, we will continue to be
in a strong buyer’s market with soft home prices and very creative incentives. That’s good for
buyers, but it is not any better for the long-term housing market than the strong seller’s market
we experienced just a few years ago.
Currently, we have 3,602 homes on the market, compared to 3,761 at this time last year. This
small decrease from last year is a positive sign, but we have a long way to go before we see
appropriate inventory levels in the 2,000 to 2,500 range. The median price of homes currently for
sale is $299,000, which is $9,900 less than last year. The average DOM (days on market) of
these homes is 155 days, which is four days more than last year and 30 days more than homes
that have sold. The most telling statistic related to homes currently on the market is that the
average price per square foot is $203 compared to $143 for homes that have sold in the first 6
months of 2009.
Housing affordability is the positive aspect of this market. There are 871 homes for sale
$200,000 or less with an average DOM of 141 and an average price per square foot of $143.
There are 289 homes currently on the market priced at a million dollars or more with an average
DOM of 226.
Days on Market (DOM)
The average number of days a property is on the market is a great indicator of a housing market’s
strength. The average DOM for the Charlottesville area has been steadily increasing for the past
several quarters. This trend continued in the 2nd quarter, but the increase was just 3 days more
than 2008’s mid-year number. Although the increase was only a modest 3 days, it still supports
the fact that we have too many homes on the market for the amount of sales. Until we work the
inventory of available homes down to a more manageable number, DOM will stay high. A
balanced market should have a DOM of approximately 90, but we have not been in that range
since 2007.
Average Days on Market (thru June)
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Albemarle 55 59 91 114 107
Charlottesville 59 55 69 122 128
Fluvanna 64 69 86 128 132
Greene 54 85 94 93 97
Louisa 98 84 137 115 102
Nelson 72 82 113 163 165
Orange 79 76 111 140 152
*Area Average 64 69 92 122 125
**Central Valley 143 150
*includes sales outside the counties listed
**numbers courtesy of the Greater Augusta MLS
New Construction Still Slow
It is important to note that many “new” homes are not included in CAAR MLS statistics. It is
very common for a buyer to contact a builder directly to custom build a home. With that said, the
historical perspective of the pace of new home sales gives us a reasonably good picture of the
market for new construction. As the chart below shows, new home sales are still struggling and
until the inventory of homes for sale declines, new construction will lag.
2009 New Home Sales
(thru June)
393
457
364
265
154
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Page 5 of 7
Condos and Townhomes (Attached Homes)
The sale of attached homes is only reported in Charlottesville and Albemarle because very few
properties in this category are located in other counties, except Nelson. Since the condos in
Nelson are primarily in the Wintergreen Resort market, we have decided not to include them in
this report. One of the more interesting numbers in this report is the small increase in the sale of
attached homes in Albemarle that first showed up in the 2009 1st Quarter Market Report.
Charlottesville attached home sales are down 33.3%, while Albemarle sales edged up 1.8%
compared to 2008. The chart below shows the attached homes sold in 2009 compared to past
years. Inventory levels of attached homes for sale are still high, with an average DOM of 174 for
properties currently on the market. The median price of an attached home currently on the
market is $219,900. The median price for an attached home that sold in the first six months of
2009 is $223,000 for Albemarle and $239,388 for Charlottesville.
388
83
301
223
308
121
168
111
171
74
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Townhome and Condo Sales
(thru June)
Albemarle Charlottesville
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Conclusions and Predictions
Although we have been recommending the need for sellers to reduce their prices under the
current market conditions, evidence of these price reductions has not shown up until this
quarterly report. There is a direct relation between lower prices and higher sales. As more and
more sellers price their properties according to the current market, sales should continue to
increase. Increased sales is not something we normally see in the second half of the year, but
this year, fueled by realistic prices, low interest rates, tax credits, and pent-up demand, may be an
exception. We should see a slow but steady improvement in the number of sales for the balance
of the year.
Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7
By the 4th quarter of 2009, we will likely see a year-to-year sales improvement, but only because
the 4th quarter of 2008 was so bad it will be hard not to beat. 2009 is slowly heading in a positive
direction in terms of sales and inventory levels and we expect that trend to continue. We may
see more evidence of price declines in future market reports as more and more sellers accept the
reality of this market. Additional declines in prices are possible, but it will be hard to tell if these
price drops are a result of more sellers finally pricing their properties based on the current
market, or a real decline in home values. Only time, and future market reports, will reveal this to
us.
This Quarterly Market Report is produced by the Charlottesville Area Association of
REALTORS® using data from the CAAR MLS and the Greater Augusta MLS where noted. For
more information on this report or the real estate market, pick up a copy of the CAAR Real
Estate Weekly, visit www.caar.com, or contact your REALTOR®.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SUB 2008100 (Wyant) – Subdivision Appeal
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of disapproval of W yant Family Subdivision
Plat
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Fritz, and Lawrence
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Timothy W yant propos ed to subdivide Tax Map and Parc el N umber 02600000004200 (the “parcel”) into tw o lots as
a family subdivision (see Attachment A). The parcel is 5.2347 acres and is zoned Rural Areas. If s ubdivided, the
resulting lots w ould be 2.7018 and 2.5329 acres. There are currently two houses on the parcel. The building permit
for the second house on the parcel w as issued by the Building Offic ial in 2004. The parcel fronts on and obtains its
access from Old Breakheart R oad, a road that is neither a public street nor an approv ed private street under the
Subdiv ision and Zoning Ordinances. The subdivision agent disapproved the plat on May 12, 2009 (see Attachment
B), and Mr. W yant appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2009 (see Attachment C).
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance quality of life for all citiz ens
Goal 4: Effectively manage growth and development
DISCU SSION :
VDOT Approval is Required
The County’s approval of the Wyant family subdivision plat is contingent, in part, upon VD OT’s approv al of the point
at which Old Breakheart Road intersects with Slam Gate Road, a public street, under C ounty Code §§ 14212(C)
and 14316. County C ode § 14212(C ) provides:
Each approval of a plat for a family subdivision s hall be subject to the following c onditions:
. . .
C . The entranc e of the principal means of acces s for each lot onto any public street shall comply with
Virginia Department of Trans portation standards and be approved by the Virginia D epartment of
Transportation.
County Code § 14316 provides:
The subdivider shall submit, prior to or w ith the final plat, evidenc e s atisfactory to the agent that the
entrance of the principal means of ac cess for each lot onto any ex isting or propos ed public street complies
with Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
These regulations have been consistently applied to require VD OT approval of the intersection at whic h the
travelway provides access from the proposed subdivis ion lots (Old Breakheart Road) to the public street (Slam Gate
Road).
County Code §§ 14212(C) and 14316 facilitate VDOT’s required review to determine compliance w ith applicable
State regulations. VD OT did not approv e the intersection because the sight distance criteria under 24 VAC 3071
130 were not satisfied and, related thereto, because the c riteria for a commercial entrance under 24 VAC 3071140
were not met because a sight distanc e easement was required. Both of these regulations are part of VD OT’s
minimum s tandards for entrances for s tate highways.
Because the applicant was unable to obtain the required VDOT approval, the family subdivision plat w as
disapproved by staff because the applicant failed to s atis fy County C ode §§ 14212(C) and 14316.
Consent to Approval of Old Breakheart R oad as a Priv ate Street is Required
As explained below, new lots must have frontage on an approved public or private street. In the past, s taff has
approved preexisting roads as private streets in conjunc tion with the approval of a family subdivision. Though this
situation appears to be rare, staff’s practic e has not required the consent of the owners of the other parcels along the
preexis ting road. In this case, the W yant family subdiv ision plat is unclear as to who owns and controls Old
Breakheart Road, or whether it exists as a separate parcel or is an eas ement across several parcels. Because
approval of Old Break heart Road as a private street requires that it be part of the proposed family s ubdivision (for
example, C ounty Code § 14232(C)(1) provides that the agent may authorize family “subdivisions to be developed
with one (1) or more new private streets or shared drivew ays”), it is the County Attorney’s opinion that the consent
and signatures of thos e persons having an ownership interest in Old Breakheart Road is required.
Without the required signatures, Old Breakheart Road c annot be approved as a private s treet. If Old Breakheart
Road is not approved as a private street, the family subdivision plat cannot be approved because the proposed lots
would fail to satisfy other requirements. County Code § 14211(C) provides that a “family subdivis ion shall be
approved only if, in addition to satisfying all other applic able requirements of this chapter, the agent is satisfied that .
. . [e]ach lot proposed to be created c omplies with all applicable requirements of the z oning ordinance.” County
Code § 14400, applicable to family subdivisions under C ounty Code § 14208(D), prov ides that “[e]ach lot within a
subdivision shall satisfy the minimum lot requirements established in the zoning ordinance.” In this c ase, the
proposed lots would not comply with the Zoning Ordinance’s requirement that each lot front on an exis ting or
proposed public street or a private street approved under the Subdiv ision Ordinance. County Code § 184.6.1(a).
County Code § 14403, als o applicable to family subdivis ions under C ounty Code § 14208(D), prov ides that “[e]ach
lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an exis ting or proposed s treet.” “Frontage” means “the c ontinuous
uninterrupted distance along w hich a parcel abuts an adjacent street.” C ounty Code § 14106. The term “street,”
when not preceded by either “public” or “private,” means either a public street or a private street. County Code § 14
105(E).
When the applicant obtains the consent and signatures of the other owners, Old Breakheart Road can be approved
as a private street under County Code § 14232(B)(1) (authority for the agent to approve a private street for a family
subdivision) because it meets the requirements of County C ode § 14234(C ), including the requirement that the
street be adequate to carry the traffic volume that may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision.
However, VD OT’s approv al of the inters ection of Old Breakheart Road and Slam Gate Road under County C ode §§
14212(C) and 14316 remains a separate requirement for approval of the family subdivis ion plat.
Summary
The Wy ant family subdivision plat was disapproved because the applicant failed to s atis fy the requirements of
County Code §§ 14212(C) and 14316 because he has not obtained VDOT’s approval of the intersec tion of Old
Breakheart Road and Slam Gate Road. In addition, Old Breakheart R oad must be approved as a private street in
order for the proposed lots to comply w ith the lot frontage requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
One of the prerequisites for that approv al is the consent of the owners of Old Breakheart Road.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision of the s ubdivision agent disapprov ing
the W yant family subdiv ision plat, and that it adopt the proposed res olution stating the reasons for the disapproval
included as Attachment D.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Subdiv ision Plat
B – Letter of Denial
C – Applic ant’s Appeal
D Res olution
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, SUB 2008100 (Wyant) is a pla t proposing to subdivide Tax Ma p a nd Pa rce l Numbe r
02600000004200 into two lots a s a fa mily subdivision (he re ina fte r, the “pla t”); and
WHEREAS, the pla t fa ils to comply with seve ra l provisions of the Subdivision Ordina nc e a s se t forth
be low.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED that the Albemarle County Boa rd of Supervisors he re by
disa pprove s the plat be ca use it fa ils to comply with County Code § 14212(C) bec a use the Virginia Depa rtme nt of
Tra nsporta tion (he re ina fter, “V DOT”) did not a pprove the entra nc e of the principa l mea ns of a c c ess for e ac h lot
(Old Bre akhea rt Road) onto a public stre et (Sla m G ate Road) bec ause the inte rsec tion does not c omply w ith the
applica ble sta nda rds in 24 VA C 3071130 a nd 24 V A C 3071140. In order to c omply with County Code § 14
212(C), the subdivide r must sa tisfy the sight dista nc e c riteria unde r 24 VAC 307130 a nd the c rite ria for a
comme rc ial entra nc e unde r 24 V AC 3071140 by obta ining a sight dista nc e e a se me nt tha t is approve d by VDO T;
and
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board disa pproves the pla t bec ause it fails to c omply with
County Code § 14316 be c ause the subdivide r did not submit, prior to or with the plat, e vide nc e sa tisfa c tory to the
subdivision a ge nt tha t the entra nc e of the principal mea ns of a cc ess for e ac h lot (Old Bre a khe art Roa d) onto an
existing or propose d public stree t (Sla m Ga te Roa d) c omplie s with a pplic a ble VD O T sta nda rds in 24 VA C 3071
130 a nd 24 V AC 3071140. In order c omply w ith County Code § 14216, the subdivide r must sa tisfy the sight
distance crite ria under 24 VA C 307130 a nd the criteria for a c ommercia l e ntra nc e unde r 24 VAC 3071140 by
obtaining a sight dista nce ea se me nt that is a pproved by VD OT a nd submit sa tisfa ctory e vide nc e of tha t a pprova l
to the subdivision agent; a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board disa pproves the pla t bec ause Old Brea khe art Roa d
ca nnot be a pproved a s a priva te stree t unde r County Code § 14232(B)(1) w ithout the signa ture s of the owne rs of
the parce ls c omposing O ld Bre akhea rt Road or ove r which tha t road trave rse s e videnc ing their consent to the
subdivision sinc e Old Bre a khe art Roa d must be part of the subdivision. Without approva l of Old Bre akhea rt
Roa d as a private stre et, the lots propose d on the pla t do not ha ve the fronta ge required by County Code §§ 14400
and 14403 a nd County Code § 184.6.1(a ). In orde r to obtain a pproval of the pla t, the subdivider must obtain the
signatures of suc h ow ners to a llow O ld Bre akhea rt Road to be approve d a s a private stre e t.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN D A TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Amendment
SU B JECT/PR OPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2010 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $3,229,119.30 and
request approval of Appropriations #2010009,
#2010010, #2010011, #2010012, #1010013, #2010014,
#2010015, #2010016, and #2010017 to provide funding
for various loc al government and school programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mess rs. Tucker, Foley, D avis, Wiggans
LEGAL R EVIEW : Yes
A GENDA DATE:
August 5, 2009
A C TION: X INFORMATION:
C ON SENT A GENDA:
ACTION : IN FORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
B A C K GR OU N D :
Virginia Code § 15.22507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fis cal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
w hich exceeds one percent of the total expenditures s how n in the currently adopted budget must be accomplis hed by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all C ounty funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, Sc hool SelfSustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $3,229,119.30. Because the cumulativ e
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing
is required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: D evelop a c omprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
D ISC U SSION:
The proposed inc rease of this FY 2010 Budget Amendment totals $3,229,119.30. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITU R ES
Special Revenue Funds $ 54,291.00
School Fund $ 212,809.00
School Program Funds $ 2,555,839.90
ECC $ 100,000.00
Commission on C hildren & Families $ 31,381.00
Capital Projects $ 274,798.40
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,229,119.30
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Loc al R evenues (C ontributions, Other) $ 6,536.00
State R evenue $ 2,459,701.00
Federal Revenue $ 130,274.90
Other Fund Balances $ 632,607.40
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,229,119.30
The budget amendment is comprised of nine (9) new appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010009) providing $550.00 for a Police Department grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2010010) totaling $8,741.00 for the Circ uit Court C lerk Preserv ation Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2010011) to carry forward $274,798.40 in capital project funds for the R te. 250/W estminster
Canterbury s idew alk project;
Canterbury s idew alk project;
One (1) appropriation (#2010012) totaling $100,000.00 for the ECC building security system;
Two (2) appropriations (#2010013 and #2010014) totaling $2,768,648.90 for Education donations/programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010015) totaling $31,381.00 for miscellaneous grants for C CF;
One (1) appropriation (#2010016) totaling $18,462.00 for lighting upgrades at Greer Elementary School; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010017) totaling $45,000.00 to reimburse VD oT for all costs associated with the acquisition
of rightofw ay/construction easements for improvements to R oute 29.
A detailed des cription of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
R ECOMMEN D A TIONS:
Staff recommends approv al of the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,229,119.30 after the public hearing,
and then approv al of Appropriations #2010009, #2010010, #2010011, #2010012, #1010013, #2010014, #2010015,
#2010016, and #2010017 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described
in Attachment A.
A TTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Description of Appropriations
Ret urn to regular agenda
Appropriation #2010009
$550.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $
550.00
Target Corporation has awarded the Police Department a grant in the amount of $550.00. This grant will
assist in the purchase of a digital SLR c amera for use in evidence collection.
Appropriation #2010010
$8,741.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $8,741.00
The Library of Virginia has awarded the Circuit Court Clerk's Offic e grants in the amount of $8,741.00. The
purpose of these grants are to preserve court documents in paper form until s uch time as they are able to be
offered in a suitable reformatted copy.
Appropriation #2010011
$274,798.40
R evenue Sourc e: CIP Fund Balance $274,798.40
This request is to carry forw ard balanc es remaining in the sidewalk program at the end of FY 08/09 into FY 09/10
for the R te. 250/W estminster C anterbury sidewalk project. The design plans for this project are nearly complete
and we expect to bid and begin construction later this summer. It is necessary to c arry forw ard the funds into the
current year before the County can execute a contrac t.
Appropriation #2010012
$100,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: ECC Fund Balance $100,000.00
We are presently negotiating with a vendor who finished first in our RFP process to replac e our security system.
The c urrent system needs expanded and is outdated. The oldest computer system in the EC C is the one that
controls access to the facility. The softw are is no longer supported by the vendor and the hardware is prone to
failure. We intermittently have problems with the cameras and the hard disk that s tores the images is no longer
reliable. The new system will also allow c omplete camera coverage for our external doors . W e hope to finish this
project by September 1, 2009.
Appropriation #2010013
$2,450,960.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $2,450,960.00
Federal funds were provided to the states via the Americ an Recovery and Reinv estment Act (ARRA). The
General Assembly adopted a budget that included ex pending all of these state stimulus funds over a 2 year period.
ARRA funds are to be spent in ways that meet the overall guidelines of the Act and also meet the requirements of
the Elementary and Secondary Educ ation Act (ESEA). The conceptual framework for the use of these funds is
identical to that presented to the School Board on April 23.
ARRA guidelines are 1) funds must be expended quickly to save or create jobs , 2) funds must be used to improve
student achievement, 3) funds will be subject to additional and rigorous reporting requirements, and 4) funds
should be spent in w ays that do not create future funding shortfalls w hen federal stimulus funding c eases in 2
years.
Funds are designated to fund capital purchases of technology, restore textbooks funding, improve technology
infrastructure, provide 4 FTEs of technology staffing, and purchase testing materials . The technology positions are
twoyear grant funded positions, and all hires are being informed that their positions are only guaranteed for the
years in w hich the funds are available. These pos itions w ill be used to install and support the technology
deployment over the next 2 years.
This appropriation was approved by the School Board at their June 11, 2009 meeting.
Appropriation #2010014
$317,688.90
R evenue Sourc e: Federal Rev enue $104,879.90
Fund Balanc e $212,809.00
During the School Board retreat, there was discussion by the Board regarding increasing outreach services to the
community . Dis cussion included increasing the time available to the staff member in charge of Latino relations
from halftime to fulltime. The increased c osts associated with moving from a halftime to a fulltime position is
$52,898.00, to be funded utilizing the School Board reserve. There w ill be no impact on the total C ounty budget
as a result of this appropriation.
As part of the continuous improvement process of the ACPS Trans portation Department, there is a need to more
carefully track and verify routes, timing, and location of buses in an effort to reduce costs and improv e safety.
ACPS buses travel approximately 1.1 million deadhead miles (miles w ith no students on buses) at a cost of 3.4
million dollars per year based on the past three year's av erage. Implementation of a bus GPS system w ould offer
improvements in safety, verification of riders hip and tracking of bus es and deliver equal or better services at
reduced operational costs. Projected savings w ould exceed implementation costs in the first two years of
implementation. The Transportation Department intended to purchase a bus GPS system prior to the end of
FY08/09 with operational sav ings realiz ed during FY08/09. The Transportation Department planned to purchase
the desired system based on a competitiv ely bid RFP issued by Virginia Beach Public Schools. How ever, VBPS
did not finalize the contract for the des ired system until July 1, 2009. As such, Transportation w as not able to
execute a contract based on the VBPS contract prior to the end of FY08/09. The operational sav ings the
department planned to use became part of the school division’s fund balance. At the July 9 School Board
meeting, School Board members v oted 60 to approve the project and ask the Board of Supervisors to amend the
appropriation ordinance accordingly. The c ost is $212,809.00.
Albemarle County Schools has been approved for additional Sc hool Improvement Funds under Title I, Part A,
Section 1003(g) of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB). The approved school is Mary Carr Greer
Elementary in the amount of $104,879.90; grant period May 12, 2009 through September 31, 2010. Thes e funds
will allow Greer Elementary to keep a Literac y Specialist (C oach) whose priority is to continue her work coaching
grade level teams to design highquality assess ments and analyze s tudent assessment data on a weekly basis at
the grade level PLCs. This Coach will also support teac hers in classrooms w ith highquality ins truction, as
needed. Planning time will begin in July and August; this summer planning will allow instructional teams to begin
planning units that integrate reading, w riting, and content areas in an interdisciplinary manner. Nonfiction reading
material on all levels will be purchased.
These appropriations w ere approved by the School Board at their July 9, 2009 meeting.
Appropriation #2010015
$31,381.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $5,986.00
Federal Revenue $25,395.00
The D epartment of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the C ommission on Children and Families a one time
grant in the amount of $8,869.00 w ith a local match of $986.00 for a total aw ard of $9,855.00. This grant will
provide training monies for presenters to continue education for staff. Local matc h monies are being provided by
CASA.
The Charlottesville Area Community Foundation, specifically the Bama Works Fund of the Dave Matthews Band,
has donated $5,000.00 to the Commission on Children and Families to provide stipends for Family Support
mentors to accompany families of children w ith mental health needs to meetings.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on C hildren and Families a grant in
the amount of $16,526 with a local matc h of $1,836 for a total grant aw ard in the amount of $18,362. This grant
will provide training and the implementation of promoting greater accountability in the juvenile justice system
including the increased ac countability for juvenile offenders. Local match monies w ill be provided by both the
County and the City through their exis ting contributions to C CF.
Appropriation #2010016
$18,462.00
R evenue Sourc e: Maint./Repl. Funds $18,462.00
This appropriation will transfer $18,462.00 from the School Maintenance and Replacement project to Greer
Elementary School Additions/R enovations project. Funds will be us ed for the remov al of 60 existing light fixtures
and replacement with 60 new energy efficient lights . Work will als o include ins tallation of 6 new occupancy
censors to operate lights. There will be no impact on the total County budget as a result of this appropriation.
Appropriation #2010017
$45,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: Fund Balance
$45,000.00
This appropriation will transfer $45,000 from the fund balance to a special account used to reimburse VDOT for its
expenditures to acquire rightofw ay necessary to construct a continuous turn lane on Route 29 between
Greenbriar Driv e and Hydraulic R oad. The funding was provided in FY 09 by the dev eloper of Albemarle Place
pursuant to an agreement to assure the c ompletion of proffered road improvements.
Return to exec summary
MEMORAN DUM
TO: File
FROM: D avid B. Benish, Chief of Planning
DATE: July 29, 2009
RE: ZTA200900002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO district.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9, 2009, by a v ote of 6:0, recommended approval
of the abovenoted Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its August 5th meeting.
View draft ordinance
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes of April 14 and June 9, 2009
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 05/22/09
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
2
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
PRIVA TE COUNTY OF A LB EMARLE
PLA N N ING STAFF R EPOR T SUMMARY
Project Name: ZTA200902 Beauty/Barber
Shops in CO districts
Staff: Ron Higgins, AICP and Elaine K. Echols,
AICP
Planning Commission Meeting: June 9,
2009
Board of Supervisors Meeting: To be
determined
Applicant: Robin Maxwell
Legal Ad: Amend Sec. 23.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
This ordinance would amend Sec. 23.2.1 to add beauty shops and barber shops as permitted
accessory uses in the Commercial Office (CO) zoning district.
Recommendation: Approval
STAFF PERSONS: Ron Higgins, AIC P
Elaine K. Echols, A ICP
PLANNIN G COMMISSION PU B LIC HEARING: June 9, 2009
ZTA 200902: B eauty/B arber Shops in Commercial Office (CO) District
ORIGIN: On D ecember 8, 2008, R obin Maxwell made application for a zoning text amendment to allow
beauty and barber shops as byright accessory uses in the CO C ommercial Office zoning district. On April 14,
2009, the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider adding the uses of beauty/barber
shops to the CO district. Since these uses are not allow ed in the CO district, they are requested to be added
as byright accessory uses through this zoning text amendment. The resolution of intent is provided as
Attachment A.
PROPOSAL: The proposed text amendment is Attachment B. The uses of beauty/barber shops are
proposed to be added as permitted uses in the CO district.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO B E SERVED: The changes will help protect the public interest by providing a usual
and customary accessory use to offices as a byright use in a commercial district. At present, beauty/barber
shops are not allowed in the C O district.
ADMINISTRATION / R EVIEW PR OC ESS: No impacts are expected w hich would change administration of
the zoning ordinance or development review process. Any establishment of new uses will be subject to zoning
clearance and site plan review where physical changes are proposed.
HOUSIN G AFFORDABILITY: The proposed changes do not have an effect on housing affordability.
IMPLICATIONS TO STAFFING / STAFFING C OSTS: The proposed changes should not have any effect on
staffing or staffing costs other than the normal staff time involved in zoning clearance and site plan review
which are covered by zoning fees.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMEN D MENT: As indicated in the staff report for the resolution of intent, staff
believes that the use is appropriate as an accessory use in a Commercial Office district. The intent of the CO
district is as follows:
C O districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to
permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting
permit development of administrative, business and professional offices and supporting
accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a transition between residential districts and
other more intensive commercial and industrial districts.
The CO district is a very limited commercial district. Byright uses include: administrative and business offices;
professional offices, including medical, dental and optical; financial institutions; churches; cemeteries; libraries;
museums; child care facilities; and the other public and utility uses allow ed in all districts. Accessory uses and
structures incidental to the principal uses are allow ed if they do not occupy more than tw enty (20) percent of
the floor area of buildings on the site. Accessory uses are: eating establishments; new sstands establishments
for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; data processing services; central reproduction
and mailing services and the like; ethical pharmacies; and sale/service of goods associated w ith the principal
use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing
shoes and apparel.
In looking at other zoning ordinances as well as observing office complexes, it is usual and customary that
beauty and barber shops are part of the complex because of the services they can provide employees of the
larger office district. In order to make the uses easily available, staff believes that they should be allow ed by
right.
STAFF RECOMMEN D A TION: Staff believes the proposed amendment represents needed changes to the
ordinance and recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment contained in Attachment B.
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent dated 42208
Attachment B: Proposed ordinance amendment dated 52209
Return to PC actions memo
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
April 6, 2009
WHER EAS, ba rber shops and bea uty shops a re a llowed by right in various pla nne d districts and in the C1
a nd Highw ay Commerc ial z oning districts, but a re not a llow ed by right or by spe cia l use permit in the Commerc ial
O ffice zoning distric t unde r Sec tion 23 of the Zoning Ordina nc e; a nd
WHER EAS, the inte nt of the Comme rc ial Office zoning distric t is to permit a dministrative, busine ss a nd
professional offic es a nd supporting ac ce ssory uses and fa cilitie s; and
WHER EAS, Zoning Ordinance § 23.2.1(6) a uthoriz es ac ce ssory uses in the Commerc ia l O ffic e z oning
district a nd de line a te s severa l supporting a c ce ssory uses a nd fa cilities tha t a re subje ct to the limita tion tha t the se
use s not oc c upy more tha n 20% of the floor area of the buildings on the site ; a nd
WHER EAS, ba rber shops and bea uty shops provide se rvice s tha t ca n support the prima ry a dministrative,
busine ss a nd profe ssional office s a nd it is de sire d to amend Zoning Ordina nc e § 23 to a dd ba rber shops a nd bea uty
shops to the list of those a cc e ssory use s a nd fac ilities that support primary a dministra tive , business and professiona l
office s.
NOW, THER EFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, c onvenienc e,
general we lfa re a nd good z oning pra c tic es, the Pla nning Commission hereby a dopts a re solution of inte nt to a me nd
Zoning O rdinanc e § 23 and a ny othe r regula tions of the Zoning Ordina nce de emed appropriate to a chieve the
purposes de sc ribe d he rein.
BE IT FUR THER R ESOLVED THA T the Pla nning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
z oning text amendment proposed by this re solution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re commenda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, a t the ea rliest possible date .
* * * * *
G o to ne xt a tta c hment
Re turn to staff re port
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in combination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the
buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
-Eating establishments;
-Newsstands;
-Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment;
-Data processing services;
-Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
-Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices;
-(Repealed 3-17-82)
-Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
musical scores, text books, artist’s supplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12-3-86)
-Barber shops;
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
-Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of
Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 3-17-82)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-01)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(§ 20-23.2.1, 12-10-80; 3-17-82; 3-5-86; 12-3-86; 11-1-89; 9-9-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-9-01 ; Ord. 04-
18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
April 14, 2009
C onsent Agenda
ZTA200900005 Amend Zoning Ordinance Sections relating to Enforcement and Administration Resolution
of Intent (Rob H eide)
ZTA200900002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO District; Towing and Body Shops in H I D istrict – Resolution of
Intent
(Elaine Echols)
ZTA 200800002 PD C hanges
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Loach asked if any C ommissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. He noted that Mr. Franco
has ask ed to make a statement to be attached to the record going to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco said that he would be happy to move the ZTA forward with the follow ing statement to be attached to the
record for ZTA20080002 PD Changes .
“I’m coming into this process relatively late as a Planning Commissioner. While I believe that there are good
aspects to the PD ZTA, I question if w e are going far enough to ensure that the purposes of the planned
development and neighborhood model form of dev elopment are ac hieved. Specifically, I see a c onflict between
what is required in the Code of D evelopments and what w e allow to be varied, should new law s and regulations
mak e it difficult or impossible to ex ecute portions of an application plan.
In our own comprehens ive planning effects, we are relying on new projects to construct needed improvements
to the public infrastructure and to proffer community goals such as affordable housing. Once we approve a
rezoning, it is in the public’s best interest to include a variation proc ess which allow s projects to adjus t to new
regulations and policies, while protecting the purpose and intent of the approved plan. This process does not
have to be at staff level.
If we don’t provide for such a variation, we should continue to evaluate the level of detail that we require during
the rez oning proces s.
W e dealt w ith this at a late hour two meetings ago; I have heard from people that w ere not able to stay for that
item. I would like to leave this item on the consent agenda, but would like to hear the desires of the rest of the
Commission. I am happy to mov e this item forward with the expec tation that there will be more discussion at
the board level.”
Mr. Morris said that he would prefer to leave the ZTA20080002 PD c hanges on the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approv al of the consent agenda w ith Mr. Franc o’s
statement to be attached to the recommendation to the Board on ZTA20082 PD Changes.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Strucko and J oseph were abs ent)
Mr. Loach noted that the c onsent agenda was approved
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 9, 2009
ZTA200900002 Beauty/B arber Shops in CO district. Amend Sec . 23.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle C ounty Code. This ordinance would amend Sec . 23.2.1 to add beauty shops and barber shops as
permitted acc ess ory us es in the C ommerc ial Offic e (CO) zoning dis tric t. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is
on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of C ommunity Development,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Ron Higgins summarized the request.
This application came as a citizen initiated application as a result of a sign issue on R io Road. In looking at
temporary signs for a single chair operator barber s hop staff determined that s he had moved from one building on
Rio Road to another as suming that it was all the same. She w ent from a Planned District that allow ed the barber
shop/beauty shop to a Commercial Office District, which does not. The basis issue here is that they are asking that
the us e and CO that lists all of the customary accessory uses be expanded to include the beauty shop and barber
shops in C O. W hat they found in their research is that this is a reasonable and customary use in C ommercial Office
District. These uses are allowed in all commercial districts, Planned D istricts, C 1, and HC . But these uses are
not allow ed in any fashion in the CO district. Staff felt that was something of an omission since the use is being
proposed as an acces sory use the kinds of uses that are in that ac cessory use list are pretty extensiv e and not
unlike this kind of use. Staff found that it w as fairly common to see thes e kinds of uses .
There hav e been questions asked. Ms. Joseph had written about other incidental uses in a barber shop or beauty
shop. W ithout a definition staff had looked at the kinds of activities when putting this together and it all hinges on
cosmetology. Most of the definitions include that. Cosmetology is hair and skin care, w hich would include all of
those things that one would normally expect to be us ed for those kinds of things. It is incidental to just hair cutting.
Staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to include the beauty shop and barber shop byright. Ms.
Maxwell, the initiator of the reques t, asked about it and staff realized that it had been left out of the ordinance. It
had never come up. But staff found many instances in an office building in Albemarle, including Commercial Offic e,
where they have uses that predate any approvals.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph said when they look at the C O and the uses allowed it allow s medical offices. So it is not a matter of
water use or anything like that.
Mr. Higgins noted that it does not have any correlation w ith other kinds of impac t. He did s ome research to find out
if there was a particular reason it was left out and they simply could not find any evidence of it. He pointed out that
there was a slight w ording change in #6 in the way it describes the 20 percent rule, which just states it more
clearly.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited public c omment. There being none, the public hearing was clos ed
and the matter before the Commission for discussion and action
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of ZTA200900002 Beauty/Barber
Shops in CO district.
The motion w as approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Struck o noted that the motion pass es and would go before the Board of Superv isors at a date to be determined.
ZTA 200900002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO district – Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Language
ORDINA NCE NO. 0918( )
AN OR DIN ANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, D ISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COU NTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT OR DAIN ED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that C hapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 23.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 23.2.1 B y right
The following uses shall be permitted in any C O district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these
regulations:
1. Administrative and business offices.
2. Profes sional offices , including medic al, dental and optical.
3. Financial institutions.
4. Churc hes, cemeteries.
5. Libraries, museums.
6. Acc ess ory uses and s tructures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such The aggregate of all
accessory uses in c ombination s hall not occupy more that twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the buildings
on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
Eating establishments;
New sstands;
Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of offic e equipment;
Data processing services;
Central reproduction and mailing services and the like;
Ethic al pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or sale of optical or
pros thetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optic al offices;
(Repealed 31782)
Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments,
mus ical scores, tex t books, artist’s s upplies and dancing shoes and apparel.; (Added 12386)
Barber shops;
Beauty shops.
7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, exc luding tower structures and inc luding poles, lines ,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. W ater distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water
s upplies and c entral sew erage sy stems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the C ode of Albemarle and all other
applicable law. (Amended 51293)
8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools , offices, park s, playgrounds
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public w ater and
s ewer transmiss ion, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or
operated by the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11189)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
10. Dw ellings (referenc e 5.1.21). (Added 31782)
11. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3586)
12. Day c are, child care or nursery fac ility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9992)
13. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdiv ision plat.
(Added 10901)
14. Tier I and Tier II personal w ireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 101304)
(§ 2023.2.1, 121080; 31782; 3586; 12386; 11189; 9992; 51293; Ord. 0118(6), 10901 ; Ord. 0418(2), 10
1304)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing w riting is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervis ors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular
meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________ Clerk, Board of
County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boy d ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Return to PC actions
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA200908 Body Shops and
Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend
Sec. 28.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend Sec. 28.2.1 to add body s hops and
the towing and temporary storage of motor
vehicles as by right uses in the Heavy Industry
(HI) zoning district.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Cilimberg, McCulley, Ec hols, H iggins
LEGAL R EVIEW: NO
AGENDA DA TE: August 5, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: YES
BACK GROUND : At the Planning C ommission meeting on June 9, 2009, the Commission made one change to
the rec ommended zoning text amendment. This change was to clarify a reference to a different sec tion of the
zoning ordinance. The attached zoning text amendment incorporates that change.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached zoning text amendment (s ee
Attachment I).
ATTAC HMENTS:
ATTACHMENT I: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment dated June 23, 2009
View s taff report and attachments
View PC minutes of April 14 and June 9, 2009
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 06/23/09
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI district:
(Amended 2-13-85)
1. Automotive, farm and construction and machinery products assembly.
2. Brick manufacturing, distribution.
3. Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution.
4. Dry-cleaning plants.
5. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
6. Machine shops, tool and die, blacksmithing, boiler shops and similar operations.
7. Manufacture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances.
8. Manufacture of building components.
9. Manufacture, distribution, service of individual sewage disposal systems.
10. Manufacture and recycling of tires.
11. Metal fabrication and welding operations.
12. Mobile home manufacturing, distribution.
13. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
14. Petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas bulk storage (reference 5.1.20).
15. Recreational vehicle and components manufacturing, distribution.
16. Sawmills (reference 5.1.15), planing mills, wood preserving operations, woodyards.
17. Veterinary or dog/cat hospitals, indoor accessory kennels (reference 5.1.11).
Draft: 06/23/09
2
18. Warehouse facilities.
19. Storage yards. (Amended 11-12-08)
20. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-12-93)
21. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
22. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
24. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-02)
25. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
26. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards. (Added 11-12-08)
27. Body shops (reference 5.1.31(a) and (b)).
28. Towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32(b)).
(§ 20-28.2.1, 12-10-80; 2-13-85; 3-5-86; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
PRIVA TE COUNTY OF A LB EMARLE
PLA N N ING STAFF R EPOR T SUMMARY
Project Name: ZTA200908 Body Shops and
Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District
Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP and Ron Higgins,
AICP
Planning Commission Meeting: June 9,
2009
Board of Supervisors Meeting: To be
determined
Legal Ad: Amend Sec. 28.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
This ordinance would amend Sec. 28.2.1 to add body shops and the towing and temporary
storage of motor vehicles as by right uses in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district.
Recommendation: Approval
STAFF PERSONS: Ron H iggins AICP, and Elaine Echols AICP
PLANNIN G COMMISSION PU B LIC HEARING: June 9, 2009
ZTA 20090908: Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles and Body Shops in H I Heavy Industrial
D istrict
ORIGIN: On April 14, 2009, the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider adding the
uses of towing services and body shops to the H I Heavy Industrial zoning district. This proposal was partly at
the request of an applicant and partly at the request of the staff. At present there are tw o businesses which
are located in the HI Heavy Industrial zoning district with the uses of body shop and towing service. Since
these uses are not allowed in the H I Heavy Industrial district, they are requested to be added through this
zoning text amendment. The resolution of intent is provided as Attachment A.
PROPOSAL: The proposed text amendment is Attachment B. The uses of towing and storage of motor
vehicles are proposed to be added as permitted uses in the H I district.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO B E SERVED: The changes will help protect the public interest by providing a district
in w hich these uses are consistent with other byright uses and can be appropriately allow ed byright. At
present, both uses are allowed by special use permit in the LI Light Industrial district but not at all in the HI
Heavy Industrial district.
The supplementary regulations protect the public interest and safety. These regulations require that vehicles
be screened so that they are not visible from any public road or any residential property and that they are
limited to locations designated on an approved site plan. For body shops, all storage of parts, material, and
equipment must be within an enclosed building and vehicles aw aiting repair cannot be visible from a public
road or residential property.
5.1.31 BODY SHOP
a. There shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except within an enclosed buildin g.
b. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be visible from any public road
or any residential property, an d shall be limited to locations designed on the approved site plan.
c. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the governing body in the review of any special use
permit, including, but not limited to, the regulation o f ho urs of operation, location o f do or and/or win dows and the
like. (Added 12788)
5.1.32 TOWING AND TEMPORARY STORAGE OF M OTOR VEHICLES
a. This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or temp orary storage of collision/d isabled
vehicles. No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling , salvage or crushing of
vehicles shall be permitted; except that the commission may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles
in a particular case;
in a particular case;
b. No vehicle shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be visible from any public road o r any
residential property and shall be limited to locations designated on the approved site plan. (Added 6690)
ADMINISTRATION / R EVIEW PR OC ESS: No impacts are expected w hich would change administration of
the zoning ordinance or development review process. It w ill allow two existing uses to be “byright”. Any
expansion of these uses or establishment of new uses w ill be subject to zoning clearance and site plan review
where physical changes are proposed.
HOUSIN G AFFORDABILITY: The proposed changes do not have an effect on housing affordability.
IMPLICATIONS TO STAFFING / STAFFING C OSTS: The proposed changes should not have any effect on
staffing or staffing costs other than the normal staff time involved in zoning clearance and site plan review
which are covered by zoning fees.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMEN D MENT: As indicated in the staff report for the resolution of intent,
staff believes that towing service and body shop uses were inadvertently omitted from the list of uses in the
HI district when that district was created. The intent of the HI district is as follows:
H I districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to
permit industries and commercial uses w hich have public nuisance potential and will therefore be
subject to intensive review for locational impact on surrounding land uses and environment.
U ses and lands previously established in industrial general (M2) and certain industrial limited (M1)
districts, where in conformity to the comprehensive plan, shall be encouraged to develop as active
centers of employment on individual sites.
It is intended that H I districts may be established in areas having all of the following characteristics:
o Areas served by a major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road improved to standards
approved by the county;
o Areas either served by public w ater and sew er or meeting requirements of the local office of the
Virginia Department of H ealth; and
o Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability for intended uses with regard to physical
characteristics and relationship to surrounding development
In addition, towing services and body shops are allow ed by special use in the Light Industrial district, but not
allowed at all in the Heavy Industrial district.
The proposed amendment adds uses to the HI district which staff considers typical of those expected in the
district and consistent w ith other byright uses in the district. Uses in the HI District are generally not
compatible with residential uses; however, they are important uses to a community. For this reason, HI zoned
properties are fairly limited in the County. (See Attachment C .) Furthermore, the supplementary regulations
along with the setback and buffer requirements of Section 26, Industrial Uses Generally, help protect adjacent
residential properties that are adjacent to industrial zoning. A 100foot setback and 30 foot buffer is required
for industrial districts adjacent to residential districts. The supplementary regulations (provided above) require
screening and that all w ork be conducted indoors. For the byright uses in the HI district, the supplementary
regulations in Section 5.1.31.c. and the following Section 5.1.32.a. would not apply:
No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing, disassembling, salvage or crushing of veh icles shall be
permitted; except that the commission may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular case;
STAFF RECOMMEN D A TION: Staff believes the proposed amendment represents needed changes to the
ordinance and recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment contained in Attachment B.
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent dated 42208
Attachment B: Proposed ordinance amendment dated 52209
Attachment C : HI Heavy Industrially Zoned Properties in Albemarle County
Return to PC actions
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
April 6, 2009
WHER EAS, body shops a nd towing se rvic e s provide ne eded se rvic e s.
WHER EAS, the body shop use c lassific ation is a llow ed by spec ial use pe rmit in various pla nne d districts
a nd in the C1 a nd Light Industry z oning distric ts, but is not a llow ed by right in a ny zoning distric t; a nd
WHER EAS, the tow ing and te mporary storage of motor ve hic les use cla ssific a tion is allowe d by spe cia l
use pe rmit in the planne d de ve lopme nt industria l distric ts a nd in the Light Industry z oning distric ts, but is not
a llow ed by right in a ny zoning distric t; a nd
WHER EAS, the inte nt of the He avy Industry z oning distric t is to pe rmit industries and c omme rc ia l uses
w hic h have public nuisance pote ntia l, subjec t to inte nsive revie w for loc ationa l impa c ts on surrounding la nd uses
a nd the environme nt; a nd
WHER EAS, the body shop a nd tow ing a nd te mpora ry stora ge of motor vehicle s use cla ssific ations are
similar in chara c ter a nd potential impa cts a s the use s allowe d by right in the He avy Industry z oning district (Zoning
O rdinanc e § 28.2.1) and both use c lassifica tions a re a lre a dy subjec t to re gulations pe rtaining to the ir pote ntial
impa cts a nd ope ration unde r Zoning Ordina nce §§ 4.14, 5.1.31 a nd 5.1.32, in a ddition to other a pplic able re gulations
under the Zoning Ordina nc e; a nd
WHER EAS, it is de sire d for the body shop a nd tow ing and te mpora ry storage of motor ve hic le s use
c lassifica tions to be allowe d by right in the Hea vy Industry zoning distric t.
NOW, THER EFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, c onvenienc e,
general we lfa re a nd good z oning pra c tic es, the Pla nning Commission hereby a dopts a re solution of inte nt to a me nd
Zoning O rdinanc e § 28 and a ny othe r regula tions of the Zoning Ordina nce de emed appropriate to a chieve the
purposes de sc ribe d he rein.
BE IT FUR THER R ESOLVED THA T the Pla nning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
z oning text amendment proposed by this re solution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re commenda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, a t the ea rliest possible date .
* * * * *
G o to ne xt a tta c hment
Re turn to staff re port
Draft: 05/22/09
5 ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI district:
(Amended 2-13-85)
1. Automotive, farm and construction and machinery products assembly.
2. Brick manufacturing, distribution.
3. Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution.
4. Dry-cleaning plants.
5. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
6. Machine shops, tool and die, blacksmithing, boiler shops and similar operations.
7. Manufacture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances.
8. Manufacture of building components.
9. Manufacture, distribution, service of individual sewage disposal systems.
10. Manufacture and recycling of tires.
11. Metal fabrication and welding operations.
12. Mobile home manufacturing, distribution.
13. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
14. Petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas bulk storage (reference 5.1.20).
15. Recreational vehicle and components manufacturing, distribution.
16. Sawmills (reference 5.1.15), planing mills, wood preserving operations, woodyards.
17. Veterinary or dog/cat hospitals, indoor accessory kennels (reference 5.1.11).
Draft: 05/22/09
6 ATTACHMENT B
18. Warehouse facilities.
19. Storage yards. (Amended 11-12-08)
20. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by
a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances
owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-12-93)
21. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5);
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-
1-89)
22. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86)
24. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
(Added 10-9-02)
25. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
26. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards. (Added 11-12-08)
27. Body shops (reference 5.1.31).
28. Towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32).
(§ 20-28.2.1, 12-10-80; 2-13-85; 3-5-86; 11-1-89; 5-12-93; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 14, 2009
C onsent Agenda
ZTA200900005 Amend Zoning Ordinance Sections relating to Enforcement and Administration Resolution
of Intent (Rob H eide)
ZTA200900002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO District; Towing and Body Shops in H I D istrict – Resolution of
Intent
(Elaine Echols)
ZTA 200800002 PD C hanges
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Loach asked if any C ommissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. He noted that Mr. Franco
has ask ed to make a statement to be attached to the record going to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco said that he would be happy to move the ZTA forward with the follow ing statement to be attached to the
record for ZTA20080002 PD Changes .
“I’m coming into this process relatively late as a Planning Commissioner. While I believe that there are good
aspects to the PD ZTA, I question if w e are going far enough to ensure that the purposes of the planned
development and neighborhood model form of dev elopment are ac hieved. Specifically, I see a c onflict between
what is required in the Code of D evelopments and what w e allow to be varied, should new law s and regulations
mak e it difficult or impossible to ex ecute portions of an application plan.
In our own comprehens ive planning effects, we are relying on new projects to construct needed improvements
to the public infrastructure and to proffer community goals such as affordable housing. Once we approve a
rezoning, it is in the public’s best interest to include a variation proc ess which allow s projects to adjus t to new
regulations and policies, while protecting the purpose and intent of the approved plan. This process does not
have to be at staff level.
If we don’t provide for such a variation, we should continue to evaluate the level of detail that we require during
the rez oning proces s.
W e dealt w ith this at a late hour two meetings ago; I have heard from people that w ere not able to stay for that
item. I would like to leave this item on the consent agenda, but would like to hear the desires of the rest of the
Commission. I am happy to mov e this item forward with the expec tation that there will be more discussion at
the board level.”
Mr. Morris said that he would prefer to leave the ZTA20080002 PD c hanges on the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approv al of the consent agenda w ith Mr. Franc o’s
statement to be attached to the recommendation to the Board on ZTA20082 PD Changes.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Strucko and J oseph were abs ent)
Mr. Loach noted that the c onsent agenda was approved
Go to next set of minutes.
Return to PC actions
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 9, 2009
ZTA200900008 Body Shops and Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District Amend Sec. 28.2.1, By right,
of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance w ould amend Sec. 28.2.1 to add body shops
and the towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles as by right uses in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district.
A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, C ounty Office Building, 401 McIntire R oad, C harlottes ville, Virginia.
(Elaine Echols)
Ron Higgins summarized the request.
This is an item that s taff brought forward at the same time bec ause it was a similar issue. In investigating
another site and a tow ing service that had moved from one site to another on Route 29 North s taff found that
they have mov ed from an LI, Light Industry s ite to a HI, Heavy Industry s ite. Staff found that the use w as
not allowed in HI and feels that this is an omis sion. The tow ing and storage of motor vehicles is tw o different
uses. There was a towing service for H all’s Body Shop located down the hill that moved their operation up
into the yard w here H all’s Body Shop keeps all of their cars waiting to be fixed. So there was a small area of
the site that had a towing service and storage of v ehicles in a y ard that was s toring vehicles as part of a body
shop.
On further inves tigation staff realized that the body shop was not allowed in H I. Hall’s Body Shop has been
located at this s ite for 20+ years. Staff looked at the purpose and intent of the H I and a little bit of the logic
of the uses that are in LI and H I. The uses are allowed in LI with a special use permit. Staff felt that it would
be us eful to have this kind of use allow ed somewhere by right. Therefore, staff asks for that to be amended
and to correct this omission.
Staff suggests if the Commis sion recommends approval that they make a s light w ording c hange to the two
line items #27 and #28 on page 6.
1. Body Shop (5.1.3.1) – should say .3.1.a and b so that it would tell them specifically w hat applies to the
byright uses . Paragraph C would have not meaning sinc e it talks about special use permits.
2. In #28 it should reference 5.1.3.2.b. to help clarify that.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited public c omment. There being none, the public hearing was clos ed
and the matter before the Commission for discussion and action
Motion: Mr. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZTA200900008 w ith the two
modifications as noted by staff.
Discussion:
Mr. Kamptner as ked to clarify the provisions that apply in 5.1.32. Is it really only the last clause that should not be
applying in subsection a.
Mr. Higgins replied that he thought about that initially when he got the inquiry . But then when looking at the first
sentenc e it states the obvious. This provision is intended to provide locations for the tow ing and temporary storage
of collision and disabled v ehicles.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the second sentence, “No body and mechanical work, painting, etc.” is not to be allowed for a
towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles use.
Mr. H iggins noted that they are about to allow body shops by right. Therefore, it seemed a little strange to have
that.
Mr. Kamptner said that they were overlapping. All of these things that are exc luded in 5.1.32.a would be allow ed
under 5.1.31.
Mr. Higgins replied yes.
The motion w as approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the motion passes and ZTA200900008 would go before the Board of Supervisors at a date
to be determined.
ZTA200900008 Body Shops and Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District
ORDINA NCE NO. 0918( )
AN OR DIN ANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, D ISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COU NTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT OR DAIN ED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that C hapter 18, Zoning,
Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 28.2.1 B y right
Except as otherwis e limited by s ection 28.2.2.14, the follow ing uses shall be permitted by right in the H I district:
(Amended 21385)
1. Automotive, farm and construction and machinery products assembly.
2. Bric k manufacturing, distribution.
3. Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution.
4. Dryc leaning plants .
5. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
6. Mac hine shops, tool and die, blacks mithing, boiler s hops and similar operations.
7. Manufacture of heavy household, c ommercial and industrial applianc es.
8. Manufacture of building components .
9. Manufacture, distribution, service of individual sewage disposal sy stems.
10. Manufacture and recycling of tires.
11. Metal fabrication and welding operations.
12. Mobile home manufacturing, distribution.
13. Moving businesses , including storage facilities.
14. Petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas bulk storage (reference 5.1.20).
15. Recreational vehicle and components manufacturing, distribution.
16. Saw mills (reference 5.1.15), planing mills, wood preserving operations, w oodyards .
17. Veterinary or dog/cat hospitals, indoor accessory kennels (referenc e 5.1.11).
18. Warehouse facilities .
19. Storage yards. (Amended 111208)
20. Elec tric, gas, oil and c ommunication facilities ex cluding tower struc tures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and s ewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 51293)
21. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities s uch as schools, offices, parks , playgrounds
and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (referenc e 31.2.5); public w ater and
sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or
operated by the Riv anna W ater and Sew er Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11189)
22. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3586)
24. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdiv ision plat.
(Added 10902)
25. Tier I and Tier II personal w ireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 101304)
26. Heavy equipment and heavy vehic le parking and s torage yards. (Added 111208)
27. Body shops (reference 5.1.31.a and b)
28. Towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32.b)..
(§ 2028.2.1, 121080; 21385; 3586; 11189; 51293; Ord. 0218(6), 10902; Ord. 0418(2), 101304)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing w riting is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervis ors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular
meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________ Clerk, Board of
County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boy d ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Return to PC actions
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2009011 Home Oc cupation Definition
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider proposed amendments to
Chapter 18, Zoning, pertaining to the definitions of
home oc cupations
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Ms.
McCulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Home occupations are permitted in dw elling units and, until recently , the persons engaged in the home occupations
were required to reside in the dw elling unit in w hich the home occupation w as conducted. Upon being granted a
special use permit, a C lass B home occ upation may have up to 2 additional employ ees who do not live in the
dwelling unit.
The definitions of Class A and Class B home occupations had been interpreted to mean that the person engaged in
the home occupation had to reside in the dw elling unit in w hich the home occupation w as conducted. That
interpretation presumed that there was only one dwelling unit on the lot. H owever, both definitions permit a home
occupation in a dwelling unit “on the premises” and, where there are multiple dwelling units on the premises, neither
definition expressly requires that the home occupation be conducted within the dwelling unit in which the family
member(s ) reside. Thus, when two residents within the Belvedere Subdivision separately sought approvals for home
occupations within the unoccupied carriage houses that were on the s ame parcels as the dwelling units in which the
applicants resided, staff reluctantly concluded that the applicants met the letter, but perhaps not the intent, of the
County’s home occupation regulations.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The proposed ordinanc e w ould amend the definitions of C lass A and Class B home occupations to expressly require
that the family member(s) engaged in the occupation reside w ithin the dwelling unit in which the home occupation is
conducted. Both definitions would als o be amended to expressly inc orporate what has been a longstanding
administrative interpretation – that the home occupation definitions (and their corresponding requirements and
limitations) do not pertain to persons only engaged in the occupation offsite and who do not come to the dwelling unit
to engage in the occupation. Employees w ho report only offsite (suc h as to a job s ite) do not impact the land use at
the home and therefore should not be c ounted.
The ordinance recommended by staff for adoption is attached as Attachment A. Attachment A is substantively the
same ordinance prepared by staff and recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption that is attached as
Attachment B. However, Attachment A was prepared after the Planning Commission meeting because staff
determined that the definitions could be more clearly and concisely stated w ithout altering the substanc e of the
ordinanc e recommended by the Commiss ion.
The proposed ordinanc e does not change any other substantive requirements, standards or process es for home
occupations. Those is sues w ill be addressed in a separate zoning tex t amendment. A resolution of intent to initiate
that amendment will be on the Board’s August 5, 2009 consent agenda.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinanc e designated as Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – July 23, 2009 Draft Ordinance
B – July 22, 2009 Draft Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Draft: 07/23/09
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit for profit in connection with which no
person other than members of the family residing on the premises is engaged in such occupation within a
dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit; provided that
nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who work off-site and do not come to the
dwelling unit to engage in the occupation.
Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit with or without the use of one or more
accessory structures, for profit, in connection with which there are employed not more than two (2) other than
members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition to such family members
within a dwelling unit solely by one or more members of the family residing within the dwelling unit and up to
two (2) additional persons not residing within the dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more
accessory structures; provided that nothing herein prohibits the occupation from engaging other persons who
work off-site and do not come to the dwelling unit or any accessory structure to engage in the occupation.
. . .
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Attachment B
Draft: 07/22/09
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit for profit in connection with which no
person other than members of the family residing on the premises is engaged in such occupation within a
dwelling unit in which the members of the family conducting the home occupation reside and where the
members of the family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole persons engaged in the home occupation within
the dwelling unit.
Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit with or without the use of one or more
accessory structures, for profit, within a dwelling unit in which the members of the family conducting the home
occupation reside, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures, and where the members of the
family residing in the dwelling unit and up to two (2) additional persons are the sole persons engaged in the
home occupation within the dwelling unit or accessory structures in connection with which there are employed
not more than two (2) other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in
addition to such family members.
. . .
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 21, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane
Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, Acting Chair. Absent were Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric
Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Philip Custer, Engineer; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Judy
Wiegand, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Election of Temporary Chair:
Tonight the Commission needs to elect a temporary Chair for this meeting. He asked for nominations.
Ms. Joseph nominated Bill Edgerton for temporary Chair.
Mr. Franco seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 3:1. (Edgerton voted nay)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Edgerton was Chair for this meeting.
ZTA200900011 Definitions, including Home Occupations
Amend Sec. 3.1, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 by amending the definitions of Home
Occupation, Class A and Home Occupation, Class B, by expressly requiring that the home occupation be conducted within the same dwelling unit in which the members
of the family conducting the home occupation reside. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley)
Ms. McCulley passed out two versions of the revised text. One version had strike outs with underlines to show what is new and the other a clean copy. (Attachment) The
revision is to reorder some of the words so that it is clear and won’t create problems in the future. She summarized the request, as follows.
This amendment is limited to the definition of Home Occupation, Class A and Home Occupation Class B. The whole purpose is to make sure that the words on the
page say what they have always intended and actually what they have practiced until the recent case in which the Commission is familiar. That is the business is to be
conducted only the dwelling unit in which the family, the business owners reside. Several public services are served. One that she talked about in terms of better
reflecting the intent and practice. Also the byproduct is that it is better assuring that the residential character is being preserved and they don’t have residences that
are then converted to purely businesses.
No negative impacts have been identified. In terms of process and clarity staff thinks this amendment should improve clarity for both staff and the applicant and
avoid some interpretations that would take a lot of time.
The current text amendment is just about the two definitions. There is work underway on the home occupations for the rural areas. The Commission may recall in the
joint meeting with the Board about the rural area initiatives that one of the two rural area uses identified to have staff go back and look at allowing for more
administrative approval is the home occupations in the rural areas. That is something staff is working on. It is a much more comprehensive analysis and staff will be
bringing that back in the future.
She read the specific language for the Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted for profit within the dwelling unit in which the members of the family
conducting the home occupation reside, where the members of the family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole persons engaged in the occupation. This definition
would not change the requirements that are currently in the ordinance. In other words the Class A, Home Occupation is a byright use as accessory to a residence.
The Home Occupation, Class B is allowed only by special use permit. The difference between the two is that either employees are allowed in a Class B or an
accessory structure is involved or both.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to the Board of Supervisors. Staff has scheduled the public
hearing for the Board on August 5.
Mr. Edgerton invited questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph asked to go over what this allows. For a Home Occupation, Class A she has to live in the house where she is having this business and it has to herself or some
other family member that is operating this business in the house.
Ms. McCulley replied that is correct.
Ms. Joseph said that she could not have another house on the site and operate the business out of that other site. She asked if she would have to reside in that dwelling.
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct because the business would have to be conducted where she actually resides. There could be another house on the site, but she
could not conduct a business from it unless that became a special permit for a Class B.
Ms. Joseph said that if it was in an accessory structure or other dwelling it is a Class B and if she hired anyone that is not a family member.
Ms. McCulley replied that is correct. Just to clarify she noted that employees are people who come to the site. There are plenty of people that have businesses and those
employees never come to the site. They would not count those as employees that would then need a special use permit. They are really dealing with the land use on that
residential property.
Ms. Joseph said that if she had a landscape crew that meets on site and not at her house she was okay.
Ms. McCulley replied yes, but they would have to look at where they were storing their equipment and materials because that in and of itself may take it to a Class B,
Home Occupation.
Ms. Porterfield asked in the Class A if the two items one had to have is that they are working within the dwelling unit in which they reside and where the members of the
family residing in the dwelling unit are the sole persons it seems like instead of a comma they want an “and” in front of the where. If it was that one was not subjective to
the other and they both have to happen it seems that it should be and.
Ms. McCulley replied that is true. That is what they intend. If there is any lack of clarify they can make that revision. She asked Mr. Kamptner to look at that to see
whether they should make it and since they both have to be true.
Ms. Porterfield noted in the Class B she had a problem because they put for profit way down in it. It seems that they ought to be parallel.
Mr. Kamptner agreed that is a good point and was going to suggest that change as well to the two definitions would have a very parallel structure.
Ms. McCulley noted that they would mirror each other.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Ms. McCulley said staff can make those revisions before it goes to public hearing.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the reason staff had for profit in there was that they were basically saying that one was earning money to do this and it was not a volunteer
activity. She noted that it was always questionable about how much money anybody makes.
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner noted that their recommendation was to leave for profit in for now. Staff will look at that as part of the other home occupation text amendment.
Ms. McCulley noted that staff was concerned about unforeseen consequences of taking that out and all of a sudden it applies to den mothers and things not intended for it
to apply to.
Ms. Kamptner noted that one of the Commissioners raised a question about the employees and the home occupation use classification focuses on the activities taking
place in the dwelling unit. In both of the definitions he was wondering if it would be clearer to eliminate any question about that if looking at the Class B definition
where the last line would read, “The sole persons engaged in the home occupation in the dwelling unit or the accessory structures or on the site or maybe on the site.”
Similarly he suggested in the Class A where it would end in the home occupation in the dwelling unit.
Ms. McCulley replied that is a good point. That would be much truer to the practice and the intent.
Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said while they sincerely appreciate the clarity that staff is striving for they can’t help but recognize the applications that
have come forward that kind of drove this amendment forward and had to question the intent of differentiating between a dwelling unit that may serve as a motherinlaw
suite and a family room over a garage that would not be a dwelling unit. The question he had was what the true impacts are to the community of differentiating between
Class A and Class B. He believed it was the intent of the Commission to ensure the residential neighborhood feel of these mixed use communities that are being
designed. He did not think that in general Class B, Home Occupations have been incredibly difficult to attain. However, he would be concerned if he was someone who
was looking at this from a property owner’s standpoint whereby he had a separate dwelling unit and had always operated it as a business to now be out of compliance. He
was curious how the grandfathering may be and if it is really as necessary as staff sees fit or if the dwelling unit is not that different than a family room over a garage. He
appreciates staff’s patience with clearing up that difficulty for him.
Ms. Joseph asked staff if in the past up until the Belvedere case always considered anything that was a separate building, whether a dwelling unit or not, as a Class B.
Ms. McCulley replied yes.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that this Commission has reviewed those and approved most all of those home occupations that have come in that have been in another building
and not the dwelling unit or the person who receives the home occupation. So this is not anything new. It is just clarifying that process and making sure that they have
the correct words for what they intend. In what they have been doing since 1980 it has treated those buildings as a Home Occupation, Class B by special use permit.
Because someone had determined that the language that was currently in the ordinance was questionable that is when they started treating those in Belvedere as a Class A
instead of a Class B. That is what happened?
Ms. McCulley replied that was correct because the current language says on the premises, which would include any of the buildings on the property. In the case of a
situation such as Belvedere there is more than one actually dwelling unit on the lot. One could be conducting a business in a dwelling that they don’t reside in. That has
not been their intent previously.
Mr. Franco questioned if in a place like Belvedere they think that is really important. With the things that have come before the Commission since he has been here he
had not seen a problem with those uses being there. He was not sure that having to jump through a special use permit is really important.
Ms. Joseph felt that it is important since the Commission looked at the rezonings and it might be the same amount of vehicle trips and the same amount of activity and
use. She did not have a problem with that happening in that area since it was an interesting way to use that extra unit on the site. But she did not think it was
contemplated that it would be something that would come to the Commission three at a time. She thought that it was something that the neighborhood itself might want
to know what is going on. If they are neighbors and also have a unit she thought that they would want to know that there are these businesses being conducted that are
outside. The intensity when it is outside the house versus inside can be a bigger intensity. This also gives the person with a Class B an opportunity to have more vehicle
trips per day. There is a plus side to this, too. She asked what staff allows for a Class A as far as people coming to the site if she had a massage office. She asked how
many clients would be allowed
per
day.
Ms. McCulley replied seven clients were allowed per week. The idea is they are coming individually. It is not a group of seven people at one time as in a class because it
has a different impact.
Ms. Joseph said that with a Class B she could have more per week instead of seven. It is that sort of intensity that she felt that the neighbors have the right to know what
is going on.
Mr. Franco asked if there is a different notification process for a Class A, Home Occupation.
Ms. McCulley replied that Class A is an administrative approval. It is either done instantly or within 24 hours as long as they meet all of the requirements of the
ordinance.
Mr. Franco said that there is no notification to the public.
Ms. McCulley replied that there is no notice. If they have some kind of chemicals such as our former zoning person, John Shepherd who is a photographer and had a dark
room he had to do an engineer’s report before they could approve his Class A.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Ms. Joseph seconded for approval of the draft ordinance presented by staff with the editorial changes as noted below that staff and
the County Attorney will make.
The two definitions should have a very parallel structure.
In the Class A if the two items that one had to have is that they are working within the dwelling unit in which they reside and where the members of the family
residing in the dwelling unit are the sole purposes it seems like instead of a comma they want an “and” in front of the where. If it was that one was not subjective to
the other, then they both have to happen.
In the Class B there was some concern expressed because they put nonprofit way down in the definition. It was suggested that the two definitions should mirror each
other or be parallel.
A question was raised about the employees and the home occupation use classification focusing on the activities taking place in the dwelling unit. Both of the
definitions might be clearer to eliminate any question about that if looking at the Class B definition the last line could possibly read, “The sole persons engaged in
the home occupation in the dwelling unit or the accessory structures or on the site or maybe on the site.” Similarly, in the Class A, the wording could read “where
within the home occupation in the dwelling unit.”
Mr. Edgerton asked how those edits will be made. He asked if the edits will be made between now and the time it goes to the Board.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes and since it is going to the Board on August 5 the new draft will be made tomorrow.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to email the new draft to the Commissioners.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Mr. Franco voted aye in the interest of moving this ZTA forward to the public hearing.)
Mr. Edgerton said that ZTA200900011Definitions, Including Home Occupations would go to the Board of Supervisors on August 5 with the recommendation for
approval as edited.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Protection Ordinanc e Amendment, WPTA 2009
002
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public H earing on an ordinance to amend County
Code Chapter 17, Water Protection, to establish
a schedule for voiding inactive applications and
plans, reduce maximum administration costs for
bonds, and require the installation of permanent
vegetation w ithin a presc ribed period.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, Brooks
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
At the May 6, 2009 work session on s tormw ater considerations (see May 6, 2009 executive summary, Attachment
B), the Board directed s taff to, among other things, bring forward for public hearing a Water Protection Ordinance
amendment that would es tablish limits on the time that land may remain disturbed under the County’s erosion and
sediment c ontrol regulations. In preparing a draft ordinance as directed by the Board, staff has identified some other
recommended amendments to the W ater Protection Ordinance to facilitate its implementation and administration,
and to keep it current with State law.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development: The process c hanges proposed are to provide for a more
efficient and predictable development review process for applicants, the public and staff.
DISCU SSION :
The recommended ordinance amendment is provided as Attachment A. The following is a brief summary of the
proposed c hanges to the Water Protec tion Ordinance:
1. Section 17203: This section w ould be amended to properly reference the Virginia Administrativ e C ode.
2. Section 17204: The proposed amendments would provide that an application for an erosion and sediment
c ontrol plan shall be deemed withdrawn if a revis ed plan address ing omitted modifications, terms or conditions
is not submitted within 6 months, and would void an approved erosion and sediment control plan if a grading,
building or other permit for land dis turbing activities is not obtained within 1 year While staff believ es the
Program Authority already has the authority to establish this by administrative polic y, codifying this requirement
improves the program.
3. Section 17207: The changes in this section w ould establish a time limit for grading a site under a permit in
response to the Board’s direction at the May 6th worksession, reduce the max imum bond charge for
administrative costs and inflation from tw entyfive percent to ten percent of the bond subtotal, and clarify that a
bond shall be returned if the approved plan expires , w hich is currently done through an administrative policy.
Effective July 1, 2009, State law required localities to reduce the portion of a bond or other sec urity allocated
for administrative c osts and inflation required for subdivision and s ite plan improvements from 25% to 10% of
the construction costs. Although not required by State law for ins truments securing erosion and sediment and
s tormw ater management improvements, staff rec ommends that a similar reduc tion be made for these bonds.
Provided that the administrative cos ts are separately identified, staff believes that 10% will be s ufficient to
c over any administrative costs in the event a bond is called and w ill provide consistency with those
instruments securing improvements for subdivisions and site plans .
4. Section 17304: This change would extend the time for an approval or disapprov al of a stormw ater
management plan from fortyfive days to sixty day s, which is the maximum allowed under State law. W hile
s taff’s target for turnaround is muc h shorter now, the extended time can be neces sary during spik es in
w ork load.
5. Section 17306: This change clarifies the language, reduces the maximum bond charge for administrative costs
and inflation as explained under Section 17207 above, and provides that a bond shall be returned when a plan
expires before the permit is issued.
Staff believes the only c ontroversial change in the proposed ordinance is the nine month period allowed for grading
activity. There may be some concern with the proposed regulations that deem certain applications to be withdrawn
and inac tive approved plans to be void after prescribed periods, but staff believes thos e changes are fairly innocuous
once it is understood this codifies administrative practice and there is no additional financial impact to the applicant.
As the C ounty charges per review, a plan can be resubmitted as a new application and the review would be the
same unles s the relevant regulations c hange in the meantime. An approved plan that does not rec eive a permit
within one year can also be resubmitted at a later date under a new application, though it will be subject to any
ordinanc e c hanges.
With res pect to the time limit for grading, staff notes this change is authorized under Virginia Code § 10.1570. That
section authorizes a loc ality to adopt s tric ter minimum s tandards for an erosion and s ediment control program. By
establishing a nine month deadline for installing permanent vegetation, the County is s imply strengthening Minimum
Standard 1 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, which says:
1. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization s hall be applied to denuded areas within seven days after final
grade is reached on any portion of the site. Temporary soil stabilization shall be applied within seven days to
denuded areas that may not be at final grade but w ill remain dormant for longer than 30 days . Permanent
s tabilization shall be applied to areas that are to be left dormant for more than one year.
As noted in earlier dis cus sions, under the current regulations a developer / contractor c an avoid the ex pense of
temporary stabilization and delay the expense of permanent stabilization by occasional grading activity within a 30
day period. W hile this reduces the dev eloper’s expense, there is an environmental cost. R ecognizing that typical
sediment c ontrol meas ures are considered 60% effective at best, the w ater quality impacts from these delays can
be significant. To illustrate, consider two identical sites w ith the same proposed grading. The first site provides no
sediment c ontrol during construction, but was stabilized w ithin 9 months. The second s ite maintains in compliance
with sediment control s tandards throughout construc tion, but the site is not stabilized for 23 months . As suming 60%
efficienc y for the sediment control meas ures, the same amount of c ons truction related sediment w ould be carried
downstream from eac h s ite. A second ex ample with thes e same two sites illustrates why efficiency alone may not
be the ans wer. In this s cenario, the first site operates s ediment control measures that s atisfy the State minimum
standards (60% efficienc y) while the sec ond site uses s tateoftheart s ediment control (80% efficiency). If the first
site is s tabilized in 9 months and the s econd site is stabilized in 23 months, the second site results in approximately
28% more construction related sediment being carried dow nstream. Thus, minimizing the time of disturbance is one
of the most effective ways of reducing sediment reaching streams and rivers or damaging downstream ponds, lakes,
and res erv oirs.
In cons idering how a time limit could be applied, the Board directed staff to consult w ith the authors of “Before the
Storm: Reducing the Damage from Polluted Stormwater Runoff” following their Augus t 2008 presentation. With this
input, s taff determined that an ordinanc e requirement that closely follows recently acc epted proffers would best
accomplish the goal. Similar to those proffers, this ordinance amendment proposes a nine month time limit for
installing permanent vegetation and provides a possible three month administrative waiver. Howev er, the ordinance
provides relief not available in the recent proffers by allow ing the Board to grant an additional time ex tension. Staff
believes this proposal would 1) provide for a significant improvement to w ater quality in the County; 2) provide a
level play ing field for all development in the future because some developers have already volunteered this standard
in proffers ; and 3) provide for extensions of the nine month period when additional relief may be appropriate. In
Attachment C, staff has summarized some of the questions and answ ers with respec t to this ordinance provision.
Finally, in adopting this ordinance amendment, staff proposes the effective date be at least 30 days after adoption to
provide applicants an opportunity to plan for this change. Additionally, staff proposes “grandfathering” existing
permits until the date of their annual permit renewal and starting the nine month time requirement w ith permit
renewal.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff recognizes there would be reduced C ounty revenue if the time limit for grading is adopted. Currently, the
Water Protection Ordinance requires an annual permit renewal fee of $100 per acre. This ordinance amendment
would reduce the number of required permit renewals . Staff has evaluated the permits issued in 2006 and 2007
in an effort to quantify this anticipated budget impact. By assuming 50 affected permits per year, an average
size of disturbance at 10 acres, and 90 percent compliance with requirements, this equates to a County revenue
reduction of approximately $45,000 per y ear. No change in revenue is anticipated from the other provis ions of
this ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A),
which inc ludes a September 5, 2009 effective date and a provision grandfathering exis ting erosion and sediment
control plans from the deadline for es tablishing permanent vegetation until those plans are renewed.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – W ater Protection Ordinance Amendment
B – May 6, 2009 Executive Summary
C – Questions and Answers on Installation of Permanent Vegetation
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-17( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL,
AND ARTICLE III, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17, Water
Protection, Article II, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Article III, Stormwater Management and Water
Quality, are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment control plan
Sec. 17-204 Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan
Sec. 17-207 Issuance of permit; surety
Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan
Sec. 17-306 Issuance of permit; surety
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment control plan.
Except as provided in section 17-205, each owner subject to this article shall submit to the program
authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as provided herein:
A. The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form provided by the
program authority, the fee required by section 17-209, an erosion and sediment control plan that satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (B) and (C), and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan
will be complied with.
B. The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of soil erosion and
sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem reasonably adequate, considering the nature
and extent of the proposed land disturbing activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities
of the owner to assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this article.
The plan shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook, including the criteria,
techniques and methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of Title 4 of the Virginia Administrative Code 4 VAC 50-
30-40. The plan shall identify the person holding a certificate of competence, as described in Virginia Code §
10.1-561, who shall be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity.
C. The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary for a complete
review of the plan.
D. In lieu of paragraphs (A), (B) and (C), if the land disturbing activity involves land also under
the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the owner may, at his option, choose to
have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil
and Water Conservation Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such
board.
E. If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work
pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a plan shall be the responsibility
of the owner.
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
2
(§ 19.3-11, 2-11-98; § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-
21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 7-4, 19.3-11; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-11-01)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-563.
Sec. 17-204 Review and approval of erosion and sediment control plan.
Each erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and
approved as provided herein:
A. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the
requirements of section 17-203 and all other requirements of this article.
B. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time
to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and shall inform the owner in writing of any modifications,
terms, or conditions required to be included in the plan in order for it to be approved. The program authority
may also consider and act on a variance request under the following criteria: (i) the owner shall explain in
writing the reasons for requesting the variance; and (ii) the variance may be approved if the program authority
determines that the approved plan, with the variance and any associated conditions of approval, would protect
off-site properties and resources from damage to the same extent or better than if the variance was not granted.
C. Except as provided in paragraph (E), the program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan
in writing within forty-five (45) days from the date the complete application was received by the program
authority. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan’s compliance with the requirements
of this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by
the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the
decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the
owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be stated in the writing.
D. If the program authority fails to act on the plan within forty-five (45) days from the date the
application was received by the program authority, the plan shall be deemed approved.
E. If the owner is required to obtain approval of a site plan or plat, the program authority shall not
approve an erosion and sediment control plan unless and until the site plan or plat is approved as provided by
law. For purposes of this paragraph, a site plan or plat may be deemed approved by the program authority if its
approval is conditioned upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan pursuant to this article, and
the program authority determines that review and approval of the erosion and sediment control plan will not
affect approval of the site plan or plat. The program authority may approve an erosion and sediment control
plan prior to approval of a required site plan or plat in the following circumstances:
1. to correct any existing erosion or other condition conducive to excessive sedimentation
which is occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or other cause beyond the control
of the owner; provided, that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction of such condition;
2. to clear and grub stumps and other activity directly related to the selective cutting of
trees, as permitted by law;
3. to install underground public utility mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk
lines for which plans have been previously approved by the operating utility and approved by the county as
being substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan, if necessary;
4. to fill earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or other lawful earth
disturbing activity;
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
3
5. to clear, grade, fill or engage in similar related activity for the temporary storage of
earth, equipment and materials, and to construct temporary access roads; provided, that in each case, the area
disturbed shall be returned to substantially its previous condition, with no significant change in surface contours.
The return to previous condition shall occur within thirty (30) days of the completion of the activity or
temporary use, or within thirteen (13) months of the commencement of any land disturbing activity on the land
which is related to the activity, whichever period shall be shorter; or
6. to establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with sections 5.1.28 and 10.2.1.18
of the zoning ordinance.
F. An application for an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications, terms, or
conditions to be included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to
submit a revised plan addressing the omitted modifications, terms or conditions within six (6) months after the
owner is informed of the omitted information as provided under paragraph (B).
G. An approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a
grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities within one (1) year after the
date of the approval.
(§ 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-12, 2-11-98; Code 1988,
§§ 7-5, 19.3-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-563.
Sec. 17-207 Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities may be issued by a
permit-issuing department only as provided herein:
A. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an erosion and sediment control
plan, submitted for review and approval pursuant to this article, or an approved and valid erosion and sediment
control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a
permit until the erosion and sediment control plan has been approved until an approved and valid erosion and
sediment control plan and certification is are submitted.
B. Each permit shall also be subject to the following:
1. The permitted land disturbing activity shall be deemed to have commenced on the date
the permit was issued, provided that the program authority may establish another date of commencement based
on documentation submitted by the owner that clearly demonstrates that the land disturbing activity commenced
on that date.
2. Permanent vegetation shall be installed on all denuded areas within nine (9) months
after the date the land disturbing activity commenced, except for areas that the program authority finds are
necessary parts of the construction that are subject to an active building permit and areas where erosion is
prevented by a non-erosive surface. For the purposes of this section, a “non-erosive surface” includes, but is not
limited to, roadways and sidewalks covered by gravel, asphalt pavement, or concrete; trails or paths covered by
gravel, stone dust, or mulch; buildings and other permanent structures; and such other surfaces that the program
authority determines would adequately provide a permanent barrier to erosion.
3. The time limit for installing permanent vegetation as required by paragraph (B)(2) may
be extended by either the program authority or the board of supervisors, or both, as follows:
a. The program authority may extend the time limit for installing permanent
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
4
vegetation up to an additional three (3) months, provided the owner submits a written request to the program
authority no less than one (1) month prior to the deadline for installing the permanent vegetation. The program
authority may grant the extension if it finds that: (i) the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the
control of the owner; (ii) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and (iii) the
owner has effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the property during the land disturbing activity.
In granting an extension, the program authority may impose reasonable conditions.
b. The board of supervisors may extend the time limit for installing permanent
vegetation for duration it determines to be appropriate, provided the owner submits a written request to the clerk
of the board of supervisors no less than two (2) months prior to the deadline for installing the permanent
vegetation. The program authority shall provide its opinion to the board as to the condition of the property with
respect to compliance with this chapter and an estimate of the minimum time needed to complete grading and
install permanent vegetation for the land disturbance covered by this permit. The board may grant the extension
if it finds that: (i) the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (ii) the owner
had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and (iii) the owner has effectively controlled erosion
and sedimentation on the property during the land disturbing activity. In granting an extension, the board may
impose reasonable conditions.
4. An application to amend the erosion and sediment control plan shall not extend the time
limit for installing permanent vegetation authorized by paragraph (B)(3).
5. The installation of permanent vegetation required by paragraph (B)(2) shall be required
only for those land disturbing activities that are subject to an erosion and sediment control plan approved on or
after September 5, 2009, or an erosion and sediment control plan that was approved prior to that date but was
renewed on or after September 5, 2009.
BC. Prior to the issuance of such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require, or in the case
of an agreement in lieu of a plan may require, the owner to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety,
cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-
issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that measures could be taken by the permit-issuing
department or the program authority at the owner’s expense should he fail, after proper notice as provided in
section 17-213, to take timely corrective action specified in the notice.
CD. A bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to paragraph (BC)
shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control
structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions of the erosion and sediment control
plan. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector
construction, including architectural engineering, inspection and project management expenses, in Albemarle
County, Virginia, and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) ten (10) percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all erosion and
sediment control structures and systems, and to comply with all other terms and conditions, of the erosion and
sediment control plan.
DE. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 17-213, upon
the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the
reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety.
EF. Within sixty (60) days of achieving adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity in any
project or section thereof, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be
refunded to the owner or terminated based upon the percentage of stabilization accomplished in the project or
section thereof.
G. If a bond or other surety is provided under paragraph (D) and the erosion and sediment control
plan expires before the permit is issued, the permit-issuing department shall return the bond or other surety to
the owner.
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
5
(§ 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-11-98; Code 1988,
§§ 7-5, 19.3-15; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-565.
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan.
Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and
approved as provided herein:
A. Within ten (10) days from the receipt of an application, the program authority shall conduct a
preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either
accept the application for review, which will begin the forty-five (45) day review period set forth in paragraph
(D), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority rejects the application because it is
incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the information necessary to complete the application. If the
program authority accepts the application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the
application to the owner.
B. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the
requirements of section 17-303 and all other requirements of this article.
C. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time
to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any additional data as may be reasonably
necessary for a complete review of the plan.
D. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within forty-five (45) sixty (60) days
from the date the application was accepted for review; provided that the program authority shall act on any plan
that was previously approved within forty-five (45) days after the plan was revised, resubmitted to the program
authority, and accepted for review. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan’s
compliance with this article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the
address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner.
The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally
delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the
decision.
E. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority shall be subject to
the following:
1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan, this
article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-603.2 et seq.), and the state
stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 3-20-10 50-60-10 et seq.;
2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development and
drainage will be done according to the approved plan;
3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved
plan;
4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred, assigned or
sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the program authority and the recipient of
such rights provides the certification required by provision (E)(2);
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
6
5. The program authority may require, in conjunction with its approval of a plan, that the
owner first enter into a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement as provided in section
17-323;
6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the owner,
occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as provided in section 17-324; and
7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the owner
enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance. If such
agreement or easement is required, the program authority shall not be required to give notice prior to conducting
an inspection.
F. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is determined by the
program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare or to deviate from sound
engineering practices.
(§ 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-11-90; § 19.3-28, 2-11-98; Code 1988,
§§ 19.1-7, 19.1-8, 19.3-28; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 10.1-603.2, 10.1-603.8.
Sec. 17-306 Issuance of permit; surety.
A grading, building or other permit for activities involving land development may be issued by a
permit-issuing department only as provided herein:
A. The owner shall submit with his application for such permit an approved stormwater
management/BMP plan and certification by the owner that all land clearing, construction, land development and
drainage will be done according to the approved plan. The permit-issuing department shall not issue a permit
until such approved plan until an approved stormwater management/BMP plan and certification are submitted.
B. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the permit-issuing department shall require the owner
to submit a reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any combination thereof, or
such other legal arrangement acceptable to the permit-issuing department and the county attorney, to ensure that
measures could be taken by the permit-issuing department or the program authority at the owner’s expense
should he fail, after proper notice as provided in section 17-325, to take timely corrective action specified in the
notice. The performance bond or other surety shall be provided from a date prior to the issuance of any permit
by the permit issuing department until sixty (60) days after the requirements of the approved stormwater
management/BMP plan have been completed, as determined by the program authority. If approved by the
program authority and the county attorney, the owner may submit the performance bond or other surety as part
of, or included in, any performance bond or surety required in conjunction with a site plan, plat, or the
performance bond or surety required by section 17-207.
C. A performance bond or other surety required by the permit-issuing department pursuant to
paragraph (B) shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater
management facilities, practices and other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to
the approved stormwater management/BMP plan as a result of the land development. The amount of the bond
or other surety shall be based on unit price for new public or private sector construction, including architectural
engineering, inspection and project management expenses, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and a reasonable
allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) ten (10)
percent of the estimated cost to initiate, maintain and repair all stormwater management facilities, practices and
other appropriate actions which may be required of the owner pursuant to the approved stormwater
management/BMP plan.
Attachment A
Draft: 07/20/09
7
D. If the program authority is required to take corrective action pursuant to section 17-325 upon
the failure of the owner to do so, the county may collect from the owner for the difference if the amount of the
reasonable cost of the corrective action exceeds the amount of the surety.
E. Within sixty (60) days of the completion of the requirements of the approved stormwater
management/BMP plan, as determined by the program authority, the bond or other surety, or any unexpended or
unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the owner or terminated. Thereafter, compliance with the
requirements of this article shall be assured by a maintenance agreement entered into by and between the owner
and the program authority, which agreement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney.
F. If a bond or other surety is provided under paragraph (B) and the stormwater management/BMP
plan expires before the permit is issued, the permit-issuing department shall return the bond or other surety to
the owner.
(§ 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-30, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.3-30; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-603.8.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after September 5, 2009.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Regulatory C onsiderations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Response to August 2008 report entitled “Before
the Storm: Reducing the Damage from Polluted
Stormwater Runoff”
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Brooks,
Harper
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On Augus t 6, 2008, the County Board received a report on w ays to reduce the impacts from polluted stormwater
runoff. The report is entitled “Before the Storm: Reducing the Damage from Polluted Stormw ater Runoff” (“Before
the Storm”) and was prepared by the Southern Environmental Law Center, R ivanna Conservation Society, and the
University of Virginia Sc hool of Law’s Env ironmental Law and Cons erv ation C linic. The report is provided as
Attachment A. Following the presentation of this report, the Board directed staff to consider how the report’s
recommendations could be incorporated into the County’s ordinances. In response, s taff has been working with the
report’s authors to develop a set of rec ommendations for the Board’s consideration. The purpose of today’s work
session is to review those recommendations and determine if staff should proceed to preparing ordinance
amendments for any of them.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County 's N atural, Sc enic and Historic Resources
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCU SSION :
The authors of the “Before the Storm” report will provide a presentation to the Board on the recommendations.
Staff and the report’s authors reviewed the report and the County’s ordinances to determine where opportunities for
improvement existed. As a result of those meetings , a set of recommendations was developed and forwarded to the
Board. Those recommendations are outlined in Attachment B and hav e been further defined in Attac hment C. The
five changes are summarized below.
1) Reduce the minimum parking s pace requirement for profess ional office spac e.
2) Require stronger onsite stormwater protections when surface parking lots will exceed the C ounty’s
maximum limit on parking spaces.
3) Inc rease the perc entage of park ing lot area that must be landscaped with vegetation, while granting
developers the flexibility to us e onsite stormwater facilities to: (1) meet the landscaping requirement, and
(2) satisfy a Code provision that allows developers to reduc e the length of individual parking spaces (and
thereby reduce the size of the ov erall parking lot).
4) Create a firmer time limit on how long large areas of earth on construction sites may be left denuded and
destabilized.
5) Provide more detail about the protective meas ures developers and landowners must take when they opt to
enter into an erosion control agreement with the County instead of submitting a formal erosion and sediment
c ontrol plan.
Of the five recommendations, the time limit for disturbanc e (#4) is the only one that staff believes will result in a
significant reduction of stream pollution. The remaining recommendations provide s ome benefits and staff agrees
they are improvements over the current ordinance, but the effects will remain small. The last recommendation (#5)
is an administrative change and will not require an ordinance amendment.
Prior to bringing this to the Board for discussion, staff and the report’s authors held a roundtable discussion on
March 24th to provide the public an opportunity to rev iew the recommendations and ask questions. Staff noted the
following comments on the above recommendations:
1) Office parking No conc erns w ere noted w ith reducing the parking requirement for profess ional office
space. It w as noted this relaxes the current ordinance requirements.
2) Expanded parking No concerns were noted, though there was clarification that this required
stormwater addition only applied to the additional parking, not the total parking.
3) Parking Lot Landscaping There w ere c onc erns w ith raising this from 5% to 10% of the parking area,
primarily w ith understanding the net effect. It w as noted that this did not truly double the parking
landscaping as it allowed vehicle overhang and double counting of best management prac tices in
parking lots s uch as biosw ales. In some circumstances , this might result in no reduction in the building
area, where in other situations, it could pos sibly reduce the building area.
4) Limit time of disturbance This was the rec ommendation w ith the mos t c oncern. In pres enting this
recommendation, it was noted this requirement w as intended to match w hat has been proffered in
recent rezonings and effectively put all development on a level playing field. Several members of the
development community expressed conc ern with the complexity and cost of complianc e w ith large
sites, sugges ting this would be very diffic ult with large multiphase developments. In response to the
roundtable input, this rec ommendation w as revised to allow a disturbanc e for 12 months and provide an
administrative modification for an additional 6 months. Denial of an extens ion request or a request for
time beyond this could be appealed to the Board. Staff anticipates the dev elopment community will
continue to have strong objections to this recommendation.
5) Agreements in lieu of a plan There were no concerns noted at the roundtable with res pec t to an
enhanced Agreement in Lieu of a Plan. Basic ally, this is providing better information to potential permit
holders.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not believe any of the recommendations c reate a need for additional staff or expanded budgets. The
recommendations simply refine existing requirements rather than create new programs. A budget analysis and
associated fee recommendation will be prepared for any ordinance amendment that is brought forward.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff requests that the Board identify the recommendations it is interes ted in considering to adopt. If there is
interest in proceeding to ordinance amendments, staff will program this into the work program and antic ipates
bringing the ordinance amendments forward by late Summer. As previously noted to the Board in February, some
unassigned capacity was reserved in the C ommunity D evelopment work program for new initiatives s uch as this.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A “Before the Storm: ..”
Attachment B – Stormwater Recommendations
Attachment C – Proposed R egulatory Changes
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Attachment C
Questions about Section 17207 B
Requirement to ins tall permanent vegetation
1) Am I required to have the site permanently stabilized within 9 months?
N o. The ordinance requirement is to install the permanent v egetation within 9 months. Staff
knows it w ill take much longer for the ins talled permanent v egetation to become well es tablished.
2) It is going to take me much longer than nine months to complete my building. W hat
happens if that area does not have permanent vegetation installed within that period?
This requirement does not apply to areas cov ered by an approved building permit. Subsection B.
2. specific ally exempts areas that the program authority finds are neces sary parts of the
construction within an active building permit. This would include areas for construction trailers,
w orker parking, equipment s torage and maintenance, material storage or as sembly, and final
grading for the completed building. For ex ample, perhaps you started w ork under a permit to
rough grade your site and prepare a building pad. You c ompleted this rough grading within six
months and then applied for a building permit. The area as sociated with the building permit
w ould be exempted from this requirement. For the remainder of the site, y ou would still have 3
months to install permanent vegetation or other noneros ive surfaces.
3) What if I don’t agree with staff on how big an area is needed for construction with my
building permit.
W hile we certainly hope that everyone is reasonable and this never becomes an issue, a decision
of staff acting as the Program Authority can be appealed to the Board. Additionally, if the
contractor felt he needed a larger area, he c ould still satis fy this requirement if the area w as
covered w ith gravel. For example, you may place gravel on a parking lot area or drivew ay and
use it for the c onstruction while still complying w ith this requirement. W e’v e noted many
contractors already place gravel on thes e areas to avoid w eather related construction delays and
w e encourage others to do so.
4) I really believe I am going to need more time to complete my project. What can I do about
this?
The ordinanc e provides for 2 types of extens ions. Staff can provide an administrative extension
of up to 3 months where c onditions beyond the control of the contractor prevent the grading from
being completed on time. In addition, the Board can approve an extension of any time limit where
the permit holder has shown there is a legitimate need for this extension. It should be noted that
staff is not proposing a fee with either of these extension requests and trusts the development
community w ill not abuse this opportunity .
5) What if I need to regrade an area after I have installed permanent vegetation?
The requirement is to install permanent vegetation. Once that has been done, regrading can be
handled in two ways. First, it could be done under the original erosion and sediment control
permit provided that permit was still active. C ounty ins pec tors w ould c ons ult with the contractor
to assure areas are not being left disturbed for extended periods of time. Second, if that permit
has already been closed, it w ould require a new plan and permit. That new permit would have
the same nine month requirement.
6) What happens if I haven’t installed permanent vegetation within the time limit?
This is treated the same as any other permit violation. W e first cite the permit holder (property
owner) with a notice to c omply and attempt to w ork out a c ompliance sc hedule that completes
the installation of the permanent vegetation as quickly as possible. Failing to agree upon a
compliance sc hedule, we w ould issue a stop w ork order. Failing to reac h an answer after the
stop work order, the County w ill revoke the permit and call the bond, so the work can be
completed by the C ounty . Violations of a permit may also be enforced in the courts in a criminal
or civil proceeding. Typic ally, no other permits are acted upon until the v iolation is mitigated.
Return to exec s ummary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Traffic Light Signal Monitoring Systems (“Photo Red
Systems”)
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to implement Traffic Light Signal Monitoring
Systems.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliot, Davis, Miller, Allen, C hiarappa
and Ms. Kim
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
August 5, 2009
A CTION: INFORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
In 2007, the General As sembly enacted Virginia Code §15.2968.1, permitting localities to establish, by ordinance,
traffic light signal monitoring systems (“Photo Red sys tems”). Localities may install a Photo Red sys tem at one
intersec tion per 10,000 residents upon completing traffic safety engineering studies and obtaining approval from the
Virginia Department of Transportation (“VD OT”). Under this statute, the County may ins tall up to nine Photo Red
systems at approved traffic signal inters ections.
Responding to Board member interest in Photo Red sys tems, the Police Department began researching Photo Red
ordinanc es, vendors, and agency administrative procedures in 2007. In the spring of 2009, the City of Virginia
Beach became the first Virginia locality to begin implementing a photomonitoring sys tem pursuant to this new
legislation. VDOT also finalized its administrative proc edures and forms for intersection approval in 2008.
On June 3, 2009, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to move forward with the program and directed staff to
prepare an ordinance and analyze the cos t of implementing the program, as well as the staff time that would be
required to manage it. On July 8, 2009, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to schedule a public hearing to
receive comments on the proposed ordinance.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal: 2. Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
DISCU SSION :
Photo Red Programs Throughout Virginia
According to VDOT’s w ebsite, motoris ts driving through red lights caused over 5,000 accidents in Virginia in 2004,
resulting in 26 fatalities and over 3,600 injuries. Localities such as New port N ews, Richmond, Fairfax City and
County, Arlington and James C ity have taken steps to implement Photo R ed programs in an effort to reduce
accidents c aused by red light violators.
Photo Red systems permit law enforcement agencies to improve their deterrence and enforcement of red light
violations without ass igning more officers to onsite traffic enforcement. Traditional traffic enforcement at busy
intersec tions often proves difficult, due to the limited areas in which officers may position patrol vehicles to safely
observe violations and quickly navigate heavy traffic to apprehend a v iolator.
Virginia Code Requirements for Photo Red Programs
Virginia appears to be unique in requiring that motorists be provided a 0.5 second grace period between the time the
signal turns red and the time the first v iolation is recorded. According to one Photo Red vendor, the photo w ould be
taken at 0.6 seconds after the light has turned red. Other states require grace periods of less than 0.5 seconds.
Another important feature of the Virginia Photo Red statute is that only a sw orn lawenforcement officer may certify
that a motorist committed a red light v iolation for the purpose of issuing a summons .
In addition, the Photo R ed statute requires that localities notify each red light violator: (1) that the recordings of the
violation will be available for the motorist’s inspection for at least 60 business days before a court date; and (2) how
to contest a summons by filing an affidavit. Once a motorist files an affidavit denying that he or she operated the
vehicle, the law enforcement agency mus t prove in c ourt that the motorist committed the violation. The statute does
not give law enforcement agencies the authority to require the motoris t to state who operated the vehicle at the time
of the violation. Finally , the maximum penalty that may be imposed is a civil penalty of $50. More detailed
information concerning the enforcement process may be found in the statute attached as Attachment A.
To implement a Photo Red program, a locality must submit the following to VDOT for its approval:
1. A list of proposed intersections for inclusion in the Photo Red sy stem.
2. An engineering study for eac h proposed intersection by a lic ens ed professional engineer (can be the County
Engineer).
3. A crash and traffic signal violations data report setting forth statistics for the previous three years, including
the number of traffic signal violations, and how many crashes involved a traffic signal violation for each
proposed intersection.
4. A current 48hour study of traffic signal violations for each proposed intersection.
Should the Board decide to adopt a Photo Red ordinance, the County must implement a public awareness campaign
regarding the proposed Photo Red program. Signs notifying motorists about Photo Redcontrolled intersections
must be placed within 500 feet of the intersection approach.
Staff Work Completed to D ate
To prepare for the poss ible implementation of a Traffic Light Signal Monitoring System Program, Albemarle County
Police Department staff has:
1. Identified the follow ing three intersections as top priority for inclusion in such a system: Rio & Seminole
Trail (R oute 29); the County portion of Hydraulic Road & Seminole Trail (Route 29); and Ric hmond Road &
Stony Point Road
2. Worked with the County Attorney’s Office to prepare a draft ordinance for the enforcement of traffic signal
v iolations utilizing the Photo Red System;
3. Developed plans to complete the required reports and studies ;
4. Attended a training seminar in the City of Virginia Beach; and
5. Reviewed sev eral Photo Red product presentations by potential vendors.
In the spring of 2009, Virginia Beach began implementing a fully operational Photo Red system at several
intersec tions. The entire process, including obtaining VDOT approv al and camera installation, took approximately
one year. Four other loc alities (the Cities of Newport News, Richmond and Fairfax and the C ounty of Fairfax) have
issued a Notice of Decis ion to award a vendor with a Photo Red contract and are in the process of hav ing their
Photo Red systems installed. Staff is reviewing an open contract that the C ity of Newport News has aw arded to a
Photo Red vendor to determine whether the County c ould contract w ith that vendor through cooperative
procurement. Should an ordinance be adopted, staff will conclude its analysis of proposed intersections for the
Photo Red program, contract with a Photo Red system v endor and obtain VD OT approvals to begin implementing
the Photo R ed program at selected inters ections as s oon as practical.
Impact on ACPD Work load
Several v ariables mak e it difficult to estimate the impact this program w ould have on ACPD staff. The Virginia
Beach Police D epartment (VBPD) currently has one fulltime sworn s upervisor, one fulltime sworn officer, and tw o
retired certified officers w ho manage their Photo Red program. The tw o retirees, who work 32 hours a week, are
respons ible for validating the violations, managing the appeal proces s and attending court if needed. ACPD could
evaluate VBPD’s proc edures to ascertain if a similar staffing approach would be feasible for the County. It should
be noted, how ever, that Virginia Beac h’s Photo Red program, which is authorized to include 43 inters ections, is
much larger than any program the County might undertak e.
How Photo R ed Systems Function
The enforcement cameras are active only during the red cycle of the traffic light. Only vehicles entering the
intersec tion after the light has turned red are captured on film. The cameras are wired to the traffic lights using
sensors buried in the roadway surface. Vehicles that c ros s the sensors after the light has turned red are recorded by
the video during the violation. The vehicle is also photographed prior to entering the intersection. A s econd photo is
taken as a closeup of the vehicle’s license plate. A third photo is taken show ing the v ehicle proceeding through the
intersec tion. These records of the violation serve as ev idence to support the imposition of a $50 civil penalty.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff research indicates that a typical Photo R ed program costs more than $100, 000.00 for camera sy stem
installation, maintenance, and monitoring at each intersec tion. If the C ounty were to contract with the vendor under
the terms of the Newport N ews contrac t, the County would incur no upfront or camera system installation costs, but
would be billed a fixed, monthly fee. Staff would determine, in advanc e of entering into a contract, whether the
penalties collected from selected inters ections would be sufficient to defray that monthly fee and any additional staff
costs incurred for the program. The New port N ews v endor would be able to provide some information, based on the
experiences of other localities, as to w hether the selected intersections would likely yield enough violations to make
the program costneutral. Under no circumstances, though, would the Photo Red program vendor receive payment
on a per ticket basis. It is not anticipated that Albemarle C ounty tax payers and safe drivers will absorb any of the
cost of the automated s ystems. It is anticipated that revenue generated by the civil fines will pay for the program.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Proposed Ordinanc e
B – Virginia Code §15.2968.1
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Draft: July 14, 2009
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-07( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, 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 9, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Article VII Traffic Light Signal Monitoring Systems
Sec. 9-700 Definition
Sec. 9-701 Establishment and implementation
Sec. 9-702 Traffic signal violations; penalty
CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE VII. TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNAL MONITORING SYSTEMS
Sec. 9-700 Definition.
For the purposes of this article and, unless otherwise required by the context, “traffic light signal
violation monitoring system” shall mean a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with a traffic light
that automatically produces two or more photographs, two or more microphotographs, video, or other recorded
images of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of Virginia Code §§46.2-833, 46.2-835, or
46.2-836. For each such vehicle, at least one recorded image shall be of the vehicle before it has illegally
entered the intersection, and at least one recorded image shall be of the same vehicle after it has illegally
entered that intersection.
Sec. 9-701 Establishment and implementation.
A. Establishment. The county hereby establishes a traffic signal enforcement program pursuant
to Virginia Code §15.2-968.1. The program shall include the installation and operation of traffic light signal
violation monitoring systems in a number up to the maximum number permitted by state law. No traffic light
signal violation monitoring system shall be operated for enforcement purposes at an intersection until all
prerequisites required for such operation have been fulfilled.
B. Implementation. The county executive shall (i) have the authority to implement the
provisions of this section, (ii) promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to administer the traffic signal
enforcement program in compliance with all requirements of Virginia Code §15.2-968.1 and this article, and
(iii) be responsible for the compliance of all aspects of the traffic signal enforcement program with applicable
state law. The county shall annually certify compliance with Virginia Code §15.2-968.1 and make all records
pertaining to such system available for inspection and audit by the Commonwealth Transportation
Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles or his designee. In addition, the
county shall evaluate the system on a monthly basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning
properly. Evaluation results shall be made available to the public.
C. Private entities. The county may enter into an agreement with a private entity to provide the
traffic light signal violation monitoring system or equipment and all related support services, to include
consulting, operations and administration. However, only a law-enforcement officer employed by the county
may swear to or affirm the certificate required by Virginia Code §15.2-968.1(C). A private entity may not
obtain records on behalf of the county regarding the registered owners of vehicles that fail to comply with
traffic light signals.
D. Restricted uses of information; penalty.
1. Information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system installed
and operated pursuant to this article shall be limited exclusively to that information that is necessary for the
Attachment A
Draft: July 14, 2009
2
enforcement of traffic light violations. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all photographs,
microphotographs, electronic images, or other personal information collected by a traffic light signal violation
monitoring system shall be used exclusively for enforcing traffic light violations and shall not (i) be open to
the public; (ii) be sold or used for sales, solicitation, or marketing purposes; (iii) be disclosed to any other
entity except as may be necessary for the enforcement of a traffic light violation or to a vehicle owner or
operator as part of a challenge to the violation; or (iv) be used in a court in a pending action or proceeding
unless the action or proceeding relates to a violation of Virginia Code §§46.2-833, 46.2-835, or 46.2-836 or
requested upon order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
2. Information collected under this section pertaining to a specific violation shall be
purged and not retained later than 60 days after the collection of any civil penalties. If the county does not
execute a summons for a violation of this section within 10 business days, all information collected pertaining
to that suspected violation shall be purged within two business days.
3. Any person who discloses personal information in violation of the provisions of this
section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000.
Sec. 9-702 Traffic signal violations; penalty.
A. Monetary penalty. The operator of a vehicle shall be liable for a monetary penalty of fifty
dollars ($50.00) imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by information
obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system, to have failed to comply with a traffic light
signal within such locality. Imposition of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be deemed a conviction as
an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is
imposed, nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.
B. Evidence of violation. Proof of a violation of this section shall be evidenced by information
obtained from a traffic light signal violation monitoring system authorized pursuant to this section. A
certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a law-enforcement officer employed by the county authorized to impose
penalties pursuant to this section, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs,
microphotographs, videotape, or other recorded images produced by a traffic light signal violation monitoring
system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs, microphotographs,
videotape, or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be available for inspection in any
proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to an ordinance adopted pursuant to this
section.
C. Summons. Summonses for traffic light signal violations under this article shall be executed
by first-class mail and accompanied by a written notice in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-968.1.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
§ 15.2968.1. Use of photomonitoring systems to e nforce traffic light signals.
A . The gove rning body of a ny county, city, or tow n ma y provide by ordina nc e for the esta blishme nt of a tra ffic
signal e nforc ement program imposing moneta ry liability on the ope ra tor of a motor ve hic le for failure to c omply
w ith tra ffic light signa ls in suc h loc ality in ac c orda nc e with the provisions of this se c tion. Eac h such loc ality may
install a nd ope ra te tra ffic light signa l photomonitoring systems a t no more tha n one inte rse c tion for eve ry 10,000
re sidents within ea c h county, c ity, or tow n a t a ny one time , provide d, howeve r, tha t within pla nning Distric t 8,
ea c h suc h loca lity ma y insta ll a nd operate tra ffic light signa l photomonitoring syste ms a t no more than 10
interse c tions, or a t no more tha n one inte rse c tion for eve ry 10,000 re side nts w ithin ea c h c ounty, c ity, or town,
w hic he ver is grea ter, at any one time .
B. The operator of a ve hic le sha ll be lia ble for a mone ta ry pe nalty impose d pursua nt to this se c tion if suc h vehic le
is found, a s e vide nc ed by information obta ine d from a traffic light signal viola tion monitoring system, to have
fa ile d to comply with a tra ffic light signa l within such loc ality.
C. Proof of a viola tion of this se ction sha ll be evide nc e d by information obtained from a tra ffic light signa l
viola tion monitoring system a uthoriz e d pursua nt to this se c tion. A c e rtific a te , sworn to or a ffirmed by a law
enforc ement offic e r e mploye d by a loc a lity a uthoriz ed to impose pena lties pursua nt to this se c tion, or a fac simile
the re of, ba se d upon inspe ction of photogra phs, microphotogra phs, vide ota pe, or othe r re corde d image s produc ed
by a traffic light signal viola tion monitoring syste m, shall be prima fac ie e vidence of the fa c ts conta ine d therein.
A ny photogra phs, mic rophotogra phs, vide ota pe , or other rec orded ima ges e videncing such a viola tion sha ll be
ava ilable for inspe ction in a ny proce eding to adjudic a te the liability for suc h violation pursua nt to a n ordina nce
adopted pursua nt to this se ction.
D . In the prose cution for a viola tion of a ny loc a l ordinanc e a dopte d a s provide d in this se c tion, prima fa cie
evide nc e that the ve hicle de scribe d in the summons issued pursuant to this se ction was ope ra ted in viola tion of
suc h ordina nc e , together with proof that the de fe ndant was a t the time of such viola tion the owne r, le ssee , or
re nte r of the ve hic le, sha ll constitute in e videnc e a re buttable pre sumption that suc h ow ner, lesse e, or renter of
the vehicle was the pe rson who c ommitte d the viola tion. Such presumption shall be re butted if the owne r, le ssee ,
or rente r of the ve hicle (i) file s a n a ffidavit by re gular mail with the cle rk of the ge ne ra l distric t c ourt tha t he w a s
not the ope ra tor of the vehicle a t the time of the a llege d violation or (ii) te stifie s in open court unde r oa th tha t he
w a s not the operator of the ve hic le at the time of the a lle ged viola tion. Such presumption shall a lso be re butte d if
a c ertified copy of a polic e report, showing tha t the ve hic le had be en re porte d to the polic e a s stole n prior to the
time of the allege d viola tion of this se c tion, is pre se nte d, prior to the re turn da te esta blishe d on the summons
issue d pursua nt to this se ction, to the court a djudic ating the a lle ged viola tion.
E. For purposes of this se ction, "owner" mea ns the re gistered owne r of suc h vehic le on re c ord w ith the
D e pa rtme nt of Motor V e hic le s. For purpose s of this se c tion, "traffic light signal viola tion monitoring system"
me ans a ve hic le se nsor installed to w ork in c onjunction w ith a traffic light tha t a utoma tic ally produce s two or
more photogra phs, two or more microphotographs, video, or othe r rec orded images of ea c h vehic le a t the time it
is used or ope ra ted in viola tion of § 46.2833, 46.2835, or 46.2836. For ea c h suc h ve hic le , a t lea st one re c orde d
image shall be of the ve hic le be fore it ha s ille gally entered the inte rse ction, a nd at le a st one re corded image shall
be of the same vehicle a fter it ha s ille ga lly entered that intersec tion.
F. Imposition of a penalty pursua nt to this se c tion sha ll not be de emed a c onvic tion a s a n operator a nd shall not be
ma de pa rt of the operating re cord of the pe rson upon whom such liability is impose d, nor sha ll it be use d for
insuranc e purpose s in the provision of motor vehicle insura nce cove ra ge. N o moneta ry pe na lty imposed under this
sec tion shall e xce e d $50, nor sha ll it include court c osts.
G . A summons for a viola tion of this se ction ma y be exe cuted pursuant to § 19.276.2. Notwithstanding the
provisions of § 19.276, a summons for a violation of this sec tion ma y be e xec ute d by ma iling by first c lass ma il a
copy the re of to the ow ne r, le sse e, or re nte r of the vehicle . In the c ase of a ve hic le owne r, the c opy sha ll be
ma iled to the a ddress conta ine d in the re cords of the D e pa rtme nt of Motor Ve hic le s; in the c ase of a ve hic le
le sse e or renter, the c opy sha ll be ma ile d to the address c ontained in the re c ords of the lessor or renter. Every
suc h ma iling shall inc lude , in a ddition to the summons, a notic e of (i) the summone d pe rson's a bility to re but the
presumption tha t he wa s the operator of the ve hic le at the time of the a lle ged viola tion through the filing of a n
affida vit a s provide d in subse c tion D and (ii) instructions for filing suc h a ffida vit, inc luding the addre ss to which
the a ffidavit is to be se nt. If the summoned pe rson fa ils to a ppe ar on the da te of return se t out in the summons
ma iled pursua nt to this se ction, the summons shall be e xe c ute d in the manner se t out in § 19.276.3. N o
proc ee dings for c ontempt or a rrest of a pe rson summone d by mailing shall be instituted for fa ilure to a ppe ar on
the return date of the summons. Any summons exec ute d for a viola tion of this se ction sha ll provide to the pe rson
summone d a t lea st 60 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspe c t information colle cte d by a tra ffic
light signa l viola tion monitoring syste m in c onnec tion with the viola tion.
H . Information colle cte d by a tra ffic light signa l violation monitoring syste m installed and operated pursua nt to
subsec tion A sha ll be limite d e xclusively to that informa tion that is ne c essa ry for the e nforce me nt of tra ffic light
viola tions. O n be ha lf of a loca lity, a priva te e ntity may not obta in re cords re ga rding the re giste red owne rs of
ve hic le s tha t fa il to comply with traffic light signa ls. Notwithsta nding a ny othe r provision of la w , a ll photogra phs,
microphotogra phs, elec tronic ima ges, or othe r pe rsona l informa tion c ollec ted by a traffic light signal viola tion
monitoring syste m sha ll be used exclusive ly for enforc ing tra ffic light viola tions and sha ll not (i) be ope n to the
public; (ii) be sold or use d for sa le s, solic ita tion, or ma rke ting purposes; (iii) be disc lose d to a ny othe r e ntity
exc ept a s may be ne ce ssa ry for the enforc e me nt of a tra ffic light viola tion or to a ve hic le ow ner or ope ra tor a s
pa rt of a c hallenge to the viola tion; or (iv) be use d in a c ourt in a pending a c tion or proc ee ding unle ss the a ction or
proc ee ding rela te s to a viola tion of § 46.2833, 46.2835, or 46.2836 or re que sted upon orde r from a c ourt of
compete nt jurisdic tion. Informa tion c ollec ted under this sec tion perta ining to a spec ific violation sha ll be purged
and not re ta ine d la te r tha n 60 days a fte r the c olle ction of a ny civil pe na ltie s. If a loca lity does not e xec ute a
summons for a violation of this sec tion within 10 business days, a ll information colle cte d perta ining to tha t
suspec ted viola tion shall be purged w ithin two busine ss da ys. Any loc a lity ope ra ting a tra ffic light signa l viola tion
monitoring syste m sha ll a nnually c ertify c omplia nc e with this sec tion a nd ma ke a ll re c ords perta ining to suc h
syste m a vailable for inspec tion a nd audit by the Commonwea lth Transporta tion Commissioner or the
Commissione r of the D e pa rtme nt of Motor Ve hic le s or his de signe e . Any pe rson w ho disc lose s pe rsona l
informa tion in viola tion of the provisions of this subsec tion sha ll be subje c t to a c ivil pena lty of $1,000.
I. A priva te e ntity may enter into an a gre ement with a loca lity to be c ompe nsate d for providing the tra ffic light
signal viola tion monitoring system or equipme nt, and a ll re la ted support servic es, to include consulting, ope ra tions
and a dministration. Howe ver, only a la w e nforc eme nt offic er e mployed by a loc ality ma y swe ar to or a ffirm the
ce rtific a te re quire d by subse ction C. No loc a lity sha ll e nte r into an agre e me nt for c ompensa tion ba se d on the
number of violations or moneta ry pena lties impose d.
J. When sele cting pote ntia l inte rse ctions for a traffic light signal viola tion monitoring system, a loc a lity shall
consider fac tors suc h as (i) the ac c ident rate for the intersec tion, (ii) the ra te of red light viola tions occ urring at
the inte rse ction (numbe r of viola tions pe r numbe r of ve hic le s), (iii) the diffic ulty experie nce d by lawe nforce me nt
office rs in pa trol c ars or on foot in a pprehe nding viola tors, and (iv) the a bility of lawe nforce me nt office rs to
apprehe nd viola tors sa fe ly w ithin a re a sona ble dista nc e from the violation. Loc alities ma y c onside r the risk to
pe destrians as a fac tor, if a pplica ble . A loc a lity sha ll submit a list of inte rse ctions to the Virginia De partment of
Tra nsporta tion for final approva l.
K . Before the imple mentation of a tra ffic light signa l viola tion monitoring system a t a n inte rse ction, the loc ality
sha ll complete a n e ngine e ring safety a na lysis tha t addre sses signal timing a nd othe r loc a tionspe cific sa fe ty
fe atures. The le ngth of the ye llow phase sha ll be esta blishe d ba sed on the re c ommended me thodology of the
Institute of Tra nsporta tion Engine ers. A ll tra ffic light signa l violation monitoring syste ms sha ll provide a minimum
0.5sec ond grac e pe riod be twee n the time the signa l turns re d a nd the time the first viola tion is re c orde d. If
re comme nde d by the engine ering sa fe ty ana lysis, the loca lity sha ll make rea sona ble loca tionspe c ific safety
improvements, inc luding signs a nd pa ve me nt ma rkings.
L. Any loc a lity tha t uses a tra ffic light signa l violation monitoring syste m shall e va lua te the system on a monthly
ba sis to e nsure all c ameras a nd traffic signals are func tioning prope rly. Evaluation results shall be ma de a va ila ble
to the public .
M. A ny loc ality tha t use s a tra ffic light signa l viola tion monitoring syste m to enforc e tra ffic light signa ls shall
pla ce c onspicuous signs within 500 fe e t of the inte rse ction approac h a t which a traffic light signal viola tion
monitoring syste m is used. The re shall be a re butta ble pre sumption tha t such signs we re in pla ce a t the time of the
commission of the traffic light signal viola tion.
N . Prior to or coinc ide nt w ith the imple me nta tion or expansion of a tra ffic light signa l viola tion monitoring
syste m, a loca lity shall c onduct a public a wa re ness progra m, advising the public tha t the loc ality is imple me nting
or e xpa nding a tra ffic light signa l viola tion monitoring syste m.
(2007, cc . 836, 903.)
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 200802 Amendment
to PD & NMD Regulations
SU BJECT/PR OPOSA L/R EQUEST:
Reques t t o amend the z oning ordinanc e to bring
titles and ot her referenc es in c onformity with
c urrent Community Dev elopment job t itles and
c urrent z oning ref erenc es, to clarify how
amendment s t o PDs c an be made, to address
v es ting of old projec ts t o c hange timing for a
park ing s tudy , and to reduc e the arc hitec tural
informat ion required for NMDs .
STA FF CONTAC T(S): Cilimberg, Echols
AGEN DA DATE:
July 1, 2009
AC TION : INFORMA TION: X
CONSEN T AGEN DA:
A CTION: INFOR MATION:
ATTA CHMENTS: Yes
B ACK GROU ND:
The Planning C ommission initiated this zoning text amendment on April 22, 2008. They discussed the
amendment on July 29, 2008, September 30, 2008, D ecember 9, 2008, February 17, 2009, March 24,
2009, and April 14, 2009. Over the last year, the C ommission proposed the changes, revised the
amendment, received public comment, held a public hearing, made changes, and discussed the changes
twice more before making a recommendation for approval on April 14, 2009. Copies of staff reports for
the July 29, 2008, March 24, 2009, and April 14, 2009 meetings are attached w ith this Executive
Summary. N ot all attachments to those reports, such as earlier versions of the ordinance amendment, are
included with this Executive Summary to avoid confusion and to reduce copying costs. Staff reports and
attachments for all of the Commission meetings at which this topic was discussed are available online.
July 29, 2008 Planning Commission Work Session report
September 30, 2008 Planning Commission Work Session report
D ecember 9, 2008 Planning Commission Work Session report
February 17, 2009 Planning Commission Public H earing report
March 24, 2009 Planning Commission Work Session report
April 14, 2009 Planning Commission Public H earing report
At their meeting on April 14, a Planning Commissioner asked that his comments be read into the
record related to variations. The comments are included with the minutes from that meeting. With his
comments, the C ommissioner has asked that the Board broaden the opportunities for variations to
planned developments. This C ommissioner is w orried that, over time, changes in environmental
regulations w ill affect the site layout on application plans and commitments for a minimum density in
codes of development. H e would like to see a modification added to the list of available variations so
that reductions in density could be allowed w ithout requiring a rezoning. The variation w ould be
available if conditions outside of the control of the developer, such as new environmental regulations,
result in a smaller area available for development on a site. Alternatively, he would like to see a
reduction in the amount of information required on an application plan.
D ISCU SSION:
The zoning ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning C ommission is Attachment I. At the
Board of Supervisors w orksession, staff will highlight the C ommission’s recommended changes and
answer questions. For ease in identifying the specific changes and the rationale for the changes, a
reference table is provided as Attachment II.
R egarding the issue raised by the individual Planning C ommissioner, staff sympathizes w ith the
C ommissioner regarding new regulations, especially environmental regulations, which could affect
existing application plans and codes of development. The example which the Commissioner has
discussed with staff relates to Rivanna Village at Glenmore, although there may be others. The
developer of R ivanna Village at Glenmore committed to a minimum density for that development. U.S.
Army C orps of Engineers stream preservation regulations and Virginia stormwater management
regulations w ill likely require changes to the plan w hich will reduce available area for development.
Limitations on building heights will likely preclude the ability to move density around on the site to
achieve the minimum density required for the development. Because a minimum density constituted a
firm commitment through the rezoning, the Planning Director and County Attorney have advised that
this type of change must be done through the rezoning process. The developer would prefer to not
open up the original rezoning for w hat he considers a minor change resulting from conditions outside
of his control. However, the state code is fairly explicit with regards to changes that require rezonings.
Some commitments made through rezonings cannot be “undone” without going through a public
hearing and legislative action.
The alternative suggested by the Commissioner is less information provided with a rezoning
application. The Commissioner is correct that the more vague an application plan is, the greater the
flexibility. The dow nside to this is that important features, such as areas to be preserved on a site,
commitments to design w hich reflect principles of the Neighborhood Model, or even the location of
specific uses might not take place. In the case of Rivanna Village at Glenmore, some of these
important features were preservation of a quarry which is to be incorporated into the park design, the
specific location of commercial areas, having noncommercial uses adjacent to R oute 250, and having
single family homes backing up to single family homes on adjoining properties.
The zoning ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning C ommission is Attachment I. The
section dealing with variations is Section 8.5.5.3.
R EC OMMEN DATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the proposed amendment including this issue during their
w orksession and provide any additional input necessary before scheduling the amendment for a public
hearing.
A TTA CHMENTS:
ATTAC HMENT I: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment dated June 16, 2009
ATTAC HMENT II: Proposed C hanges to Planned Development Section of Zoning Ordinance and
Neighborhood Model Section of Zoning Ordinance, June 16, 2009
ATTAC HMENT III: Executive Summary for Planning Commission dated April 14, 2009
ATTAC HMENT IV: Staff Report dated March 24, 2009
ATTAC HMENT V: Staff Report dated July 29, 2008
View PC minutes of April 14, March 24, and February 17, 2009, December 9, September 30, July 29, and
April 22, 2008
R eturn to regular agenda
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
3
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted
Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences
Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission
Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors
Sec. 8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development
Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits
Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts
established without an application or application plan
Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts
Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information
Sec. 20A.4 General development plans
Sec. 20A.5 Codes of development
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
Sec. 20A.7 Residential density
Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas
Sec. 20A.10 Streets
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by
section 8.5.1(d)(e) and, within the neighborhood model district, section 20A.4. A plan designated and approved
as a general development plan for a neighborhood model district between March 19, 2003 and [insert effective
date] is an application plan for the purposes of this chapter. (Added 3-19-03)
. . .
Block: An area shown on an application plan or a general development plan that is typically surrounded by
streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where
steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes. (Added 3-19-03)
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
4
. . .
General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development within the neighborhood model
district, containing the information required by sections 8.5.1(d) and 20A.4. (Added 3-19-03)
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations Applicable regulations;
waivers and modifications
Planned developments shall be subject to the following regulations in this chapter:
a. Sections applicable. Unless expressly superseded by a regulation of the applicable planned
development district, Tthe regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all
planned development districts of this chapter, other than those pertaining to conventional development
districts stated in sections 10 through 18, 20B, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28, shall apply to each planned
development district unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development under
section 20A.5, or the regulation is waived or modified as provided in subsection (b).
b. Waivers and modifications. An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 and
32, or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found the
board of supervisors finds the regulation to be inconsistent with planned development design principles
and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances.
1. Submittal of request for waiver or modification. If the applicant requests such a waiver or
modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as
part of the application plan, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not
adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested
modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an
equivalent degree by the modification.
2. Timing of request. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32 establishing a
procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any request for such a waiver or
modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Nothing in this
section prohibits ; provided that an owner within a planned development from requesting may
request a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or and 32 at any
time, under the procedures and requirements established therefore.
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or and 32, such a waiver or modification may be granted
only if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development
district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of
section 8.
4. Express waiver or modification. Each waiver and modification must be expressly granted and
no waiver or modification shall be deemed to have been granted by implication.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria at the time it is established or
amended: (1) the land area proposed to be rezoned or the area within the planned development district is under
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
5
unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord
conforms with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a
planned historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and
improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted
Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map
amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the
application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning and community development director of
planning may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact
analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed
reasonably necessary to analyze the application:
a. A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000) feet showing
topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties, improvements to those
properties, surrounding public streets, private roads, and other thoroughfares;
b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit area to be rezoned showing the location and type
of boundary evidence and the source of the survey;
c. A map at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet, provided that another
interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of the area
proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant, showing:
1. The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non-tidal wetlands,
slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and sites included in the records
of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, cemeteries, floodplain, and any identified
features in the open space element of the comprehensive plan;
2. Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a
scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale
may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where
topographic considerations warrant using the county’s geographic information system or better
topographical information, and the source of the topographical information;
3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities;
4. The existing owners and zoning district The name of the proposed development; the names of
all owners; the name of the developer, if different from the owner; the name of the person who
prepared the plan; all tax map and parcel numbers in fourteen (14) digit format; the zoning
district and all overlay zoning districts; the magisterial district; the north point; the scale; one
datum reference for elevation; if any part of the area proposed to be rezoned is within the flood
hazard overlay district (section 30.3), United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be
shown and/or correlated to plan topography; sheet numbers on each sheet and the total number
of sheets; the date of the drawing; and the date and description of the last revision;
5. The present use of adjoining tracts adjacent parcels; and the location of structures on adjoining
adjacent parcels, if any; and departing lot lines; and
6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site;
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
6
d. A traffic impact statement meeting the requirements of state law including, but not limited to, 24 VAC
30-155-10 et seq.;
e. An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans
and profiles at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet, provided that
another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of
the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant, showing:
1. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be designated as
conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen trees, non-tidal wetlands, and
other significant environmental features;
2. The proposed Conceptual grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals
using the county’s geographic information system or better topographical information, and the
source of the topographical information, supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and
areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater;
3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths;
4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape;
5. Connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the
comprehensive plan;
6. Trip generation figures;
76. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater management, and a
conceptual mitigation plan;
87. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, such as major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic
areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas;
98. A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross floor areas for
commercial and industrial uses;
109. The general A conceptual lot lay-out layout; and
1110. Standards for of development including proposed yards, building heights, open space
characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions,
and massing at the edge of the district.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences
Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the planning, engineering, and
zoning staff of the department of community development as well as other qualified officials from outside
agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the
Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the
application is submitted. The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure
that the application and the documents to be submitted with the application comply with all applicable
regulations, and to identify as soon as possible conflicting regulations and necessary waivers or modifications.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
7
Each applicant is encouraged to use the guidance provided in the preapplication conference process to develop
an application for a planned development that, when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as
complete and comprehensive as possible.
(§ 8.5.3, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
(Former § 8.5.2 Planning Commission Procedures Repealed 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission
Each application for to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the
planning commission as follows:
a. The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each
application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. Within the
time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may hold work sessions on the application
and proceed to a public hearing after it determines that no further work sessions are necessary, or at any
time the applicant requests a public hearing.
b. In making its recommendation on the application to the board of supervisors, the commission shall
make findings about the following In addition to any other factors relevant to the consideration of a
zoning map amendment, the commission shall consider the following:
1. Whether the proposed planned development or amendment thereto satisfies the purpose and
intent of the planned development district.
12. The suitability of the tract for the proposed planned development in terms of its relation to all
applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan Whether the area proposed to be rezoned is
appropriate for a planned development under the comprehensive plan; the physical
characteristics of the land area proposed to be rezoned; and it’s the relation of the area proposed
to be rezoned to the surrounding area; and
23. The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services;.
3. Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are
satisfied.
c. Depending on the findings it makes, tThe commission shall either recommend approval of the
application as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the
application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. The commission shall also make
recommendations on all requested waivers and modifications.
(§ 8.5.4, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors; effect of approval
Each application to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the
board of supervisors, and approval of the application shall have effect, as follows:
a. Review and action. The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned
development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the board approves the application,
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
8
the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan, and all standards for of
development submitted by the applicant, and the code of development, as applicable. The board’s
action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has
granted.
b. Effect of approval. Once an application is approved Upon approval of an application, the application
plan, all submitted standards for of development submitted by the applicant, the code of development, as
applicable, and all accepted proffers, and all approved waivers and modifications shall be included as
part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development.
(§ 8.5.5, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5 Final sSite plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats
Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall comply with the
following:
a. Generally. Each site plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of this chapter,
subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to section 8.5.3(b)(3) 8.2(b). Each
subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with Cchapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle,
subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14-237.
b. Within the neighborhood model zoning district. In addition to the requirements of paragraph subsection
(a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the neighborhood model zoning
district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan, and each site plan
shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures.
(§ 8.5.6.1, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.1, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats
Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for
compliance with the applicable regulations: (1) in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned
development district; or, (2) at the option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each preliminary and
final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the
following:
a. The approved application plan, the approved standards for development, the accepted proffers, and the
authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed therewith, if any;
b. The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district, including all proffers, as determined
by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community
development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guided by section 22.2.1
of this chapter;
c. In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of development.
Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan and the code of
development, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consultation
with the zoning administrator.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
9
Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for
compliance with the applicable regulations, as follows:
a. Planned development districts established on or before December 10, 1980. Each preliminary and final
site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district established on or before December
10, 1980 shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations when the site plan or
subdivision plat is under county review; provided that, at the option of the developer or subdivider, each
preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat may be reviewed for compliance with the applicable
regulations in effect when the planned development was approved if the developer or subdivider
establishes a vested right as provided in Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297 or 15.2-2307 to develop under the
previously approved planned development district.
b. Planned development districts established after December 10, 1980. Each preliminary and final site
plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district established after December 10, 1980
shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the planned
development district was established or, at the option of the developer or subdivider, in effect when the
site plan or subdivision plat is under county review; subject to the following:
1. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; exception for certain
current subjects of regulation unless vested rights established. If the developer or subdivider
elects to have its site plan or subdivision plat reviewed for compliance with the applicable
regulations in effect when the planned development district was established, all of the following
subjects of regulation in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review
shall apply unless vested rights are established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298,
15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307: (i) entrance corridor overlay district (section 30.6); (ii) flood hazard
overlay district (section 30.3); (iii) landscaping and screening (section 32.7.9); (iv) outdoor
lighting (section 4.17); (v) parking (section 4.12); and (vi) signs (section 4.15). If rights are
determined to have vested, the regulations for these six subjects in effect when rights vested
shall apply. For the purposes of this section 8.5.5.2(b), an application plan approved on and
after March 19, 2003 that complies with the requirements of an application plan under section
8.5.1(e) or section 20A.4, or a prior version thereof in effect on and after March, 19, 2003, is a
significant governmental act within the meaning of Virginia Code § 15.2-2307.
2. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; election to comply with
certain current subjects of regulation. If the developer or subdivider elects to have its site plan
or subdivision plat reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the
planned development district was established, the developer or subdivider may also elect to
comply with one or more of the subjects of regulation listed in subsection 8.5.5.2(b)(1) in effect
when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review instead of with the corresponding
regulations in effect when the planned development district was established.
c. Review for compliance and conformance. A site plan or subdivision plat shall be reviewed to determine
whether it complies with the applicable regulations and other requirements of law, and whether it
conforms to the application plan, as follows:
1. Zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall determine whether a site plan or
subdivision plat complies with the applicable regulations. In addition, the zoning administrator,
after consultation with the director of planning, shall determine whether the proposed permitted
uses comply with the applicable regulations and, in doing so, may permit as a use by right a use
that is not expressly classified in this chapter if the zoning administrator further determines that
the use is similar in general character to the uses permitted by right in the district or by the code
of development and is similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics,
visual impacts, and traffic, noise and odor generation.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
10
2. Director of planning. The director of planning shall determine whether a site plan or
subdivision plat conforms to the application plan. In determining conformity, the director shall
decide whether the central features or major elements within the development are in the same
location as shown on the application plan and if the buildings, parking, streets, blocks, paths and
other design elements are of the same general character, scope and scale as shown on the
application plan.
3. County engineer. The county engineer shall determine whether an erosion and sediment control
plan, grading plan, stormwater management plan, road or street plan, and mitigation plan
conform with the concept grading, stormwater management, streets, and mitigation shown on
the application plan.
d. Applicable regulations defined. For the purposes of this section 8.5.5.2, the term “applicable
regulations”means, as appropriate and applicable, all zoning regulations, all subdivision regulations, the
application plan (except for those elements authorized to be shown at a conceptual or general level),
including those plans formerly referred to as general development plans, conditions of approval,
accepted proffers, the code of development, special use permits, variances, and waivers, modifications
and variations.
e. Applicability of chapter 17. Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned
development district shall be reviewed for compliance with chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code in
effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review, regardless of when the planned
development was established or whether the developer or subdivider elects, or establishes vested rights,
under sections 8.5.5.2(a) and (b) to proceed with review under the applicable regulations in effect when
the planned development was approved.
f. Vested rights not impaired. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the impairment of
a vested right that may be established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2261(C), 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298,
15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307.
(§ 8.5.6.2, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.2, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of developments
The director of planning and community development director of planning may allow a site plan or subdivision
plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in
the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of development, as provided
herein:
a. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved
plan, code or standard:
1. Minor variations changes to yard requirements, build-to lines or ranges, maximum structure
heights and minimum lot sizes;
2. Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the major
elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same;
3. Changes to phasing plans;
4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
11
5. Minor variations changes to street design and street location, subject to a recommendation for
approval by the county engineer; and
6. Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities, land disturbance
including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation, subject to a recommendation
for approval by the county engineer.
b. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director of planning;. tThe request
shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the
reason for the requested variation;. tThe director may reject a request that fails to include the required
information.
c. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved
development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing
of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use
permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application.
d. The director of planning may require that the applicant provide an updated application plan and, in the
case of changes to a code of development, a complete amended code of development, reflecting the
approved variation and the date of the variation. If the director requires an updated application plan or
code of development, the granting of the variation shall be conditional upon the applicant providing the
plan or code within thirty (30) days after approval of the variation and a determination by the director
that the plan or code were revised to correctly reflect the granted variation.
e. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning zoning map
amendment.
(§ 8.5.6.3, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.3, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control grading permits
Building permits and erosion and sediment control grading permits may be issued as provided herein:
a. A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for any work
within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only after the approval of the
final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the permit would apply.
b. An erosion and sediment control grading permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated
with an approved planned development if an the erosion and sediment control plan measures, disturbed
area and grading are in conformity with the concept grading and measures shown on the application
plan as determined by the county engineer, after consultation with the director of planning. satisfactory
to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the
application plan, and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed
grading is consistent with the approved application plan.
c. In cases where If, after consultation with the director of planning, the county engineer finds that there is
not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency that the proposed grading and
other measures are consistent with the application plan, no erosion and sediment control permit shall a
grading permit shall not be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final subdivision plat is
tentatively approved.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
12
cd. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community development shall
review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure
conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development.
(§ 8.5.6.4, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.4, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts
established without an application or application plan Site plan and subdivision plat
requirements when there is no application plan
Site plans and subdivision plats within a planned development district for which an application plan was not
approved shall be subject to the following:
a. No valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If a planned development zoning
district was established without before an approved application plan as was required by section 8 to be
approved as part of the zoning map amendment and there was no valid site plan or subdivision plat
pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision
plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other
documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein.
b. Valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If such a district was previously
established in conjunction with an approved site plan If a planned development district was established
before an application plan was required by section 8 to be approved as part of the zoning map
amendment but there was a valid site plan or subdivision plat pertaining to the entirety of the planned
development district at the time the zoning map amendment was approved, the approved site plan or
subdivision plat shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the district shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has
expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity site plan
or subdivision plat shall be reviewed as provided in section 8.5.5.2. (Amended 7-16-86)
(§ 8.5.6.5, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.5, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts
Each amendment to a planned development district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In
addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district, or to amend the proffers,
the application plan, the general development plan, or the code of development within an area that is less than
the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and
identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended
proffers, application plan, general development plan, or code of development will apply.
A planned development district may be amended after it is established, either by the addition or removal of land,
or by an amendment to the application plan, code of development, proffers or any waiver or modification, in
accordance with the procedures and requirements of section 8 and those applicable to zoning map amendments
generally, and subject to the following additional requirements:
a. Eligible applicant. Any owner, contract purchaser with the owner’s consent, or any authorized agent of
the owner, of one or more parcels within a planned development district may apply to amend the
existing planned development district as it pertains to the owner’s parcel(s). The owner of each parcel
to which the proposed amendment would result in or require a physical change to the parcel, a change in
use, density or intensity on that parcel, a change to any proffer or regulation in a code of development
that would apply to the parcel, a change to an owner’s express obligation under a proffer or regulation in
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
13
a code of development even if the proffer or regulation is not expressly changed, or a change to the
application plan that would apply to the parcel, shall be an applicant.
b. Amendment affecting less area than the entire district; map. If the proposed amendment would affect
less area than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned
development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying
the area to which the amended application plan, code of development, proffers or any waiver or
modification would apply.
c. Individual notice. In addition to any notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and sections
33.4 and 33.8 of this chapter, written notice of the proposed amendment shall be provided to the
owner of each parcel within the planned development district. The substance of the notice shall
be as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(B), paragraph 1, regardless of the number of
parcels affected.
d. Factors to consider during review of proposed amendment. In addition to any other applicable
factors to be considered in the review of a zoning map amendment, the following shall also be
considered:
1. Whether the proposed amendment reduces, maintains or enhances the elements of a planned
development set forth in section 8.3.
2. The extent to which the proposed amendment impacts the other parcels within the planned
development district.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information
Except where the option is exercised as provided in subsection (b), below, tThe following documents and
information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of
this chapter:
a. A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is
consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the land use plan, the
master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model; if one or more
characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A.1 are missing from an application,
the applicant shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided;
b. A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes
strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives
as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as
provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter; provided that the applicant may elect to submit the parking
and loading needs study in conjunction with the preliminary site plan for the development if it
determines that the uses that may occupy the buildings are not sufficiently known at the time of the
zoning map amendment.
c. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater management
facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities.
d. A general development An application plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information
required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
14
e. A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by sections 8
or 20A to support any element of the code.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.4 General development Application plans
A general development plan shall serve as the application plan required by section 8.5.1(d) of this chapter. In
addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(de ), the following are required elements of the
general development plan an application plan in the NMD:
a. The amount of gross square footage devoted to nonresidential uses and a residential equivalent,
expressed as the product of the square feet per unit multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed.
If a residential equivalent is not provided by the applicant, it shall be the product of one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet multiplied by the number of dwelling units proposed.
b. The general allocation of uses to each block in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional,
amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the
applicant and which complies with the requirements of section 20A.8.
c. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided
in section 20A.9.
d. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or major elements that are essential to
the design of the development, shown at the block level.
a. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths;
b. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided
in section 20A.9;
c. A conceptual lot lay-out;
d. Conceptual grading/topography using the county geographic information system or better topographic
information supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and areas of the site where existing slopes
are twenty-five (25) percent or greater;
e. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape, which, alternatively, may be
provided in the code of development;
f. Any proposed connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on
the comprehensive plan;
g. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater management, and a
conceptual mitigation plan; and
h. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, such as building envelopes, major employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic
areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
15
Sec. 20A.5 Codes of development
A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district,
and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central
features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. Any
substantive or procedural requirement of this chapter shall apply to an NMD unless the subject matter is
expressly addressed in the code of development. Each code of development shall be in a form required or
otherwise approved by the director of planning. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall
establish:
a. The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in section 20A.6.
b. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use,
and amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed
range of square footage.
c. The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of
residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use categories, number of
residential dwelling units, dwelling units by type, and delineating at least two (2) housing types, as
provided in section 20A.8.
d. The amount of land area and percentage of gross acreage devoted to green space and amenities, as
provided in section 20A.9.
e. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (a).
f. All uses expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses accessory to a
permitted use.
g. Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following:
1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures which may be provided through
illustrations;
2. Architectural styles;
3. Materials, colors, and textures;
4. Roof form and pitch;
5. Architectural ornamentation;
62. Façade treatments, including window and door openings;
7. Landscape treatments; and
83. The preservation of historic structures, sites, cemeteries, and archeological sites identified by
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. ; and
4. Architectural styles, materials, colors and textures if these elements are determined to be
necessary in order for a proposed development to be compatible with its contiguous developed
surroundings.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
16
The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to [effective date of ordinance] pertaining to
subsections 20A.5(g)(1) through (4) shall be the only architectural standards in the code of development
that apply to the planned development.
h. Preliminary lot lay-out. Landscape treatments where landscaping in addition to that required by section
32 is proposed. The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to [effective date of ordinance]
pertaining to landscape treatments as required under former subsection 20A.5(g)(7) shall apply to the
planned development.
i. For each block:
1. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit;
2. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (i)(1);
32. Build-to lines or ranges, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure;
43. Minimum and maximum lot and yard dimensions;
54. Minimum number of stories and Mmaximum building heights;
65. Location of Ssidewalks and pedestrian paths locations;
76. Acreage devoted to and characteristics of Ggreen space, and amenities, and recreational areas
and facilities as required by section 4.16;
87. Location, acreage and characteristics of Cconservation areas and preservation areas as defined
in section 3.1, if applicable;
98. Location of Pparking areas;
109. Location, acreage and characteristics of Ccivic spaces, which are public areas for community or
civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship);
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the
approved general development application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers:
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right
use in the code of development or if the use is permitted by a determination by the zoning administrator
pursuant to section 8.5.5.2(c)(1):
1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those
uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3); provided
that the use is identified in the approved code of development.
2. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
17
pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings.
4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses.
5. Temporary construction uses.
6. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies,
public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations
and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses.
8. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes residential uses.
9. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit if the use is expressly
identified as use permitted by special use permit in the code of development:
1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district.
12. Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses.
23. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by right permitted use, if any
portion of the use would be visible from a travelway.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 20A.7 Residential density
Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows:
a. The gross residential density should be within the applicable recommended gross density range
established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations regarding the
appropriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall take into account the
amount of land devoted to non-residential uses.
b. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the
gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district
dividing the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district by the gross acreage of the
district.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas
Each NMD shall include the following:
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
18
a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density
residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or
office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the
gross acreage of the site area proposed to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office
regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent
(15%) of the gross acreage of the site area proposed to be rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs subsections (a)(1) and
(a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be
guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space.
4. The minimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the
request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the
relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as
parks or natural areas; the known future uses of the of the adjoining properties; and whether a
reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan.
b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density
residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area
devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site area
proposed to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office
service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at
least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the site area proposed to be rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs subsections (b)(1) and
(b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be
guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities.
4. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the
request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall consider these factors: the
relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing amenities; the proportion of
residential uses to nonresidential uses proposed; the known future uses of the of the adjoining
properties; and whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the
comprehensive plan.
c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the following:
1. At least ninety percent (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within a one-quarter
mile walk of an amenity.
2. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed
amenity.
3. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served.
Draft: 06/16/09
ATTACHMENT I
19
4. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from
recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards.
5. In nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that they are easily
accessible to patrons and employees of the development.
d. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is covered in
grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity.
e. Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be
included as green space area.
f. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall
be included as green space area.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.10 Streets
Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development
established by the department of engineering and public works community development.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
20 ATTACHMENT II Proposed Changes to Planned Development Section of Zoning Ordinance and Neighborhood Model Section of Zoning Ordinance June 16, 2009 Section # Existing Text Proposed Text Impact/Reason for Change Section 3.1 Definitions Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by section 8.5.1(d) Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information required by section 8.5.1(d)and, within the neighborhood model district, section 20A.4. A plan designated and approved as a general development plan for a neighborhood model district between March 19, 2003 and [insert effective date] is an application plan for the purposes of this chapter. Cleanup Block: An area shown on an application plan or a general development plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes Block: An area shown on an application plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes Deletes term “general development plan”. (see below) General development plan: An application plan for a proposed development within the neighborhood model district, containing the information required by sections 8.5.1(d) and 20A.4. Definition deleted. General Development Plan is now just, “application plan” to eliminate confusion. Section 8.2 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned development districts. An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design principles and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances. If the applicant requests such a waiver or modification as part of the application Sec. 8.2 Applicable regulations; waivers and modifications Planned developments shall be subject to the following regulations in this chapter: a. Sections applicable. Unless expressly superseded by a regulation of the applicable planned development district, the regulations of this chapter, other than those pertaining to conventional development districts stated in sections 10 through 18, 20B, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28, shall apply to each planned development district unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development under section 20A.5, or the Changes section title for easier reference, clarifies which sections are available for waivers and modifications, organizes section, and makes clear that waivers must be expressly granted by the Board.
21 ATTACHMENT II plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any request for such a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Nothing in this section prohibits an owner within a planned development from requesting a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32 at any time, under the procedures and requirements established therefore. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4, 5 and 32, such a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8. regulation is waived or modified as provided in subsection (b). b. Waivers and modifications. An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 and 32, or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found the board of supervisors finds the regulation to be inconsistent with planned development design principles and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances. 1. Submittal of request for waiver or modification. If the applicant requests such a waiver or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application plan, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. 2. Timing of request. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32 establishing a Procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any request for such a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan provided that an owner within a planned development may request a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32 at any time, under the procedures and requirements established therefore. 3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32, such a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8.
22 ATTACHMENT II 4. Express waiver or modification. Each waiver and modification must be expressly granted and no waiver or modification shall be deemed to have been granted by implication. Section 8.3 PD defined 8.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a planned historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria at the time it is established or amended: (1) the area proposed to be rezoned or the area within the planned development district is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development conforms with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a planned historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate. Acknowledges that PDs can be amended; uses word, “conforms” to make distinctions between conventional districts and planned districts. 8.5.1 Application and documents to be submitted Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning and community development may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, director of planning may request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application: Cleanup
23 ATTACHMENT II b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location and type of boundary evidence; b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or area to be rezoned showing the location and type of boundary evidence and the source of the survey; Cleanup c. A map showing: c. A map at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet, provided that another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant, showing: Clarification/cleanup and consistency with other required documents c.2. Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet; other interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community development where topographic considerations warrant; 2. Existing topography accurately shown using the county’s geographic information system or better topographical information, and the source of the topographical information; Cleanup Not currently a requirement 3. The name of the proposed development; the names of all owners; the name of the developer, if different from the owner; the name of the person who prepared the plan; all tax map and parcel numbers in fourteen (14) digit format; the zoning district and all overlay zoning districts; the magisterial district; the north point; the scale; one datum reference for elevation; if any part of the area proposed to be rezoned is within the flood hazard overlay district (section 30.3), United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography; sheet numbers on each sheet and the total number of sheets; the date of the drawing; and the date and description of the last revision; Clarification and consistency with other required documents. 4. The existing owners and zoning district; and 5. The present use of adjoining tracts and the location of structures on adjoining parcels, if any; and 4. The present use of adjacent parcels; the location of structures on adjacent parcels, if any; and departing lot lines; and Clarification and cleanup
24 ATTACHMENT II from Section d.6.: Trip generation figures; d. A traffic impact statement meeting the requirements of state law including, but not limited to, 24 VAC 30-155-10 et seq.; Cleanup to conform with state requirements d. An application plan based on a minimum of two (2) data references for elevations to be used on plans and profiles showing: e. An application plan at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet, provided that another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant, showing Clarification and consistency with other required documents. d.2. The proposed grading/topography with a maximum of five (5) foot contour intervals; 2. Conceptual grading/topography using the county’s geographic information system or better topographical information, and the source of the topographical information, supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater; Clarification and consistency with other required documents. d.10. The general lot lay-out; and 9. A conceptual lot lay-out; and Clarification Standards for development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. 10. Standards of development including proposed yards, building heights, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district. 8.5.2 Preapplication Conferences Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the planning, engineering, and zoning staff as well as other qualified officials from outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the application is submitted. Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the staff of the department of community development as well as other qualified officials from outside agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the application is submitted. Each applicant is encouraged to use the guidance provided in the preapplication conference process to develop an application for a planned development that, when submitted with its supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as possible. Cleanup
25 ATTACHMENT II 8.5.3 Review and Recommendation by the Planning Commission Each application for a planned development shall be reviewed by the planning commission as follows: Each application to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the planning commission as follows: Clarification b. In making its recommendation on the application to the board of supervisors, the commission shall make findings about the following: b. In addition to any other factors relevant to the consideration of a zoning map amendment, the commission shall consider the following: Cleanup 1.Whether the proposed planned development or amendment thereto satisfies the purpose and intent of the planned development district. Clarification 1.The suitability of the tract for the proposed planned development in terms of its relation to all applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, physical characteristics of the land and it’s relation to the surrounding area; 2. Whether the area proposed to be rezoned is appropriate for a planned development under the comprehensive plan; the physical characteristics of the area proposed to be rezoned; and the relation of the area proposed to be rezoned to the surrounding area; and Cleanup 3.Each requested waiver or modification, including whether the requirements of section 8.2 are satisfied. deleted Moved to the section on waivers. c. Depending on the findings it makes, the commission shall either recommend approval of the application, as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. c. The commission shall either recommend approval of the application, as proposed, approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors, or disapproval. The commission shall also make recommendations on all requested waivers and modifications. Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors; effect of approval Each application to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the board of supervisors, and approval of the application shall have effect, as follows: Cleanup The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the board approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan, and all standards for development submitted by the applicant. The a. Review and action. The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the board approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan, all standards of development submitted by the applicant, and the code of development, as Clarification
26 ATTACHMENT II board’s action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted. applicable. The board’s action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted. Once an application is approved the application plan, all submitted standards of development and all accepted proffers shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development. b. Effect of approval. Upon approval of an application, the application plan, all standards of development submitted by the applicant, the code of development, as applicable, all accepted proffers, and all approved waivers and modifications shall be included as part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development. Cleanup and clarification 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and Subdivisions Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations: (1) in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a planned development district; or, (2) at the option of the applicant, currently in effect. In addition, each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the following: a. The approved application plan, the approved standards for development, the accepted proffers, and the authorized waivers or modifications and any conditions imposed therewith, if any; b. The permitted uses within the planned development zoning district, including all proffers, as determined by the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be guided by section 22.2.1 of this chapter; c. In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations, as follows: a. Planned development districts established on or before December 10, 1980. Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district established on or before December 10, 1980 shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review; provided that, at the option of the developer or subdivider, each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat may be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations when the planned development was approved if the developer or subdivider establishes a vested right as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2297 or § 15.2-2307 to develop under the previously approved planned development district. b. Planned development districts established after December 10, 1980. Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district established after December 10, 1980 shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the planned development district was established or, at the option of the developer or As requested by the Planning Commission, this section sets thresholds for conformity with current zoning regulations, where properties were rezoned before the current regulations went into place. None of the proposed changes affects rights established under vesting provisions of the State Code. It further clarifies the roles of the Zoning Administrator, Planning Director, and County Engineer in determinations of conformity for PDs.
27 ATTACHMENT II standards of development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan and the code of development, as determined by the director of planning and community development after consultation with the zoning administrator. subdivider, in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review; subject to the following: 1. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; exception for certain current subjects of regulation unless vested rights established. If the developer or subdivider elects to have its site plan or subdivision plat reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the planned development district was established, all of the following subjects of regulation in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review shall apply unless vested rights are established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307: (i) entrance corridor overlay district (section 30.6); (ii) flood hazard overlay district (section 30.3); (iii) landscaping and screening (section 32.7.9); (iv) outdoor lighting (section 4.17); (v) parking (section 4.12); and (vi) signs (section 4.15). If rights are determined to have vested, the regulations for these six subjects in effect when rights vested shall apply. For the purposes of this section 8.5.5.2(b), an application plan approved on and after March 19, 2003 that complies with the requirements of an application plan under section 8.5.1(e) or section 20A.4, or a prior version thereof in effect on and after March, 19, 2003, is a significant governmental act within the meaning of Virginia Code § 15.2-2307. 2. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; election to comply with certain current subjects of regulation. If the developer or subdivider elects to have its site plan or subdivision plat reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the planned development district was established, the developer or subdivider may also elect to comply with one or more of the subjects of regulation listed in subsection 8.5.5.2(b)(1) instead of with the corresponding regulations in effect when the planned development district was established.
28 ATTACHMENT II c. Review for compliance and conformance. A site plan or subdivision plat shall be reviewed to determine whether it complies with the applicable regulations and other requirements of law, and whether it conforms to the application plan, as follows: 1. Zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall determine whether a site plan or subdivision plat complies with the applicable regulations. In addition, the zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning, shall determine whether the proposed permitted uses comply with the applicable regulations and, in doing so, may permit as a use by right a use that is not expressly classified in this chapter if the zoning administrator further determines that the use is similar in general character to the uses permitted by right in the district or by the code of development and is similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impacts, and traffic, noise and odor generation. 2. Director of planning. The director of planning shall determine whether a site plan or subdivision plat conforms to the application plan. In determining conformity, the director shall decide whether the central features or major elements within the development are in the same location as shown on the application plan and if the buildings, parking, streets, blocks, paths and other design elements are of the same general character, scope and scale as shown on the application plan. 3. County engineer. The county engineer shall determine whether an erosion and sediment control plan, grading plan, stormwater management plan, road or street plan, and mitigation plan conform with the concept grading, stormwater management, streets, and mitigation shown on the application plan. d. Applicable regulations defined. For the
29 ATTACHMENT II purposes of this section 8.5.5.2, the term “applicable regulations”means, as appropriate and applicable, all zoning regulations, all subdivision regulations, the application plan (except for those elements authorized to be shown at a conceptual or general level), including those plans formerly referred to as general development plans, conditions of approval, accepted proffers, the code of development, special use permits, variances, and waivers, modifications and variations. Applicable regulations defined. For the purposes of this section, the term “applicable regulations” means, as appropriate, all zoning regulations, the application plan (except for those elements authorized to be shown at a conceptual or general level), including those plans formerly referred to as general development plans, conditions of approval, accepted proffers, the code of development, special use permits, variances, and waivers modifications and variations. e. Applicability of chapter 17. Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district shall be reviewed for compliance with chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review, regardless of when the planned development was established or whether the developer or subdivider elects, or establishes vested rights, under sections 8.5.5.2(a) and (b) to proceed with review under the applicable regulations in effect when the planned development was approved. f. Vested rights not impaired. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the impairment of a vested right that may be established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2261(C), 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307. 8.5.5.3. Variations from approved plans, codes, The director of planning and community development may allow a site plan or subdivision The director of planning may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to vary from Cleanup
30 ATTACHMENT II and standards of developments plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of development, as provided herein: a. The director of planning and community development is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code or standard: 1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a code of development, as provided herein: a. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved plan, code or standard: 1. Minor changes to yard requirements, build-to lines or ranges, maximum structure heights and minimum lot sizes; 5. Minor variations to street design, and 5. Minor changes to street design and street location, subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer; and Cleanup Not currently listed as a variation 6. Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities, land disturbance including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation, subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer. Clarification and cleanup. b. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject a request that fails to include the required information. c. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the b. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director of planning. The request shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation. The director may reject a request that fails to include the required information. c. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. Clarification
31 ATTACHMENT II approved application. Not in the ordinance d. The Director of Planning may require that the applicant provide an updated application plan and, in the case of changes to a Code of Development, an updated Code of Development reflecting the approved variation and the date of the variation. If the Director requires the updated plan or code, it shall be provided within 30 days of approval of the variation. Cleanup Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning. e. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by zoning map amendment New requirement needed to keep track of approved variations within a planned development. Section 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits Section 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and grading permits Cleanup Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits may be issued as provided herein: b. An erosion and sediment control permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with an approved planned development if an erosion and sediment control plan satisfactory to the director of engineering and public works has been submitted and reviewed in conjunction with the application plan, and the director of planning and community development determines the proposed grading is consistent with the approved application plan. c. In cases where the director finds that there is not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency no erosion and sediment control permit shall be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final plat is tentatively approved. Building permits and grading permits may be issued as provided herein: b. A grading permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with an approved planned development if the erosion and sediment control plan measures, disturbed area and grading are in conformity with the concept grading and measures shown on the application plan as determined by the county engineer, after consultation with the director of planning. c. If, after consultation with the director of planning, the county engineer finds that there is not enough detail on the approved application plan to assure consistency that the proposed grading and other measures are consistent with the application plan, a grading permit shall not be issued until the final site plan is approved, or the final subdivision plat is tentatively approved. d. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of community development shall review Cleanup
32 ATTACHMENT II d. Within each neighborhood model district, the department of planning and community development shall review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development. each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code of development. Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application plan If a planned development zoning district was established without an approved application plan as required by section 8 then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. If such a district was previously established in conjunction with an approved site plan the approved site plan shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the district shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 8. In such a case, if the site plan or subdivision plat has expired, a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity. Site plan and subdivision plat requirements where there is no application plan Site plans and subdivision plats within a planned development district for which an application plan was not approved shall be subject to the following: a. No valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If a planned development district was established before an application plan was required by section 8 to be approved as part of the zoning map amendment and there was no valid site plan or subdivision plat pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein. b. Valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If a planned development district was established before an application plan was required by section 8 to be approved as part of the zoning map amendment but there was a valid site plan or subdivision plat pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district at the time the zoning map amendment was approved, the approved site plan or subdivision plat shall be deemed to be the application plan, and the site plan or subdivision plat shall be reviewed as provided in section 8.5.5. Cleanup and clarification Sec. 8.6 Amendments to Each amendment to a planned development A planned development district may be amended after it Clarification as to who
33 ATTACHMENT II planned development districts district shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in section 8. In addition, with each application to amend the area of the planned development district, or to amend the proffers, the application plan, the general development plan, or the code of development within an area that is less than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended proffers, application plan, general development plan, or code of development will apply. is established, either by the addition or removal of land, or by an amendment to the application plan, code of development, proffers or any waiver or modification, in accordance with the procedures and requirements of section 8 and those applicable to zoning map amendments generally, and subject to the following additional requirements: a. Eligible applicant. Any owner, contract purchaser with the owner’s consent, or any authorized agent of the owner, of one or more parcels within a planned development district may apply to amend the existing planned development district as it pertains to the owner’s parcel(s). The owner of each parcel to which the proposed amendment would result in or require a physical change to the parcel, a change in use, density or intensity on that parcel, a change to any proffer or regulation in a code of development that would apply to the parcel, a change to an owner’s express obligation under a proffer or regulation in a code of development even if the proffer or regulation is not expressly changed, or a change to the application plan that would apply to the parcel, shall be an applicant. b. Amendment affecting less area than the entire district; map. If the proposed amendment would affect less area than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended application plan, code of development, proffers or any waiver or modification would apply. c. Individual notice. In addition to any notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and sections 33.4 and 33.8 of this chapter, written notice of the proposed amendment shall be provided to the owner of each parcel within the planned development district. can request an amendment to a PD, responding to Board of Supervisors’ request
34 ATTACHMENT II The substance of the notice shall be as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(B), paragraph 1, regardless of the number of parcels affected. d. Factors to consider during review of proposed amendment. In addition to any other applicable factors to be considered in the review of a zoning map amendment, the following shall also be considered: 1. Whether the proposed amendment reduces, maintains or enhances the elements of a planned development set forth in section 8.3. 2. The extent to which the proposed amendment impacts the other parcels within the planned development district. 20.A.3 Neighborhood Model Application requirements; required documents and information The following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter: Except where the option is exercised as provided in subsection (b), below, the following documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter: Cleanup Parking study b. A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter; A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter; provided that the applicant may submit the parking and loading needs study in conjunction with the preliminary site plan for the development if it determines that the uses that may occupy the buildings are not sufficiently known at the time of the zoning map amendment. Amend to allow a parking study at the time of rezoning or at the time of site plan approval. d. A general development plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. d. An application plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan. Cleanup 20A.4 General development plans The requirements for an application plan for the NMD area as follows: In addition to the Application plans In addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(d), the following are required elements of Cleanup to clarify that all PD plans are called “application plans”
35 ATTACHMENT II application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(d), the following are required elements of the general development plan: an application plan in the NMD: b. The general allocation of uses to each block in terms of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, amenities, parks, recreational facilities open to the public, and any other use category proposed by the applicant and which complies with the requirements of section 20A.8. Deleted Information is duplicated elsewhere c. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9. Moved Cleanup d. Building footprints or graphic representations of central features or major elements that are essential to the design of the development, shown at the block level. Moved Cleanup Plan contents from Section 8 reiterated, except where requirements are in excess of Section 8. 1. a. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths; b. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation areas, as provided in section 20A.9; c. A conceptual lot lay-out; d. Conceptual grading/topography using the county geographic information system or better topographic information supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater; e. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape, which, alternatively, may be provided in the code of development; f. Any proposed connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan; g. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater management, and a conceptual mitigation plan; and h. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, such as building envelopes, major Clarification/cleanup
36 ATTACHMENT II employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities and recreation areas. 20A.5. Codes of Development A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish: A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities. Any substantive or procedural requirement of this chapter shall apply to an NMD unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development. Each code of development shall be in a form required or otherwise approved by the director of planning. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish: Establish standard format for ease of review and administration b. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use, amenity, streets and lot coverage. The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed range of square footage. b. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use, and amenity. The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed range of square footage. Cleanup c. The maximum residential densities, as provided in section 20A.7, and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed-use categories, delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. c. The maximum number of residential dwelling units, dwelling units by type, and delineating at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8. Removal of extraneous information. d. The amount of land area devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9. d. The amount of land area and percentage of gross acreage devoted to green space and amenities, as provided in section 20A.9. Clarification g. Architectural and landscape standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following: g. Architectural standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following: Cleanup to separate landscape requirements from architectural standards. 1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures; 2. Architectural styles; 3. Materials, colors, and textures; 4. Roof form and pitch; 1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures which may be provided through illustrations; 2. Façade treatments; 3. The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Deleted items do not relate specifically to the goals of the Neighborhood Model.
37 ATTACHMENT II 5. Architectural ornamentation 6. Façade treatments, including window and door openings; 7. Landscape treatments; and 8. The preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Department of Historic Resources; and 4. Architectural styles, materials, colors and textures if these elements are determined to be necessary in order for a proposed development to be compatible with its contiguous developed surroundings. The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to [effective date of ordinance] pertaining to subsections 20A.5(g)(1) through (4) shall be the only architectural standards in the code of development that apply to the planned development. d. 7. Landscape treatments; h. Landscape treatments where landscaping in addition to that required in Section 32 is proposed. The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to [effective date of ordinance] pertaining to landscape treatments as required under former subsection 20A.5(g)(7) shall apply to the planned development. Clarification h. Preliminary lot lay-out. Remove Information is duplicated elsewhere i. For each block: 1. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit; 2. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in paragraph (i)(1); 3. Build-to lines, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure; 4. Minimum and maximum lot and yard dimensions; 5. Maximum building heights; 6. Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations; 7. Green space and amenities; 8. Conservation areas and preservation areas, if applicable; 9. Parking areas; 10. Civic spaces, which are public areas for i. For each block: 1. The range of uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit; 2. Build-to lines or ranges, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a structure; 3. Minimum and maximum lot dimensions; 4. Minimum number of stories and maximum building heights; 5. Location of sidewalks and pedestrian paths; 6. Acreage devoted to and characteristics of green space, amenities, and recreational areas and facilities as required by section 4.16; 7. Location, acreage and characteristics of conservation areas and preservation areas as defined in section 3.1, if applicable; 8. Location of parking areas; 9. Location, acreage and characteristics of civic spaces, which are public areas for community or Clarification/cleanup
38 ATTACHMENT II community or civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship); civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools and places of worship); 20A.6. Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right: 1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsection (b) provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted by a determination by the zoning administrator pursuant to section 8.5.5.2(c)(1): 1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district, except for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3); provided that the use is identified in the approved code of development. Clarification about what is and isn’t by-right in the Code of Development By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit: b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit if the use is expressly identified as use permitted by special use permit in the code of development: 1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district. Allowing a future use by special use permit allows for conditions to be applied in the future that may not be anticipated during the rezoning. 20 A.7 Residential Density b. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the gross acreage of the district divided by the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district. b. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by dividing the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district by the gross acreage of the district. Corrects the error in the formula as currently stated. Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas 1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. 1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned. Cleanup and clarification
39 ATTACHMENT II 2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the site. 3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. 2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned. 3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green space. b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: 1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the site. 2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the site. 3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows: 1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned. 2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned. 3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to amenities. Sec. 20A.10 Streets Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department of engineering and public works. Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development established by the department community development. Cleanup
40 ATTACHMENT II
41
ATTACHMENT III
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2008-02 Amendment to PD & NMD Regulations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend the zoning ordinance to
bring titles and other references in conformity
with current Community Development job titles
and current zoning references, to clarify how
amendments to PDs can be made, to address
vesting of old projects to change timing for a
parking study, and to reduce the architectural
information required for NMDs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Echols
AGENDA DATE:
April 14, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
On March 24, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed and provided comments on this proposed draft
ordinance amendment. They asked for several changes to the amendment language, as well as a list of
approved Planned Developments (PDs) between 1980 and March 19, 2003. The Commission asked staff
to provide both the modified ordinance language and the list of PDs as a consent agenda item at an
upcoming Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The modified ordinance is Attachment A with changes reflecting the March 24 discussion shown in yellow.
The approved or amended PDs that took place between 1980 and March 19, 2003 are as follows:
Briarwood Forest Lakes South W estern Ridge Shoppers W orld
Pantops Shopping
Center
Lake Reynovia Springridge Dennis Enterprises
Peacock Hill Glenmore Ashcroft Colonnades
Rio Hills Shopping
Center
Buck Mountain W aylands Grant Monticello High
School property
W estminster
Canterbury
Redfields Jefferson Ridge Luxor
Forest Lakes
Commercial
North Fork Research
Park
Gray Rock North Rio East
It should be noted that all of these PDs are completed or at some phase of on-going development.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the attached zoning text amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment dated April 6, 2009
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:ZTA-2008-00002 Planned
Developments and Neighborhood Model District
Planning Commission Meeting:
March 24,2009
Staff:Elaine K.Echols,AICP
Changes to staff report since Planning Commission
Hearing February 17,2009:Appear in italics and bold
italics
Legal Ad:This ordinance would amend the following sections of Chapter 18,Zoning,of the Albemarle County
Code:3.1,Definitions,to amend and delete several definitions;8.2,Relation of planned development regulations
to other zoning regulations,to change section heading,to clarify the regulations applicable to planned
developments ("PO"),to require that waivers and modifications be expressly granted,and to reorganize the
section;8.3,Planned development defined,to revise the definition of "planned development";8.5.1,Applications
and documents to be submitted,to revise the standards and information accompanying an application to
establish a PO district;8.5.2,Preapplication conferences,to revise the parties in a preapplication conference;
8.5.3,Review and recommendation by the planning commission"to revise the matters considered by the
planning commission in acting on an application for a PO district;8.5.4,Review and action by the board of
supervisors,to change section heading and to clarify the documents applicable to a PO upon approval of the PO
rezoning;8.5.5,Final site plans and subdivision plats,to change section heading;8.5.5.1,Contents of site plans
and subdivision plats,to revise a cross-reference;8.5.5.2,Review of site plans and subdivision plats,to provide
that when subdivision plats and site plans are reviewed,they shall be reviewed for compliance as follows:(a)if
the PO district was established on or before December 10,1980,the zoning and subdivision regulations currently
in effect apply unless vested rights are established;(b)if the PO district was established after December 10,
1980,at the option of the developer,the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect when the PO district was
established or those currently in effect apply,provided that if the developer elects the former,six delineated
subjects of regulation are not so grandfathered and the developer must comply with current regulations pertaining
to those 6 subjects unless vested rights are established;to revise the zoning administrator's and director of
planning's review for compliance,to define "applicable regulations,"and to declare that vested rights are not
impaired;8.5.5.3,Variations from approved plans,codes,and standards of development,to revise the provisions
of a plan,code or standard the director of planning may vary,and to authorize the director to require that
specified information be provided;8.5.5.4,Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits,to revise
references to county officers and bodies and to clarify other clauses;8.5.5.5,Site plan and subdivision plat
requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application plan,to
change section heading and to clarify the procedure and requirements for reviewing a site plan or subdivision plat
where there was no application plan when the PO district was established;8.6,Amendments to planned
development districts,to revise and expand the procedure to amend a PO district by establishing requirements
for who is an eligible applicant,submitting a map if the rezoning affects less than the entire district,notice,and
factors considered during review;20A.3,Application requirements;required documents and information,to
change reference from "general development plan"to "application plan";20A.4,General development plans,to
change section heading and the required elements of an application plan in a neighborhood model district
(hereinafter,NMD");20A.5,Codes of development,to clarify that any substantive or procedural requirement of
the Zoning Ordinance applies in an NMD unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of
development (hereinafter,the "code"),to expressly require that the code be in a form required or approved by the
director of planning,tb change the required elements of a code,and to limit the applicable architectural standards
in pre-existing codes to only the new required elements unless determined to be key features;20A.6,Permitted
uses,to change a reference from "general development plan"to "application plan"and to allow a code to provide
that any use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district be a use allowed by special use
permit in an NMD;20A.7,Residential density,to correctly state the formula for calculating residential density in
an NMD;20A.9,Green spaces,amenities,conservation areas and preservation areas,to change references from
"site area"to the "area proposed to be rezoned"when calculating the areas of green spaces and amenities;and
20A.10,Streets,to change a reference from "department of engineering and public works"to the "department of
community development."A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,County Office Building,401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville,Virginia.
RECOMMENDATION:Approval
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP:
Elaine K.Echols,AICP
February 17,2009
March 24,2009
ZTA 08-02:Amendment to the Planned District (PD)and Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
Regulations
ORIGIN:On April 22,2008,the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider minor
changes to the PD regulations as well as a major change that would require that certain site plans and
subdivision plats permitted under old planned development zoning comply with current rather than
"old"regulations that existed at the time of rezoning approval.The resolution of intent is provided as
Attachment A.
PROPOSAL:The proposed text amendment is Attachment B.It has four important areas of change.
The first set of changes would bring titles and other references in conformity with current Community
Development job titles and current zoning references as well as clarify how amendments to PDs can
be made.The second change deals with old PDs,new regulations and vesting.The third change
deals with timing for a parking study.The fourth set of changes reduces the architectural information
required for NMDs.Each of these items is discussed in detail later in this report.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:The changes will help protect the public interest by causing
some undeveloped rezoned properties that predate the 1980 zoning ordinance to comply with current
regulations and cause some post 1980 undeveloped rezoned properties to comply with current
parking,landscaping,signage,Entrance Corridor,flood hazard overlay,and lighting regulations.Not
all undeveloped rezoned properties will be included because of vested rights provisions.
In addition,the public is served by having consistency between titles of decision-makers listed in the
ordinance and the current staff titles in Community Development.The public is further served by
having consistency of terms in different sections of the ordinance and clarity in identifying how
amendments to PDs can occur.Finally,the public is served by reducing staff time on enforcement of
architectural standards,which do not help implement the Neighborhood Model.
BACKGROUND:After Planning Commission discussions in April 2008,the County Attorney drafted
changes to the PD section to try to address the Commission's concerns.On July 29,2008,staff held
a worksession with the Commission on these proposed changes,as well as several other changes
that the staff proposed the Commission consider,based on their experience in administering the PD
regulations.
At the request of the Commission,on September 30,2008,a "roundtable"discussion was held with
the public on the vesting aspect.The Commission mainly heard comments from members of the
development community who believed that the proposed changes would adversely affect recently
approved planned developments.The Commission asked staff to work on ways to address the
concerns of the public as well as concerns of the Commission.Staff brought a set of recommended
changes to the Commission on December 9,2008,which the Commission agreed to take to a public
hearing.
The ordinance proposed for public hearing reflected the changes requested by the Commission with
two minor additions.These additions dealt with providing clarity in how amendments to PDs can take
place and making the architectural changes retroactive to previously approved NMDs.
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 2
On February 4,2009,staff made the proposed amendment available to the public through
notifications and placing the proposed amendment at the website.One comment was received prior
to public hearing.It came from Frank Cox:
I have only one comment ...This is in regard to your stated mapping requirements (Section
8.5.1.c.).Your text refers to using County topography as the minimum requirement for the
application plan.Having done hundreds of these things,I believe thai using such a broad contour
interval is a mistake.For projects which are planned for legitimate density levels,accurate
physiographic assessments and thoughtful planning of streets and infrastructure should be based
on current 2'contour interval topographic mapping.I would suggest that your text not be
ambiguous about the map detail.
My main point is this:The County mapping is not sufficiently accurate to serve as the foundation for
good masler planning (we have found -busts"as large as 15·20'in comparison to site·specific
mapping.)Also,using 5'or 10'contours does not provide the designer with sufficient information to
create a reasonably accurate picture meeting the requirements of whal the County staff typically
feels is needed for a complete review of an application plan.
If you approve application plans based on the larger contours,you are only inviting an applicant for
a retum visit to one's original designs upon getting down to the detail of final plat and plans.If the
political goal is to drag out the overall planning approval process,this is a good way to do it.It
almost guarantees the need for a subsequent "re-think"of and revision to one's master plan.
However,if you want to avoid having to share and endure the pain of a re-do,it's best to have them
prepare good mapping in the first place.
Some developer/property owners may complain that it is too expensive and nol needed to
undertake site·specific mapping at the outset of a project.While this may hold true for,say,
someone with an RA,large·lot application,it should be a requirement for any major project in the
development areas.For an urban project,2'contour mapping is comparatively inexpensive,easily
done,and very,very beneficial.
Staff agreed that having the most accurate topographic info available for rezoning purposes would
reduce the number of problems that occur when the site planning or subdivision phase occurs,
especially on very tight sites.Staff noted that it can spend considerable amounts of time working with
applicants who have an expectation for maximum build-out where,due to inaccurate tapa,the area for
development is not as great as previously thought.Staff also noted that the time spent in exploring
options for which variations might be granted is currently not covered by fees.
However,staff further noted that applicants should be aware that an application plan does not in itself
guarantee the maximum build-out depicted.Actual build-out is typically determined at the site plan or
plat stage.With that in mind,staff stated that the County's 4-foot contour interval is accurate to +1-2'
and,according to the County Engineer,should be sufficient for rezoning planning purposes.
Furthermore,staff indicated that nothing in the proposed ordinance amendments would prevent an
applicant from using 2-foot contour mapping should they so desire.
On February 17,2009,the Planning Commission hefd a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
At that hearing,Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum presented comments from Va/erie Long,
a focal/and use attorney who works on rezonings and special use permits in the County.Ms.Long's
memo is Attachment D.The County Attorney identified several other recommended changes at the
public hearing (Attachment E).The Commission accepted the County Attorney's changes,but asked
staff to bring back recommendations on Ms.Long's suggestions.
ZTA 08·02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 3
ADDITIONAL INPUT SINCE THE FEBRUARY 17 PUBLIC HEARING
Since the public hearing,the County Engineer has offered several other minor changes.Changes
recommended by the County Engineer and County Attorney,as well as changes recommended by
Ms.Long that staff can support,have been incorporated into the recommended text amendment
(Attachment B).Each of Ms.Long's recommended changes,as well as the staff additions,are
discussed later in this report.
ADMINISTRATION /REVIEW PROCESS:The administration of the ordinance will be simplified by
providing clarity in requirements for NMDs,clarity in determining how current regulations relate to
previously approved rezonings,and reducing review time for building permits.
HOUSING AFFORDABILlTY:The proposed changes should not have an impact on housing
affordability.
IMPLICATIONS TO STAFFING I STAFFING COSTS:The proposed changes should result in
reduced staff costs due to time savings in review of applications.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Old Planned Districts/New Regulations and Vesting
The Planning Commission's resolution of intent was based on concerns regarding old subdivision and
zoning regulations being applied to new developments.The proposed amendment provides a two-
fold way approach.Part a.of Section 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats indicates that
any planned districts approved on or before December 10,1980 must meet current zoning
requirements unless they can establish a vesting.If they can establish a vesting,then they could
choose whether to use the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the rezoning or current
regulations.
Part b.of Section 8.5.5.2 says that planned districts approved after December 10,1980 could use the
zoning regulations in place at the time of rezoning with the exception of the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District,the Flood Hazard Overlay District,outdoor lighting,signs,parking and landscaping,which
deal with health,safety,environmental and appearance issues that the County believes are important
for any development.Current parking requirements may be more than when a rezoning was
approved or they may be less.The parking section of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Zoning
Administrator to reduce the minimum parking requirements with a study which substantiates less need
for parking.The floodplain boundaries change from time to time and the Overlay District requirements
relate to safety.Current regulations for these seven sections would be required unless the developer
or subdivider can show the prior rezoning is vested.
As the Commission is aware,state law prevails in cases of vesting such that opportunities to deal with
old zoning are limited.For example,unless an off-site improvement is specifically proffered or
required by a different agency,such as VDOT or the Albemarle County Service Authority,the locality
cannot require an off-site improvement.So a property owner's rights are protected to the extent that
he can establish a vesting.In the second case above,a property owner only has to establish a
vesting if he/she believes that the sections noted in the proposed amendment should not apply to
their development.
Parking in Neighborhood Model Districts
The proposed amendment will allow for a parking study to be provided with the rezoning or at the site
plan stage.Currently the ordinance requires that a parking study be provided at the rezoning stage.
This flexibility is viewed as important because in NMDs with a large non-residential component,there
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 4
can be too wide a range in uses to legitimately predict parking needs.If an applicant knows the uses
that will occupy the buildings at the rezoning stage,provision of a parking study could be very
beneficial to the applicant and the County at that time.If an applicant does not know the uses,
however,it is in both the County's and the applicant's best interest to postpone providing that
information until the site plan stage.
At the site plan stage,greater certainty will exist in the uses which will occupy buildings.This
additional information can also allow an applicant to request reduced parking than what might have
been required with the rezoning.Allowing for the flexibility proposed with the amendment can help
avoid overbuilding parking lots and to take into account a build out period that can extend for many
years and varying market conditions.
Architectural Standards
The proposed amendment would reduce the amount of architectural information required with a
rezoning and leave certain questions related to architecture to builders and private architectural
review boards established for the development.Architectural standards related to the form,massing,
and proportions of structures,and fayade treatments would be retained.These items are essential in
helping to create a human-scale,neighborhood friendly environment.Standards related to
architectural styles,textures,colors,and materials would be required only if architectural compatibility
was important for the rezoning.Required standards for ornamentation would be dropped.Standard
language that a development's architectural review board will review architecture before submitting
site plans and building permits for buildings in NMOs would be required.
The amendment also contains this language:
h in c I i r c i in n II 111 lin
20A.S(g}(I)through (4)shall be the only architectural standards in the code of development that ap.l2iv to the
planned development.
The Planning Director would need to determine whether styles,materials,textures,or colors were
important to NMOs which have been approved as of the effective date of the ordinance.It is
expected that styles,materials,textures,and colors will apply only in infill projects.
Amending Planned Districts
The proposed ordinance amendment also contains a modified Sec.8.6:Amendments to planned
development districts.The proposed new text is below:
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 5
lanned
This section if proposed to provide clarity in who can make application to make a change within a
planned district.Recent requests for changes to Hollymead Town Center Area C,made from new
owners of property,have caused both confusion and consternation.This section should help future
applicants know whether they can make a request for a change without the consent of all other
owners in the planned district.
A full comparison of existing ordinance language with proposed ordinance language is provided as
Attachment D.
Changes since the February 17,2009 Hearing
Staff has made the following changes to the proposed ordinance amendment since February 17.
They are as follows:
1.Provided updated State Code references in Section 8.5.5.2.a.
2.Added to Section 8.5.5.2 that the Water Protection Ordinance applies regardless of when the
application plan was approved (County Engineer recommendation).
e.Applicability o(chapter 17.Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivbiion plat witbin
a planned development district 5hall be reviewed (or compliance with chapter 17 oUhe Albemarle
County Code in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under countv review.regardless o(
when the planned development was established or whether the developer or subdivider elects.or
establishes vested rights.under section 5 8.5.5.2(a)and (b)to proceed with review under the applicable
regulations in ef(ect when the planned development was approved.
3.Revised Section 8.5.5.2.b.in response to one of Valerie Long's requested changes as follows:
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 6
tablishccLund 'irtia Code -~2 '.'29.8 2=23 -2.:23 i ~entrancu.orridor
m:.erla dislrjqlse~lion 30,6kLiil..fkKx:lhazard oyeda¥-districUsection 3Q.3l;,liiilJandIDJp.iD&A!ld
SC(<<-nlll s«:t"'uldQO i tin ceJi 't't1.Dar.kin S.cCI .n .igm
(section 4.15J j~are delcrrnine_dl a este.d e ulations..fo hese i.ubjectsJn effect
when rights vested shall apply,For lite IlIl!jJJ}se)'ofdli£..H.ctiQ1~.5.5.1(b)",aIL.1,pp.liCIltiouohm
apocored all ellld am MaN'It /9,200 I dial couwlies with the eequiremelll)'ofaa applicatioll Oltlll
«luter )'<>('(;011 8.5.ire}or ~'eetioll 20A.4.or a urior ven;o"tbereof;a e({eel all olU/after Morcb,19,
2003.is a s;r:";ficmll t:a"euwll'IICaf ael wjdliJulJ£...11JefIlliw!qfVilg;uja Code §15,2-230l
Ms.Long had requested that all approved application plans be considered "significant
governmental acts";however,staff notes that application plans approved between 1980 and the
late 1990's were rather minimal,The ZTA to amend the PO regulations and establish the NMD
regulations in 2003 set a higher standard in response to concerns of the Commission for sufficient
detail to weigh the merits of a proposal,As a result,staff believes that giving application plans the
status as a ·significant governmental act·should be limited to application plans approved on and
after March 19,2003 that meet the application plan requirements in effect on and after March 19,
2003.
4.Added #3 to Section 8,5,5,2,c to make clearer the role of the County Engineer in determining
conformity of plans for early grading with conceptual grading plans included with the application
plan in the rezoning,as follows:
3 Caul/Iv EIl!.'j"e""The Co"I/1I'£twine'"\'Iutll determille wbelher em ero~'ial/control Ow".
!!Gul;'w pfall.)'Iowlwaler wemaf.'emettl plall.rood or )'Ireel pfoll or miti"atial/pIal/catlfoum
IIlillt Ihe concem i'rading,fluCUJwalfC mmwpeutall,,'kee"',alUfmiti;.atioll '(hotl'n on Ihe
aPplication plall.
5.Added information on the County Engineer's involvement to Section 8.5.5.3.-Variations.This
addition formally includes the County Engineer in determinations of whether to grant a change in
stormwater management as well as added other aspects of grading and disturbance:
Minor c.hangc.s....lo..1he....design 3ndJoc.ation o(s(Qrlllwalcr...m.anagc.ment facilities.lIIuL1lli"aL1Jl,IlLdistucbmirg
;uclluliflJLI(1fuLdistllchi"•lfctiJ!itie'.~.Qll.SC at~hie_cuo a recommendation (or apPI0..\!.3lbX
1he...£:o.t{"/J!...J!Ug jUe£.l
6.Section 8.5.5.4.b.and c,-modified to clarity roles of the County Engineer and Planning Director in
making determinations for early grading permits -
b.A ~g pennit may be issued for site preparalion grading associated wilh an approved
planned development if the erosion and sediment conlrol plan measures,dh'lurbed Olea and
read;',!!are ill cou(onw'ol tl'ith tbe coaceD!gyuUug CllldmetlfUrer shoti'll all Ihe lmpUcatioll
piau as de/ermined bV ti,e COIInO'eut:jlleq.am CQD:wl/aliOIl with Ihe direc/a,a(plallubrg.
£..li afler cOlls"f,U,;OIl witlt Ihe director of planning the...J:il1l1W'eugjl/eer finds Ihalthere is not
enough delail on Ihe applicalion plan to assure that the proposed vralUnuuul aliter mefillllJ!5,
all!cOlUu"tt!ul.Ji!itlJ lill!gppliCali.aJLpJUIL 1I grllcl;,,!:permit shall tlOI be issued unlillhe final
site plan is approved,or the final plat is tentatively approved,
Ms.Long had suggested that a provision also be included to allow for approval of an "interim"
grading plan if no grading plan had been submitted with a rezoning.She believes that an
applicant should be able to do grading before approval of a final site plan if they submit a grading
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 7
plan that conforms with the application plan.She said this would avoid an all or nothing situation
while addressing the need for more detail.
Staff could not support this change for the reason identified in #3 above.Early application plans
had little detail so conformity with a grading plan would be difficult to assess without a site plan.
More importantly,though,if a developer wished to grade a site prior to approval of a site plan,
there would be no incentive for the developer to actually complete a site plan and grading could
take place for which a development does not occur for many years.
6.Added clarifying language to Sec.8.5.5.5 (recommended by County Attorney)Site plan and
subdivision plat requirements where there is no application plan:
Yalid sit /(If IIbai ";0 L l/a Uim dist·'.S.wbJished planned...dcycloPll "as
estab 'd~bclme~application..plan..Fa5..Jcquired..bx...section..8 tQ...be appro'ied as pan.pUht..zoning
maR amendment but there \\~ali ite 1a ubd''si 1a rtaining,.!QJ.he en~,>Cl-!L.!JJl'
planned deyelopmeDl district lit ti,e time t!Jf..2ill1;m'IlUIJUWIf/,duze.t1l K'CIS lIppcOI'ecl.the approved site
plan 0 u i 'sio 1at shall be deemed to be the application plan,and the s..itq~l.ubdivis.ioILplat
shalLbeJcvjc~ed as pr..oridedj e.ctiol.5..(Amended 7-16-86)
4.Provided clarifying language Section 8.6 -Amendments to Plans (recommended by County
Altorney):
a.Eligible ap di II W contracl p.urchascL\~jthJhe c·cons.ent -OLagy..autho.r.i.zc.d...agent of
th 'ncr aLone O[.JllOJe parceJ ithiru pJanned d men istdc.tma applY.o.amendJh
existing pJanne<Lde elopmCJILdistric.lasJt DCnains..tQlhe_ne'parceJ s eo e eac~arcd
to ~llich the pooRQse mendmen 'ul sui'r..requirc a phY..sicaU:han e I he ~ng
use,dCllSi intensit on hal parcel a..chang~x:profIe e ulatioIU code deyeJo ment
that would apply 10 the parcel.a dllmge.1Q.JIlI o"",,.r's express ob/ig,atilllumd,.r II proffer or
«rulllljoll ill"code ofdere/ooment e)'w ifthe proffer or regulatioll if lIat exprenla'dUllwed or a
change to the aj:!olicmioILplaruha v uJd apply.tQlhe j:!arcel....shalLbe..AIlAP-j:!licanl.
5,Re-added option to Section 20.a.3.-Parking Study -added language to create the option of
providing the parking study with a site plan instead of with the rezoning:
Marking_andJuadingJICedutudYJhaLdclUonstmteuar.kingJ1Ccds..andLc.quir.ementSJlndj.lldudes
strategies for dealin'wit hes e.ed an Qui ements ·ncludinubasin&_pJans.parkin _ahernat'e
~'de'f lhi ha lcr an lrans Iflatiol demandJDanagemenlStrategies..as
provided in seelion 4 J 2 !2 gfthis chapter'pcol'idedtl,u'Iltg llDpUmm ttl"Y submiu}lI!parkjng gild
/oaclim!needs f/uch,ill coniullctioll H,jth the peeU",jlluol sjte plan (or ti,e del'r/opmeut ifjt
deuJOJlstrates to the fUtitluetjan qCtlle zonitw admillif[ClllOr that tile UfeS tllm ma"orruO"ti,e
bujlclinr:s are nol mflicieut/l'kllOH1/!at tile time qCtlle 10uill!'"'''0 awemlment,
6.Clarified Sec,20A.6.a.Permitted uses -per Ms.Long's comment how the Zoning Administrator
determines if a use is allowed in a NMD
Thc following uses shall be permitted in an NMD,subject to the regulations in this section and section
8,the approved m~pJicmion plan and code of developrnenl,and the accepted proffers:
a.By right uses.The following uses are permitted by right i h sc XPc.c I 'delUified.a a boY
right usc in the code ofdcyelopmcnl or if/he use is permit/ed bll (I detenllinluioll blithe ZOlling
admjll;rtrotoc p"rsu{lm to rectio"8.t5.ZfdQ):
ZTA 08-02
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 8
7.Clarified Section 20A.f.4.-Application Plan requirements -per Ms.Long's request:
",lJ)W eJLCQ/UtfJ:.fW,.
shQwlLOn the comp[ehensiYc plan;
cd tborou
Ms.Long also suggested two items be added to Section 8.5.5.3.which refers to variations.Her first
suggestion would be to add a ·catch all"category to the list of eligible variations.This "catch aU-
category would be something like,"a change which the Planning Director deems reasonable".Staff
cannot recommend a "catch all"category without specific parameters.The parameters keep the
Planning Director from approving something that would otherwise constitute a zoning change which
needs public review and approval by the Board.
Her second suggested change in Section 8.5.5.3.would be to add the ability for the Commission to
consider whether it would be appropriate to permit a minor increase in density in a planned distn"ct.
Because of state code requirements related to advertising specific densities with a rezoning,this type
of change could not be done.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Staff believes the proposed amendment represents needed changes
to the ordinance and recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment contained in Attachment B.
Attachment A:Resolution of Intent dated 4-22-08
Attachment B:Proposed ordinance amendment dated 3·17-09
Attachment C:Comparison table dated 3·24-09
Attachment D:Memo from Valerie Long to Neil Williamson dated 2-17-09
Attachment E:County Attorney Changes 2-17-09
ZTAOS-Q2
PC March 24,2009
Staff Report Page 9
--------
RE OL TIO OF TE T
WHEREAS,the neighborhood model district regulations were adopted in 2003 as section 20A of the
Zoning Ordinance and,also at that time,the general plmmed development regulations set forth in section 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance were amended;and
'WHEREAS,practice and experience over the past five years,together with the reorganiza ion of the
County's development departments,recommend that sections 8 and 20A be amended;and
WHEREAS,among the key sections proposed to be amended is section 8.5.5.2,which presently
includes a grandfathering provision that provides owners the option to develop their land under the zoning and
subdivision regulations in effect when the planned development rezoning was approved even though such right to
develop under those regulations may not be vested as provided under state law,and section 4.11.3 contains a
similar grand fathering provision;and
WHEREAS,in order to better achieve the purposes of planned developments aud he neighborhood
model form of development,and to assure that lands are developed under the most appropriate regulations,it is
desired ·0 amend sections 4.11.3,8.2,8.5.1,8.5.5.2,8.5.5.3,8.5.5.4,20A.5,20A.6,20A.?and 20A.l 0 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
OW,THEREFORE,BE IT RE OLVED THAT or purposes of public necessity,convenience,
general welfare a d good zoning p actices,he Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to
amend sections 4.11.3,8.2,8.5.1,8.5.5.2,8.5.5.3,8.5.5.4,20A.5,20A.6,20A.?and 20A.IO of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance,and any ot er regulaTIons of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the
purposes described herein;and
BE rr FURTHER RE OLVED TJIAT the Plarullng Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent,and make its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors,a the earliest possible date.
\ATIACHMENT A #\0 I
Sec.8.6
Sec.ZOA.3
Sec.ZOA.4
Sec.20A.S
Sec.20A.6
Sec.20A.7
Sec.20A.9
Sec.20A.IO
Draft,03/17/09
ORDINANCE NO.09-18()
AN ORDI A CE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18,ZO lNG,ARTICLE I,GE ERAL PROVISIONS,ARTICLE
II,BASIC REGULATIONS,AND ARTICLE III,DISTRICT REGULATIONS,OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAI:'-JED By Ihe Board ofSupcrvisors orthe County of Albemarle,Virginia,that Chapter 18,Zoning.
Article I.General Provisions,Article II,Basic Regulations,and Article Ill.District Regulations,arc hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
B)'Amending:
Sec.3.1 Delinilions
Sec.8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Sec.8.3 Planned development defined
Sec.8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted
Sec.8.5.2 Preapplication conferences
Sec.8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission
Sec.8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors
Sec.8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plals
Sec.8.5.5.1 Contents or site plans and subdivision plats
Sec.8.5.5.2 Review or site plans and subdivision plats
Sec.8.5.5.3 Variations rrom approved plans,codes,and standards or development
Sec.8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control penn its
Sec.8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements ror planned development zoning districts
established without an application or application plan
Amendments to planned development districts
Application requirements;required documents and inrormation
General development plans
Codes or development
Permitted uses
Residential density
Green spaces,amenities,conservation areas and preservation arcas
Streets
Chaptcr I S.Zoning
Articlc I.GCllcrll1 Provisions
Sec.3.t Definitions
1arulesignatc.cLaod_ap
and .ns.ell c[[~.tjye
Block:An area shown on an application plan SF a general eewlel3llleRI plan that is typically surrounded by
streets and within \\"hich land use activities occur.Although blocks usually imply a grid street system,where
steep topography exists blocks may exist in non·rectilinear shapes.(Added 3-19·03)
II ATfACHME TB
Draft:03/17/09
Gener6l1 Glevetepf'/w1'Itpl6119:An application plan for a proposed deYelopment ,....ithin the neighborhood model
district,containing the information required by sections 8.S.I(d)and 20A.4.(Added 3 19 03)
Article II.Basic Regulations
Sec.8.2 Relation of (:llanned de'lelo(:lment Fegulations to otheF zoning Fegulations Applicable regulations:
waivers and modifications
PI
a.Unless expressly superseded by a regulatiQn Qf the applicable planned
W;.er n n An applicant may request that any requirement QfsectiQns 4,5 2 and
32,Qr the applicable planned develQpment district regulatiQns be waived Qr mQdified if it is found 1M
bQard Qf supervisQrs finds the regulatiQn tQ be incQnsistent with planned development design principles
and that the waiver Qr mQdificatiQn is cQnsistent with the intent and purpQses Qfthe planned
develQpment district under the particular circumstances.
r r v r If the applicant requests such a waiver Qr
mQdificatiQn as part Qf the applicatiQn plan,the applicant shall submit its request in writing as
part Qf the applicatiQn oJ£g"and shall demQnstrate that the waiver Qr mQdificatiQn WQuid nQt
adversely affect the public health,safety Qr general welfare and,in the case Qf a requested
mQdificatiQn,that the public purpQses Qf the Qriginal regulatiQn WQuid be satisfied tQ at least an
equivalent degree by the mQdificatiQn.
2.Timing o(request.Qtwithstanding any regulatiQn in sectiQns 4,5,~Qr 32 establishing a
procedure fQr cQnsidering a waiver Qr mQdificatiQn,any request fQr such a waiver Qr
mQdificatiQn shall be reviewed and cQnsidered as part Qfthe applicatiQn plan.Nothing in this
section prohibits'. d an Qwner within a planned develQpment from requesting may
request a waiver Qr mQdificatiQn Qf any requirement Qf sectiQns 4,5 2 ftfld 32 at any
time,under the procedures and requirements established therefQre.
3 Findings.In additiQn tQ making the findings required fQr the granting Qf a waiver Qr
mQdificatiQn in sectiQns 4,5 2 I'ftfld 32,such a waiver Qr mQdificatiQn may be granted
Qnly if it is alsQ fQund tQ be cQnsistent with the intent and purpQses Qf the planned develQpment
district under the particular circumstances,and satisfies all Qther applicable requirements Qf
sectiQn 8.
4.
(12-10-80;Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03;Ord.05-18(5),6-8-05)
Sec.8.3 Planned development defined
A planned develQpment is a develQpment that meets all Qf the fQIlQwing criteria at the time it is established Qr
amended:(1)the taM e t I'h I'n d . .is under
unified cQntrol and will be planned and develQped as a whQle;(2)the develQpment is in general accord
cQnfQrms with Qne Qr mQre approved applicatiQn plans;and (3)in all planned develQpment districts Qther than a
12 ATTACHMENT B
------------------
Draft:03/17/09
planned historic district,the development will provide,operate and maintain common areas, facilities and
improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80;Grd.03-18(2),3-19-03;Grd.05-18(5),6-8-05)
Sec.8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted
Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other zoning map
amendments.The documents required by subsections (a)through (e)below shall be submitted with the
application.After the application is submitted,the director of planning and community development director of
planning may request additional plans,maps,studies and reports such as,but not limited to,traffic impact
analyses,identification of specimen trees,and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which are deemed
reasonably necessary to analyze the application:
a.A regional context map at a scale of not less one (I)inch equal to one thousand (1000)feet showing
topography at a maximum of ten (10)foot intervals,surrounding properties,improvements to those
properties,surrounding public streets,private roads,and other thoroughfares;
b.An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit area to be rezoned showing the location and type
of boundary evidence an r f h
c.A map at a scale of not less than one (1)inch equal to one hundred (100)feet.provided that another
interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of the area
proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant.showing:
I.The following existing physical conditions:streams,wooded areas,potential non-tidal wetlands,
slopes in excess of twenty-five (25)percent,historic structures and sites included in the records
of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,floodplain,and any identified features in the
open space element of the comprehensive plan;
2.Existing topography accurately shown with a maximum of five (5)foot contour intervals at a
scale of not less than one (l)inch equal to one hundred (100)feet;other interval and/or scale
may be required or permitted by the director of planning and community deve)opl'l1ent ,....here
topographic considerations warrant using the county's geographic infOlwation system or better
topographical information.and the source of the topographical information;
3.Existing roads,easements,and utilities;
4.The e>dsting owners and zoning district The name of the proposed development:the names of
all owners:the name of the developer,if different from the owner:the name of the person who
prepared the plan:all tax map and parcel numbers in fourteen (14)digit format·the zoning
district and all overlay zoning districts:the magisterial district:the north point:the scale:one
datum reference for elevation:if any part of the area proposed to be rezoned is within the flood
hazard overlay district (section 30.3),United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be
shown and/or correlated to plan topography:sheet numbers on each sheet and the total number
of sheets:the date of the drawing:and the date and description of the last revision:
5.The present use of adjoining tracts adjacent parcels:an6 the location of structures on adjoining
adjacent parcels,if any;and departing lot lines:and
6.The existing location,type and size of ingress and egress to the site;
d.A traffic impact statement meeting the requirements of state law including.but not limited to.24 VAC
30-155-10 et seq.:
13 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
~An application plan based on a minimum of hvo (2)data references for elevations to be used on plans
and profiles at a scale of not less than one (1)inch equal to one hundred (]00)feet.provided that
another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning where the size of
the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant.showing:
I.The areas to be designated as preservation areas,if appropriate,and areas to be designated as
conservation areas,such as streams,wooded areas,specimen trees,non-tidal wetlands,and
other significant environmental features;
2.The proposed ~ptual grading/topography with a maximum offiYe (5)foot contour intervals
using the county's geographic information system or better topographical information.and the
source ofthe topographical information.supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and
areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25)percent or g~;
3.The general location of proposed streets,alleys,sidewalks,and pedestrian paths;
4.Typical street cross-sections to show proportions,scale,and streetscape;
5.Connections to existing and proposed streets,as well as proposed thoroughfares shown on the
comprehensive plan;
6.Trip generation figures;
+~.The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems,conceptual stormwater management,and a
conceptual mitigation plan;
&1 The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development,such as major employment areas,parking areas and structures,civic
areas,parks,open space,green spaces,amenities and recreation areas;
9l A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities,and the gross floor areas for
commercial and industrial uses;
+G2.The general A conceptual lot lay-out;and
++lQ.Standards fer ill development including proposed yards,building heights,open space
characteristics,and any landscape or architectural characteristics related to scale,propOltions,
and massing at the edge of the district.
(12-10-80;Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.2 Preapplication conferences
Each applicant for a planned development shall attend ajoint meeting with the planning,engineering,and
Wfl-ffig staff of the depaltment of community development as well as other qualified officials from outside
agencies such as the Virginia Department of Health,the Virginia Department of Transportation,and the
Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development before the
application is submitted.The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to assist the applicant to assure
that the application and the documents to be submitted with the application comply with all applicable
regulations,and to identify as soon as possible conflicting regulations and necessary waivers or modifications.
Each applicant is encouraged to use the preapplication conference process to develop an application for a
planned development that,when submitted with its supporting documents,will be as complete and
comprehensive as possible.
14 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
(§8.5.3,12-10-80;Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
(Former §8.5.2 Planning Commission Procedures Repealed 3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission
Each application fef to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the
planning commission as follows:
a.The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors on each
application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments.Within the
time provided to make a recommendation,the commission may hold work sessions on the application
and proceed to a public hearing after it determines that no further work sessions are necessary,or at any
time the applicant requests a public hearing.
b.In making its recommendation on the appl ication to the board of supervisors,the commission shall
mal(e findings about the following In addition to any other factors relevant to the consideration of a
zoning map amendment.the commission shall consider the following:
1.
+z.The suitability of the tract for the proposed planned development in terms of its relation to all
applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan Whether the area proposed to be rezoned is
appropriate for a planned development under the comprehensive plan;the physical
characteristics of the -latta area prooosed to be rezoned;and ~the relation of the area proposed
to be rezoned to the surrounding area;and
2,;1.The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads,utilities,public facilities and
serVIces;,
3.Each requested waiver or modification,including 'lihether the requirements of section 8.2 are
satisfied.
c.Depending on the findings it makes,tIhe commission shall either recommend approval of the
application.including all requested waivers or modifications.as proposed,approval of the application
with changes to be made prior to action on the application by the board of supervisors,or disapproval.
(§8.5.4,12-10-80;Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisorsj effect of approyal
E.a.c.h.Jl.pplication to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and acted on by the
board of supervisors,and approval of the application shall have effect.as follows:
a.Review and action.The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application for a planned
development district as it does for other zoning map amendments.If the board approves the application,
the approving action shall constitute approval of the application plan.8iHi all standards fef Qf
development submitted by the applicant.and the code of development.as applicable.The board's
action shall also identify which proffers it has accepted and which waivers or modifications it has
granted.
b.Effect ofapproval.Once an application is approved Up--.OO.Jlpproval of an application,the application
plan,all submitted standards fef Qf development submitted by the applicant.the code of development.as
15 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
applicable,ami all accepted profTers..an<iaILapRroYc iYe nd modifications shall be included as
part of the zoning regulations applicable 10 the planned development.
(§8.5.5,12-10-80:O'd.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.5 Htt9k~ite plans lind subdivision plats
Sec.8.5.5.1 Contents orsile pl:1II5 and subdivision pllllS
Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall comply wilh the
following:
a.Generally.Each sile plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of Ihis chapter,
subjcct to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuanllo section 8.5.3(13)(3)82(b).Each
subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with Gchapter 14 ef(he Case efAll3emarle,
subject to the waiver,variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section 14·237,
b.Wilhi"the "eighborhood model =oning dis/riCI.In addition to the requirements of paragFaj'J'1l subset:tion
(a),each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the neighborhood model zoning
districi shall pertain 10 a minimum area of one block and shall include a phasing plan,and each sile plan
shall include building elevations for all new or modified structures.
(§8.5.6.1,12-10-80;9-9-92;§8.5.5.1,Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec,8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision pl:HS
EBeh preli'f1ineF)'Bnd final sile plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for
eompliafl€e wilh the applieable regulaliofls:(i)in effeet al the time the lands .....ere zoned to a planned
de\'elop'f1ent dislriet;or,(2)at the oplion oflhe applieanl.eUFfenlly in efreel.In addition,eaeh prelinlinaF)'and
final site plan or sHbdi"ision pial rer a planned de,'elopment shall be reviewed for eomplianee ....itll Ihe
rello .....ing:
a.The Ilt>t>ro'/ed BfJ'plielltioR plall,the BfJ'pro'/ed standards fer de,reloplllent,the aeeel>ted proffers,alld the
fttHhof-ti!-e<1 wai'lers or moelifieations and a~mpesed-there'Nith,if any;
b.The permilled uses within the planned de'lelollllle'li zoning distriet,ineluding all proffers,as delermined
by Ihe zoning adminislralor after eORsultation with Ihe direetor ofplanlling ana eonununity
development:in making this detef-mination,Ihe zoning adminislFator shall ee guides by seetioR 22.2.1
oflhis ehaptef-;
e,in aadition 10 the foregoing,eonformit)'wilh the applieation plan alu'the standards of€levelopnlenl.
Within eaeh neighbof-hoed fRodel zOfling €listriet,the general Ehwelopment fJ'lan an€l the eade of
ae,'elopIUe'tt,as E1etef-luined by the €lireeter efplanning 8nd eomfflunil)'development aftef-eonsuhation
.....ilh Ihe zoning administralor.
EaclLp[elimilla nd [rna ite p-Ia and-subd'SIOI la 0
comp)iancc witlLthe app-Jicable regulations.as.Iollo\Vs~
a.Plmwed d·'clo enl di Irici .e,slablis!le(l 11 or aCrOl._fCfm _f ach prclimina an lIlal
sile_pJnll-and..subdirision gJa 'thin.JL ~alllle<lde c.lQ -----.rnuIistricu.s.tablished 0 0 efo[e..l2eccmbcc
hal e 'e 'C 0 rom liane 't lC lit:ablc re ulat'c 'e ~
subdoosjorLplau5.J.lnder c.oUnl~revie~provjded that _at thc..op-lion...DUhe-.dexcJoper..Quubdixidc[..$ach
prelim'andJlnaLsite I and-subdiYision In .1/•\V RP-lic.ab.Le
16 ATIACHME T B
Draft:03/17/09
b.Planned develQpment districts established after December 10.1980.Each preliminary and final site
plan and subdivisiQn plat within a planned develQpment district established after December 10.1980
shall be reviewed fQr cQmpliance with the applicable regulatiQns in effect when the planned
develQpment district was established Qr.at the QptiQn Qf the develQper Qr subdivider.in effect when the
site plan Qr subdivisiQn plat is under CQunty review;subject tQ the fQIIQwing:
I.ElectiQn tQ cQmply with regulatiQns in effect when district established'exceptiQn fQr certain
current subjects QfregulatiQn unless vested rights established.If the develQper Qr subdivider
elects tQ have its site plan Qr subdivisiQn plat reviewed fQr cQmpliance with the applicable
regulatiQns in effect when the planned develQpment district was established.all Qfthe fQIlQwing
subjects Qf regulatiQn in effect when the site plan Qr subdivisiQn plat is under cQunty review
.s.b..a.lL.apply unless vested rights are established under Virginia CQde §§IS.2-2297.IS.2-2298.
IS .2-23 03 Qr IS .2-23 07:0)entrance cQrridQr Qverlay district (sectiQn 30.6);(i i)flQQd hazard
Qverlay district (sectiQn 30.3);(iii)landscaping and screening (sectiQn 32.7.9);(iv)QutdQQr
lighting (sectiQn 4.17);(v)parking (sectiQn 4.12);and (vi)signs (sectiQn 4.IS).Ifrigh.t.s....a.re
etermin hav h I'I'n fi I'he i 'e in ffi c wh n ri
.s.b..all.apply.FQr the purpQses Qfthis sectiQn 8.S.S.2(b2.an applicatiQn plan apprQved Qn and
after March 19.2003 that cQmplies with the requirements Qfan applicatiQn plan under sectiQn
8.S.ICe)Qr sectiQn 20AA.Qr a priQr versiQn thereQfin effect Qn and after March.19.2003.is a
significant gQvernmental act within the meaning QfVirginia CQde §IS.2-2307.
2.ElectiQn tQ cQmply with regulatiQm in effect when district established'electiQn tQ comply with
certain current subjects QfregulatiQn.If the develQper Qr subdivider elects tQ have its site plan
Qr subdivisiQn plat reviewed fQr compliance with the ar}Qlicable regulatiQns in effect when the
planned develQpment district was established.the develQper Qr subdivider may alsQ elect tQ
cQmply with Qne Qr mQre Qf the subjects Qf regulatiQn listed in subsectiQn 8.S.S.2(b)(J)instead
Qf with the cQrrespQnding regulations in effect when the planned develQpment district was
established.
c.Review fQr cQmpliance and cQnfQrmance.A site plan Qr subdivisiQn plat shall be reviewed tQ determine
whether it cQmplies with the applicable regulatiQns and Qther requirements Qf law.and whether it
cQnfQrms tQ the applicatiQn plan.as fQIlQws:
I.Zoning administratQr.The zQning administratQr shall determine whether a site p!anor
subdivisiQn plat cQmplies with the applicable regulatiQns.In additiQn.the zQning
administratQr.after cQnsultatiQn with the directQr Qfplanning.shall determine whether the
prQpQsed permitted uses cQmply with the applicable regulatiQns and.in dQing SQ.may permit as
a use by right a CQmmercial use that is nQt expressly classified in this chapter if the zQning
administratQr further determines that the use is similar in general character tQ a cQmmercial use
permitted byright in a cQnventiQnal cQmmercial zQning district and is similar in terms Qf
IQcatiQnal requirements.QperatiQnal characteristics.visual impacts and traffic generatiQn.
2.DirectQr Q[planning.The directQr Qf planning shall determine whether a site plan Qr
subdivisiQn plat cQnfQrms tQ the applicatiQn plan.In determining cQnfQrmity.the directQr shall
decide whether the central features Qr majQr elements within the development are in the same
IQcatiQn as shQwn Qn the application plan and if the buildings.parking.streets.bIQcks.-paths and
Qther design elements are Qf the same general character.sCQpe and scale as shQwn Qn the
applicatiQn plan.
17 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
3.
e
f.Vestedrjghts not impaired.Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the impairment of
a vested right that may be established under Virginia Code §§15.2-226ICC)'15.2-2297.15.2-2298.
15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307.
(§8.5.6.2,12-10-80;9-9-92;§8.5.5.2,Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans,codes,and standards of developments
The director of planning and community development director ofplanning may allow a site plan or subdivision
plat for a planned development to vary from an approved application plan,standard of development and,also,in
the case of a neighborhood model district,a general development plan or code of development,as provided
herein:
a.The director f is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved
plan,code or standard:
1.Minor variations h n to yard requirements,build-to lines or ranges.maximum structure
heights and minimum lot sizes;
2.Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan,provided that the major
elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same;
3.Changes to phasing plans;
4.Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards;aOO
5.Minor variations changes.to street design and street location.subject to a recommendation for
approyal by the county engineer:and
b.The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director ofplanning~_tlhe request
shall specify the provision of the plan,code or standard for which the variation is sought,and state the
18 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
reason for the requestcd variatiom.tlhe director may reject a request that fails to include the requircd
infonnation.
c.The director gLplanning is authorized to grant a variation upon a detennination that the variation:(I)is
consistent with thc goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan;(2)does not increase the approved
development density or intensity of development;(3)does not adversely affect the timing and phasing
of dcvelopmcnI of any othcr dcvclopment in the zoning district;(4)does not rcquire a special use
pennit;and (S)is in general accord with the purposc and intent of the approved application.
d e....d.ir.~toLOf planning~y,Q,uirc.JhaUhc .StRPlicant R(Wde...an up..datcd.a12 .1an...and~
cas changesJQa code fLo IDem ..a COlnl2!ctc amended-.eOOe o(dcxelopmentJeJkc.tingJhe
aQProYe,adatioJLand the date_obhe v:ariiltion he d'_uir.es an updated application plaQoc
cod Lde elQpmcllt he gralltin ru ariatioJ}shill I b_:OJlditionaLupon thc,JtpplicanLp[Qy.idingJhe
Qlan oLe.o.dc...,Within thirty'(30)day,s_aflcLapproxaLof the adatiQJlJlnd...~LdetcrminatiOlL1,-y the director
that the pJaILoc code ''icre e'lisedJ ~tly-"enecllhegrmucdYariation,
e,Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rel-en+Hg Wn.i.rl&.JlliW
amendment.
(§8.5.6.3,12-10-80;9-9-92;§8.5.5.3,O'd.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.5.4 Building permils and Hosion and se(lin~t-eoDlflHgrading perm ii'S
Building pennits and erosion And sedimelu eolltfol grnding pemlits may be issued as provided herein:
a.A building pemlit,including any special footings or foundation penn its,may be issued for any work
within a planned development,excluding the installation of street signs,only after the approval of the
final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the pennit would apply.
b.An erasioR And sediment eOlltrol grading pcnnit may be issued for site preparation grading associated
with an approved planned development if ftH the erosion and sediment control plan I s dislurbed
area...and gradin .are'co Orullt "t1Uhc conec~t gradin~and.measur_cs hQ\v luhe Rplication
Rlan as_determined b lhe CQUllt e.Llgineec ..after consultatio 'LhJbe director o.Lpl<u!!ling.satisj:'aetol)'
10 the direetor of engineeAng and l3ublie worl;s has been submitted and reviewed in oonjunolion with the
I1l3plieatiolll3lan,Alld the direeter offJlanning And eomllHlIlit)"de\'ololllllent determines the fJrofJosed
grading is eOllsistent with the al3fJroved allpHealioll plan.
111 eases .....here .!L...aftc consultatiOll..lliI the director !lUlU engineer rinds that there is
not enough detail on the afJpfo¥ed application plan to assure eORsisteney that the p[Qp.oseQgradin~
olhe-easl.J.[c rc consisteD v"it JllicatiolLPJan,no erosioR and sediment eOlltrol pOA'Ril sl1all!!:
g@dingpenniuhallnot be issued until the final site plan is approved,or the final subdiYisio.D plat is
tentatively approved.
ed.Within each neighborhood model district,the department of plaARing and communiI)'development shall
review each building pcnnit application or modification to detennine whether the proposed structure
confonns with the architeclural and landscape standards in the approved code of development.
(§8.5.6.4,12-10-80;9-9-92:§8.5.5.4,O,d.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.5.5.5 SHe--pht-lHtntHllbdh'isielt pial reqtliremenlS-foF-fllanned de¥elopmOfl1 'loning dislriels
est-aJilished-wilheui An Af'f'lieatiofHH'-fl1lf)lit>Rl-ion-pkt-n Site plan and subdivision pial
rcgujttDlcots whcn there is no applicatiQIl plan
.si.te plans andJiuhdi'iision pJat ithilLa_lalmed deyc.lQRlllCn distnc.Lfu
19
1IiclU\lu\ppl feat iOlLR!all...ill1SJl
ATTACHMENT B
------------
Draft:03/17/09
approved shall be subject to the following~
a.No valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established.If a planned development ~
district was established without before an approved application plan as was required by section 8 ~
approved as part of the zoning map amendment and there was no valid site plan or subdivision plat
pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district,then neither a site plan nor a subdivision
plat shall be approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other
documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as provided therein.
b.Valid site plan or submvision plat at time district established.If such a district v,'as previously
established iB conjuBction ,,.,,ith an approved site plan ~planned development district was established
before an application plan was required by section 8 to be al1proved as part of the zoning map
amendment but there was a valid site plan or subdivision plat pertaining to the entirety of the planned
development district at the time the zoning map amendment was approved,the approved site plan ill:
subdivision la shall be deemed to be the application plan,and the district shall be deemed to have
complied 'with the requirements of section 8.LB such a case,if the site plan or subdivision plat has
expired,a new site plan or subdivision plat must be approved prior to any development activity site plan
or subdivision plat shall be reviewed as provided in section 8.5.5.2.(Amended 7-16-86)
(§8.5.6.5,12-10-80;9-9-92;§8.5.5.5,Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.8.6 Amendments to planned development districts
each amendment to a planned development district shall be submitted aBd reviewed as provided in section 8.In
addition,with each application to amend the area of the planned development district,or to amend the proffers,
the application plan,the general development plan,or the code of de,,'elopment within an area that is less than
the entire district,the applicaBt shall submit a map sho'wing the eBtire e](isting planned developl'l'Ient district and
identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district,or identifying the area to which the ameBded
proffers,application plan,geBeral development plan,or code of development will apply.
a.
b.Amendment qffecting less area than the enUre district:map.If the proposed amendment would affect
less area than the entire district.the applicant shall submit a map showing the entire existing planned
development district and identifying any area to be added to or deleted from the district.or identifying
the area to which the amended appl ication plan.code of development.proffers or any waiver or
modification would llIWly.
c.Individual notice.In addition to any notice required by Virginia Code §15.2-2204 and sections
33.4 and 33.8 of this chapter.written notice of the proposed amendment shall be provided to the
owner of each parcel within the planned development district.The substance of the notice shall
20 ATT ACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
be as require "rginia Cod>!!l'..!u~"-I,,'~jJB>!J.J1illCll&l'!lJ',!!.J.~e&,!!rd!!llj:e~ss'.J!J.!!J'l;.l!IuLl!m!J'be~J1!.
Da[CeJs affected,
•d__~"CJO tlsid III ",
fa rsJo Ix onsidcre
considered;
ieJ Q :0 sed ametl(/lu 1 additioltl0_an othe a
there.Y..ie.l'LDLa zoningJI!a _amendment .1heJQIJowin .sh.
QlieabJe..
als..Qb.e
\ether th<:.-p.lQJ2Qse Illeodmcn educes majntains r cnhances.Jhc_clcmcllts o.[aJ)lanncd
de~elQplnent~eLCorth ilue_c_lioll..8.J.
2 he extent t ,~hicluhe Q[oposed amcndmentjrn acts the Qthec ar.ccl vilhi~lanncd
de elopmenLdistdct.
Article III.District Regulations
Sec.20A.3 Application requirements;required documents and information
Except where.Jbe optiolLiuxer.clscd as p[Qrided in subsectionl.bl...bclmy..t+he following documents and
infonnation shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be submitted under section 8.5 of
this chapter:
a.A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning ordinance and is
consistcnt with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan,the land use plan,the
master plan for the applicable development area,and the Neighborhood Model;ifone or more
characteristics of the Neighborhood Model delineated in section 20A.l are missing from an application.
the applicant shall justify why all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided:
b.A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements and includes
strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements,including phasing plans,parking alternatives
as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter,and transportation demand management strategies as
provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapteri....Qr 'ded hauhe appJicanuna ubmit the parking and
loading_needs studX-ilLconjullctlon.JYitIlJhe prclimina~Rlan.Io h e.YeloQmcnt ir it d_cJltOI1SI!OleS
to the satisf.1ction or the-zoningJldminislratool c __uscs lila lay....9CcuQ til uildings areJlOI
sufficiently'kll L1hc time 0 the_zonjn&J!!<lQ..J\meJldment.
c.Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities,ofT-site stormwater management
facilities,and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater management facilities.
d.A gefleral e1@\·@IOl3lfleBt plication plan.as provided in seclion 20A.4,including all information
required by sections 8 or 20A 10 support any element of the plan.
e.A code of development,as provided in section 20A.S,including all information required by sections 8
or 20A to support any element of the code.
(Ord.03-18(2).3-19-03)
Scc.20A.4 Get.ernl de~'eI81}mfltl Application Illans
A general development plaA shall ser','e as the application plan required by section 8.5.1 (d)of this chapter.In
addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.S.1(~),the following are required elements offfie
general de~reloplfleAt plaA all.application_laniIuhe D:
a.+he amounl of gross square footage de\·oled 10 1l0llresidentiailises and a residenlial equivaleAt,
eJ'-ipressed as IAe product oflhe square feel per uAil ff1uhil3lied by the number ofdwelliAg units prel3oseel.
21 ATIACHME T B
Draft:03/17/09
If a residential eqlii\'alent is nO(pro\'ided by Ihe applieaRI,it shall be the pFOdliet of one thousand fi ...e
hundred (1500)square ~et Itlulliplied b)'the number of dwelling units pFOpeseel.
b.The geneml alloeation of uses 10 eaeh eloel,iR leAns ofFesidential,eemmeFeial,induslrial,inslilutienal.
amenities,parlts,reerealienal faeilities Opell Ie Ihe publie,and an)'ether lise ealegef)'prspssea by Ihe
applieam aRd whieh eemplies with the reqliirements efseetiell 20A.S.
e.The leeatieR sf propesed greeR spaees,amenities,eonseryalioll areas er prese ...latien areas,as pro\'ided
in seetien 20A.9.
d.Building festprinls sr graphie representations efeentFftI featlires er majer elements that are esseRtialle
Ihe desigR eflhe t:te\'elopmem,showR althe bloak level.
"u~.__",-"u"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o'l'><.,e,,d,,,t!j[e,,e,,IS,,-,,u,,,llcyJ..sidc1.valks,and Qcdestriall.Paths;
huocallill.oLQcoQoscd rc ~!llc.n.i1.ics.onscLv.atiQJl.ar.cas..or prescp'atioQiKcas •...as..woyidcd
iJ cC..t'lQjt20
c.cQnccptuaUot laY-CUI'
d ConceRtua.l..grndinglto~~hy...usingJhe Co.ulltY..~&rnphicioromlatiolLSy'~s!lte!!!l..!1t.l1£!t!lterr.!oQj)j2l\!mhlti>ie
infoanatiQrLSupplemeotcd whcr.c necessa~RQ e1e ation nd.....areas oc.the,"",jl"",,,,,,e,,,,,,,,,,,,e,,~,,jst",i",n&>.",Io~
are twenty-fiYeJ25.l percent .OLgr.eate[;
e..icaLstreeu:ross.:Sections to h~roponions..,SCale .....and..sIreetsca~.which ....allematjvely.may be
provided in lhe code of deveIQ~ment;
f.,~_-,!",ny_proposed conncc ions..1o...cxisting"and pro sed S\R'cts w
Ihe cQJllprChensLvc plan;
s ~sed t""''''''ill....'''ar''e..s ..sbO\''''',,,·n,,o''''n
g The gme.raUaX"'-!1"i!JiljgOU!!£..lIl>!J:>Ll!lli~e'~e ..siems conceptual.....slQu!U..vatet:.managemcnl.and a
cOJlcep.tuaLmiligation p':lan~and
b,The locatiolLO central eaturcs_o mai.OLclements \.vithiILlhc_deycIQumcnt csseDti,,1 to thule.sigtLofth«
deyelopmcnt .....suclLas uilding cnY.elopcs.Jll"i.oLcmRloxment areas..varking area nd tcucturc.s _cj 'e
a[eas.Rarks 0 Cl ace.greciUpaC_e5oAl1lcoities and (ccrcatioILarcas..
(O,d.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.20A.S Codes of dc\'clopmelll
A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines,the specific regulations for the district,
and the use characteristics of each block;provide for cenainty in the location of and appearance of central
features,and the pennitted uses in the district;and provide a nexible range of a mix of uses and densities.AnX
subslantiYe oLpmcc..duralLequircmcnt ofthis.-chaplcr.....shalLappJx .unless th ub'ecLmane '
cxpressl '_addr:es.sedj e c e oide 10 men ach code 0 de to me hal jn aJ:ornuequirt'..d.....or
otheovise a~proYe_d.....by Ihe direclo C.lanning,To salisfy these requiremenls,each code of development shall
establish:
a,The uses permitted in the diSlrict by right and by special use pennil,as provided in section 20A.6.
b,The amount of developed square footage proposed,delineated for the entire NMD and by block by use;
and amenity,stfeet-s-flllEilol eevcrage.The developed square footage may be expressed as a proposed
22 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
range of square foolage.
c.The maximum reside.lIial eensilies,as flrs'iiaee in seetisn 20A.7,And the ffiAnimt-lln nt-lmber sf
resiaentiAl11AilS rer indi ..idUAI resiaentiallaAd lise categories ana ,nised lise ealegories,Dumber of
r.esidential d~velling units..dw.eUingJ.!nits...by txPS ....and delineating at least two (2)housing types,as
provided in section 20A.S.
d.The amount of land area and_pfKentage of ~acrea~devoted to green space and amenities,as
provided in section 20A.9.
e.All requirements and restrictions associated with each usc delineated in paragraph (a).
f.All uses expressly prohibited in the district,so that they may nol be considered to be uses accessory to a
pennilted usc.
g.Architectural anEllaAElseafle standards that will apply in Ihe NMD,which shall address the following:
I.The form.massing,and proportions of structures whic~may'be [0 'ded thr.ough
illustrations;
2.ArehiteehlFaI sl)'les;
3.Malerials,eolsrs,ans lelilllres;
~.Roorform ans flileh;
5.ArehileelliralofRamentation;
(}2.Fayade treatments,inel11sing winso.....ana door openings;
7.LandseApe lrealments;and
83.The preservation of historic structurcs,sitcs,and archcological sitcs idcntified by the Virginia
Department of Historic ResourceS7 ;_and
4.rchilcClliraL..5I)'les •..materi.als olQe and texture .,hesc_clcmeIlls...nrc_del~rnlincd_t ~
Jccessm '!Lordcr a..r.o _osc_d_dCYcJoRmcnt to be COll1 'ble 'tl "IS contigll.Q.us...dcv_eLQp_c_d
surIoundjn~
The prQyjsions in..a codc_ofdeyelopmcnLadoRled pdor..to [effect'e datc...DLordinancc]-RertainingJQ
subsccti n 0 .5 g)Ul-thr.o.u Jihal&.the 0 litcclura tandardsjllJhe cude :Y.elo
Ihm aRPJy,Jo the_planned..deye!opment..
h.Preliminaf)'101 la)'ollt...Landsca reatmcnt rller.cJandscapwi'!l'Wbi."d",dwi'wiol!bI!l.JJ'il',ullieguired by se:ttion
3 .p(oPQsed,
l.For each block:
I.The raAge of uses permined on the block by right and by special use permit;
2.,'\11 reqt-lirements and restriCiions associated .....ith each lise delineates in pAFagFapR (i)(I);
n.Build-to lines ouan~,which are the required dislance from the right-of-way to a structure;
43.Minimum and maximum lot and yarE!dimensions:
23 A ITACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
~'Minimum..number Q(stQries_and Mmaximurn building heights;
65.Location ofSsidewalk~and pedestrian paths leeetions;
+6.crea~dcYOJed.Jo anclcha[aCleristics-ofGgrcen space,tmEI amenities ..anclrec[eati.o.naLarcas
and facilities as require cctlQn 6;
81.Location acreage_and characteristics ofGconservatiQn areas and preservation areas as...dclined
in section3..l,if applicable;
98.Location of PRarking areas;
+09.Location ac[cage...and..cbaracteri.stic.ti)f~ivic spaces.which arc public areas for community or
ci\ic activities (e.g .•libraries and their associated yards,schools and places Qf \\Qrship);
(Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.20A.6 Permitted uses
The follQwing uses shall be permitted in an MD.subject tQ the regulatiQns in this sectiQn and section 8,the
approved geneml E1e\'ele~ment aQQlication plan and code of development,and the accepted prQffers:
a.By right uses.The following uses are pennitted by right iLthe use is expressly identifie.d....as_a..by right
usc Ie code oLdey.e1opmenLPUfthc llScJS permitted by a detcnnination by.he zoning_administrator
pursuant to section 8.5.•.~.~~Xl):
I.Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district,except for those
uses allowed only by special use penuit delineated in subsectiQns (bXf.tand-L!UQ);provided
that the use is identified in the approved cQde of development.
2.Electric,gas,oil and communication facilities,excluding tower structures and including potes,
lines,transformers,pipes,meters and related facilities fQr distribution of local service and
Qwncd and Qperated by a public utility.Water distributiQn and sewerage collectiQn lines,
pumping stations and appurtenanccs owned and operated by the Albcmarle County Service
Authority.Except as Qtherwise expressly provided,central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in cQnformily with Chapter 16 orthe Code Qr Albemarle and all other applicablc law.
3.AccessQry uses and buildings including stQrage buildings.
4.1-IQme occupation,Class A,where the district includes residential uses.
S.Temporary construction uses.
6.Public uses and buildings including temporary or mQbile racilities such as schools,offices.
parks,playgrQunds and roads funded,Qwned or operated by local,state or federal agencies,
public water and sewer transmission,main Qr trunk lines.treatment facilities,pumping statiQns
and thc like,Qwned and/Qr operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer AuthQrity.
7.TQurist lodgings,where the district includes residential uses.
8.Homes for develQpmentally disabled persQns,where the district includes residential uses.
9.Tier I and Tier II persQnal wireless sen'ice facilities (referencc 5.1.40).(Added 10-13-04)
24 ATIACHME TB
Draft:03/17/09
b.By special lise permit.+he following uses are pennitted by special use pemlit·the use 's-e~sslr
identified a!Lus~penniued by-..S~~aLuse pennit in the coo!;.OLdcye1opmrnt:
'ac use_allmved b ighLOLbY ~ccial usc p-conit ill any theLZQIliniLdistdet.
+1.Drive-through windows serving or associated with pennitted uses.
2-3.Outdoor storage,display andlor sales serving or associated with a by right permitted usc,if any
portion of the usc would be visible from a travelway.
(Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03;Ord 04-18(2),10-13-04)
Sec.20A.7 Residential density
Residential density within each MD shall be as follows:
a.The gross residemial densily should be within the applicable recommended gross density range
established in the land usc clement of the comprehensive plan.In its deliberations regarding the
appropriate residential density for the district,the board of supervisors shall take into account the
amount of land devoled 10 non-residenlialuses.
b.The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated by taking the
gross aereage of the distriet di'lided b)'the proposed Al:IlllBer of dwelling l:Inits in lhe proposed diSlriet
d'·diJl&...!ll£..proRQsed.numbC'r-.9.fdwelling uID1S in the..pIOpose~dislilil by the gro..s 'lcrtilge..illJhli
district.
(Ord.03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec.20A.9 Green spaces,amenilies,eonservalion areas and prcscn'ution areas
Each NMD shall include the following:
a.Greell space.The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows:
I.For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density
residenlial,urban density residential,transitional,neighborhood service,cOlllTllunity service,or
office service,the area devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent (20%)of the
gross acreage of the site area_propose zoned.
2.For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional service,office
regional or industrial service,the area devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen percent
(15%)of the gross acreage of the site area r.o se Clone_d.
3.For areas having a land use designation not addressed in flftragraj'Jhs £ub eeJi.(a)(I)and
(a)(2),the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be
guidance on the minimulll area devoted to green space.
4.The minimulll area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of supervisors at the
request of the applicant.In acting on a request,the board shall consider these factors:the
relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby properties containing public green space such as
parks or natural areas;the known future uses of the eH-he adjoining properties;and whether a
reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan.
25 AlTACHMENT B
Onft,03117/09
b.AmeniTies.The minimum area devoted 10 amenities is as follows:
1.For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density
residential,urban density residential,neighborhood service,and community service,the area
devoted 10 amenities shall be at least twenty percent (20%)of the gross acreage of the site M£!I.
pr.oooscd to.be rezQned.
2.For areas shown in the land use clement of the comprehensive plan as regional service,office
service,office regional service or industrial service,the area devoted to amenities shall be al
least ten percenl (10%)of the gross acreage of lhe site ~l1);\o>j:!Q!',c~lilJ~~!l!!'~
3.For areas having a land use designation nOI addressed in paragraphs subsections (b)(I)and
(b)(2),the recommendations of the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan shall be
guidance 011 the minimum area devoted to amenities.
4.The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduccd by the board of supervisors at the
request of the applicant.In acting on a request,the board shall consider these factors:the
relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby propenies containing amenities;the proponion of
residential uses to nonresidential uses proposed;the known future lIses of tile ef..l.Re adjoining
properties;and whether a reduction would bclter achieve the ncighborhood model goals of the
comprehensive plan.
c.Addifiollal reqlliremems!oramenifies.Amcnities shall also be subject to the following:
I.At least ninety percent (90%)of the residential units in the NMD shall be \\ithin a one-quaner
mile walk of an amenity.
2.The size,location,shape,slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for the proposed
amenity.
3.The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served.
4.The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design requirements from
recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards.
5.In nonresidelltial areas of the development,amenities shall be located so that thcy arc easily
accessible to patrons and employees of the development.
d.Green space withi"parks and recreafional ame"ities.Any ponion of an amenity that is covered in
grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an amenity.
e.Presenafion areas lI'ifhill green space.Preservation areas that preserve environmental features shall be
included as green space area.
f.Consenafion areas wifhin green space.Conservation areas that maintain environmental features shall
be included as green space area.
(Ord.03·\8(2),3·\9·03)
Sec.20A.10 Streets
Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood development
established by the departlllent of engineering and pub-l-ie warks community dcyeloRl11Ctlt.
26 ATTACHMENT B
Draft:03/17/09
(O,d.03·18(2).3-19-03)
I,Ella W.Jordan,do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adoptcd by thc Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,Virginia,by a vote Of __l0 __'as recorded
below.at a regular mccting held on _
Clcrk,Board ofCounlY Supervisors
Mr.Boyd
Mr.Dorricr
Ms.Malick
Mr.Rooker
Mr.Slutzky
Ms.Thomas
27 AITACHMENT B
Proposed Changes to Planned Development Section of Zoning Ordinance and
Neigh borhood Model Section of Zoning Ordinance
March 24,2009
Section #Existing Text Proposed Text ImpactlReason for
Change
Section 3.1 Definitions Application plan:The graphic depiction of a Application plan:The graphic depiction of a proposed Cleanup
proposed development containing the infonnation development containing the infonnation required by
required by section 8.5.1 (d)section 8.5.1(d)and.within the neighborhood model
district.section 20A.4.A plan designated and approved
as a general development plan for a neighborhood
model district between March 19.2003 and [insert
effective date]is an application plan for the purposes of
this chapter.
Block:An area shown on an application plan or a Block:An area shown on an application plan that is Deletes term "general
general development plan that is typically typically surrounded by streets and within which land development plan".
surrounded by streets and within which land use use activities occur.Although blocks usually imply a (see below)
activities occur.Although blocks usually imply a grid street system,where steep topography exists blocks
grid street system,where steep topography exists may exist in non-rectilinear shapes
blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes
General development plan:An application plan Definition deleted.General Development
for a proposed development within the Plan is now just,
neighborhood model district,containing the "application plan"to
infonnation required by sections 8.5.I (d)and eliminate confusion.
20A.4.
Section 8.2 8.2 Relation of planned development Sec.8.2 Applicable regulations;waivers and Changes section title
regulations to other zoning regulations modifications for easier reference,
The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the Planned developments shall be subject to the following clarifies which sections
establishment and regulation of all planned regulations in this chapter:are available for
development districts.An applicant may request waivers and
that any requirement of sections 4,5 and 32,or a.Sections apolicable.Unless expressly modifications,
the planned development district regulations be superseded by a regulation of the applicable planned organizes section,and
waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent development district.the regu lations of this chapter.makes clear that
with planned development design principles and other than those pertaining to conventional development waivers must be
that the waiver or modification is consistent with districts stated in sections 10 through 18.20B.22.23.expressly granted by
the intent and purposes of the planned 24.27 and 28.shall apply to each planned development the Board.
development district under the particular district unless the subject matter is expressly addressedcircumstances.If the applicant requests such a in the code of development under section 20A.5.or thewaiverormodificationaspartoftheapplicationregulationiswaivedormodifiedasprovidedinplan,the applicant shall
28 ATTACHMENT C
submit its request in writing as part of the
application,and shall demonstrate that the waiver
or modification would not adversely affect the
public health,safety or general welfare and,in the
case of a requested modification,that the publ ic
purposes of the original regulation would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the
modification.Notwithstanding any regulation in
sections 4,5,or 32 establishing a procedure for
considering a waiver or modification,any request
for such a waiver or modification shall be
reviewed and considered as part of the application
plan.Nothing in this section prohibits an owner
within a planned development from requesting a
waiver
or modification of any requirement of sections 4,
5 and 32 at any time,under the procedures and
requirements established therefore.In addition to
making the findings required for the granting of a
waiver or modification in sections 4,5 and 32,
such a waiver or modification may be granted
only if it is also found to be consistent with the
intent and purposes of the planned development
district under the particular circumstances,and
satisfies all other applicable requirements of
section 8.
b.Waivers and modifications.An applicant may
request that any requirement of sections 4,5~6 and
32,or the illJplicable planned development district
regulations be waived or modified if it is found the
board of supeJ:Vis...ors.J'inds the regulation to be
inconsistent with planned development design principles
and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the
intent and purposes of the planned development district
under the particular circumstances.
1.Submittal ofrequest for waiver or
rJ1Qdi/ic~If the applicant requests such a waiver or
modification as part of the application plan,the
applicant shall submit its request in writing as pal1 of the
application o1Ml,and shall demonstrate that the waiver
or modification would not adversely affect the public
health,safety or general welfare and,in the case of a
requested modification,that the public purposes of the
original regulation would be satisfied to at least an
equivalent degree by the modification.
2.Timing ofrequest.Notwithstanding any
regulation in sections 4,5,21,26 or 32 establishing a
Procedure for considering a waiver or modification,any
request for such a waiver or modification shall be
reviewed and considered as part of the application plan
provided that an owner within a planned development
may request a waiver or modification of any
requirement of sections 4,5.21.26 or 32 at any time,
under the procedures and requirements established
therefore.
Findings.In addition to making the
findings required for the granting of a waiver or
modification in sections 4,5.21.26 or 32,such a waiver
or modification may be granted only if it is also found to
be consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances,
and satisfies all other applicable requirements of section
8.
29 ATTACHMENT C
no waiver or 1ll0difiCfitioru;hall be deemed to have been
gWllte<lhyJmp Iicat ion,
Section 8.3 PD defined 8.3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED A planned development is a developrnent that Illeets all Acknowledges that PDs
A planned development is a development that of the following criteria at the time jt is established or can be amended:uses
meets all of the following criteria:(I)thc land is amended:(I)the area proposed to be (ezoned or thc word,"conforms"to
under unified control and will be planned and areajvithin the planned dcvelopmcllt district is under make distinctions
dcveloped as a whole;(2)the development is in unified control and will be planncd and developed as a between conventional
general accord with one or more approved whole;(2)thc dcvelopmcnt con(o(m~with one or more districts and planned
application plans:and (3)in all planncd approved application plans;and (3)in all planncd districts.
developmcnt districts other than a planned historic development districts other than a planned historic
district,the development will provide,operate and district,the developmcnt will provide,operatc and
maintain common areas,facilities and maintain common areas,facilities and improvcments
improvements for some or all occupants of thc for some or all occupants of the development wherc
development where thcse featurcs arc appropriate.
these features arc aoorooriate.
8.5.1 Application and E..1ch application for a planned development Each applicatioll for a planned dcvelopmcnt district Cleanup
documcnts to be district shall be submitted as provided for other shall be submitted as provided for other ...oning map
submiued zoning map amendments.The documents amendments.The documents required by subsections
required by subsections (a)through (e)below (a)through (e)below shall be submitted with thc
shall be submitted with the application.After the application.After the application is submitted,director
application is submitted,the director of planning oLplanning may request additional plans,maps,studies
and community development may request and reports such as,but not limited to.traffic impact
additional plans,maps,studies and reports such analyses,identilication of specimen trees,and reports
as,but not limited to,traffic impact analyses,identifying potential non·tidal wetlands which are
identilication of specimen trees,and reports deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application:
identifying potential non-tidal wetlands which
are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the
apolication:
b.An accurate boundary survey of the tract or b.An accurate boundary survcy of the tract oearcn to Cleanup
plan limit showing the location and type of be (czoned showing the location and type of
boundary evidence;boundary cvidence and thc source of thc_survcyj
30 ATfACHMENTC
c.A map showing:c.A map pi u-scalc OLllotlcss Ihnn one ill illch equal Clari licalion/cleanup
10 Qlle hUlldrcgJLQQ)JCcl.•_providcd thai another and
interval and/or scale Illay be required or permitted consistency with other
lD'--!bc director of planning where the size orlhc required documents
area proposed 10 be rezoned or topographic
considerations warrant showinu:
c.2.Existing topography accurately shown with a 2.Existing topography accurately shown lIsing the Cleanup
maximum of five (S)fool contour intervals at county~gcographic information system or better
a scale of not less than one (I)inch equal 10 IOpographical infonnalion.and thC.sOUfCC of the
one hundred (100)fect;other interval and/or !opographicaUnformation;
scale may be required or pennilted by thc
dircctor of planning and community
dcvelopment where topographic
considcrations warrant;
Not currently a requirement l.TI1C Il<lllle oLthe proposed developtl1en.!;Jhejlallle~Clarification and
OLalLowncrs;thc_namc oLthe dcveloQc[.if different consistency with other
frolll the owner~.the name oLthe persoll who prepared required documents.
the plar~J!lJ tax-map <lnd p<lrccl numbers in fourtecn
Uitdigit fonnat;thc zonin&-districl and <lILoyerl<lY
~olling,.distric~..!!!£.ulllg,istcrilll diSlrict;the 1l0l1h PQiut~
the-.Scale;one datum reference for elevation;if any_part
of the_area proposed to be rezoncd is within the Oood
haz.1[d o_verll!Y_distrjct (section 30..J.)...United States.
Geolog~<lLSlllYey vertical datulluhall be-.Shown andlor
couclated 10 planJoPO&r.:apt!Y~sheet numbers on each
sheeLand the totaLnlllllbccof sheet~the dale of..!hs
drawin~ldJhe dale and description of the last
I revjsion·
4.The existing owners and zoning district;and 4.The present usc of !!!!incent parcel~the location of Clarification and
5.The prescnt use of adjoining tracts and the structures on ~jacenl parcels,if any;and departinw cleanup
location of structures on adjoining parcels,if lines;and
any:and
from Section d.6.:~._A traQic imp<lCLslatement meetingJhe Cleanup to confonn
Trip generation figures;rcguiremellis of....state law including.bUUlot limited to.with state requirements
2~'y-"'C 30-ISS-LO ef""!I.;
d.An application plan based on a minimum of c.An application plan at n scale oLnol Jess than Clarification and
Iwo (2)dnta references for elevations to be one ill inch equal 10 one hundred (I 00)fe~,provided consistency wilh other
used on plans and=profiles showing:.Ihm nnotheLintervnl nnd/or scale lllay be required or required documents.
permilled by the dircctoLofplnnnin&.whe(e the sizc of
the arc"proooscd !o be rezoned or tOPOJ?,rnphi(;
31 AnACHMENTC
con sidcmt ionS-Jvm:r:l niL show in g
d.2.The proposcd grading/topography with a 2.Conceptual grading/topography IlsingJhe Clarification and
maximum of fivc (5)foot contour intervals;coun!Y..:I.gcographic informatioRsystcm or better consistency with other
topographical in(ormatior1L:lI1d the source of tile required documents.
,topogm,phical information,supplcmented wherc
necessary bY..spot elevations and areas of the site WJlcrc
existinl!sloocs arc twentv-five (25)ncrcent or l!reater;
d.1 O.The gencrallotlay-out:and 9.A_conce~tuallot lay-out;and Clarification
Standards for dcvelopment including proposed ,0.Standards of development including proposcd
yards,building hcights,open space characteristics,yards,building heights,open space charactcristics,and
and any landscape or architectural characteristics any landscape or architectural characteristics related to
related to scale,proportions,and massing at the scale,prol>ortions,and massing at the edge of tile
edge of the district.district.
8.5.2 Preappliclllion Each applicant for a planned development shall Each applicant for a planned developmellt shall aHcnd a Cleanup
Conferences allend a joint mecting with the planning,joint meeting with the staffofthe dcpartment of
cnginccring,and zoning staff as well as other cOlllmunity dcYciopment as wcll as other qualified
qualified officials from outside agencies such as officials from outside agencics such as the Virginia
the Virginia Departmcnt of Health,the Virginia Department of Health,the Virginia Department of
Departmcnt of Transportation,and the Albemarle Transportation,and the Albemarlc County Service
County Scrvice Authority to review the Authority to rcvicw the application plan :lI1d the
application plan and the proposed developmerll proposed developmcnt before the application is
before the aoolication is submitted.submil1cd.
8.5.3 Rcview and Each application for a pl:mned development shall Each application to establish or amend a planncd Clarification
Recommendation by thc be rcviewcd by the planning commission as developmcnt distdct shall be reviewed and acted on by
Planning Commission follows:the planning commission as follows:
b.In making its recommendation on the b.=ln_addition to any....Q!.hs:r factors rc1cyant to thc Cleanup
application to the board of supervisors,the considcration of a zoning map amcndmcnl....thc
commission shall make findings about the commissioluhall considcr the following~
fOllowing:
L WhcthcLlhe proposcd planncd dcYclopl1lent o[Clarification
amendmcnt thereto satisfies the purpose and intcnt of
thc planncd dcvclOPlnClit district.
I.Thc suitability of the tract for the proposcd 2..iVhcther the arca proposcd to be [ezoncd i~Cleanup
planncd development in tenus of its relation to all ap':propriatc for a planncd dcvelopmcnt undcr thc
applicablc provisions of the comprehensive plan,comprehensive plan;,the physical charactcristics of the
nhvsical characteristics of the land and it's area l)(ooosed to beJczoned;and thc.rclation oCthc arca
32 ATTACHMENT C
relation to the surrounding area;proposed to be rezoned to the surrounding area;and
3.Each requested waiver or modification,deleted Moved to the section
including whether the requirements of section 8.2 on waivers.
are satisfied.
c.Depending on the findings it makes,the c.Ihe commission shall either recommend approval of
commission shall either recommend approval of the application.including all requested waivers or
the application,as proposed,approval of the modifications as proposed,approval of the application
application with changes to be made prior to with changes to be made prior to action on the
action on the application by the board of application by the board of supervisors,or disapproval.
supervisors,or disapproval.
Sec.8.5.4 Review and Sec.8.5.4 Review and action by the board of Sec.8.5.4 Review and action by the board of Cleanup
action by the board of supervisors supervisors;effect of approyal
supervisors
Each application to establish or amend a planned
development district shall be reviewed and acted on by
the board of supervisors.and approval of the appl ication
shall have effect.as follows:
The board of supervisors shall consider and act on a.Review and action.The board of supervisors Clarification
each application for a planned development shall consider and act on each application for a planned
district as it does for other zoning map development district as it does for other zoning map
amendments.If the board approves the amendments.If the board approves the application,the
application,the approving action shall constitute approving action shall constitute approval of the
approval of the application plan.and all standards application plan,all standards of development submitted
for development submitted by the applicant.The by the applicant.and the code of development.as
board's action shall also identify which proffers it applicable.The board's action shall also identify which
has accepted and which waivers or modifications proffers it has accepted and which waivers or
it has granted.modifications it has granted.
Once an application is approved the application b.Effect ofapproval.Upon approval of an Cleanup and
plan,all submitted standards of development and application,the application plan,all standards of clarification
all accepted proffers shall be included as part of development submitted by the applicant.the code of
the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development.as applicable,all accepted proffers.and all
development.approved waivers and modifications shall be included as
part of the zoning regulations applicable to the planned
development.
8.5.5.2 Review of site Each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat As requested by the
plans and Subdivisions plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for a planned development shall be reviewed for Planning Commission,
for compliance with the applicable regulations:(1)compliance with the applicable regulations.as follows:this section sets
in effect at the time the lands were zoned to a thresholds for
planned development district;or,(2)at the option a.Planneddevelonment districts established on or conformity with current
33 ATTACHMENT C
AHACHMENTC
of the applicant,currently in effect.In addition,
each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision
plat for a planned development shall be reviewed
for compliance with thc following:
a.The approved application plan,the
approved standards for development,the
accepted proffers,and the authorized
waivers or modifications and any
conditions imposed therewith,if any;
b.The pcnnined uses within the planncd
development zoning district,including all
prolTers,as dctennined by the zoning
administrator after consultation with the
director of planning and community
development;in making this
determination,the zoning administrator
shall be guided by section 22.2.1 of this
chapter;
c.In addition to thc foregoing,conformity
with the application plan and the
standards ofdevelopmem.Within each
neighborhood model zoning district,the
general developmcnt plan and the codc of
development,as dctennined by the
director of planning and community
development after consultation with the
zoning administrator.
bflor~Dece",berJO.J.98Q.Each prelimin:Lry and_final
site plaQand subdivision plat within a planned
devclopment district cstablishcd OILOLbcfo(c_December
I0..J.280 shall be reviewed for compliance with the
applicable_regylations in effect when the sitc plan_or
subdivision plat is under coun!Y..leview;provided tha..!.
at the.QptioQofthe deY-doper ouubdixidcr.each
preliminary and GnaLsite plan and subdiyision plat lllay
be (evie~ved for compliance witluhe al?plicable
regulations when (he planned developmcnt was
a~p(oYed...jCthe developcr...or subdlvjder establishes a
v_csted_ri&!!.Las provided in Virg~lia Code_§...JJ.2·2291 or
§~2-230J.to develop under the previously_npproved
pJanned development district,
b..Plmwed de\-'elgpmellt districts eSlOblished after
Decelllbec.1f)•..12--8.0._EnclLprelirninul)'and finaLsite
Qlan_and subdi.vision plut within a planncd development
district established aftcr Dcccmb..st..lQ.J980_shull be
(evievled for eomplinnce wjth the applieable_rcg,Y.lations
in eCfecl when the planned development district was
established O[.~option oLthe developer or
subdividcr._ilu(fect ,vhen the site plan O(subdivision
platjs under...county review.l.subjectto the following.:
I.r.:lect;o"JO comply with regulations ilJ.51fect
whe"(Ii.~trici established:e:rceptislllJor cerUlill ClifTelll
subjectszo!..leg!!lalioll w,'e~'sJ'ested rig!I1.~establi,~hed,
Jrthe de'ielo~LSUbdi'lidereJectsJohave its...site plan
oLSubdiyision plat revicwedJ'oLcompliancc ""jth the:
~pplieableJegtllations in e(fect wheluhe planned
dexelopJnent district was established.all oJ the
followill&d!!9jects of regJ!lation in e(fect whellJhc--Site
plan ouubdiY.ision plaUs under county review_shall
applY..J!nlcss vestcd rights are established under
V;rginia Code §§j 5.2,2297,15.2-2298-l5.2-230J or
IS.2~lO~..:-ill entrance corddor...overla~district (section
llt6)~(ill nood hazard ovc(!ny district (seclion..JO~J.);
(iii)landscaping nnd_sc(eening--'section-12..l.2).-LUV
outdoor liehtineJseclion 4.1]);(v.)l)arkine (section
34
zoning regulations,
where properties were
rezoned before the
current regulations
went into place.None
orthe proposcd
changes affects rights
established under
vesting provisions of
the State Code.
It further clarifies the
roles orthe Zoning
Administrator,
Planning Director,and
County Engineer in
determinations or
conrorrnity ror PDs.
4.ill;nud (ri)sigLls (seclion~.lS).I[rights arc
determined to have vested~the regulations for these six
subj~ets ilLcfTect wheluights vcstcd shall apply ...For
the purposes oCthis section 8.5.5.2<Ql.Lan application
plan_aR.12!Qvcd on and after March 19-*-2003 that
complies wjth Ihe requirements of an_application plan
undeLScclion 8.5.Ji£)....QI..Section 20M...ot.a prior
'ier:sion thereof in c((eci on and afteLMarch.19.•2003->
is...a...significant ggvemmental act within the meaningof
\'irginia Code §J5.2-2307.
2.~/ec(;oll ro complY.Jl1ilh regul(l/iofls ill effeci
whell disirici established;eleclio"10 CQmlW:2J1irh
ce(fai"currellW!Jljecls ojreg!.!.lalioll--Jf thc developer
orsubdi'iider electsJo have its site plan oLSubdivision
pJat re'iie1YcdJoLcompliance_witluhe applicable
~gul<l(io_ns in efTect whcJUhe planned dcvcJopmelll
distriCI was established,thc dcYcloper ouubdi'{idcI
m~lso cICCI to com!ili'with one or more of Ihe
subic.ct~or reg~llntionJisted in subseclioIL8.5J5.2(b)lIJ
instead_oL.with the corresponding reg~lllltionsjILCffe(;\
when Ihe planned development districuvas estabJished.
c.Re-,~iewfor.c.Q!lIpli(mce alld qJlifor.mauce~,
,site pJan oUllbdivision plat shalLbc rey.icwcd to
determine \'{hetherjt cornpJi,es with the applicable
regulalions and other requirements of law...andjvhelher
it confo(ms to the application ~Ian.as follm'is:
1,_Zoning admi"islrmor,_The zoningj!dministrntor
shall detelJnine whelher a site plan oLSubdivision Rlat
complicS,,::vithJhe appl icable regtllatiolls,~lll additiQ!l,
the zoningj!fiminislrator.alle("consultation with the
dir(;QO[ofplanning.~aILdctcrlllinewhcthcLthc
P(oposcd permittcd uscs comp1Y.wilh Ihe applicable
regulations and..in doing~Illay permit as a_useJ?y
dglli a cOlllmercial usc thai is not expressly classified in
Ihis chilpter iLthe zoning adminislrator further
dctermincs Ihallhe Ilsejs similnr in g£!lerlll charncter to
a commercial usc permitted by_righ.!Jtul conventional
commercial7.onin~district and issill1ilat.in lerms of
35 ATTACHMENT C
,Iocational.rcquirclllcnts.operational characteristics,
visualjmpacts and traffic g~ncr<ltion\
2.j)jreclor:-Pi.JJlmllling.The director o[planning
I shall determine whethcr a site plan_oL..Subdivision plat
conforms to the_apJ>lication plan.In detennining
confonnity'.Jhe directouhalLdecide whether the centm!
features or major clements within the development ar:e
irLthe same location as shown on the applicatiolLplan
and if the buildin~parkin&...$treel~.blocks...paths and
other desi&!l£!ements arc ofthesamc general charactcr.
scope and scale as shown on the application plan.
3_CQlflllye"gineer.The county cngineer...shall
dctermine whcther alLCrosion and sediment conJ!2l
Qhm.gmding pJan.;tonnwater management plilll,road
OJ street plan,andJllitigation plarLconfonn with the
concept 1lliIdin~rmwlltcr m:lIlagcmcnt ...Slrcet~:lIld
mitigation shown on the application plan.
d.~;JpJJ!icahle reglilario".~dejJ"ed.For thc
purposes oLthis section_8.5~Jhe term '·applicable
rcgillalions'~means.,IS appropriate and applicablc..all
zonin~~llationiLall subdivision regulatiollS...J.l!.e
am~lic"tiOTLpJan ~'(cepLfor those elements authorized
to be shown at a conceptual or gr;nerallevcLUnciuding
thosc plans10fJllcrly rcferred to as general dcvclopment
pJans...c9nditions of1!pproval...acceptcd profTers,.Jhe
code of development.speeialusc pcrmits.variances
and waive~_modiOcations and variations.
Applicllb/e regulatiolls dgji"ed.For the purposes of this
section.the tcrm':aQPlicablc regulations':means.as
_apl2!Q:pr~allz.oning regulations •.the application plan
~ept for those clements authorized to be shown at a
conceptual or generallcvcO.jncluding those plans
formcrly....[cfel"rcd to as g~neml development plans,
conditions of approval.accepted proffcr~the code of
dcvcloRJll£1lt.-lipecial usc pcrl1lits._...Yar.iance~and
I ~~aivcrs modifications and variations.
36 ATTACHMENTC
e,ApplicahilirX (if c"(jJ)/eUL.~EaclLprclilllinary
and finnLsitc pilln and subdivision pIal within a planned
development district 5h311 be reviewed for compliance
with_chapter 17 of thc-hlbcmarle County Codcjn effect
whenJhc_sitc pl:m or subdivision pial is under counl>:
review.rcg~rdless of when the planned development
was established Qr whether the developer or subdivider
CICCIS....Qr establishes vesled rights..under sections
8.55.2(.1)and (bj to proceed with review under the
applicable rcg~l1l1tions in effect when the planned
dcYcloprncrll was approved.
f,_Vesf('(Lrig!-"s 1101 impaired.~Nolhing in this
scctioruhall be cOllslI:ucd as authorizinltthc
jmpa irlllent of II vested rjgill thaunay be established.
nnder Virginia Code §§15,2-2261(Q>15.,2,229Z.J 5,2-
2298 b l 5"2-2303 0'-15,2-2307,
8.5.5.3.Variations from The director of planning and community The director oC planning is authorized to grant a Cleanup
approved plans,codes,cJcvcloprncl1t may allow a site plan or subdivision variation from the following provisions of all approved
and standards of pial for a planned development to vary [rolll an plan,code or standard:
developments approved application plan,standard of
,
development and,also,in the case of a 1.Minor challg~s to yard requirements,build-to
neighborhood model district,a general lines_of rang~s.maximum structure heights 3nd
development plan or code of development,as minimum lot sizes;
provided herein:
1.Minor variations to yard requirements,
maximum structure heights and minimum lot
sizes;
5.Minor variations to street design,and 5.Minor chfing~s to street design andstreetlocat!2n,Cleanup
subject to a recommendation for approv:lI by the county
en£inccr'and
Not currently listed as a variation 6._Minor chan~Jo the dcsign andJocfitiolLof Clarification and
slOUllwater manag~l1lcnt facilities,land disturbance cleanup.
,including distllrbancc...)vithin conservation areas.and
milig~llio'l",sIl9jectto a recommendation for appro~al
bv the count v cn12inccr.
The applicant shall submit a written request for a The applicant shall submit a wrincll requcst for a Clarification
variation (0 the director;the request shall spccify variation to the director oCplanningl The request shall
the movision of the Dian,code or standard for soccifv thc orovision of thc DIan codc or standard for
37 ATTACHMENT C
I
which the variation is sought,and slale the rcason which the varilltiOl1 is sought.and state the rcason for
for the requested variation;the director may reject the requested variation.The director may reject a
a rcqucsllhat fails to include the required request thm fails to include the required information.
information.
c.The director of ~lanning is authorized 10 grant a
c.The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination thallhe variation:(I)is
variation upon a determination that the variation:consistent with the goals and objectives orthe
(1)is consistent with the goals and objectives of comprehensive plan;(2)docs not increase the approved
the comprehensive plan;(2)docs nOI increase the development density or intensity of development:(3)
approved developmcnt density or intensity of docs not adversely afTect the timing and phasing of
development;(3)does not adversely afTect the development of any other developmcnt in the zoning
liming and phasing of development of any Dllter district;(4)docs nOI require a special usc pemlit;and (5)
development in the zoning district;(4)docs nol is in general accord with thc purpose and intent of the
require a special use penn it;and (5)is in general approved application.
accord with the purpose and intent of the
approved application.
Not in the ordinance d.The Director of I~lanning may'[cguirc..Ihat the Cleanup
applicant provide an updated application plan and...in
the case of chanRes to a Cod.£,-cl..Develo{2mc.ntL an
updated Code of Development renecting the approved
varintion and Ihe dalc of Ihe yariation..jC.theJ)irecto~
requires the updated plan..or code.jt shallbc provjded
within 30 d<rys of approval of .th~ariation.
Any varialion not expressly provided for herein c.Any varialion not expressly provided for herein New requirement
may be accomplished by rezoning.lllay be accomplished by zoning maQ--.amcndmcnt needed to keep lrack of
approved v<lriations
within a planned
development.
Section 8.5.5.4 l3uilding Section 8.5.5.4 Building penn its and erosion and Sec.8.5.5.4 Building permits and grading permils Cleanup
penn its and erosion and sediment conlrol penn its
sediment control pcnnits
Building permits and erosion and sedimenl control Building permits and grading pcnnits may be issued as Cleanup
permits lllay be issued as provided herein:provided herein:
b.A grading permit may be issued for site
b.An erosion and sediment control permit prepllration grading associated with an approved
may be issued for site preparation grading planned developmellt if the;erosion and sediment control
associated with an approved planned development plan mcasures..disturbed area and_sradinllfC in
ifan erosion and sediment control plan conformi!y with the cOllccptgrading amuncasures
satisfactory 10 the director of engineerinl.!.and shown on the aoolication olan_as determined bv thc
38 ATfACIiMENT C
public works has bccn submittcd and rcvicwed in co_untysnginc_Crl_JI(tcLC9J1SultatiQlUyith the di(CctoLoJ
conjunction with the application plan,and the p)annin&
director of planning and community development
determines the proposed grading is consistent with c,!f.a(tcr c_onsultatioJUrith the director Qf
the approved application plan.QJannin~hC_C_Qllnty-eJlgincrr finds that there is not
enough detail on thc a~pro\led application plan to assure
c,In cases where the director finds that there eonsistene~'that the ru;Qp..Q:ic_cLgradlng and Qlhc[
is not enough detail on the approved me..a.s.ures arc consistent..w.itluhc-aQQlicatioJLpJan,a
application plan to assure consistency no grading_p_cnniuhall.J1Qt be issued until the final sitc
erosion and scdimcnt control permit shall plan is approved,or thc final .wbd.iYisiQn plat is
be issued until the final site plan is tentatively approved.
approved,or the final plat is tentatively
approved.d.Within cach neighborhood model district,the
department of community development shall review
d,Within each neighborhood model district,each building permit application or modification to
the departmcnt of planning and determine whethcr the proposed stnacture conforms with
community development shall review the architectural and landscape standards in the
each building permit application or approved code of development.
modification to determine whether the
proposcd structure conforms with the
architectural and landscape standards in
the approved code of development.
Sec.8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdh'ision plat requirements for Site plao and subdivision plat rcquircJUcols whcre Cleanup and
planned development zoning districts thcre is no applicatioo plan clarification
eSlablished without an application or
application plan S-i.tc_plans_and subdiYisiQlLpJats withjll.A..-pJannc_d
dC.ydopJllcnt disltic..LfQUY.hich an aRpljcatioJLpJal1..jYas.
If a planned development zoning district was nou1pprovcQshalLbuubjeci to the fQ]lmvin~
established without an approved application plan
as required by section 8 then neither a site plan a.No vafjd~le...pla1)...PLru1ldiJ!is..iQ11 plnu!L(iwe
nor a subdivision plat shall be approved for any disldcli.sJa1JJ.ixhed.If a planned development diSlrict
lands within the district unless and until an was established be(o[e an application plan »:,as required
application plan and all other documents required by sect ion 8 lo...be----l.1pp~s..p_a!1..OLthc.]:QningJnag
by section 8.s are submitted by the owner and are anlcJl.dment and the[e w:a5.J1Q---.YalicLsjte..pJan.J)r
approved as provided therein.,Sub_dirisimlpJaLpcd.ainiDg lQJhe"mli[ety~R-lil~
de.Y.c1opment distcic.l,lhen neither a site plan nor a
If such a district was previously established in subdivision plat shall be approved for any lands within
conjunction with an approved site plan the tht:district unless and until all application plan and all
approved site plan shall be deemed to be the other documents required by section 8.s are submitted
aoolication olan,and the distriCI shall be deemed bv the owner and are aDProved as orovided therein.
39 ATTACHMENT C
larificmion as 10 who
can rcquest an
amcndment to a I'D,
responding 10 Board of
Supervisors'request
ATrACHMENTC
b...,Amemilwn!lIffi:cliug less area Ihallibe e"fire
(1i.~/ricl;~e proP-Q.sed amendment would affecl
less nrea than thc entite dislJ:.ict ...Jhe appJicanLshall I I
a_Eligible applicllllt.....Any'9.mtero-conlr<lct
purchaser with thc ow:ncr.'S~S;Ollsellt.or any.=ituthodzed
agcnt of Ihe owner.plone or morc_patccls wlthiQa
planned developmenl distric..l)llay_aQWy_to amend the
existing.planned dcvelopmclll district asjt pertains to
the owneD parceIW.Jhe...mmer o(each....parce!lo
which the pro~mncndmellt w.Quld result in_or
require a physical cllllnge toJhe....parceJ>-3 change in usc
densit~ntensity on..1hat parCcel>-lihange:lo~any
proffer or regulation in a code oLde..'Lelopment that
would apply to Ihe parcel,a change to an...Q}'incr'
cxpress obligation undcr a DroJIeLouegulationjn a
code of devclopment even if the {2Joffer.or regulation is
not expressly_changed,ill a.....change..lQ....lhc apDlitation
plllluhat would appJy to the ~aJ:cel._shali be an
apl'licant\
A.planned dcve!.Qpment distnC.Lnlay......he amended afterjt
is establim.,either by the_addition ouemoyaLoUalld,
or by an amendment to thcra~pJication..plan.code of
dcYelopmcn1_profTers or any w.aiY~LO.unodilicatioll.....i!.l
accordancc wjth the proccdures...and-J-eguirements of
section 8 and those app.licable tQ..zoningJnap
amendments generaUy..-.flnd sll.Qjel;.1 IO.Jlle following
additionlll rcquirements:.
b.Valid J'iN:I'/(ll/PUllbdivisiQIJ WaUl/lime
di.~/ricl <'swblished.If a planned~de\!.cJoplllenl district
was established before alLaQpJicati.ORp)ffil..}!'aSJequired
by_section 8 to be approved as part oLthe zoningjnap
amcndmcnt but therc was a valid Silc_plarLoLSubdivision
plat pCl1aining to the entircty o(Ihe...p-lanne,
developmcnl district at the liIUC_lhc--.Zonin&Jllil.p
amendment was approved,the approved site plan or
subdivision plm shall be deemed to bc the application
plan,and the site plan oLSubd.ixisioll.....plauhall be
rcviewed as provided in section 8.5...5,
40
Each amcndmcnt to a planned developmcnt
district shall be submittcd and reviewed as
provided in section 8.In addition,with each
application to amcnd thc area of the planned
dcvelopment dislrict,or to amend the proffers,thc
application plan,the gcneral dcvelopmcnt plan,or
the code of dcvelopment within an area that is less
than the entire distril.:t,the applicant shall submit a
lllap showing the entire cxisting planned
devclopmcllt district and idenlifying any arca to
bc added 10 or deleted from the district,or
identifying the area to which the amended
proffers,application plan,gcneral devclopment
plan,or code of dcvelopment will apply.
to have complied with thc requirements of section
8.In such a case,if the sitc plan or subdivision
plat has expired,a ncw sitc plan or subdivision
plat must be approvcd prior to any developmcnt
activity.
Sec.8.6 Amcndments to
planned devclopment
districts
20.A.3 Neighborhood
Model Application
requircments;required
documents and
information
Parking study
The following documenls and infonnation shall be
submiued in addition to any other documenlS
required 10 be submiued under section 8.5 of this
chapter:
b.A parking and loading needs study that
demonstrates parking nccds and rcquirements and
includes strategies for dealing with these needs
<lnd requirements,including phasing plans,
parking alternatives as providcd in section 4.12.8
of this chaptcr,and transportation demand
management strategies as provided in section
4.12.12 of this chapter;
submit fl_llHlp_showin&jhc entirc existing planncd
dcyeJopl1lcnt diSirict <lnd idcntifying any arC<l to be
addcd to or dclctcd frol1lthc district....9r idcl1ti.fY.ingJhc
area to whicILthc amcndcd applie<ltion plaq..5.ode of
dexelopmenti-proffers or any waiver or modification
would appJy,
e,'"di\'idlltlLnotice.lrtaddition to (t1))'not icc
I ~uirew Yjrgjnia Code §J..5~2~204 and...scctions
1M_and 33.8 of this chapter.written notice of thc
proposed amcndmcnt shalLbe provided to the owner of
I cach.parccl withinJhc planned devclopmcnt district,
1Jlc...substancc of the nOlicc-shall be as rcquired by
~ir.gillia Code §15,2·2204(1~J.pamgraph 1...regardless
oCthe_numbcr o[parcels affected.,
d.Factors 10 cOl/sider duriugfevicw OfJJ12Posed
amclldmelll.,jrLaddition to any othecapplicable factors.
to be considcred inJhe review of a zoningjnap
amendmen..!.J.Ile following_shall also bc considered:.
J.Whether the proposed mnendment
reduces.J!Iaintains or....cnhances the clements o[a
planned de_\!.elopment set (oolLin scction 8.3.
2._Jhe c,xtent to which the proposed
amendmcnt impacts the othcr parcels withiluhc planned
devclopmcnt district.
ExccpLwherc the option is exercised <IS providedjn
subsection (lV.....bclQw.the following documents and
information shall be submiucd in addition to any other
documcnts required to be submittcd under section 8.5 of
this chapter:
A parking and 10<lding needs study that dcmonstrates
parking needs and requirements and includes strategies
for dealing with these necds and rcquirements,including
phasing plans,parking altcrnativcs as provided in
section 4.12.8 of this chaptcr,and tmnsportation dellmnd
management stratcgics as provided in section 4.12.12 of
this chapter~pr_ovidcd that the llpplicant m<lY submit the.
I parkinf.?and loadinf.?nccdS-.Sludy in conjuncliotLwitlUhc
Cleanup
Amcnd to allow a
parking study at the
time of rczoning or at
the timc of site plan
approval.
41 ATTACHMENT C
preliminarY.site plan for the development if it
demonstrates to IhesatisfactiOTLofthe zoning
administrator that the uses that may occupy the
b.uildings are nOLsufficiently knowQat the time of the
zonin~man amendment.
d.A general development plan,as provided d.An application plan,as provided in section Cleanup
in scction20A.4,including all infonnation 20A.4.including all infonnation required by sections 8
required by sections 8 or 20A to support any or 20A to support any clement of the plan.
clement of the alan.
20A.4 GCllcnl1 dcvclopmcnt plans Applic1ltinn I)I:IIIS Cleanup to clarify that
The requirements for an application plan for the In addition to the application plan requirements of all PD plans arc called
NMD area as follows:In addition to the section 8.5.I(d),the following arc required elemerllS of "application plans"
application plan requirements of section 8.5.I(d),an_application plan in the NMD:
the following are required elements of the gcncral
development plan:
b.The gencral allocation of uses to each block Deleted Information is
in terms of residential,commercial,duplicated elsewhere
industrial, institutional,amenities,parks,
recrcational facilities open to the public,and
any other use category proposed by the
applicant and which complies with the
reQuirements of section 20A.S.
c.The location of proposed green spaces,Moved Cleanup
amenities,conselVation areas or preservation
areas,as orovided in section 20A.9.
d.l3uilding footprints or graphic representations Moved Cleanup
of central features or major elements that arc
essential to the design of the development,
shown at the block level.
I'lan contcnts from Section 8 reiterated,except 1.a._The general location of proposed Clarification/e leanup
where requirements are in excess of Section 8.streets,alley-s...sidewalk~and pedestrjan-paths;
b.Thc locatioJLOf proposed green spaces,
amenities....£.ollscrvation arcas or prescrvation area~,lIS,
proYided in sectioll.2QA.2;
c.J..conceptual lot lay-out;
d.__Conceptual gradingQopogwphy IIsinglbe
cotlnty'g~graphic informatioruystem or better
topographic information supplcmentcd where necessary
by spot clevations and arcas of the site where existing
~Iopes are twenty-{iyc (~percent or greatcr;
e TvnicaLslreclcross-scclions 10 show
42 A lTACHM ENT C
proportions.scale.and streetscape.which.alternatively.
may be provided in the code of development:
f.Any proposed connections to existing and
proposed streets.as well as proposed thoroughfares
shown on the comprehensive plan:
a The general lay-out for the water and sewerO'
systems.conceptual storm water management.and a
conceptual mitigation plan:and
h.The location of central features or maior
elements within the development essential to the design
ofthe development.such as building envelopes.major
employment areas.parking areas and structures.civic
areas.parks.open space.green spaces.amenities and
recreation areas.
20A.S.Codes of A code of development shall establish the A code of development shall establish the unifying Establish standard
Development unifying design guidelines,the specific design guidelines,the specific regulations for the format for ease of
regulations for the district,and the use district,and the use characteristics of each block;review and
characteristics of each block;provide for certainty provide for certainty in the location of and appearance administration
in the location of and appearance of central of central features,and the permitted uses in the district;
features,and the permitted uses in the district;and and provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and
provide a flexible range of a mix of uses and densities.Any substantive or procedural requirement of
densities.To satisfy these requirements,each this chapter shall apply to an NMD unless the subject
code of development shall establish:matter is expressly addressed in the code of
development.Each code of development shall be in a
form required or otherwise approved by the director of
planning.To satisfy these requirements,each code of
development shall establish:
b.The amount of developed square footage b.The amount of developed square footage Cleanup
proposed,delineated for the entire NMD and by proposed,delineated for the entire NMD and by block
block by use,amenity,streets and lot coverage.by use,and amenity.The developed square footage may
The developed square footage may be expressed be expressed as a proposed range of square footage.
as a proposed range of square footage.
c.The maximum residential densities,as c.The maximum number of residential dwelling Removal of extraneous
provided in section 20A.7,and the maximum units.dwelling units by type.and delineating at least information.
number of residential units for individual two (2)housing types,as provided in section 20A.8.
residential land use categories and mixed-use
categories,delineating at least two (2)housing
types,as provided in section 20A.8.
d.The amount of land area devoted to green d.The amount of land area and percentage of Clarification
space and amenities,as provided in section 20A.9.aross acreaae devoted to green space and amenities,as
43 ATTACHMENT C
provided in section 20A.9.
g.ArchiteclUral and landscape standards that g.Architectural standards that will apply in the Cleanup to separate
will apply in thc NMD,which shall address the NMD,which shall address the following:landscape requirements
following:from architectural
standards.
I.The form,massing,and proponions of I.The form,massing,and proponions of structures Deleted items do not
structures;which may bc provided througjUlllistrations;relale specifically 10 Ihe
2.Architeclural styles;F:wade treatments:goals of the
J.Materials,colors,and textures;The preservation of historic structures,sites,and Neighborhood Model.
4.Roof fonn and pitch;archeological siles identified by the Virginia
s.Architectural ornamentation Depanment of Historic Resources;and
6.Falj:ade treatments,including window and 4.Architectural st)'ks...malerials •.m.locs....and textures if
door openings;these clements are detenninedjQhe nec_cssan-in
7.L3ndscape treatments;and order for a p(oP9sCd dl~.YelopmenuQ.he compatible
8.The preservation of historic stmctures,with its contig!,!ous devcJol2£Q surroundin~
sites,and archeological sites identified
by the Virginia Depanment of Historic
Resources.
d.7.Landscape treatments;g.Landscape treatments whereJandsc_apjn&.!!l addition Clarilication
10 that (cclUir:cd in Section..32 is lJI"ooosed.
h.Preliminary lot tay-oul.Remove Information is
dUI)licated elsewhere
I.For each block:I.For each block:Clari licat ion/cleanup
I.The range of uses permitted on the block 2.Build-to lincs or (anill,which arc lhe required
by right and by special usc permit;distance from the right-of4way to a structure;
2.All requirements and restrictions 3.Minimum and maximum lot dimensions;
associated with each usc delineated in 4.b.1inirnum nUlllbet..oLstoric!Land maximum
paragraph (iX I);building heights;
3.Build-to lines,which are the required s.Location of sidewalks and pedestrian paths;
dislance from the right-of-way to a 6.Acre~ge dcyoted to and characJeristics of green
structure;space,amenities.and [~cational areas and
4.Minimum and maximum lot and yard facilities as rcquired 12Y sectiQn_ti6;
dimensions;7.Location,acreagc and cbaraclcrislics of
s.Maximum building heights;conscrvation arcas and preservation areas as
6.Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations;defined ilucctiol\.3....l,if applicable;
7.Green space and amenities;8.LocaliolLof parking arcas;
8.Conservation areas and preservation 9 Localion •.,]creage and characJeristics or civic
areas,if applicable;spaccs,which are public areas for cOllllllunity or
9.Parking areas;eivic activities (e.g ..libraries and their associated
10.Civic spaccs,which are Dublic areas for yards.schools and olaces of worshio);
44 AlTACHMENT C
community or civic activities (e.g.,
libraries and their associated yards,
schools and olaces of worshi~);
20A.6.I'ermilled Uses The following uses shall be pennined in an NMD,The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD,Clarification about
subject to the regulations in this section and subjcct to the regulations in this section and section 8,what is and isn't by-
section 8.the approved plan and code of the approved application plan and code of development.right in the Code of
development,and the accepted proffers:and the accepted proITers:Development .
a.By right uses.The following uses arc a.By right uses.The following uses are pennined
permilled by right:by right jfthe usc is expressly identified as a by right
I.Each use allowed by right or by special usejnJhe code ofdeveloplllellt or if the usc is permitted
usc penn it in any other zoning district,by a detenninotion by the zoningadminislmtor pursuant
except for those uses allowed only by special ,1Qsection 8.S.S.2(£}(JJ:
usc permit delineated in subsection (b)
provided that the lise is identified in the I.Each usc allowed by right or by special use
approved code of development.permit in any other zoning district.except for those uses
allowed only by special use permit delineated in
subsection~(b)(l)and (\;0(1);provided that the usc is
identified in the approved code of development.
~y ~'Peci{llllse permit.The following uses arc b.By spec;alilse permit.The following uses arc Allowing a future usc
permitted by special use permit:permilled by special usc permit ir the uscjs_expressly'by special use pennit
identified as lise permined by special lise permitjluhe allows for conditions to
code oLde\,:e!oplllent:be applied in the future
that may not be
I.E.1eh lise allowed by rjght or by special usc anticipated during the
permit in any other :mningdistricl.rezoning.
20 A.7 Residential b.The gross residential density shall be b.The gross residential density shall be measured in Corrects the error in the
DensilY measured in dwelling units per acre and dwelling units per acre and calculated by dividing fonnula as currently
calculated by laking the gross acreagc of the the proposed number of d~\fellin&...!!!!itsiluhe stated.
district divided by the proposed number of proposed diSlriet by the g[oss acreage o[the
dwelling units in the proposed district.district.
Sec.20A.9 Green I.For areas shown in the land use clement I.For areas shown in the land usc clement of the Cleanup and
spaces,amenities,of the comprehensive plan as neighborhood comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residenlial,clarification
conservat ion areas and density residential,urban density residential,urban density residential,transitional,neighborhood
preservation areos transitional,neighborhood service,community service,community service,or office service,the area
service,or office service,the area devoled to devoted to green space shall be at least twenty percent
green space shall be al least twenty percent (20%)(20%)of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be
of the gross acrcogc orthe site.[czoned.
2.For areas shown in the land use element 2.For areas shown in the land usc c1emenl of the
45 ATTACHMENTC
Sec.20A.10 Streets
ofthe comprehensive plan as regional service,
office regional or industrial service,the area
devoted to green space shall be at least fifteen
percent (15%)of the gross acreage ofthe site.
3.For areas having a land use designation
not addressed in paragraphs (a)(l)and (a)(2),the
recommendations of the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the
minimum area devoted to green space.
b.Amenities.The minimum area devoted to
amenities is as follows:
I.For areas shown in the land use element of
the comprehensive plan as neighborhood density
residential,urban density residential,
neighborhood service,and community service,the
area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty
percent (20%)of the gross acreage of the site.
2.For areas shown in the land use element
of the comprehensive plan as regional service,
office service,office regional service or industrial
service,the area devoted to amenities shall be at
least ten percent (10%)of the gross acreage of the
site.
3.For areas having a land use designation
not addressed in paragraphs (b)(I)and (b)(2),the
recommendations of the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the
minimum area devoted to amenities.
Each street within an NMD shall meet the street
standards fQr a traditiQnal neighborhood
develQpment established by the department Qf
engineering and public works.
comprehensive plan as regional service,office regional
or industrial service,the area devoted to green space
shall be at least fifteen percent (15%)of the gross
acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
3.For areas having a land use designation not
addressed in subsections (a)(I)and (a)(2),the
recommendations of the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum
area devoted to green space.
b.Amenities.The minimum area devoted to
amenities is as follows:
1.For areas shown in the land use element of the
comprehensive plan as neighborhood density residential,
urban density residential,neighborhood service,and
community service,the area devoted to amenities shall
be at least twenty percent (20%)of the gross acreage of
the ~proposed to be rezoned.
2.For areas shown in the land use element of the
comprehensive plan as regional service,office service,
office regional service or industrial service,the area
devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (l0%)
of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
3.For areas having a land use designation not
addressed in subsectiQns (b)(1)and (b )(2),the
recQmmendatiQns Qfthe applicable provisions Qfthe
comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum
area devQted tQ amenities.
Each street within an NMD shall meet the street I Cleanup
standards fQr a traditional neighbQrhoQd develQpment
established by the department cQmmunity develQpment.
46 ATT ACHMENT C
WI LLIAM S MULLEN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
eil Williamson
Valerie Long
February 17,2009
Proposed Modifications to Planned District Regulations
Here are my suggested comments to the proposed ordinance revisions that were attached to the
staff report for the Planning Commission meeting tonight.Since I will not be able to attend the
meeting,I appreciate your bringing them to the staff and Commission's attention:
I.Section 8.5.5.2.I think this is a reasonable approach to addressing the "old zoning"issue.
But it is important that a clause be added to this section that affirmatively states that an approved
Application Plan constitutes a "significant governmental act"for purposes of the vesting statute.
This was included in the chart that was part of the staff report for the July 29 th PC work session.
We raised this issue at the December 9th PC meeting,but it does not appear it was included in the
most recent draft.The following language needs to be inserted:"For purposes of this Section,
an approved application plan is a significant governmental act for purposes of Virginia Code
Section 15.2-2307."
2.Section 8.S.S.2.c.l:I like the flexibility that this section provides in allowing the Zoning
Administrator some additional discretion (or really just clarifying her existing discretion).
3.Section 8.S.S.3.a:I suggest a new subsection 7 be added that is a "catch all"category-
changes that the Planning Director,Zoning Administrator and others agree makes sense,but that
cannot be fit into one of the 6 categories of permitted changes.Perhaps something such as
"Other changes that the Planning Director deems reasonable."This flexibility would still be
subject to the provisions of subparagraph 8.5.S.3.d,which requires that all changes be "in general
accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application."
4.Section 8.S.S.3.d(2)-suggest that the Commission consider whether it would be appropriate
to permit a minor increase in density or intensity provided that the Planning Director determines
that such an increase would not have an adverse impact on traffic or other issues.There may be
a change that would permit an additional dwelling unit or two,or a slightly larger building that
someone might deem an improvement or at least a nominal change with no impact,and/or that
would more efficiently utilize the development area land (achieve densities closer to what is
contemplated by the Land Use Plan),and the Director might want that flexibility and discretion
to approve a very minor increase.
47
ATTACHMENTD
5.Section 8.5.5.4:If I understand this section correctly,it changes the ability to obtain a mass
grading pennit prior to approval of final site plan if the Planning Director detennines that the
grading plan that was approved as part of the zoning approval does not have enough detail.If
that is the case it creates an "all or nothing"situation;the developer has to wail until final site
plan approval (or tentative final site plan approval which takes nearly as long)before any
grading can begin.This is a huge change and could cripple a project.I suggest including a
provision that allows the developer to amend the grading plan in the interim period to provide
one with more detail as required by the Director.This avoids an all or nothing situation,and also
seems to address the need for more detail.
6.Section 20A.4.f:Add the words '"Any proposed"'at the beginning of this section.There may
be existing and proposed streets to which it would not be appropriate to propose or make
connections (such as into an established neighborhood where no such connection was ever
contemplated).These arc the types of issues that should be discussed and analyzed as part of the
rezoning process,and it should not be something that would cause an application to be deemed
incomplete just because the connections were 110t shown on the proposed plan.
7.Section 20A.6.a.At the end of this section,add the following:"...or if the use is permitted
by a determination of the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 8.5.5.2.c.1 (this refers back
to my paragraph 2 above).Without this change,it seems that Section 8.5.5.2.c.l grants some
Oexibility/discretion to the Administrator,but then arguably takes it away again in Section
20.A.6.I may be mistaken,but that is how I interpret this issue.
48
ATTACHMENT D
I~ccommcndcd Ch~lngcs from County Altornc)"s Officc
ZTA 08-02
Planning Commission Public Hcaring
Februal)'17,2009
•Section 8.5.5.2(a):Add a reference to Virginia Code 15.2-2297 right before the
reference to Virginia Code 15.2·2307.Reason:For a pre-1980 PO,vested rights
could have accrued under what is now Virginia Code 15.2-2297,which was the
proffer enabling legislation applicable to Albemarle County from July I,1978
until Virginia Code 15.2·2298 was adopted in the 1980's.
•Section 8.5.5.5(b):Clarify by adding lO the first pan of the new text that the site
plan or subdivision plat was valid "at the time the zoning map amendment was
approved ..."Reason:Owner should not rely on a plan or plat that was no longer
valid at the time of the zoning map change:owner can rely on a plan or plat as the
application plan ifit was valid at the time of the zoning map change,even ifit
later expired.
•Section 8.6(a):In the next to last line after the clause pertaining to a change to a
proffer or regulation in a code of development,add a clause stating that when the
amendment might change an owner's obligations under a proffer or regulation in
a code of development (without changing the proffer/regulation itself)that owner
must be an applicant.
49
ATTACHME TE
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 14, 2009
C onsent Agenda
ZTA200900005 Amend Zoning Ordinance Sections relating to Enforcement and Administration Resolution
of Intent (Rob H eide)
ZTA200900002 Beauty/Barber Shops in CO District; Towing and Body Shops in H I D istrict – Resolution of
Intent
(Elaine Echols)
ZTA 200800002 PD C hanges
(Elaine Echols)
Mr. Loach asked if any C ommissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. He noted that Mr. Franco
has ask ed to make a statement to be attached to the record going to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Franco said that he would be happy to move the ZTA forward with the follow ing statement to be attached to the
record for ZTA20080002 PD Changes .
“I’m coming into this process relatively late as a Planning Commissioner. While I believe that there are good
aspects to the PD ZTA, I question if w e are going far enough to ensure that the purposes of the planned
development and neighborhood model form of dev elopment are ac hieved. Specifically, I see a c onflict between
what is required in the Code of D evelopments and what w e allow to be varied, should new law s and regulations
mak e it difficult or impossible to ex ecute portions of an application plan.
In our own comprehens ive planning effects, we are relying on new projects to construct needed improvements
to the public infrastructure and to proffer community goals such as affordable housing. Once we approve a
rezoning, it is in the public’s best interest to include a variation proc ess which allow s projects to adjus t to new
regulations and policies, while protecting the purpose and intent of the approved plan. This process does not
have to be at staff level.
If we don’t provide for such a variation, we should continue to evaluate the level of detail that we require during
the rez oning proces s.
W e dealt w ith this at a late hour two meetings ago; I have heard from people that w ere not able to stay for that
item. I would like to leave this item on the consent agenda, but would like to hear the desires of the rest of the
Commission. I am happy to mov e this item forward with the expec tation that there will be more discussion at
the board level.”
Mr. Morris said that he would prefer to leave the ZTA20080002 PD c hanges on the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approv al of the consent agenda w ith Mr. Franc o’s
statement to be attached to the recommendation to the Board on ZTA20082 PD Changes.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Strucko and J oseph were abs ent)
Mr. Loach noted that the c onsent agenda was approved
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 24, 2009
W ork Session:
ZTA200800003 Planned Development Changes
Amend the following sec tions of C hapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code: 3.1, Definitions, to amend and
delete sev eral definitions ; 8.2, Relation of planned dev elopment regulations to other z oning regulations, to change
section heading, to c larify the regulations applicable to planned developments ("PD"), to require that waivers and
modifications be expres sly granted, and to reorganize the section; 8.3, Planned dev elopment defined, to revise the
definition of "planned development"; 8.5.1, Applications and documents to be submitted, to revise the standards and
information accompanying an application to establish a PD district; 8.5.2, Preapplication conferenc es, to revise the
parties in a preapplication conference; 8.5.3, Review and recommendation by the planning commission,, to rev ise
the matters considered by the planning commission in ac ting on an application for a PD district; 8.5.4, Review and
action by the board of supervisors, to change section heading and to clarify the documents applicable to a PD upon
approval of the PD rezoning; 8.5.5, Final site plans and subdivis ion plats, to c hange section heading; 8.5.5.1,
Contents of site plans and subdivision plats , to revise a crossreference; 8.5.5.2, Review of s ite plans and
subdivision plats, to provide that when subdivision plats and site plans are reviewed, they shall be reviewed for
compliance as follow s: (a) if the PD district was established on or before December 10, 1980, the zoning and
subdivision regulations c urrently in effect apply unles s vested rights are established; (b) if the PD distric t w as
established after December 10, 1980, at the option of the dev eloper, the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect
when the PD district was established or those currently in effect apply, provided that if the developer elects the
former, s ix delineated subjects of regulation are not s o grandfathered and the developer must comply with current
regulations pertaining to those 6 subjects unless vested rights are established; to revise the zoning administrator's
and direc tor of planning's review for compliance, to define "applicable regulations," and to declare that vested rights
are not impaired; 8.5.5.3, Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development, to revise the
provisions of a plan, code or s tandard the director of planning may vary, and to authorize the director to require that
specified information be provided; 8.5.5.4, Building permits and eros ion and sediment c ontrol permits, to rev ise
references to county officers and bodies and to clarify other clauses; 8.5.5.5, Site plan and subdivision plat
requirements for planned development zoning districts established w ithout an application or application plan, to
change section heading and to clarify the procedure and requirements for review ing a site plan or subdivision plat
where there was no application plan when the PD dis tric t was established; 8.6, Amendments to planned
development districts, to revise and ex pand the procedure to amend a PD district by establishing requirements for
who is an eligible applicant, submitting a map if the rezoning affects less than the entire district, notice, and factors
considered during review ; 20A.3, Application requirements; required doc uments and information, to change reference
from "general development plan" to "application plan"; 20A.4, General development plans, to change section heading
and the required elements of an application plan in a neighborhood model district (hereinafter, NMD"); 20A.5, Codes
of development, to clarify that any subs tantive or procedural requirement of the Zoning Ordinance applies in an NMD
unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development (hereinafter, the "code"), to expres sly
require that the code be in a form required or approved by the director of planning, to change the required elements of
a code, and to limit the applicable architectural standards in preexisting codes to only the new required elements
unless determined to be key features; 20A.6, Permitted uses, to c hange a reference from "general development
plan" to "application plan" and to allow a code to prov ide that any us e allow ed by right or by special use permit in
any other z oning district be a use allowed by special use permit in an N MD; 20A.7, Residential density , to correc tly
state the formula for c alculating res idential density in an NMD; 20A.9, Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas
and preservation areas, to c hange references from "site area" to the "area proposed to be rezoned" when calculating
the areas of green s pac es and amenities; and 20A.10, Streets , to change a reference from "department of
engineering and public works " to the "department of community development." A copy of the full text of the
ordinanc e is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire R oad, C harlottes ville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented a Pow erPoint presentation and summarized the s taff report. (See PowerPoint Presentation)
She noted that the last work session was held on December 9, 2008. On February 10, 2009 the Planning
Commis sion held a public hearing. At that public hearing there w ere some comments that came at the end and the
Commis sion w anted to have some time to look at them before taking action on this particular zoning text
amendment. Ms. Ec hols reminded the Commis sion that the propos ed amendment is about clarifications, c lean ups,
change of titles, vesting, the parking study timing and architecture.
Ms. Echols said that at the public hearing there were comments that came in from Valerie Long. Staff has
incorporated her comments into the proposed draft where they agree with Ms. Long’s comments. There were
additional comments from the County Engineer related to clarification which have also been incorporated. Then
there w ere s ome additional changes from the County Attorney. Ms. Echols briefly reviewed the c hanges in the
amendment before the C ommission. The changes were noted as follows:
Added to Section 8.5.5.2 Water Protection Ordinance applies regardless of w hen the applic ation plan w as
approved
Added to Section 8.5.5.2.b. – Application plans approved after March 19, 2003 is considered “significant
governmental ac ts”. Ms Echols said that this was half of what Ms. Long as ked for staff to do.
Added to Section 8.5.5.2.c – The County Engineer determines conformity of grading and road plans . Ms.
Ec hols said that if a conceptual grading plan has been provided with a Planned Development application,
after a rezoning oc curs an applic ant can get an early grading permit. As a rule the County doesn’t allow any
k ind of grading until a site plan has been approved. This is one of the incentives that the County provides
for Planned D istricts. W hat has been added in this section is the County Engineer’s role. The County
Engineer has always been involv ed in making the determination for conformity of an early grading plan to the
c onceptual grading plan submitted w ith the rezoning, but staff just clarified how it works.
Added to Section 8.5.5.3. – Variations – The C ounty Engineer recommends to the Planning Director
w hether changes in stormwater management and disturbance of conservation areas should be approved.
The s ame is true with v ariations that deal w ith anything such as storm water management. The new
s ection has been added to clarify the County Engineer’s role. For clarification, Ms. Echols told the
C ommission that in Neighborhood Model D istricts and Planned Districts there are preserv ation areas and
c onservation areas. Preservation areas are “do not disturb” zones. Cons erv ation areas are “dis turb w ith
c are” areas. The County Engineer is the one w ho would determine what needs to be disturbed in the
c onservation areas and advis e on the care that needs to be tak en with that dis turbance.
Added to Section 8.5.5.4.b.and c Clarifies County Engineer involvement in early grading permits.
Readded option to Section 20.a.3. – Parking Study
Added to Section 20A.6.a – Clarifies how Zoning Administrator determines if use is allow ed in N MD
Added to Section 20A.f.4 – new words , “any proposed” to “connections” in requirements for an application
plan. The ordinance currently says “connections to existing s treets.” Ms. Long asked for the change due
to the potential ambiguity of the requirement.
Ms. Echols told the Commission of the reques ted changes not included with the proposed amendment w here were
requested by Ms. Long:
Planned districts approved between 1980 and March 19, 2003 be considered as “signific ant governmental
acts” Because many of the application plans betw een those dates were very vague, staff felt that a
s ignificant gov ernmental act should be something that came after March 19, 2003.
Provision for and applicant to submit an “interim” grading plan if no grading plan had been submitted with a
rezoning. Ms. Long had s uggested that an “interim” grading plan be allowed even if a conceptual grading
plan had not been provided with a rezoning to a Planned Dis trict. Becaus e it was a Planned District they
c ould provide a grading plan that looked like it conformed to the application plan. Ms. Echols said that the
C ounty’s engineers felt like that was leaving the door open for any kind of site work because there might not
be a follow up site plan for many y ears. Therefore, the engineers were not comfortable with adding this
particular provision.
Ability for Planning Director to approve any other variations that he/s he considered “reasonable” and adding
to the list of variations that the Planning Director w as authorized to approv e, a “catch all” category. Ms.
Ec hols said that this starts to get into the gray area of what is a rezoning and what is not a rezoning. Ms.
Ec hols s aid that the Planning Director was not comfortable with having a “catch all” category without any
parameters, which is w hy that was not included. The County Attorney was also not comfortable w ith it.
Ability for PC or staff to approve increases in density beyond what was approved by BOS. Staff is not
allowed to adminis tratively change the density by state law.
Ms. Echols reiterated that the staff has incorporated the changes that they thought were appropriate. Staff has
address ed the recommended changes that they have not incorporated. The C ommission has not seen one set of
comments received from Morgan Butler w ith Southern Environmental Law Center. Mr. Butler has been in contact
with Greg Kamptner about some of the language and comments about subdivision regulations. There is a reference
to subdiv ision regulations included in this amendment. They hav e been communicating back and forth on the
mechanics of how all of that works in the legal framework.
Ms. Ec hols noted that Morgan Butler had another c omment regarding lands caping that staff believes has been
resolved. Mr. Butler asked if landsc aping standards in a Code of D evelopment that had been previously approv ed
would remain. Ms. Echols said she had told Mr. Butler that the ordinance clarified that only landscaping beyond what
is required in the zoning ordinance should be in a Code of D evelopment. Approved projects w ith landscaping in
excess of the current requirements would remain in those Codes.
Ms. Echols said that staff recommends approval of the ordinanc e as it s tands. There might be tiny tw eaks that
generally happen after this occurs bec aus e the County Attorney’s Office might find s omething else.
Mr. Struck o invited questions from the C ommission.
Mr. Edgerton asked the legal meaning of the term “significant governmental ac ts”, w hich was referenced by Valerie
Long.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it was in the c ontext of the State statute that confers vested rights on certain types of land
use dec isions, which are certain proffered rezonings that specify use or density, special use permits, preliminary and
final subdivision plats and site plans. It is an open ended list. What the Code says is significant governmental ac ts
includes what he just listed, and other types of approvals as well.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the designation staff is recommending relates to any application plan approved after March 19,
2003 or the identification of that is being a significant governmental act. He asked if that guarantees that the
applicant has a vested right.
Mr. Greg replied no, that is only the first of three elements that a land owner needs to establish in order to obtain
vested rights. That just gets them in the door.
Mr. Loach said that the time frame from 1980 to 2003 if there was a Planned Development is considered a
significant act by virtue of that time frame.
Mr. Kamptner replied no. The Marc h 19, 2003 date is important because that is the date w hen the Planned
Development regulations were amended and when the Neighborhood Model regulations were adopted. That is the
demarc ation line where they are confident that the level of specificity that is contained in application plans is pretty
substantial. The plans before then partic ularly as they go farther back in time get les s and less spec ific. Staff w as
not comfortable saying those early plans should be considered as significant governmental acts. Mr. Kamptner s aid
it is poss ible that there may be a pre2003 rezoning that had a plan where the application plan is not sufficient to
constitute a signific ant governmental act. But there may be a proffer that goes along with the plan that specifies a
specific use or a specific dens ity. So a pre2003 application plan may get into the door that way . J ust in the last
couple of w eeks there has been a Virginia Supreme C ourt decision in the town of Blac ksburg, whic h is indicated that
in order for an act to be considered to be s ignificant governmental act specificity is required. So that further bolsters
our comfort that the Marc h 19, 2003 demarcation line is appropriate if they are going to go that route.
Mr. Franco asked if they have a list of what fell out betw een 12101980 and 3192003. H e as ked if they have a list
of the planned developments that were approved during that period of time.
Ms. Echols replied that staff has a lit of properties that have particular zonings on them and it is in an earlier staff
report. She did not have the list with her right now. There were questions about three of the projects listed on the
list of old ones in terms of w hether or not they had ev er been acted on.
Mr. Franco said that he remembered the discussion about the pre1980 ones. He thought that thos e were the three
projects . But since that dis cus sion they have moved this line up to 2003 now. He was trying to understand what
the plans are that fall into that range now.
Mr. Kamptner noted that he might be misunderstanding what this new language does . The grandfathering provisions
have not changed from the prior version. What Valerie Long had ask ed for was that they consider that Planned
Developments that have been approved that the application plans be deemed significant governmental ac ts. So
they have said that the ones after March 19, 2003 they will deem those to be significant governmental acts . But the
grandfathering provisions in 8.5.5.2 have not changed substantially in the last 2 or 3 iterations of the recommended
ordinanc e. There are still the pre 1980 applications that need to establish vested rights. Everything from 1980 on is
allowed to proceed since they are grandfathered except for the 6 spec ific types of regulations.
Mr. Franco said that is w hat he was try ing to unders tand. He knows that there were a lot of Planned Developments
that came forw ard in the late 90’s that he was not really sure when they go approved. As the Neighborhood Model
was being developed some of the requirements of that were being introduced to regular Planned Dev elopments that
were moving forward during that period of time. So he was try ing to unders tand if there w ere any of those that are
undeveloped that are s till s itting there that might be affected by how they are approaching this thing.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not think that there are, but s he would have to go back and c heck them. From her
memory, anything that was rez oned with N eighborhood Model principles prior to March 19, 2003 has been ac ted on.
Mr. Franco said that he understood that, but the amendment indicates that post March 19, 2003 plans were getting
preference. He was just try ing to make sure that there are not things that w ere in 2002 that might deserve that
same preference. Without know ing which projects were on the list he could not tell.
Mr. Edgerton said that if he heard Mr. Kamptner correctly, some plans betw een 1980 and 2003 could be considered
significant governmental acts if their approval was specific enough.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that ev ery owner of a Planned Development project has the ability to es tablish vested
rights. That is required by State law and the County can’t impinge on that. Right now every Planned D evelopment
is grandfathered as far as subdivision and z oning regulations are concerned. The ordinance amendment has s aid
that pre1980 Planned Developments are no longer grandfathered and need to es tablish vested rights in order to
proceed under the old regulations rather than the current ones. Everything from 1980 forward is grandfathered w ith
the exception of the six specific types of regulations w here they can establish vested rights if they chose to. They
have added this additional provision that what they are saying that any application plan that w as approved after the
March 19, 2003 date w ill be considered a significant gov ernmental act, which is the first step towards establishing
vested rights. Us ually it is the lapse of time that is problematic for the serious ves ted rights claim. They have to
diligently pursue their approval. The cas e law unfortunately is all over the board. A 50 year delay is obviously not
diligent pursuit. One, two up to five years or even longer than that factoring in economic conditions may be
considered diligent pursuit. This provis ion is an additional protection for the owners of the Planned Developments.
Mr. Franco said that he understands that. But, it is a condition that ex ists today. What they really are doing is
keeping post 2003 in the same condition that they have today w hether they are grandfathered and removing some of
the protec tion that exists for 1980 to 2003.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, that actually the Planned D evelopments approved between 1980 and the present hav e the
same protections as they do under the current regulations except for the six specific areas. In his email to Morgan
Butler, Mr. Kamptner said this particular type of regulation needs to be amended ev ery several years because things
are changing and certain projects are becoming more and more out of compliance with the regulations. This
particular prov ision substantially has not c hanged since 1980. It is basically the same. It has been reorganized a
little bit, but substantially it is the same provision that was adopted on 12/10/1980.
Ms. Joseph said that on page 17 it talks about the zoning administrator to determine the uses. They just talk about
commercial uses in the Neighborhood Model. She w as wondering if some other us es besides commercial should be
included in the list. For example, she wondered if light industrial in employment centers could be inc luded.
Ms. Echols noted that was a very good c all and agreed.
Mr. Kamptner said that this type of regulation exists as the introductory sec tion to the commercial districts where
the zoning administrator has the authority. H e noted that the zoning administrator does not hav e s imilar authority for
industrial. It is just the c ommercial, whic h is why it is limited to commercial.
Ms. Echols asked Mr. Kamptner if the proposed changes needed to be limited to commercial uses.
Mr. Kamptner replied no.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they c ross out the word “commercial” so that it said “By right in a conventional zoning
district”.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that C1, C O and HC are all conv entional districts. Highway Commercial, C ommercial Office
and Light Industrial are basically the non planned dis tric ts.
Ms. Joseph asked if the z oning administrator would include indus trial uses w ith her ability to make determinations
about c ommercial uses .
Ms. Echols replied that s he would not think so. She thought that Mr. Kamptner could change the language to be
more inclusive of other uses. . She said this w ould be partic ularly relevant where the Plac es29 Plan is
recommending research and development and flex s pace. Different types of things that might not be explic itly
stated, but are similar to other kinds of us es could be appropriate in a particular Neighborhood Model District.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that if the Planning C ommission wanted broader language staff c ould make sure that they get
that in for the Board.
Ms. Porterfield noted in the same sec tion going down to visual impacts s he wondered with reference to the concerns
that came up with the Vess application that they should add “visual, auditory and olfactory impacts ”. She said those
issues were big league problems in the Vess propos al. It w as not just visual problems but taking the other sens es
into consideration. She asked if adding these words is possible or if staff or the C ommission sees the additional
words as useful.
Ms. Echols replied that s he thought it c ould be useful and asked if it was something the Planning Commiss ion
wanted to add. She as ked Mr. Kamptner if he could see any issue w ith adding that type of language.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, but he w ould defer to staff on whether or not any of those things are included in operational
characteris tics that are right before visual impacts.
Mr. C ilimberg replied that they probably are. But, if they w anted to be sure that they w ere covering those other
impacts then they could add it.
Mr. Franco said that at one point there w as a catchall in the propos ed amendment that gave the Director of
Planning the ability to permit minor modification of a plan that might be necessitated for conformance to the current
ordinanc e. H e asked if that was still in there somewhere. For ins tance, if the Water Protection Ordinanc e or one of
these s ix things kicks in that requires changes to the plan.
Ms. Elaine noted that language previously w as in the variations section. After further sc rutiny by the County
Attorney ’s Office, staff did not feel as comfortable having that language in there.
Mr. Franco asked if variations would be available only for the things that are listed in the proposed amendment.
Ms. Echols replied that is correct.
Mr. C ilimberg said that #6 in the variations list does get in to some of that for storm water management, land
disturbance including disturbance within c onservation areas.
Mr. Franco said that he was not sure what he was looking for there that might c hange, but he can see changes
especially in those six items in the Water Protection being s omething that c ould create big changes to the
application plan.
Ms. Echols said that it is only so far one could go without a rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg s aid that there was some general conc ern, but the W ater Protection Ordinance is going to basically
supersede. The W PO is going to take away potentially from what could be developed on a plan. That does not
require a v ariation to happen.
Mr. Franco said that they were not worried about elimination of developable areas shown on the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they may have to be eliminated due to other ordinance provisions then that can happen. He
believed that the plan does not have to be rezoned basic ally to do that.
Mr. Kamptner said that up until now he was not aware that the Water Protection Ordinance when applied had
affected Planned Dev elopment or what has been shown on an application plan to a significant degree. If there w as
a circumstance where it did materially change they need to look at that and evaluate it on a c ase by cas e bas is as
to the extent to which the two regulations are going to mesh together.
Ms. Echols said that she w as only aware of two ins tances w hen the W ater Protection Ordinanc e affected an
application plan and in those tw o instances it w as because the applicant did not provide enough environmental
information with their application plan. W hen the site plan or a subdivision plat was being prepared, the ow ners found
streams that had been there all along, just not identified w ith the application plan. All of a sudden, a stream buffer
had to be applied to the streams, in which case the applicant had to do some shifting. In one case, staff was able
to use the existing language of the v ariation to deal w ith the modification to the plan. She w as not sure if the other
case has been finished. But it comes back to the question of the due diligence at the very beginning in mak ing
sure that developers k now what land they are dealing with before bringing in a plan for development.
Mr. Franco said that he had this funny hat on now . He said he was aware of projects that have been approv ed
where s taff w as aware of streams and creeks and said that interconnections and intensity to development w as more
important than protecting those resources in the development area. Current staff in charge of the W PO does n’t
necessarily agree with that. So where are they going to put that applicant in the future.
Ms. Echols s aid that these kinds of determinations take place on a c ase by case basis and where a variation is
required staff will try to s ort through that at the administrative level.
Mr. C ilimberg said that he did not think what Mr. Franco was talking about related to variations actually. Mr.
Cilimberg said it is about a level of dev elopment shown on an application plan that would hav e been under review at
the time of the zoning as the maximum area of development that could occur and then the applic ation of ordinance
provisions ends up removing the potential of developing some of that area or making that interconnection. He did
not think that in and of itself is kic king in a variation. At public hearings he had told the Board of Supervisors that
some of which is shown as being for development on an application plan may have to be modified based on
regulations such as critical slope provisions that they did not see in the original review . They can’t get down to all of
those details sometimes in the review of a rezoning or s torm water facilities that might be necessary .
Mr. Franco asked if the Water Protection Ordinance supersedes everything.
Mr. Kamptner said that superseding might not be the best way to characteriz e it. It operates and exis ts
independently of the zoning regulations. Zoning regulations are also unique in that they apply to what is there at the
time. The Water Protection Ordinance can have retroactiv e effect when it kick s in. It applies to whatever is
happening on the property or whatever has previously been approved on the property. There are only certain things
that trigger its application.
Mr. Franc o noted for ex ample stream buffers there are sites that hav e been approved w here the stream buffers
rose. The W PO requires a 100’ buffer. The federal governed state would be as low as a 25’ buffer on the same
creek. But, all of a s udden if the 100’ buffer is applied the development area is changed. He thought that the W PO
gave the ability to work within that buffer. He questioned how that is going to get res olved for the applicant at that
point if staff says no that they c annot go in the buffer and the zoning does not protect them at that point in any k ind
of fashion.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that to the degree that the administrator for the WPO can reduc e buffers staff is going to look
for that in accordance with the zoning that was approved if it was show n in that area.
Mr. Franco asked if staff would encourage the applicant to reduce it.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it depends on w hether it can be.
Mr. Franco asked if it w as so case specific that it is hard to make a blanket statement.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if it w as shown on the plan it is giving staff the guidance of what they are expecting c an
happen as part of the development of the site. If there is discretion that can be exercised in how a particular
ordinanc e provision is applied in that cas e then if that discretion is to potentially allow a reduc tion in a buffer, as an
example, staff’s view of it going to be let’s make sure that reduction is permitting development that was approv ed
under the zoning. So it is not about varying the zoning really, but about how the particular ordinance provision is
being exercised. Staff cannot vary other ordinanc e provisions to achieve the zoning sinc e it is not the role of this
ordinanc e s ection. It is about varying the plan that w as approved in order to accommodate some changes that are
desired.
Mr. Franco said that he understood that. He noted that it is hard to predict w hat changes may be required when
they apply these outside ordinances to a plan. It made him nervous w ithout having some catchall ability to be
flexible in design. If an interconnection was important and now it is precluded by an ordinance then maybe that is a
simple one that is very doable. But if crossing the s tream means one could not develop a portion of the site and
they had a minimum dens ity that was now required how are they going to deal with that aspect.
Mr. Cilimberg said for a minimum density requirement for the whole development staff does not have that in terms of
number of units. They hav e it in terms of the low of floor of density.
Ms. Echols noted that one development has a minimum density requirement and ac reage would be a number.
Mr. C ilimberg noted that w as proffered, whic h was a different animal. This speak s to the application plan and w as
not about proffers.
Mr. Franco said that he did not know if it was proffered other than it c ame in as part of the code of development.
Ms. Jos eph asked Mr. Ron Higgins how the statement on page 21 (b), which was all underlined, about park ing
would be accomplished. It says the applicant can submit the parking information after the rezoning, which s he
agreed with. But the way it was w ritten if she wondered w hat she has to do to demonstrate to the s atisfaction of
the zoning administrator that the uses that may occ upy the buildings are not s ufficiently know at the time of the
zoning map amendment. She asked how an applicant would be able to do that except by saying they had no idea
who was going in there and they wanted this amount of parking,
Ron Higgins replied that this has come out of some projects where the code of development allowed so many
different types of uses. For example, if uses allowed include offices and restaurants, an applicant could end up w ith
a building that is all offic es or retail and offices.
Restaurants increase the parking requirements . If the applicant does the parking s tudies at the time of rezoning it
may be very different than what the reality is in the future
Ms. Joseph asked how she could demons trate that she did not know w hat is going on other than jus t say ing it at the
preliminary stage.
Mr. Higgins replied that he thought she was reading it w rong. It was s upposed to mean if at the rezoning stage the
applicant can demonstrate to our satisfaction that the uses are not sufficiently known, then the applic ant could just
wait until they do the preliminary site plan.
Ms. Joseph asked how she could demons trate that she did not know at the rezoning stage.
Mr. H iggins replied that she would show on the code of development and application plan that they did not know
which of the list of uses w ould be in the 4,000 square foot building, as an example. That is all an applicant would
have to do.
Ms. Joseph noted that the language seemed overpowering and made her think she w ould have to come in w ith all of
this information. She ques tioned how s he would be able to convince staff of this.
Ms. Echols asked if it was the desire of the Commission that language could be modified so it is not quite as
imposing.
Mr. Franco suggested that they say the applicant may do it later.
Mr. Higgins pointed out that if the applic ant says that is the case, then he w ould acc ept it. He felt that this is an
opportunity to simply say they do not have a detail layout of their floor plan and were going to do it at the site plan
stage. Staff tries to get the information early so they will have some idea about park ing.
Mr. Loac h asked if it ever occurs that even though staff and the applicant come to a meeting of the minds on the
uses the applicants still need more parking.
Mr. Higgins agreed. He noted that the applicant needs to be anticipating that. In the past he has had projec ts
where the applicant did a great study up front and needed 70 spaces. But w hen they put the project on the ground
they needed 90 spaces. At that point the applicant did not have room on the ground to put 90 s pac es. He has
always told people up front if they are thinking in those terms remember that they are limiting themselves. The
applicant essentially can eliminate s ome of the uses they can put in this building because they did not give
themselves enough room to grow the parking. That is the object staff is talking about here.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the language be tw eaked a little bit.
Ms. Porterfield asked on page 13, #1 w here they talk about historic s tructures and sites. She asked it this includes
cemeteries . She asked if staff could ask for cemeteries on the plans.
Ms. Ec hols replied that staff does not s pecifically ask for them, but the Commission should as sume that they are
going to be there because an applicant would have a lot of problem mov ing a cemetery .
Ms. Porterfield asked that staff just go ahead and ask for identification of cemeteries s o that people know that they
have to at least put them on the plan. That would als o help people who are in the historic preservation that are
interested in these old cemeteries in documentation. At least thos e persons would know that they are coming in on
a piece of property.
Ms. Porterfield as ked that on page 14 staff take the hyphen out of “layout”. She also said that at the bottom part
under the pre application conferences in the first line it says each applicant for a planned development shall and in
the nex t paragraph it say s each applic ant is encourage to use. She felt there was a big difference between shall and
encourage. If they want it then it should be shall. But if they don’t want it, then enc ouraged is fine.
Ms. Echols replied that in 8.5.2 it was saying that they have to attend a pre application c onference and you may or
may not do w hat staff recommends you to do.
Ms. Porterfield noted that w hen she read this she got the impression that she did not have to come if she did not
want to. She thought that staff wanted ev eryone to s how up.
Mr. C ilimberg suggested that it s ay that eac h applicant is encouraged to use the outc ome, direction or guidance of
the pre application conference process .
Ms. Porterfield agreed that it needed to make the applicant unders tand that it is a requirement of this to show up at
the pre application conference. She noted on page 15 #c under 8.5.3 it says the underlined addition including all
requests of w aivers or modifications. It sounded like they w ould have to approve the application with all the waivers
and modific ations. She questioned if it should read all or some so that there is the opportunity to drop some things
out. It s ounds like the c hoices are to approved every thing that is brought in, approv e changes that are going to be
made prior to Board of Supervisors as opposed to having them in what the C ommission sends on to the Board of
Supervisors or disapproval. On page 17 she was confused with #1 (b). They have all these things that are going to
apply to development districts that are established after D ecember 10, 1980. She asked if those items also apply to
anything in front of or earlier than December 10, 1980.
Ms. Echols replied that earlier it said that everything has to apply and everything before 1980 all the regulations
apply unless the applicant can establish a vesting. After 1980 these are the things that apply unless for some
reason there is some k ind of vested right that would not allow them to apply. It saying affirmatively they have to
abide by these regulations.
Ms. Porterfield said if they were before December 10, 1980 and can show ves ting these things do not apply. So
those people don’t have to.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that they would not have to anyw ay becaus e once they es tablish vested rights they were
allowed to develop.
Ms. Porterfield asked if on page 18 # (e) if the applicability of chapter 17 applies to the old zoning or pre December
10, 1980.
Mr. Kamptner replied y es it applies to the pre D ecember 10, 1980.
Ms. Porterfield noted under (a) under 8.5.5.3 #4 staff refers to arc hitectural standards and then they move to page 23
where they refer to arc hitectural s tyles in #4 and then in the underline follow ing that architectural s tandards. She
asked if they have a definition of both terms since she does not know the difference in s tyle versus standards.
Ms. Echols replied that standards would be the full set of the restrictions and the architectural styles are the spec ific
types of architecture like colonial.
Ms. Porterfield asked that staff make s ure that is clear.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Edgerton about the difference betw een “standards ” and “styles”.
Mr. Edgerton ex plained that one relates to “requirements” and the other relates to types of architecture as Ms.
Echols had indicated.
Ms. Porterfield asked if Section 8.5.5.4 regarding the grading is going to keep them from the Hollymead Tow ne
Center situation where there is a lot of land that is being graded and nothing is being built. She said the situation is
kind of sad and it would be nic e not to do that again. Also, they hav e sections up there where the streets don’t
connect. She was wondering if they have solved that problem or is there anything they can do about it.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the history of the Hollymead Towne Center grading is that a big chunk of property w as
zoned rural areas. That was the starting point becaus e all of the trees could be remov ed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Hollymead Towne Center A1 and A2 rezonings that surrounds the Target, H arris Teeter
Shopping Center w as all rezoned after the grading had taken place. The grading was done under the old rural areas
zoning district. That is not part of what the Commiss ion was dealing w ith here.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they are closing the loop or is this not where the loop is.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it is going to depend on what the zoning is at the location that is being graded. If the zoning
is under a Planned Development where grading w as shown on the plan then grading could take place according to
the application plan grading in advanc e of any development taking place.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that a lot of planned developments that hav e come in during the las t few years have been
done in phases. It has been the requirement of the rezoning that they phase how they do the grading.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that loop had been c losed in the rezoning phase. In fac t, Biscuit R un was one of the
developments that got that kind of treatment for phasing.
Ms. Porterfield noted that she wanted to make sure that the Village of Rivanna does not s uddenly look like
everybody has taken everything down.
Mr. Franco pointed out that he did not think it has the constraint that Biscuit Run has. He felt that the other
challenge that was going to exist out at that particular project is that terrain is going to be kind of close to what
Hollymead Towne Center is and in order to provide the major interconnections of the roads and things like that a lot
of that site is going to have to be graded all at once in order to get the infrastructure in that the county has ask ed
for. It is not necessarily a loop hole so much as the form of the development and the requirements for the
development of interconnections are things that necessitate that mass ive grading.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it was not here that they would address that is sue.
Ms. Porterfield asked that on page 23 under # 3 (g) the preservation of historic structures sites and architectural
sites identified by she asked that they put in cemeteries there, too. In #4 where it says compatible with it says
contiguous developed surroundings. She felt that contiguous means adjacent or abutting. She was not sure that is
really w hat they want here. It is sort of like the area, but not the property directly adjacent to it. It could be the
surrounding area as oppos ed to just the pieces that were contiguous .
Mr. Kamptner asked if there any disc uss ion on the c ontiguous versus s urrounding.
Ms. Joseph noted that because they w ere dealing with an urban area she felt that c ontiguous is more appropriate
than the area. If it is abutting they need to be compatible with what is abutting. She did not think they need to give
an extra burden to the applicant to look around the area because s ometimes it is a mixmatch. She felt that it w as
easier to look at just w hat was directly adjacent in an instance like this .
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the reas on she brought this up was because of Rivanna Village. Her understanding
was that they wanted it to be in the “W illiamsburg s tyle” bec aus e what is out there with Glenmore and other things
that were there as far as what it looked like. But Glenmore is not contiguous to Riv anna Village. It is in the area
and it w as something that she w as told was supported. She thought it was something they had talked about before
and was put in to try to maintain the architectural sty les if they were important in a rezoning that they stay important
as the rez oned property is developed.
Ms. Echols noted that Rivanna Village won’t be affected. The application of the “compatibility” standard would be
with a new infill project. It is a question of how far out do they go to look for compatibility and it would be w hat is
close in.
Ms. Porterfield noted that staff was bas ically talking about infill here and not about an entire project.
Mr. Kamptner noted not necessarily. If something is already there they are speaking in the context primarily of infill.
Contiguity actually has a s econdary meaning that does not necessarily require physically touching. So if they want
to cons train it more, “abutting” would be the more acc urate term to us e.
Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield that it should be stretched out a bit.
Mr. Struck o questioned how far is a bit, two miles?
Mr. Loach replied no, that he did not want to say they just had to look at what is in front of, behind and on the two
sides of a project and that w as the end of it.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that as part of the rezoning proces s they had talked about if the Commiss ion felt that they
needed to reflect styles, materials and what have you that were a broader area than this provision sets out they
could stipulate that as part of the z oning ac tion in a particular case. So if they w ere in an area that w as
“W illiamsburg” style and they wanted to reflect that beyond what was fairly intermediate they c ould actually put that
in as part of their zoning action. It could be proffers.
Mr. Struck o asked that they move this discussion along. H e invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, said that he appreciated the Commission’s w ork in this late hour. He
requested the resolution of the concept that w as discus sed last time on the ala carte menu items just because it has
not been answ ered. H e k new the ans wer was probably that they can’t do it legally, but he w anted to make sure that
they close that loop. He als o appreciates the consideration of Valerie Long’s memo. It was most helpful in framing
some of his thoughts on this. As this comes forward it would be helpful to hav e a s pecific list, as specific as staff
can get, with regard to those planned districts that occurred that may be falling under this. He asked how many
there are or how big the scope of what they are dealing w ith. He remembered w hen there were applications coming
forward w hen D ISC II had w rapped up its work and the ordinances had not yet been plac ed in 2002 and early 2003
where elements of the Neighborhood Model were being embraced by the development community. From what he
was hearing it sounds like those are going to be held harmless, but he w anted to make sure that takes place as
well. He commended the Commission for their attention to detail on this ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the question was w hether the C ommission wanted to see this anymore. If the Commiss ion
is inclined to move it forward staff can review w hat they heard tonight and make the changes.
Mr. Struck o s aid that he w anted to make sure that everybody’s concerns w ere met. H e asked for Commiss ion
input.
Mr. Edgerton said that staff has done a very commendable job. He would like to move it on with the minor
adjustments that hav e been mentioned. The only issue he w as struggling with that staff has recommended is
whether they really w ant to draw a line on March 19, 2003. It has occ urred to him in particular from listening to what
Mr. Kamptner has said and the process involved with establishing vested rights and this being one piece of it.
Certainly that is available the way it is written w ithout that deadline. The demons tration is available. He sees this
as being a problematic issue. Granted in 2009 those of us sitting here and pres ent staff look back and say well gosh
as long as they meet the rules and regulations on March 19, 2003 that certainly will be adequate. But, maybe ten
years down the road things may be different and all of a s udden it w ill have be gone back to and readjus ted. He
was just wondering what value they have in draw ing the line there. With the exception of that he thought that staff
and the Commission have done a remark able job.
Ms. J oseph felt that it w as a fluid document and it is going to change. She felt that they should expect it to
change. It is sort of a plac e holder.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the value of the place holder is .
Ms. Joseph replied that the v alue of the place holder now is making the community feel a little bit more comfortable
if they have spent a whole lot of time and money getting something done w ith a w hole lot of detail. She thought
that w as w hat she was hearing from many people. As Mr. Kamptner said if they look and see that our regulations
have changed signific antly then they go ahead and change that date.
Mr. Kamptner said that the other value is that when the Neighborhood Model was established on that date they are
asking for mixed use and typically ranges of dens ity. What the state law does is that it determines a significant
governmental act where the applicant specifies a use or density. The kind of development that they are encouraging
now in the Neighborhood Model District kind of gets away from a specific use or a specific density. They are
encouraging mixed uses and various dens ities. So another way of looking at this is that it kind of closes the loop or
opens up the avenue for proffered planned rezonings that they are encouraging here by elev ating them to a status of
a signific ant governmental act. They really don’t want the conventional ty pe of rezoning where the applicant is
proffering that specific us e or that spec ific density.
Mr. Edgerton said that he would buy that and back off of the issue.
Mr. Morris said that he w ould like to support the item that both Mr. Franco and Mr. Williamson brought up. At some
point in time he would really like to see a list of the items between December, 1980 and 2003. He would jus t like to
see what the list looks like.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they ac tually had a list for the Commission at one time. The master list had a few or
possibly 3 projects before 1980, but mos t w ere after. Staff had a list, but did not know which projects fell w here.
Mr. Franco said that he would be c omfortable with s eeing these changes made and then coming back on the
consent agenda as quic k as possible in order to move it forward.
Mr. Struck o asked staff to bring it back on the consent agenda so the Commission could have one last reading of
the propos al to make sure to get the details right.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff would bring the ordinance amendment back under the consent agenda. He asked if
the Commission would agree that staff only giv e them the ordinanc e under the c ons ent agenda and not put together
a staff report.
Mr. Kamptner noted that he would add a color that w ould highlight just the words being changed from this version to
the one received.
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work s ession to rev iew staff’s recommended changes to the draft
ordinanc e amendment on ZTA2008003 Planned Development. The Commission asked staff to make the follow ing
changes , as summariz ed below, and bring the resolution of intent back for approval on the consent agenda.
Section 8.5.1.c.1. add cemeteries to the list of existing phys ical conditions
Section 8.5.1.9 (renumbered) change "layout" to "layout"
Section 8.5.2. second paragraph change from "Each applicant is encouraged to use the preapplication
conference" to "Eac h applicant is encouraged to use the guidance provided in the preapplication conference"
Section 8.5.3.c. c larify that the commission is not obligated to approve all requested w aivers and might
approve only some of the reques ted waivers
Section 8.5.5.2.c.1. rev ise section to allow for more than just commercial use determinations; also add as
parameters for mak ing determinations similarities in smells and s ound.
Section 20A.3.b. make the phrase less "impos ing" so that it is more the applic ant's choice than the zoning
administrator's dec ision about w hether there is enough information for a parking study
Section 20A.5.g.3. add cemeteries to the lis t of areas to be preserved
Staff to also provide a list of approved Planned Developments betw een 1980 and 2003
A revised ordinanc e will be provided with the proposed w ord changes highlighted in yellow on the consent
agenda of the nex t available meeting.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTACE CommitteeSherry Buttrick 8/1/20098/1/2012YesAction Required ACE CommitteeMr. Jean Lorber8/1/20098/1/2012YesAction Required ACE CommitteeDavid Callihan 8/1/20098/1/2012Eligible No Action Required ACE CommitteeBill Edgerton 8/1/20098/1/2012YesAction Required Fiscal Impact Advisory CommitteeJim Duncan7/8/20097/8/2011No Advertised Jeff. Area Community Criminal Justice BoardCapt. John Parrent 6/30/20096/30/2012No Action Required, New Appt. Rec. Jordan Development Corporation Scott Huang 8/13/20098/13/2010Eligible No Action Required Jordan Development Corporation Rosa Hudson 8/13/20098/13/2010Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Dan Maupin9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Fred Shields9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Montie Pace 9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeMichael Erwin 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeRochelle Garwood 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteePeter Warren9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeJason Woodfin 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Pantops Community Advisory CouncilCharles HarrisTBDNoAdvertisedPantops Community Advisory CouncilAnthony McHaleTBDNo AdvertisedPRFAJoseph Cochran 12/13/2010Resigned NoAdvertised PRFALee Rasmussen 12/13/2011Resigned No Advertised Route 250 West Task Force Barbara Franko9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Robert Bakalian 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Bonnie Samuel 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Margaret DeMallie9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Dr. Martin Schulman 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Richard Kast 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Revised 7/27/09
Page 1 of 5
Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT
AUGUST 5, 2009
MONTHLY MEETING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS
David Slutzky
• Hillsdale Safety Project – VDOT’s review of the county’s bid package is complete and
approval has been given for the project to be awarded.
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Rio and Berkmar Roads has begun. Conduits have been installed. The primary portion of this
work will be completed when the Farmington signal upgrades are complete.
Ken Boyd
• Turn Lanes on Route 29 @ Boulders Road – The developer installing these lanes is currently
working on punch list items to complete construction. Also, signal modifications will be
necessary to accommodate the additional lane. Work should be completed in August.
• Traffic Signal at Route 20/250- Signal technicians have made modifications to timing
sequences at this location in an attempt to address peak hour and noon traffic. A purpose of
recent adjustments has been to attempt to better coordinate this signal with the City signal at
High Street with the goal of improving east bound traffic flow in the evening hours.
Technicians plan to continue their efforts to optimize the functions of this signal as best
possible considering lane capacity.
Dennis Rooker
• Four-Way Stop at Woodlands and Reas Ford Road (Routes 676/660) – Implementation of the
new traffic pattern is complete. Albemarle Police Department has been providing assistance by
patrolling the location to enforce the changes.
• Broomley Road Bridge – Buckingham Branch Railroad has scheduled deck repairs to this
structure for the week of August 10, 2009. It will be necessary to close the bridge to traffic
during this time. Notifications will be provided to the public using message boards and media
outlets.
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Hydraulic and Commonwealth Roads along with upgrades at Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads
has begun. Conduits have been installed. The primary portion of this work will be completed
when the Farmington signal upgrades are complete.
Ann Mallek
• Rural Rustic on Route 668/765, Walnut Level Road – Application of the tar and gravel surface
for this project is complete. Plans are proceeding for installation of traffic calming measures.
• Drainage Improvements on Route 672, Blufton Road - Drainage work has been completed on
this route.
• Drainage Issue on Route 789, Buck Road – VDOT staff is still awaiting return of a signed
right-of-entry from the landowner whose permission is needed to make drainage repairs.
Sally Thomas
• Signal Upgrades on Route 29 @ Farmington – Work is ongoing for this project. Crews have
completed foundation construction and are working on conduit installations. Work is expected
to be completed by the end of August.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 2 of 5
Lindsay Dorrier
• Rural Rustic on Route 722, Old Green Mountain Road – Application of the tar and gravel
surface for this project is complete.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
• Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
The public hearing package has been approved. Design staff is currently focused on
maintenance of traffic plans and ways to minimize travel impacts to motorists. Traffic staff is
also researching ways to provide lighting at crosswalks that would not impact the neighborhood
in the same manner as normal street lighting.
• Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258 P101, R201, C501
Initial notifications to property owners of pending appraisals are ongoing. It is expected
purchase offers will begin in the fall.
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges
• Continue grading at north end of project.
• Continue storm drain.
• Continue sanitary sewer.
• Continue water lines.
• Excavating at north side abutment area of proposed Rte. 631 Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad.
• Continue substructure work on proposed pedestrian bridge.
0743-002-282, B658 Bridge and Approaches over North Fork of the Rivanna River
• Placed concrete for abutment footer at east side of river.
• Resumed excavation for drilled shafts.
(NFO)BR07-002-391, C501 I-64 W BL Bridge over Rivanna River Deck Repairs and Latex Overlay
• Project is complete awaiting final inspection.
(NFO)BR07-002-392, C501 I-64 EBL Bridge over Stockton Creek Deck Repairs and Latex Overlay
• Application of pavement markings remains to complete project.
PM7B-002-F09, P401 Asphalt Plant Mix Schedule
• Paving and pavement marking complete on scheduled areas of NBL Rte. 29 from Hydraulic Rd. to the
Rivanna Bridge.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fiscal
Year
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 2 37
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 6 76
New Entrance Plan Reviews 0 54
Total Permits Processed 54 625
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 27 259
Inspection of new entrance conducted 108 1256
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0 6.38
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 3 of 5
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Completed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Intersection of
Rio and
Hydraulic
Rt 631/743 Pedestrian study Field modifications being drafted.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Commonwealth
Rts 743/1315 Pedestrian study Installation underway.
Intersection of
Rio & Berkmar Rts 631/1403 Pedestrian study Planned for installation this
summer.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Lambs
Rts 743/667 Pedestrian study Developing logistics for installation.
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Rt 20 to Nelson County
line Safety review Field modifications underway
Saint George
Ave (Rt 1202) Entire Route Traffic calming
Preliminary Report being finalized.
Physical Traffic Calming measures
are not warranted.
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250)
Between Peter Jefferson
Parkway and W orrell Dr.
Request from ACPD to
review the crossover due to
the high accident rate
Under review
South Pantops
Drive (Rt 1140)
Between Carriage Hill
Apartments and
Riverbend Drive
Request to review pedestrian
accommodations meet the
minimum ADA accessibility
requirements
Improvements have been
contracted and should be
completed this month.
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Esmont Safety Review of
intersections Under review
Walnut Level Rd
(Rt 668)
Intersection with CCC
Road (Rt 756) Safety Review Under Review
Whippoorwill Rd.
(Route 839) Entire Route Speed Study Under Review
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Patching on Routes 717, (Secretarys Sand), 630 (Green Creek), 20 (Scottsville Rd), 1554
(Graemont), 696 (Scotts), 708 (Dry Bridge), 1403 (Berkmar), F177, 1630 (Langford Pl), 825
(Yancey Mill), and 1186 (Barclay Hill).
Graded and added stone on Routes 723 (Sharon Rd), 722 (Old Green Mtn Rd), 617 (Rockfish
River Rd), 735 (Mt Alto Rd), 724 (Lewiston Ford Rd), 703 (Pocket Ln), 805 (Henderson Ln),
699 (Boaz Rd), 697 (Sutherland Rd), 775 (Rabbit Valley Ln), 754 (Loving Rd), 767 (Rabbit
Valley Rd), 718 (Murrays Ln), 760 (Red Hill School Rd), 711 (Burton Rd) 856 (Burton Ln),
712 (North Garden Ln), 717 (Old Sand Rd), 774 (Bear Creek Rd), 717 (Secretarys Sand Rd),
746 (Fosters Branch Rd), 762 (Rose Hill Church Ln), 747 (Predd y Creek Rd), 782 (Stribling),
689 (Pounding Creek), 682 (Gillums Ridge), 606 (Dickerson), 736 (White Mtn), 637 (Dick
Woods), 708 (Poorhouse), 702 (Reservoir), 629 (Browns Gap), 624 (Headquarters), 678 (Fox
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 4 of 5
Ridge), 668 (Chapel Spring), 643 (Rio Mills), 671 (Blufton), 784 (Clark), 671 (Wesley Chapel)
821 (Blufton Mill), and 671 (Ballards Mill).
Cleared pipes and performed ditch work on Routes 759 (Three Chopt Rd), 615 (Lindsay Rd),
1670 (Ashwood Blvd), 1535 (Ridgemont), 601 (Old Garth), 667 (Catterton), 668 (Chapel
Spring), 810 (White Hall), 677 (Bloomfield), 684 (Patterson Mill), 736 (White Mtn), 250
(Rockfish Gap), 635 (Miller School), 708 (Poorhouse), 805 (Henderson Ln), 20 (Scottsville
Rd), and 708 (Red Hill Rd).
• Dust control applied on Routes 762 (Rose Hill Church Ln), 865 (Bunker Hill Ln), 746
(Fosters Branch Rd), 671 (Ballards Mill), 629 (Browns Gap), 624 (Headquarters), 672
(Blufton), 766 (Pea Ridge), 829 (Horseshoe Bend), 682 (Gillums Ridge), and 688 (Midway).
Tree cleanup on Routes 20 (Stoney Pt Rd), 631 (E Rio Rd), 1124 (Villaverde Ln), 1446 (Wild
Flower Dr), 250 (Richmond Rd), 600 (Watts Passage), 665 (Buck Mtn), 618 (Martin Kings Rd),
620 (Rolling Rd), 6 (Irish Rd), 20 (Scottsville Rd), 602 (Howardsville Trnpke), and 708 (Secretarys
Rd).
• Trash pickup (including adopt-a highway pickups) on Route 688 (Midway).
• Mowing Routes 652 (Old Brook Rd), 640 (Turkey Sag Rd), 648 (Clarks Tract),
610 (Lonesome Mtn Rd), 1117 (State Farm Blvd), 616 (Black Cat Rd), 731 (Keswick Rd),
769 (Rocky Hollow Rd), 710 (Taylor's Gap), 801/779 (Rock Branch), 810 (Blackwell Hollow),
675 (Lake Albemarle), 676 (Owensville), 839 (Whippoorwill Rd), 671 (Davis Shop), 665
(Buck Mtn), 601 (Free Union), 609 (Wesley Chapel), 614 (Garth), 726 (James River Rd), 627
(Carters Mountain Rd), 626 (Langhorne Rd), 618 (Jefferson Mill Rd), 737 (Mountain Vista Rd),
and 727 (Blenheim Rd).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – AUGUST 2009
• Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
o Pavement patching
o Machining gravel roads
o Dust control
o Mowing on primary and secondary routes
o Cleaning ditches and pipes
o Litter pickup on various routes
o Tree trimming and removal various Routes
o Finish work on Rural Rustic Road Route 722.
o Road repair between VDOT bridges and tar and gravel on Route 745.
o Remove loose surface treatment and tar and gravel bad areas on Route 769.
o Rebuild slope with class II rip rap and shoulder with crusher run on Route 626,
o Place class II rip rap at wing wall to correct erosion problem at the bridge on Route 691.
o Replace cross pipe on Route 698.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 5 of 5
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7
0
5
10
15
20
Jul-09 Aug -09 Sep-09 Oct-0 9 Nov-09 Dec-09 J an-10 Feb-10 M ar-10 Apr-1 0 M ay-1 0 Jun-10 MillionsMonths
TOTAL M AINT BUDGET
FORECASTED EXPENDIT URES
CUM ULATIVE ACTUAL
May 29, 2009
David Wy ant PE
4686 Garth Road
Crozet VA 22932
RE: SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center R elocation
TMP 3114
Dear Mr. Wyant:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 2009, unanimously recommended approval
of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit
Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlys ville Road Earlys ville, VA 22936”, prepared by DW Enterprises
and dated March 23, 2009 (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning
and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the C oncept Plan, development shall reflec t the
follow ing major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
2. Upon issuanc e of a certificate of occupancy for the public garage construc ted under SP200800025,
public garages shall be prohibited in the C1 z oned portion of the parcel and the public garage in the C1
z oned portion of the parcel exis ting on June 10, 2009 shall terminate.
3. The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than 5,000 square feet / maximum 35’
high)
4. The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the exc eption of minimum clearing
possible to ins tall drainfields and utilities
5. The number of parking spaces (maximum 46 spaces ) and general location / arrangement of the parking
s paces;
6. A public garage use in the existing building on the property shall be permanently terminated upon
is suance of a Certificate of Occ upancy;
7. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the garage site or new
landscape materials, s hall be installed in the undisturbed buffer area inside the boundary of the special
use permit as may be necessary to achiev e v ery little visibility between the garage site and the public
rightofway and adjacent properties, as depicted on Attachment B;
8. A minimum 6’ high fence shall be c onstructed in the location shown on Attachment B (20’ inside the
s pecial use permit boundary and outside the 75’ front setback ) to provide an additional buffer for the
adjacent property (TMP 3114H );
9. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
10.Gasoline sales are prohibited;
11. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited. All storage shall take place
inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
12.The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
13.All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall tak e place inside the existing garage;
14.Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall tak e place only in the park ing spaces
depicted on the Concept Plan;
15.The hours of operation shall not exceed (earlier or later) than 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday.
These hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off v ehic les before or after permitted the hours of
operation;
16.A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted onsite at any one time;
17.All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fix tures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light lev els at the north, west, and south property lines and the east
boundary of the area designated to the special use permit to no greater than 0.3 foot c andles shall be
s ubmitted to the Zoning Adminis trator or their designee for approval;
18.Approval from the Department of Env ironmental Quality shall be required prior to issuance of the
C ertificate of Oc cupancy;
19.Approval from the H ealth Department shall be required prior to iss uance of a building permit;
20.C ommencement of SP200800025 shall begin within five (5) y ears of the date of its approval by the
Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on August 5, 2009.
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200800024 Earlysville
Service Center
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
May 19, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To Be Determined
Owner: M.O. Whyte Applicant: M.O. Whyte
Acreage: 11.833 acres Special Use Permit:
TMP: 3114
Location: West side of Earlysville
Rd. (Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of
Reas Ford Rd. (Rt. 660)
Existing Zoning and Byright use:
RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units:
NA
Proposal: Special Use Permit to
relocate an existing vehicular repair
garage from the east side of an 11.833
acre parcel (zoned C1 Commercial)
to the west side of the subject parcel
(zoned RA Rural Areas); the existing
garage structure currently located on
the property would remain, but the
garage use would be abandoned.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Partially wooded,
contains an existing residence and the existing
garage building
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
and commercial
Factors Favorable:
1. The public ga ra ge is a n e xisting operation
tha t provide s a se rvic e to the community.
2. The propose d ga ra ge w ould provide a n
interior spac e to re pair c ars a nd provide
ade qua te , organize d pa rking a rra nge me nts.
3. The use is consiste nt w ith the Rural A re a
w ith the mitiga tion of impa cts.
Factor Unfavorable:
The proposed garage site would be closer to an
existing residence on an adjacent property and
would be across the street from a residential
subdivision
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 19, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Date to Be Determined
SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center
Petition:
Special Use Permit Application
PROJECT: SP 200800025 Earlysville Service Center
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to relocate an existing vehicular repair garage from the
east side of an 11.833 acre parcel (zoned C1 Commercial) to the west side of the subject
parcel (zoned RA Rural Areas); the existing garage is currently located on the property
would remain, but the garage use would be abandoned.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); C1 Commercial retail
sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/
acre in development density)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd. (Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd.
(Rt. 660)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 3114
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area: Located in Earlysville, a former Village Land Use Designation in
the Comprehensive Plan, the area was determined to be suitable for “Commercial
development including general stores to serve convenience shopping for the village and
surrounding area..” under that designation. The character of the area reflects the former
Village designation through its mixture of commercial, light industrial, and suburbanstyle
residential development. The parcel is adjacent to Out of the Box furniture store and across
the street from a small grocery store within a small commercial center. At the edges of the
former Village, several larger parcels have been placed into conservation easements and
several others are in the Jacobs Run Agricultural / Forestal District, which is located on the
opposite side of Reas Ford Road. The proposed garage would be further away from the
Ag/For District than the existing garage.
Specifics of the Proposal: The 11.833acre property is divided by two zoning districts:
4.15 acres is zoned C1 Commercial and the remaining 7.683 acres is zoned RA Rural
Areas. The existing public garage is located on the east side of the property in the C1
district. The applicant has requested a special use permit to relocate the garage into an
existing wooded area in the RA district on the west side of the parcel. The garage would
occupy approximately two acres of the parcel. Upon completion of the proposed garage, the
existing garage use would be abandoned and the occupied residence located in the center of
the parcel would remain unchanged. The applicant has not informed staff what use would go
into the building.
The existing twobay garage has a small storage area for parts, but no waiting room or
restroom. There are numerous cars parked in the surrounding unimproved area and between
the garage and Earlysville Road and some parking is taking place across the street. The
proposed garage would contain approximately twelve bays, an office and waiting area, a
restroom and a paved parking area with 46 parking spaces on an approximately 2.17acre
portion of the property. A threesided covered storage shed on the rear of the building would
provide storage for an air compressor, tires and fluid containers. The applicant has requested
that the proposed garage retain the present hours of operation: 8 AM to 6 PM Monday
through Friday. Parking has been provided for twelve employees. The proposal would
eliminate the need to park cars in the areas where they are currently being parked.
The applicant has proposed a site design that is sensitive to its Rural Areas environs through
the following measures (Attachments A and B)
the limited clearing of existing trees, landscaping around the impervious area;
offsetting the garage and parking from the access;
a 20foot wide undisturbed buffer and a 10foot wide evergreen screening planting
buffer (with landscape materials relocated from the area being cleared, if possible)
between the adjacent neighbor to the west and the parking area;
and around the garage site; and
a 75foot front setback that will include retention of a portion of the existing wooded
area buffer between the garage and Earlysville Road.
Planning and Zoning History:
1970 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville was one of the original 14 Villages
designated in the Comprehensive Plan (including the subject parcel);
1977 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville Village Land Use Designation;
1982 Comprehensive Plan South side of Route 743 (including the subject parcel)
was deleted from the Earlysville Village land use designation, since it drains into the
South Fork Rivanna River Watershed, and was designated Rural Areas;
1989 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville Village (across Earlysville Road from the
subject property) continued as a village designation;
1996 Comprehensive Plan all the Villages were removed as land use designations
and became Rural Areas with the exception of Rivanna; and
ZMA 7907 approved rezoning of a 2acre portion of the property from A1
(Agricultural) to B1 (Commercial); the remaining portion remained in the A1
(Agricultural) district; the B1 was later changed to C1 (Commercial); the existing
garage is in this rezoned 2acre portion of the property.
RA public garages – previously approved public garages in the Rural Areas
(Attachment C).
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: As noted earlier, the Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject property as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection
of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use
options. While the proposed garage is not consistent with these goals, it does provide a
service to the local community and has been in use on this property since the 1930’s,
according to the applicant. The current business has been in operation for approximately 30
years. The land use patterns of this area evolved over time and were reflected in the former
Village designation. Although the designation is now Rural Areas, it is important to consider
that this is an existing business that would be relocated approximately 550 feet to the west on
the same parcel. Although the scale of this proposed facility is unusual for the Rural Areas
and would not generally be encouraged, the small size of the existing facility improvements
exacerbate the number of cars being parked in the unpaved area next to the garage and across
the street. The relocation would permit more cars to be worked on at one time inside the
building, would provide adequate parking around the building, and would allow naturalized
landscape materials in keeping with the rural character to screen the facility from the road
and adjacent Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding
by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The relocation of the proposed garage would cause it to be closer to several residences. It
would be visible from two residences across Earlysville Road on Ridgeway Road and closer
to the residences on its west and south sides.
A wooded area would separate the garage from the residences to the south. :
Entrance offset so that there is not a direct, uninhibited view down the driveway of the
garage from Ridgeway Road and from Earlysville Road
Wooded area between the garage and the Earlysville Road would remain
Row of evergreen landscaping on both sides of the driveway and circling the garage
facility
A minimum sixfoot high fence is recommended to be constructed between the garage
and the TMP3114H property line, in the location shown on Attachment B/Condition 4)
All work on vehicles would take place inside the building
Outside storage would be shielded from the street and from the adjacent neighbor by
trees/landscaping and/or by the storage shed walls
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby
Characterized by the mix of uses within this former village, the garage has existed on this
property since the 1930’s. Its relocation on the same parcel would allow space to organize
the garage functions and provide safe access and parking for customers. The garage would
have landscape buffers separating it from residences.
Although no longer designated a Village, the immediate area remains zoned for, and still
functions as, a rural scale center for essential services to the surrounding community.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose a nd inte nt of the Rura l Area s z oning is to pre se rve a gric ultural a nd fore sta l la nds and
ac tivities, to protec t the w a te r supply, to limit servic e to rura l a re a s, a nd to c onse rve the na tural,
sc e nic , and historic resourc es of the County. Although this use doe s not pre serve the se re source s,
public garage s a re a llowe d by spe cia l use permit in the Rura l A re as. Conditions of a pproval a re
inte nde d to ke ep the sc a le and inte nsity of the garage in c onformity w ith the c harac te r of the Rura l
A re as.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The garage, as proposed and with approval of the conditions of approval as recommended, is
not anticipated to have a negative impact on the uses permitted by right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
N o re gula tions for a public ga ra ge are in Se c tion 5.0 of the Zoning Ordina nc e.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation reviewed the driveway entrance location and
found it adequate. A permit will be needed from VDOT for construction proposed within the
road right of way. The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed this application
and will assist the applicant in achieving compliance with its regulations.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The public ga ra ge is a n existing ope ra tion tha t provides a se rvice to the c ommunity.
2. The proposed ga ra ge would provide a n inte rior spa ce to repa ir c a rs a nd provide a de qua te , orga niz e d
pa rking a rra nge me nts.
3. The use is c onsiste nt with the Rura l Are a with the mitigation of impac ts.
Sta ff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tor unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
1. The proposed garage site would be closer to an existing residence on an adjacent property and
would be across the street from a residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Ba sed on the findings c onta ined in this sta ff report, sta ff re commends a pprova l of SP200800025
Ea rlysville Se rvic e Center, subjec t to the follow ing conditions:
1. Deve lopment of the use sha ll be in ac c ord w ith the c onc eptua l pla n title d “Spe c ia l U se
Permit Ea rlysville Se rvice Ce nter, 4036 Ea rlysville Roa d Ea rlysville, VA 22936”, pre pa re d
by DW Ente rprises and da ted Ma rch 23, 2009 (he re a fter, the “Conce ptua l Plan”), a s
de te rmined by the Dire ctor of Pla nning a nd the Zoning Administra tor. To be in a cc ord with
the Conc e pt Pla n, development sha ll re flec t the following ma jor e lements within the
de ve lopme nt esse ntia l to the de sign of the de ve lopme nt:
The area de signate d for the spe cia l use (public ga ra ge)
The siz e , he ight a nd loc ation of the proposed building (no more tha n 5,000 squa re fee t /
ma ximum 35’ high)
The loc ation of the pe rime te r landsca ping a nd limits of cle aring, with the e xce ption of
minimum c lea ring possible to insta ll drainfields a nd utilitie s
The number of parking spa c es (maximum 46 spa ce s) a nd ge ne ra l loca tion / a rrangeme nt of
the pa rking spa ce s;
2. A public ga ra ge use in the e xisting building on the property sha ll be pe rmane ntly termina te d upon
issuanc e of a Ce rtifica te of Occ upa ncy;
3. Additional la ndsc a pe mate rials, e ithe r replanted from the a re a to be c le a re d for the ga ra ge site or
ne w la ndsc ape mate rials, shall be insta lle d in the undisturbe d buffe r area inside the bounda ry of the
spe cia l use pe rmit as ma y be nec e ssary to ac hie ve very little visibility be tw e en the garage site a nd
the public rightofwa y a nd adjac e nt propertie s, a s depicte d on Attac hment B;
4. A minimum 6’ high fenc e shall be construc te d in the loca tion show n on A tta c hment B (20’
inside the spe cia l use pe rmit boundary a nd outside the 75’ front setbac k) to provide a n
a dditiona l buffe r for the a dja c ent prope rty (TMP 3114H);
5. The sa le or re nta l of vehic les or other motoriz e d e quipme nt is prohibite d;
6. Ga soline sale s a re prohibite d;
7. The outdoor stora ge of pa rts, e quipment, mac hine ry and junk is prohibited. All stora ge shall
ta ke pla c e inside the stora ge shed and/or inside the building;
8. The sa le or re nta l of vehic les or other motoriz e d e quipme nt is prohibite d;
9. All repairing or equipping of ve hic les sha ll take plac e inside the existing ga ra ge;
10. Pa rking of vehicles associa te d w ith the public garage sha ll ta ke pla c e only in the pa rking
spa ce s de pic te d on the Conce pt Pla n;
11. The hours of ope ra tion sha ll not exce e d (e arlie r or la te r) tha n 8 A M to 6 PM, Monda y
through Frida y. These hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off vehicle s before or
a fte r pe rmitte d the hours of operation;
12. A maximum of tw e lve (12) employe e s shall be pe rmitte d onsite a t a ny one time ;
13. All outdoor lighting sha ll be only full c utoff fixtures and shielde d to re fle ct light a wa y from
a ll a butting prope rtie s. A lighting plan limiting light le vels at the north, we st, a nd south
property line s a nd the e ast boundary of the area de signate d to the spe c ia l use permit to no
gre a te r tha n 0.3 foot ca ndles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administra tor or the ir designe e
for a pproval;
14. Approva l from the De pa rtme nt of Environme nta l Qua lity shall be re quire d prior to issua nc e
of the Ce rtific a te of Occ upa nc y;
15. Approva l from the Hea lth De partment sha ll be re quire d prior to issua nc e of a building
pe rmit;
16. Comme nc e me nt of SP 200800025 shall be gin within five (5) ye a rs of the da te of its approva l
by the Boa rd of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Concept Plan
Attachment B – Concept Plan with Fence Location and Undisturbed Buffer Locations
Attachment C – Rural Areas Public Garages
Attachment D – Site Photographs
Attachment E Location Maps
Return to PC actions letter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 19, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday,
May 19, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill
Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non
voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Joan McDowell, Principal
Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior
Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Steward Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proctor,
Permit Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and
Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center (Sign # 21 & 24) PROPOSED: Special Use
Permit to relocate an existing vehicular repair garage from the east side of an 11.833 acre
parcel (zoned C1 Commercial) to the west side of the subject parcel (zoned RA Rural Areas);
the existing garage is currently located on the property would remain, but the garage use would
be abandoned. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); C1
Commercial retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/
acre). SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development density). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd. (Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd. (Rt.
660). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 3114. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a request for a special use permit to relocate an existing vehicular repair
garage from the east side of an 11.833 acre parcel (zoned C1 Commercial) to the
west side of the subject parcel (zoned RA Rural Areas); the existing garage
structure currently located on the property would remain, but the garage use would
be abandoned.
The garage would occupy approximately two acres of the parcel. Upon completion of
the proposed garage, the existing garage use would be abandoned and the
occupied residence located in the center of the parcel would remain unchanged. The
proposed garage would contain approximately twelve bays, an office and waiting
area, a restroom and a paved parking area with 46 parking spaces on an
approximately 2.17acre portion of the property with up to twelve employees. A
threesided covered storage shed on the rear of the building would provide storage
for an air compressor, tires and fluid containers. The applicant has requested that
the proposed garage retain the present hours of operation: 8 AM to 6 PM Monday
through Friday. The proposal would eliminate the need to park cars in the areas
where they are currently being parked.
The applicant has proposed a site design that is sensitive to its Rural Areas environs
through the following measures:
o the limited clearing of existing trees, landscaping around the impervious area;
o offsetting the garage and parking from the access;
o a 20foot wide undisturbed buffer and a 10foot wide evergreen screening
planting buffer (with landscape materials relocated from the area being cleared, if
possible) between the adjacent neighbor to the west and the parking area; and
around the garage site; and
o a 75foot front setback that will include retention of a portion of the existing
wooded area buffer between the garage and Earlysville Road.
Planning and Zoning History:
1970 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville was one of the original 14 Villages
designated in the Comprehensive Plan (including the subject parcel);
1977 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville Village Land Use Designation;
1982 Comprehensive Plan South side of Route 743 (including the subject
parcel) was deleted from the Earlysville Village land use designation, since it
drains into the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed, and was designated
Rural Areas;
1989 Comprehensive Plan Earlysville Village (across Earlysville Road from
the subject property) continued as a village designation;
1996 Comprehensive Plan all the Villages were removed as land use
designations and became Rural Areas with the exception of Rivanna; and
ZMA 7907 approved rezoning of a 2acre portion of the property from A1
(Agricultural) to B1 (Commercial); the remaining portion remained in the A1
(Agricultural) district; the B1 was later changed to C1 (Commercial); the
existing garage is in this rezoned 2acre portion of the property.
RA public garages – previously approved public garages in the Rural Areas
(Attachment C).
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The public garage is an existing operation that provides a service to the community.
2. The proposed garage would provide an interior space to repair cars and provide
adequate, organized parking arrangements.
3. The use is consistent with the Rural Area with the mitigation of impacts.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
1. The proposed garage site would be closer to an existing residence on an adjacent
property and would be across the street from a residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Mr. Loach questioned if they need conditions about noise limitations since a garage uses power
equipment or is that just a taken that there is a Noise Ordinance they would have to meet.
Ms. McDowell replied that the applicant would have to meet the Noise Ordinance.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there was any consideration in keeping the garage in the C1,
Commercial zoning. In other words, if the applicant could rebuild the garage in the C1 zone
rather than moving it to the rural side of the property.
Ms. McDowell replied that the applicant’s representative was present and could address that.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that there was a C1 zone with an existing use and it is nonconforming
in the way it has been used. She assumed that there was no site plan to establish this use.
Mr. Herrick replied he was not familiar with the history of that location.
Ms. Joseph asked if the current use was abandoned could it be reestablished. In other words,
could they have two garages going on simultaneously?
Mr. Herrick replied theoretically yes, because whatever is byright in a C1 zone would remain
byright on that particular property. However, condition #2 is that a public garage use in the
existing building shall be permanently terminated. So if the Commission were to recommend
approval of the special use permit with this condition and if a garage were hypothetically to
reopen in the existing location, while it might not be in violation of the existing zoning, it would
be in violation of the special use permit if it were adopted with these condition.
Ms. Joseph asked if the special use permit did not only cover the portion that was zoned Rural
Areas, but the entire property.
Mr. Herrick replied that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton asked to follow up on that. The C1 zoning designation that allows the existing
garage operation is going to stay regardless of what they do here.
Mr. Herrick replied that there was no request to downzone the property.
Mr. Edgerton said that with the restriction of abandoning the existing garage use that if they
tried to open it up it would be in violation of the special use permit. But if they tore the existing
garage down and wanted to put up another garage there would be nothing to stop them from
doing that if the use is allowed under the C1 zoning.
Mr. Herrick pointed out that the way the condition is worded the public garage use shall be
permanently terminated and does not reference a specific existing building. It talks about the
public garage use.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that would apply to the whole C1 district.
Mr. Herrick replied that was correct in that it would apply to the reconstruction of a new building
that was being used as a public garage.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the site plan in Attachment B there appears to be quite a bit of land
there that is C1. He asked would an additional public garage activity be forbidden in any of
that area.
Mr. Herrick replied that the condition as written does not preclude that, but a differently worded
condition might.
Mr. Edgerton noted that one of the concerns is that there will be a second garage on the
property. He asked staff if this property was rezoned after the concern was noticed about being
in the Rivanna Watershed. According to the staff report when the property was in the Village
designation there was thought of it. but then the land in the watershed was downzoned to RA.
Ms. McDowell replied that the land was rezoned in 1979 and was considered the Earlysville
Village since the 1970’s and maybe before that.
Mr. Edgerton asked when it was downzoned was there already a garage there.
Ms. McDowell replied that there was a garage there when it was rezoned. The property used to
be zoned A1 and then it was rezoned to B1. Then the B1 category changed to C1. The
garage has been existing since the 1930’s. According to old file there was a building and there
was some consideration of tearing it down and redoing the garage on that site.
Mr. Herrick noted that if the Commission is concerned about demolition of the existing building
and replacement of a new garage on the same site that one way to address that would be to
rephrase recommended condition #2 to read a public garage use on the property shall be
permanently terminated and delete the words “in the existing building.”
Ms. McDowell noted that they wanted to clarify on the property because it is split zoned.
Mr. Edgerton said that with all the history it appears that there was some consideration given to
the fact that there was an existing commercial activity on this corner of the property when all of
the rezoning occurred, which is still there and is not being abandoned. That is not being
downzoned. So if this special use permit is approved they are basically giving another special
use permit for the commercial activity in the Rural Area, in which an earlier Planning
Commission and Board were concerned about the watershed impacts. He felt that they need to
have their eyes wide open in what they are doing here. This particular individual wants to clean
the site up and make it a better thing, which is great. But the C1 zoning is going to stay there
and if somebody wants to come in and do something different unless they address that they are
basically putting a pocket of commercial into the current Rural Area. It is a fairly significant size
operation. He thinks that the Commission needs to focus on that. He likes the design and felt it
was good proposal, but was concerned with the intensification of use of the property. He
suggested that perhaps the applicant could reassure him.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
David Wyant, engineer for the applicant, Mr. White and the present garage operator, Roger
Perkins spoke for the application.
To address the concerns expressed by the Commission there is no intent to have a second
garage. Mr. White has wanted to provide a cleaner operation, provide a waiting space for
customers and to have public restrooms in the facility. The structure they looked at and
talked about is located in south side Virginia. They want to have a pull in lane by the waiting
room where customers can drop their cars off for service. The parking spaces are needed
on the lot for the drop off of cars. In these tough economic times they have problems with
folks paying for the repairs. This will avoid the cars from being parked across the street
because they don’t have enough parking spaces on site. This is a way to clean up the
Earlysville area.
Environmentally he really likes what they are working on to handle the oil and grease. The
stormwater will be handled and run into storage containers. He has done a number of these
projects in the city where it will be detained. They work the oil and grease off of the parked
area through a biofilter and then it goes into the same storage container. Then they recycle
that and use the water on the plants on the property. They have a separate pump that
operates out of that storage container. It is a kind of recycling system that minimizes the
amount of runoff, which protects the drainage area and reservoir. It is a fairly gentle slope in
that area.
He suggested that the wording of condition #2 be worked on so that the area on the
northeast corner of that portion of the 11 acres to be designated to never to be a public
garage or to be permanently abandoned. He acknowledged that staff has worked with other
operations in giving a month’s grace period to move equipment. He asked for that same
kind of consideration so that he would not have to deal with violations and come back
again.
Regarding Mr. Loach’s question raised about noise, vibration and the engineer’s report, he
pointed out that the new compressors are very quiet. The old compressors use to make a
lot of noise. The air compressor that runs most of their equipment will be in the shed, which
is on the back side of the building. In addition, that is where the tires and barrels to store
the fluids will be stored. DEQ approval is required on this as on all garages. He proposed a
berm in case there is a spill. They will make sure that they put a roof over top of it so that
the rain water does not get in there and cause spill over.
The applicant is asking not to have to install the fence on the west side. They have a 20’
buffer and felt that the evergreen trees would screen the west side. They have a concern
that when people park their cars that the leaves will pile up.
This operation has been in the family since the 1930’s and the applicant’s sons want to
continue the business operation. The addition of the restrooms will be a big improvement.
He asked that the Commission recommend approval of the special use permit.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield said that part of this property is zoned C1 and it seems logical to keep this use
on the C1 property and rebuild the garage on that property. She asked why they are not doing
that.
Mr. Wyant replied one reason was that the current garage does not have restrooms. The
biggest difficulty would be that tearing the current garage down would require the applicant to
not operate the garage for 7 to 10 months.
Ms. Porterfield suggested with this amount of space they could build behind the existing garage
and then tear it down and make the entrance into the new facility. She was concerned that they
would now have a pretty heavy commercial use in the Rural Areas and have the ability for more
commercial in what is already zoned commercial. They would be trapping a piece of Rural
Area land in between, which she had a problem with.
Mr. Wyant said that the commercial use is not going to be any heavier than it is today. The
proposal would clean up the area. Currently there are cars parked everywhere and they have
been doing that for many years. This will be a site where the cars will be parked out of the way
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Jimmy Heyward, a resident of Earlysville, said that his farm was adjacent to the garage
proposed. He had nothing but good things to say about Mr. White and Mr. Perkins and was
really in favor of the request. He hoped the Commission would go ahead and take care of it for
him.
Bill Archambault, an adjacent property owner, said that he lived directly behind the current C1
property on Village Woods Lane. He had an opportunity to watch the garage operation. By all
appearances it is a well run business. From his perspective having looked at the plans and
having had the opportunity to meet with the folks that have worked through this seems like a
reasonable approach and he had no objections.
Nora Archambault said having pulled in and out of the property she felt that it is in a dangerous
location right at the intersection on the road. Due to the large amount of cars on the road she
felt that moving the business away from that congested area will be make it safer. She asked
the Commission to support the special use permit request.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris said that based on the input this evening as well as the emails received this makes a
lot of sense. He understands that they are moving the business from C1 to a Rural Area, but
there are reasons for it. It will be safer and easier to access. However, he agreed with Mr.
Edgerton that a modification of the second condition might make it clearer in the long run.
Mr. Strucko asked Mr. Edgerton if he would like to talk about the second condition.
Mr. Edgerton said that he liked Mr. Herrick’s suggested rewording. If the intent is not to have
another garage there that it should be applied to the whole C1 piece and not just the specific
building, which is the way it is written.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Morris. He supports the family business that has been there for
several decades that seems to have support from the community and neighbors.
Ms. Joseph said that this is a good example of what the Commission is hopefully going to talk
about with the Board about different ways that they can allow some businesses to be of a
certain size to be able to be in the Rural Areas. That is what they have been talking about as
their loss of industrial land, etc. The other thing that she was reminded of was that she used to
shop in Mr. White’s store and it is hard to conceive of that area as Rural Areas because it is
very built up. That is another issue. It was a village, but fortunately they have people in the
Agricultural/Forestal District that are adjacent to this area. There were a lot of residential
properties in the area and considering the fact that the garage is beloved and they do great
work because they seem to be very busy is another reason. The garage keeps people off the
roads by having customers that are near by.
Mr. Strucko noted that it is a cross roads village and there is a lot of long standing commercial
activity there with Mr. White’s Store and others. He agreed with Ms. Joseph’s point.
Mr. Porterfield asked if they eliminate the public garage from the C1 what else can be put on
that property.
Ms. McDowell replied that the rezoning to B1 had a lot of proffers that eliminated quite a lot of
uses, but she did not have that information. It did not eliminate a public garage, which was
called something else.
Mr. Benish pointed out that it precluded a service station, which was defined differently and
could not have gas sales. But under that old ordinance a garage was permitted. Staff will
make sure that information is available to the Board as to the remaining uses.
Ms. McDowell suggested that if the Commission wants to reword condition #2 it could state
something like a public garage use on the C1 portion of the parcel shall be permanently
terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for SP0825.
Mr. Strucko noted that change in wording of condition #2 would help the Commission move
forward.
Mr. Franco asked if staff has any comment with respect to Mr. Wyant’s request to eliminate the
fencing.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that the fence was not put up just for the visibility because certainly
the landscaping would certainly help with that. The fence was also put up as a sound barrier
because it is a wooded parcel now and it is much closer to the residents next door. Staff was
really concerned because this is a new use next door to the neighbors and it would help to have
a permanent wood fence to help with the sound. There are going to be a lot of cars coming in
and out. It was really more about the sound than visibility at that point. But it does help with
visibility. She knows that the applicant was concerned about leaves and she was a little
confused about that because there is a curb and gutter on the other side of that 10’ new
landscaping according to the plan.
Mr. Strucko asked for thoughts on the fencing requirements.
Mr. Loach said that he did not know if there was a way to have your cake and eat it too. In
other words to meet the fence requirement, but make it optional based on future noise levels.
Then later on if there was a need from the neighbor’s perspective that it be installed at that
time.
Mr. Porterfield noted that another possibility was that they should get a rake and rake up the
leaves.
Ms. McDowell noted that staff has not had a request for a waiver from paving requirements.
The applicant has a site plan on hold right now until this is taken care of. The applicant could
ask for a waiver and have it gravel. Right now until that happens it is supposed to be asphalt or
some kind of surface material.
Mr. Strucko said that he thought he saw it specifically mentioned.
Mr. Loach agreed that if they had a problem with leaves and fire he felt they could remove the
leaves.
Ms. Porterfield said they supposedly were going to have innumerous people working here. So
it seems that if they have a leaf problem they could just clean it up when it needs to be. She
would think they would want to keep their facility looking good
Mr. Strucko noted that the Commission would want to require the fence there for the reasons
outlined by Ms. McDowell and they are looking to modify condition #2.
Mr. Herrick noted after hearing comments from Mr. Wyant and Ms. McDowell he agreed that
the better wording would say, “A public garage use in the existing C1 zone of the property shall
be permanently terminated.”
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP200800025 Earlysville
Service Center with the conditions recommended by staff with the modification of condition 2.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special
Use Permit Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlysville Road Earlysville, VA
22936”, prepared by DW Enterprises and dated March 23, 2009 (hereafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept Plan, development shall reflect
the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
2. A public garage use in the existing C1 zone of the property shall be permanently
terminated.
3. The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than 5,000 square
feet / maximum 35’ high)
4. The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the exception
of minimum clearing possible to install drainfields and utilities
5. The number of parking spaces (maximum 46 spaces) and general location /
arrangement of the parking spaces;
6. A public garage use in the existing building on the property shall be permanently
terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
7. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the
garage site or new landscape materials, shall be installed in the undisturbed buffer
area inside the boundary of the special use permit as may be necessary to achieve
very little visibility between the garage site and the public rightofway and adjacent
properties, as depicted on Attachment B;
8. A minimum 6’ high fence shall be constructed in the location shown on Attachment
B (20’ inside the special use permit boundary and outside the 75’ front setback) to
provide an additional buffer for the adjacent property (TMP 3114H);
9. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
10. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
11. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited. All
storage shall take place inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
12. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
13. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
14. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the
parking spaces depicted on the Concept Plan;
15. The hours of operation shall not exceed (earlier or later) than 8 AM to 6 PM,
Monday through Friday. These hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off
vehicles before or after permitted the hours of operation;
16. A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted onsite at any one time;
17. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at the north,
west, and south property lines and the east boundary of the area designated to the
special use permit to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval;
18. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality shall be required prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy;
19. Approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to issuance of a
building permit;
20. Commencement of SP 200800025 shall begin within five (5) years of the date of
its approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Porterfield voted nay)
Mr. Strucko said that SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center would go to the Board of
Supervisors at a date to be determined with the recommendation for approval.
The Planning Commission recessed 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:28 p.m.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Fees
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksess ion to discus s amending Zoning
Ordinance Fees
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, C ilimberg, Fritz, Ms. McCulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGEND A D ATE: August 5, 2009
AC TION : X INFORMATION:
CONSEN T AGEN DA:
ACTION: INFOR MA TION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this w ork session is to receive Board direction on staff recommended changes to Zoning Ordinanc e
(“Ordinance”) fees. At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff pres ented a Community D evelopment Fee Study
and a recommendation for a fee polic y. (Attachment A) Given the limited amount of time for discuss ion and the
complex ity of the topic , it was not possible for the Board to give specific direction on amending the fees at that
time. To provide the opportunity for adequate consideration of the fees , staff divided this task into s everal
ordinanc es. The fees imposed under the Building Regulations and W ater Protection Ordinances w ere amended by
the Board on August 6, 2008. The fees imposed under the Subdivision Ordinance w ere amended by the Board on
May 13, 2009. Today’s work session is to establish direction for the Zoning Ordinanc e fees, with the intent to
amend that ordinance this Fall.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County ’s Future Needs.
DISCU SSION :
Recogniz ing that this is the fourth ordinance the Board has considered from the Community D evelopment Fee
Study, Attachment A is provided for bac kground and staff will not repeat its discussions of the Study’s approach.
Staff sc heduled the Zoning Ordinance fees amendment as the last ordinance to be considered due to the wide
variation in how localities approach these fees and the complexity of the fee structure.
Staff is including the following attachments to provide information related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance fees:
Attachment B provides a comparison of the current fees and County costs ass ociated with eac h item. As
noted, many of the fees repres ent a very small percentage of the costs.
Attachment C prov ides a comparis on of staff’s proposed fees and the Fee Study’s recommendation. This
also includes new fees recommended by the Fee Study or as a result of staff’s analysis.
Attachment D prov ides a comparis on of current fees, staff’s proposed fees, and fees impos ed by several
other localities for certain serv ices . For consistency, staff has us ed the same localities as previously used
when Subdivision Ordinance fees w ere considered.
Attachment E provides an estimate of revenues generated from current fees.
Attachment F provides an estimate of revenues generated from staff’s proposed fees.
There are differences between staff’s and the Fee Study’s recommendations. The differences center on five items:
1) Special Use Permits ; 2) Zoning Map Amendments (rezonings); 3) Appeals; 4) Notices and Advertisements; and 5)
new fees for the Architectural Review Board. These are discussed below using Attachment C as a guide.
1. Special Use Permits (SPs) In considering SPs, staff determined it was appropriate to s implify the fee
structure into tw o groups. Minor SPs, which are those uses listed under a.1. and Major SPs , w hich are all
other special permit uses listed under a.2. In addition, staff determined it w as appropriate to recognize that
many SPs do not require numerous reviews . As such, staff recommends a base fee, whic h includes the
submission and resubmission to address c omments, then a separate fee for those complex applications
that require multiple resubmis sions. Attachment D shows these fees would be lower in s ome
circumstances and higher in others. Overall, staff believes they are comparable.
2. Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs) – Staff used a similar approach for ZMAs to that for SPs, recognizing
that both larger and more complex applications will involve a higher cost to the County. Attachment D
shows the v ery wide range of fees for these applications. In considering thes e fees, staff determined that
it would be more appropriate to charge on a per review bas is rather than try ing to estimate the average
number of review s and charging everyone the s ame. Applicants who view a submittal as a negotiation
point can still make a number of submittals, but the County w ill recover the c osts of the additional review s
necessitated by this approach.
3. Appeals – U nder the Board of Zoning Appeals and Final Site Plan fees, staff has listed fees associated
with appeals . Staff is recommending a muc h lower fee rec overy than propos ed in the Fee Study. After
consulting w ith the County Attorney, staff believes there may be due process issues assoc iated w ith
these fees and those fees s hould reflect the administrative cost of processing the application, but not any
of the costs ass ociated with rev iewing or preparing staff reports for those applications. Cos ts associated
with required advertising would be handled s eparately as a new fee.
4. N otices and Advertisements – Staff has included new fees for both required notifications and
advertisements. The recommended fee for notifications is identical to that recently adopted in the
Subdivision Ordinance. For required legal advertisements, staff is recommending the County recover the
actual cost of advertising the application. While those adv ertisement cos ts can vary a little, they appear to
average around $200$250 each time the advertisement runs in the newspaper. As such, if an application
requires two notices for the Planning Commiss ion public hearing and two for the Board of Supervisors
public hearing, the cost of advertising is in the range of $800 to $1,000. If an applicant chooses to reques t
deferral after an advertisement has run, the applicant would be responsible for the additional advertising
cost.
5. Architectural R eview Board These are als o new fees propos ed by staff. With respect to revisions to a
Certificate of Appropriateness or a C ertificate of Appropriateness required for a building permit, staff
concurs with the Fees Study’s recommended fee. With respect to Site Plan reviews, staff has simplified
the fee struc ture to include only reviews reques ted by an applic ant or required for a Certificate of
Occupancy. Staff’s recommended fee is a c ompilation of several fees in the Fee Study, but lower than the
Study’s recommendation. The staffrecommended fee reflects staff’s asses sment of costs for these
review s and recently proposed changes that staff believes w ill low er review costs.
The remaining staff proposed fees lis ted in Attachment C are identic al or comparable to those of the Fee Study and
other localities.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As shown in Attachment E, the County c urrently collects approximately $182,000 from zoning fees in an average
year. As shown in Attachment F, staff anticipates the C ounty would collect approximately $ 521,000 in an average
year from the zoning fees recommended by staff, resulting in a $339,000 increase in revenue in an average year.
Assuming the recommended fees were implemented by J anuary 2010 and the number of applications is onehalf
of average, staff estimates a revenue increase of $85,000 for the remainder of FY 0910 and $170,000 for FY 10
11.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to prepare a resolution of intent for the Board to consider on September
2, 2009 to initiate the process to amend the Zoning Ordinance fees as recommended by staff in Attachment C, with
any other changes the Board determines appropriate.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – December 2007 Fee Study Summary
B – Current Fees and County Cost of Services
C Staff Proposed Fees and Fee Study Recommendations
D Comparison of Fees with Other Loc alities
E – Es timated C urrent Fee Annual Revenue
F – Estimated Proposed Fee Annual Rev enue
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fee Policy
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Establis h C ounty Polic y for Development Related
Fees
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and
Schlothauer
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
D ecember 5, 2007
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this report is to review the findings of a Community Dev elopment Fee Study and to receive Board
direction on the development of a County policy for c ost recovery with these fee bas ed programs. Recognizing the
Board’s interest in having development rev iew and ins pection fees recover all or part of the costs as sociated w ith
those programs, the County contrac ted a study w ith The PFM Group (PFM) to evaluate Community Development’s
fee based programs. (Attachment A) PFM will present its report to the Board at this meeting. (Attachment B)
Following that presentation, staff will discuss PFM’s rec ommendations and provide a recommendation on phasing in
fee increas es over time. Based on Board input and dis cussion, staff w ill follow up at a future meeting w ith a final
policy and proposed ordinance amendments regarding cost recovery.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Effectively Manage Grow th and Development
DISCU SSION :
While the PFM study provides a significant amount of detailed information with respect to program costs and
revenues, it w ill be diffic ult to effectively utilize this information w ithout establis hing a policy for cost recovery
through development fees. PFM has provided six policy recommendations, w hich start on page 4 of their report.
Staff’s pers pective on thos e recommendations is prov ided below.
1. Improve data quality for fees. Specifically, PFM indicates the complexity of the current fee s tructure makes it
difficult to use, suggesting a need to create unique identifiers for each permit. Staff concurs with this
recommendation and believes this can be accomplished as part of consideration of ordinance amendments to rev ise
fees.
2. Reduce the number of fee titles in the schedule. PFM provided a consolidated fee schedule w ith their report
(Table ES4 starting on page 38). Staff concurs with the need to reduce the number of fee titles and believ es this
can be acc omplished as part of amending the fees in the ordinances .
3. Develop a B oard A pproved Cost Recovery Policy. PFM has rec ommended the C ounty implement a policy for
cost recov ery that 1) identifies the C ounty’s c osts; 2) es tablishes the portion of costs to be recovered through
associated fees; 3) establishes the frequenc y with w hich such fees would be rev iewed; and 4) establishes the
process for obtaining public input related to fees. In rev iewing the minutes of past Board meetings, it appears there
was considerable discussion on a fee policy in 1991, but no clear policy w as established. (Attachments C & D )
Following the 1991 discuss ions , there has only been one comprehensive fee adjus tment, but no further policy
consideration. As a result, County fees have not maintained the relationship to cos ts anticipated in 1991. Staff
concurs with the PFM recommendation and believes this policy can as sure fees are being implemented in a fair and
consistent manner. Within other parts of this disc uss ion, staff is prov iding recommendations for the issues of
identifying the County’s costs and the frequency of reviewing the fees. As part
of a cost recovery policy with development fees, the Board will also need to consider the following two issues:
Establishing the portion of the costs to be recovered through fees. In general, staff supports the concept
of full cost recovery through fees, but notes there are some servic es with community benefits that may justify
reduced fees and there are other servic es w here full cost recovery would require fees that are significantly
higher than any of the comparison localities. For example, the fee associated with an Official Determination
of Dev elopment Rights is currently $40, the highest comparable fee was $100, and the County’s cost
ass ociated with this determination is estimated at $2,560. (Fee Study, ID #52, pages 11 & 20). The Board
may feel this letter provides a significant community benefit that justifies a lower fee w hen the determination
is done for property being placed in a conservation easement, but might consider a low er fee inconsistent
with the County’s goals when the letter is used to market the development potential of a Rural Area property.
Staff proposes a policy that as sumes full c ost recovery where fees would be comparable to similar
localities, but recognizes the Board may need to provide guidance for the remaining services. Staff will
dev elop further information on this in the future. Finally, recognizing fees have not kept in step with cost
increases since 1991, staff believes it is appropriate to phase in some fee increases.
Establishing the process for consideration of fee revisions. As the fees are establis hed in County
ordinances, the formal process for revising the fees requires public hearings . Beyond this, s taff believes that
some fee changes could prove controversial and it is desirable to have all concerns w ith fees identified prior
to consideration by the Planning Commission or Board. Staff recommends the process for fee changes
include opportunities for public c omment before the ordinance amendments are drafted.
4. Adjust fees based on budget growth each year. PFM has recommended an annual adjus tment based on a
two step process of reviewing work c hanges and inflation. While staff agrees the fees should be regularly adjusted,
staff notes the fee changes require amending ordinances and reprinting of guidance and documents to reflect the
new fees. Given the cost / benefit associated with the fee adjustments, staff recommends the policy have fees
adjusted every other year, rather than every year, and the adjustment be based on a simpletoimplement inflation
factor.
5. Actual time spent providing the services related to each fee should be captured. PFM is recommending
Community Development implement a time keeping sy stem to accurately track w ork time associated with each
fee. If fees are to be set at or near full cost rec overy, staff agrees this is important. It mus t be noted that
development and implementation of this time keeping system will be a major undertak ing. If it is the Board’s des ire
to set fees at or near c osts, staff rec ommends implementation of a fee specific time keeping system as part of
Community Development’s work program nex t year. Staff has already started investigating how this may be done
and will need to further dis cuss with the Board the impact of this type of system on the work program.
6. A time period should be established for comprehensive review of development related fees. PFM has
recommended this review occur every four or five years w ith implementation of a time k eeping s ystem. Assuming a
time keeping system is implemented in FY 0809, staff recommends the next comprehensive review should be
planned for FY 1112 and the interval for future comprehensive review s should be established as part of that first
review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A cost rec overy policy allows the County to establish the expectation for development funding v ers us County
funding of C ounty administered permits. This provides for fair and c onsistent treatment of permits and simplifies
budget preparation. It is noted that there are c osts associated with implementing and operating a time keeping
system, but those cost can be largely recovered as part of the fees.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached ‘Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy’
(Attachment E) as the general direction for mov ing forward in implementing fee increases. In addition, staff
recommends the Board provide direc tion regarding the points discuss ed above that can be used in the development
of a policy for consideration at a future meeting. Both of these issues will be cov ered in greater detail through a
presentation at W ednes day’s Board meeting.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A Albemarle County Development Fee Study 2007
Attachment B – PFM Presentation Outline
Attachment C – June 12, 1991 Board Minutes on Development Ordinance’s Fee Schedules
Attachment D August 14, 1991 Board Minutes on Dev elopment Ordinance’s Fee Sc hedules
Attachment E – Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
ZONING ORDINANCE FEES - CURRENT FEES AND COSTS ATTACHMENT B
Category Specific
Current
Base Fee Costs
% Cost
Recovery Comments
18-35
a. Special Use Permit 1. Family Division $220 $1,543 14%
2. Rural Area Division $1,240 $1,992 62%
3. Commercial Use $980 $8,509 12%
4. Industrial Use $1,020 $5,420 19%
5. Private Club / Rec Facility - DA $1,020 $8,020 13%
Private Club / Rec Facility - RA $1,020 $6,093 17%
6. Mobile Home Park / Subdivision $980 $8,093 12%
7. Public Utilities $1,020 $3,984 26%
8. Grade / Fill in Flood Plain $870 $11,334 8%
9. Minor Amendment - DA $110 $6,270 2%
Minor Amendment - RA $110 $2,995 4%
10. Extension $70 $3,482 2%
11.a. Home Occ - Class A $13 As listed in Fees, not a SP use
11. b. Home Occ - Class B $440 $5,778 8%
12. Day Care (9 or less) $490 $8,202 6%
13. Day Care (10 or more) $980 $8,202 12%
14. All others except signs $980 $8,419 12%
b. Zoning Text Amendment $840 $13,912 6%
c. Zoning Map Amendment 1. PD less than 50 acres $1,020 $37,812 3%
2. PD 50 or more acres $1,570 $66,496 2%
3. Others under 50 acres $1,020 $42,963 2%
4. Others 50 or more acres $1,570 $97,937 2%
5. Minor amendment $220 $15,443 1%
d. Board of Zoning Appeals 1. Sign SP or Variance $120 $1,673 7%
2. Appeals $120 $3,299 4% Possible Due Process Issues
e. Preliminary Site Development Plan 1. Residential $1,190 $2,894 41% + $13 / DU
2. Non-residential $1,130 $2,074 54% + $0.013 / SF
f. Final Site Development Plan 1. Approved Administratively $410 $3,252 13%
2. Planning Commission Review w/o Prelim $1,130 $4,985 23%
3. Planning Commission Review - w/ Prelim $790 $3,608 22%
4. SDP Waiver $270 $3,140 9%
5. SDP Amendment - Minor $95 $2,493 4%
SDP Amendment - Major $270 $3,555 8%
6. ARB Review $200 $3,479 6%
7. Appeal to BOS $240 $2,190 11% Possible Due Process Issues
8. Rehearing by PC or BOS $190 $2,190 9%
9. Rejection of incomplete - 10 day $200 $1,915 10%
Reinstate review $65 $1,715 4%
g. Relief from condition of approval $180 $771 23% Possible Due Process Issues
h. Change in Name 1. Road $20 $59 34%
2. Development $25 $59 42%
i. Extend Approval of SDP $45 $474 9%
j. Deferrals 1. Specific Date $35 $178 20% Combine 1 & 2 ?
2. Indefinitely $75 $178 42%
k. SDP Bond Inspection $60 $275 22% After 1st bond estimate (??)
l. Zoning Clearance $35 $48 73%
m. Accessory lodging $35 No analysis included
n. Official Letters 1. Determinations $75 $1,849 4%
2. Compliance $75 $183 41%
3. Development Rights $40 No analysis included
o. Sign Permits 1. No ARB Review $35 $35 100%
2. ARB Review $75 $735 10%
p. Tier II Wireless $790 $1,818 43%
q. Groundwater Assessments 1. Tier 1 $50 $43 116%
2. Tier 3 $510 $1,347 38%
3. Tier 4 $1,100 $1,526 72%
ZONING ORDINANCE FEES - PROPOSED FEES ATTACHMENT C
Category Specifics Proposed Fee
Fee Study
Recommendation Comments
18-35
a.1. Special Use Permit, Minor.
Includes: Family Division, Rural
Area Division, Amendment to prior
approved SP, Public Utlities, Day
Care, and Extension i. Application and first resubmission $1,000 $265 to $3570
Combined various fee types into one group.
Lower than Consultant Recommendation
except for Family Division
ii. Each additional resubmission $500 Not included in fee study
a.2. Special Use Permit, Major.
Includes: Grade / Fill in Flood Plain,
Commercial Use, Industrial Use, Home
Occupation-Class B, Day Care, All
Others except Signs i. Application and first resubmission $2,000 $12,30 to $8,210
Combined various fee types into one group.
Lower than Consultant Recommendation
except for commercial use
ii. Each additional resubmission $1,000 Not included in fee study
b. Zoning Text Amendment i. Application $1,000 $1,000
c. Zoning Map Amendment
i. Less than 50 acres, application and
first resubmission $2,500 $10,000 to $12,000
Modified approach, lower than Fee Study
Recommendation
ii. Less than 50 acres, each additional
resubmission $1,250 Not included in fee study
iii. 50 acres and greater, application and
first resubmission $3,500 $10,000 to $12,000
Modified approach, lower than Fee Study
Recommendation
iv. 50 acres and greater, each additional
resubmission $1,750 Not included in fee study
d. Board of Zoning Appeals i. Sign SP or Variance $500 $1,680 1/3 of Consultant Recommendation
ii. Appeals $240 $3,300 Due Process Considerations
e. Preliminary Site Development Plan i. Administrative
$1,200 '+ $15/
dwelling + $0.015
/SF Nonresidential $1,660
ii. Planning Commission Review
$1,800'+ $15/
dwelling +
$0.015/SF
Nonresidential $2,370
f. Final Site Development Plan i. Administrative / Site Plan Waiver $1,500 $2,460
ii. Planning Commission $2,000 $2,065
iii. SDP Amendment - Minor $500 $650
iv. SDP Amendment - Major $1,500 $2,760
v. Appeal to BOS or Rehearing $240 $1,800 Due Process Considerations
vi. Rejection of incomplete - 10 day $240 $240 Unchanged,
vii. Reinstate review $80 $80 Unchanged,
g. Relief from condition of approval or
Waiver of Requirements $425 $425
h. Change in Name Development or Roads $80 $80
i. Extend Approval of SDP $475 $475
j. Deferrals SDP, SP, or ZMA $180 $180
k. SDP Bond Inspection $280 $280
l. Zoning Clearance $50 $50
m. Accessory lodging $100 $100
n. Official Letters 1. Determinations, including Development Rights $100 $100
2. Compliance $185 $185
3. Development Rights $100 $40 Applicant must supply title report
o. Sign Permits 1. No ARB Review $25 $25
2. ARB Review $120 $120
p. Tier II Wireless $1,820 $1,820
q. Groundwater Assessments 1. Tier 1 $50 $50 Same as Subdivision Ordinance
2. Tier 3 $510 $510 Same as Subdivision Ordinance
3. Tier 4 $1,100 $1,100 Same as Subdivision Ordinance
NEW FEES
r. Required Notifications As requrired by ordinance
$200 + postage for
first 50 letters, $1+
postage for each
above 50 Same as Subdivision Ordinance
s. Legal Advertisements As required by ordinance
Actual Cost from
Newpaper Collected at time of advertisement
t. Architectural Review Board i. Site Plan, per ARB review $1,000
$3,479
(cost of service)
Excludes Planning Commission requests to
ARB
ii. Building Permit, per ARB review $590 $590
iii. Revision to approved C.O.A $225 $225
u. Home Occupation - Class A $25 $25 Previously listed under SP Fees
Zoning Ordinance Fee - Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Other Localities Attachment DApplicationCurrent FeeProposed FeeCharlottesvilleFluvannaGreeneJames CityStaffordZMAs (rezoning) 9 acres $1,020$2,500 + $1,250/ Review after 2 reviews$1,500 $750 $2,882 $1,861 $12,978 (e.g. Oakleigh) 270 Acres $1,255$3,500 + $1,750/ Review after 2 reviews$1,500 $7,225 $28,900 $15,000 $19,850 (e.g North Pointe) 830 Acres $1,570$3,500 + $1,750/ Review after 2$1,500 $21,200 $84,800 $15,000 $33,825 (e.g. Biscuit Run) Special Use Permit, Minor - Day Care$980$1,000 + $500 / Review after 2 Reviews$1.500 or $1,800 $750 $500 $1,000+$30/acre $9,750 + $125 / acreSpecial Use Permit, Major - Commercial$980$2,000 + $1,000 / Review after 2 Reviews$1.500 or $1,800 $750 $500 $1,000+$30/acre $9,750 + $125 / acreWireless Facility$790 $1,820$1,500 $1,500Site Plans Prelim Site Plan (Res)$1,190 + $13 DU $1,200 + $15/DU $1,300 + $20/DU $1,100 $1,000 $600 + $60/DU $7,400+ $625/Acre Final Site Plan - PC $1,130 $2,000 $750 NA500 (Admin)$1,600 + $60/DU$2,200 + $`1,100/Review after 2Sign Permit - No ARB$25 $35 $75 $155 $50 + $2/SF$5/SF (4' x 8' = $160)$120 + $2/SFBZA - Variance$120 $500 $250 $550 $500 $250$600 residential; All Others $1,375
ZONING ORDINANCE FEES - ESTIMATED CURRENT FEES ATTACHMENT E
Category Specific
Current
Base Fee
# of
Applications Fees Generated
18-35
a. Special Use Permit 1. Family Division $220 0 $0
2. Rural Area Division $1,240 0 $0
3. Commercial Use $980 13 $12,740
4. Industrial Use $1,020 0 $0
5. Private Club / Rec Facility - DA $1,020 1 $1,020
Private Club / Rec Facility - RA $1,020 0 $0
6. Mobile Home Park / Subdivision $980 $0
7. Public Utilities $1,020 $0
8. Grade / Fill in Flood Plain $870 4 $3,480
9. Minor Amendment - DA $110 4 $440
Minor Amendment - RA $110 4 $440
10. Extension $70 $0
11.a. Home Occ - Class A $13 384 $4,992
11. b. Home Occ - Class B $440 4 $1,760
12. Day Care (9 or less) $490 1 $490
13. Day Care (10 or more) $980 1 $980
14. All others except signs $980 8 $7,840
b. Zoning Text Amendment $840 3 $2,520
c. Zoning Map Amendment 1. PD less than 50 acres $1,020 3 $3,060
2. PD 50 or more acres $1,570 3 $4,710
3. Others under 50 acres $1,020 2 $2,040
4. Others 50 or more acres $1,570 1 $1,570
5. Minor amendment $220 3 $660
d. Board of Zoning Appeals 1. Sign SP or Variance $120 15 $1,800
2. Appeals $120 7 $840
e. Preliminary Site Development Plan 1. Residential $1,190 19 $22,610
2. Non-residential $1,130 19 $21,470
f. Final Site Development Plan 1. Approved Administratively $410 30 $12,300
2. Planning Commission Review w/o
Prelim $1,130 6 $6,780
3. Planning Commission Review - w/
Prelim $790 2 $1,580
4. SDP Waiver $270 2 $540
5. SDP Amendment - Minor $95 53 $5,035
SDP Amendment - Major $270 7 $1,890
6. ARB Review $200 23 $4,600
7. Appeal to BOS $240 $0
8. Rehearing by PC or BOS $190 $0
9. Rejection of incomplete - 10 day $200 1 $200
Reinstate review $65 7 $455
g. Relief from condition of approval $180 1 $180
h. Change in Name 1. Road $20 0 $0
2. Development $25 0 $0
i. Extend Approval of SDP $45 0 $0
j. Deferrals 1. Specific Date $35 5 $175
2. Indefinitely $75 5 $375
k. SDP Bond Inspection $60 98 $5,880
l. Zoning Clearance $35 310 $10,850
m. Accessory lodging $35 1 $35
n. Official Letters 1. Determinations $75 19 $1,425
2. Compliance $75 24 $1,800
3. Development Rights $40 64 $2,560
o. Sign Permits 1. No ARB Review $35 218 $7,630
2. ARB Review $75 65 $4,875
p. Tier II Wireless $790 1 $790
q. Groundwater Assessments 1. Tier 1 $50 183 $9,150
2. Tier 3 $510 11 $5,610
3. Tier 4 $1,100 2 $2,200
ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXISTING FEES $182,377
ZONING ORDINANCE FEES ESTIMATED PROPOSED FEES ATTACHMENT F
Category Specifics Proposed Fee # of Applications Fees Generated
18-35
a.1. Special Use Permit, Minor.
Includes: Family Division, Rural Area
Division, Amendment to prior
approved SP, Public Utlities, Day
Care, Drive-Through, and Extension i. Application and first resubmission $1,000 9 $9,000
ii. Each additional resubmission $500 5 $2,500
a.2. Special Use Permit, Major.
Includes: Grade / Fill in Flood Plain,
Commercial or Industrail Use,Home
Occupation-Class B, All Others except
Signs i. Application and first resubmission $2,000 31 $62,000
ii. Each additional resubmission $1,000 20 $20,000
b. Zoning Text Amendment i. Application $1,000 1 $1,000
c. Zoning Map Amendment
i. Less than 50 acres, application and
first resubmission $2,500 5 $12,500
ii. Less than 50 acres, each additional
resubmission $1,250 8 $10,000
iii. 50 acres and greater, application and
first resubmission $3,500 4 $14,000
iv. 50 acres and greater, each additional
resubmission $1,750 12 $21,000
d. Board of Zoning Appeals i. Sign SP or Variance $500 15 $7,500
ii. Appeals $240 7 $1,680
e. Preliminary Site Development Plan i. Administrative
$1,200 '+ $15/ dwelling + $0.015
/SF Nonresidential 21 $29,400
ii. Planning Commission Review
$1,800'+ $15/ dwelling +
$0.015/SF Nonresidential 17 $34,000
f. Final Site Development Plan i. Administrative / Site Plan Waiver $1,500 32 $48,000
ii. Planning Commission $2,000 6 $12,000
iii. SDP Amendment - Minor $500 53 $26,500
iv. SDP Amendment - Major $1,500 7 $10,500
v. Appeal to BOS or Rehearing $240 0 $0
vi. Rejection of incomplete - 10 day $240 1 $240
vii. Reinstate review $80 7 $560
$0
g. Relief from condition of approval or
Waiver of Requirements $425 12 $5,100
h. Change in Name Development or Roads $80 0 $0
i. Extend Approval of SDP $475 1 $475
j. Deferrals SDP, SP, or ZMA $180 10 $1,800
k. SDP Bond Inspection $280 98 $27,440
l. Zoning Clearance $50 310 $15,500
m. Accessory lodging $100 1 $100
n. Official Letters i. Determinations, including Development Rights $100 19 $1,900
ii. Compliance $185 24 $4,440
iii. Development Rights $100 64 $6,400
o. Sign Permits i. No ARB Review $25 218 $5,450
ii. ARB Review $120 65 $7,800
p. Tier II Wireless $1,820 1 $1,820
q. Groundwater Assessments i. Tier 1 $50 183 $9,150
ii. Tier 3 $510 11 $5,610
iii. Tier 4 $1,100 2 $2,200
NEW FEES
r. Required Notifications As requrired by ordinance
$200 + postage for first 50
letters, $1+ postage for each
above 50 70 $14,000
(Estimated)
s. Legal Advertisements As required by ordinance Actual Cost from Newpaper 70 $24,500
(Estimated)
t. Architectural Review Board i. Site Plan, per ARB review $1,000 50 $50,000
ii. Building Permit, per ARB review $590 10 $5,900
iii. Revision to approved C.O.A $225 5 $1,125
u. Home Occupation - Class A $25 384 $9,600
Estimated Annual Proposed Fees $522,690
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
ZTA200800002 Planned Developments and Neighborhood Model District
Amend the following sec tions of C hapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code: 3.1, Definitions, to amend and
delete sev eral definitions ; 8.2, Relation of planned dev elopment regulations to other z oning regulations, to change
section heading, to c larify the regulations applicable to planned developments ("PD"), to require that waivers and
modifications be expres sly granted, and to reorganize the section; 8.3, Planned dev elopment defined, to revise the
definition of "planned development"; 8.5.1, Applications and documents to be submitted, to revise the standards and
information accompanying an application to establish a PD district; 8.5.2, Preapplication conferenc es, to revise the
parties in a preapplication conference; 8.5.3, Review and recommendation by the planning commission,, to rev ise
the matters considered by the planning commission in ac ting on an application for a PD district; 8.5.4, Review and
action by the board of supervisors, to change section heading and to clarify the documents applicable to a PD upon
approval of the PD rezoning; 8.5.5, Final site plans and subdivis ion plats, to c hange section heading; 8.5.5.1,
Contents of site plans and subdivision plats , to revise a crossreference; 8.5.5.2, Review of s ite plans and
subdivision plats, to provide that when subdivision plats and site plans are reviewed, they shall be reviewed for
compliance as follow s: (a) if the PD district was established on or before December 10, 1980, the zoning and
subdivision regulations c urrently in effect apply unles s vested rights are established; (b) if the PD distric t w as
established after December 10, 1980, at the option of the dev eloper, the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect
when the PD district was established or those currently in effect apply, provided that if the developer elects the
former, s ix delineated subjects of regulation are not s o grandfathered and the developer must comply with current
regulations pertaining to those 6 subjects unless vested rights are established; to revise the zoning administrator's
and direc tor of planning's review for compliance, to define "applicable regulations," and to declare that vested rights
are not impaired; 8.5.5.3, Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development, to revise the
provisions of a plan, code or s tandard the director of planning may vary, and to authorize the director to require that
specified information be provided ; 8.5.5.4, Building permits and erosion and sediment c ontrol permits, to rev ise
references to county officers and bodies and to clarify other clauses; 8.5.5.5, Site plan and subdivision plat
requirements for planned development zoning districts established w ithout an application or application plan, to
change section heading and to clarify the procedure and requirements for review ing a site plan or subdivision plat
where there was no application plan when the PD dis tric t was established; 8.6, Amendments to planned
development districts, to revise and ex pand the procedure to amend a PD district by establishing requirements for
who is an eligible applicant, submitting a map if the rezoning affects less than the entire district, notice, and factors
considered during review ; 20A.3, Application requirements; required doc uments and information, to change reference
from "general development plan" to "application plan"; 20A.4, General development plans, to change section heading
and the required elements of an application plan in a neighborhood model district (hereinafter, NMD"); 20A.5, Codes
of development, to clarify that any subs tantive or procedural requirement of the Zoning Ordinance applies in an NMD
unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development (hereinafter, the "code"), to expres sly
require that the code be in a form required or approved by the director of planning, to change the required elements of
a code, and to limit the applicable architectural standards in preexisting codes to only the new required elements
unless determined to be key features; 20A.6, Permitted uses, to c hange a reference from "general development
plan" to "application plan" and to allow a code to prov ide that any us e allow ed by right or by special use permit in
any other z oning district be a use allowed by special use permit in an N MD; 20A.7, Residential density , to correc tly
state the formula for c alculating res idential density in an NMD; 20A.9, Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas
and preservation areas, to c hange references from "site area" to the "area proposed to be rezoned" when calculating
the areas of green s pac es and amenities; and 20A.10, Streets , to change a reference from "department of
engineering and public works " to the "department of community development." A copy of the full text of the
ordinanc e is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire R oad, C harlottes ville, Virginia. (Elaine Echols)
Mrs. Echols prov ided a Pow erPoint presentation on the ZTA. She said that on April 22, 2008, the Planning
Commis sion passed a resolution of intent to consider minor changes to the PD regulations as w ell as a major
change that would require that certain site plans and subdivision plats permitted under old planned development
zoning c omply with current rather than “old” regulations that ex isted at the time of rezoning approval. The resolution
of intent and propos ed text is provided in the staff report. In July the Commiss ion held a work session. In
September a R ound Table was held w ith the dev elopment community. The final work ses sion was held in
December w here the C ommission made the recommendations to be included in the ordinance. At the time Mr.
Kamptner drafted an ordinance that reflected those changes. It has four important areas of change.
The firs t set of changes would bring titles and other references in conformity with current Community
Dev elopment job titles and current z oning references as w ell as c larify how amendments to PD s can be
made.
The second change deals with old PDs, new regulations and ves ting.
The third change deals w ith timing for a parking study.
The fourth set of changes reduces the architec tural information required for NMDs. Each of these items is
disc ussed in detail later in this report.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendment as written.
Mrs. Echols noted that in a Hollymead Town Center proposed zoning amendment, there w as a question as to
whether or not everyone who owned property in Hollymead Town Center Area C had to sign the application for a
change. The issue came before the Board of Superv isors and there w as a lot of discussion on it at the time.
Because of the amount of time and discussion about this type of issue, staff decided to make it a little clearer in the
ordinanc e as to who has to sign an application to amend a Planned District. That wording was put in the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner can speak to that one if there are any questions.
Mrs. Echols said that, w ith regards to vesting, the Commission w anted to require that the c urrent regulations be
applied to Planned Distric ts approved prior to or with the 1980 zoning map change unless the owner c an establish a
vesting.
The Commission also w anted the current regulations relating to the Entrance C orridor Flood Hazard Ov erlay Distric t,
outdoor lighting, signs, park ing and landscaping to be applied to Planned Districts approved after the 1980 zoning
map change unless the ow ner can establish a vesting.
In terms of the architectural requirements the ordinance amendment removes the requirements for styles, materials,
colors and textures unless an infill project necessitates them or for some other reason. At the las t meeting, the
Commis sion said it believed that it is important that the other architectural features be retained. Staff also noted the
removal of the requirement for ornamentation and an added requirement that the developments have their own
architec tural review and give us that c ertification so they have that when starting the county building permit
process ing.
In terms of parking studies staff asked to allow for parking studies to be submitted with a rezoning or at the s ite plan
or plat rev iew. The C ommission agreed with that.
Staff s aid they had received a few comments to date. One had to do with topography and maps regarding the
resolution of topographic al maps and whether a 5’, 2’ or 4’ contour w as appropriate. The C ommission read Frank
Cox’s comment in the s taff report. The existing ordinance requires topography shown with a maximum of 5’
intervals . Staff recommended that the topography use the county’s geographic information system or better, which
is in 3’ to 4’ intervals. Frank Cox, one of our development profess ionals, has sugges ted that the topography be
provided with a maximum of 2’ contour intervals along with the source of the topographical information. Mrs. Echols
said that this really is the bes t idea when working on a tight site. But the applic ants are the ones w ho need to be
aware that they need to be doing this kind of w ork themselves so that the surprises don’t come out at the end. In
talking to the County Engineer and D irector of Community D evelopment they both believe that staff’s
recommendation right now for using the county’s GIS information should be good enough for a rezoning. If there is a
tight site s taff w ill alway s recommend that an applicant do their own topo so that they are not caught off guard.
Staff had one other comment from Southern Env ironmental Law Center who had a question relative to
determinations about Planned Districts. Staff feels like their concerns have been satisfied. They also told us about
some misnumbering that they need to tak e care.
Mrs. Echols said that sinc e the staff report went out, the County Attorney’s Office has been rereading the ordinance
and would like to add some c larifying revisions which are on the screen as noted below. At this point she asked Mr.
Kamptner to w ork his w ay through the proposed ordinanc e language as noted below.
1. Section 8.5.5.2(a): Add a reference to Virginia Code 15.22997 right before the reference to Virginia
C ode 15.22307. Reason: For a pre1980 PD ZTA, it is possible that an ow ner could argue vested
rights ac crued under what is now Virginia C ode 15.22297, which w as the proffer enabling legislation
applicable to Albemarle C ounty from July 1, 1978 until Virginia Code 15.22298 was adopted in the
1980’s.
2. Section 8.5.5.5(b): Clarify by adding to the first part of the new text that the site plan or subdivision plat
w as valid “at the time the zoning map amendment was approved. . .” Reason: We don’t want to allow
an owner to rely on a plan or plat that was no longer valid by the time the ZTA was approved; and we
don’t want to prevent an owner from relying on a plan or plat as the application if it was valid w hen the
ZTA was approved, but later expired.
3. Section 8.6(a): In the next to last line after the clause pertaining to a c hange to a proffer or regulation in
a code of development, we should add a claus e adding an additional circ umstance when other owners
w ould need to be an applicant – w hen the amendment might change an ow ner’s obligations under a
proffer or regulation in a c ode of dev elopment (w ithout changing the proffer regulation itself). Lump sum
cash proffers come to mind as an example, but there are likely a number of less obvious , subtle effec ts
that may arise that we should provide for. C all me if you have any ques tions.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it was his habit to review and revis e until the Board takes final action. He was review ing
the ordinance this morning in preparation of tonight’s public hearing and there were three substantive changes he
was suggesting to be made. The firs t one is to expand the source of possible ves ted rights. The draft ordinance
now refers only to Virginia C ode Sec tion 15.22307. But it is possible that there are some properties out there w ho
could c laim that they hav e a vested right under their proffered rezoning which relies on 15.22297 as the source.
That is an old source of zoning that proffered rezonings that there are only a few localities around the state that still
use. That was our enabling authority from 1978 until the new enabling authority w as adopted in 1980’s. There may
be no land ow ners out there that could c laim, but just in case they don’t want their vested rights claimed by not
including that section in the ordinance. It is a very technical change, but one they rec ommend be made.
Ms. Joseph said that the Code of Virginia tells us how to vest.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that in Section 15.2.2307 that is the general vesting right statute. About ten years ago
vested rights were codified in the s tatute. Before then vested rights analysis was done on a cas e by case basis .
There were about a half dozen Virginia Supreme Court decisions , but it w as developing under the case law or
common law. It was c odified then. But also in the proffer enabling s tatutes there is now vesting related rights that
are granted under proffered rezonings. For example, if an ow ner has agreed to donate a substantial piece of land or
a cash proffer of subs tantial v alue they can have vested rights arise becaus e of what they have done through their
proffered rezoning.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that means that proffer should have already been paid or it is jus t w ritten down on paper.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it depends. The proffer may be triggered by a certain event that simply has not occurred
yet suc h as the payment of cash at the time of final subdivision plat approval or something like that.
Ms. Porterfield asked w hat if they could not fulfill the proffer.
Mr. Kamptner replied that then there would be no approvals. If they can’t fulfill the proffers the localities have the
ability to not approve any further permits or approvals. The second amendment in Section 8.5.5.5(b) was to clarify
that the site plan or subdivision plat that may serve as the application plan had to be valid at the time that the map
amendment was approved so they would not have a plat or a plan that had already expired at the time of the
rezoning serving as the application plan. Sec tion 8.6(a) is the sec tion that deals with amendments to Planned
Districts where they are trying to put into the regulations the standards for when the owners within the districts must
sign the application or if there is a single parcel. What they tried to do was look at the impacts res ulting from the
application and the impacts it might have on other owners within the Planned Development District. The regulation
lists a number of things, events or consequences that would require the owner of other parcels to cosign the
application essentially when their interes t may be affec ted. In reading that regulation this morning there was another
possible event that may happen. That is when an applicant is proposing to amend a proffer to rezone their property
that may have the effec t of increasing the obligations of the other properties w ithin the Planned District. It is unlik ely
that this type of amendment would be approved but the best example is that you hav e a $100,000 lump sum cash
contribution that has been proffered for this Planned Development and there are ten parcels. The owner of one
applies to rezone his property, but would s till be in the Planned Dev elopment, but that applicant does not want that
lump s um cash proffer apply to his property. The res ult of that w ould increase the obligation of the remaining land
owners ass uming that the rezoning was approved. But this provision is just to address that unlikely situation.
Ms. Ec hols completed her presentation saying that staff recommends approval of the ordinance with the clarify ing
amendments that Mr. Kamptner has prov ided tonight and pass it on to the Board of Supervisors. She offered to
answer any questions.
Mr. Edgerton said that he liked Frank Cox’s sugges tion, but questioned if staff would decide application by
application if it w as a tight enough s ite or they going to make a strong recommendation. H e asked if that is the w ay
staff plans to handle it.
Ms. Echols replied that it depends on w hat the propos ed development would be. If the Commission feels strongly to
recommend that to be the requirement for the 2’ contours that certainly c an be done.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that s taff felt that in a lot of applications the available topo from the county will be
sufficient for the application. But there could be cases w here a better topo would be called for based on the
particular situation. Nothing prevents Frank Cox to act in his capacity as their consultant to direct his applicant to
provide 2’ c ontours. .
Mr. Edgerton said that on the first page of the staff report staff refers to the four important areas of change. The one
he could not find in the ac tual language of the ordinance was the change dealing with the timing of the parking study.
Mr. Struck o pointed out that it was on page 4 of the s taff report.
Mr. Edgerton said that would just be in the C omprehensiv e Plan and would not be part of the ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it should be in the Neighborhood Model D istrict section of the ordinance as am
amendment.
Ms. Echols noted that it s tarts on page 18 in paragraph B.
Mr. Edgerton said that in the top of the paragraph on page 5 it states the standards related to architectural styles,
textures, colors and materials would be required only if architectural compatibility was important for the rezoning.
He asked w ho was going to determine that.
Ms. Echols replied that part of that w ould be the Commission’s determination sinc e staff would be making a
recommendation. Certainly the Commiss ion has to determine whether or not that is essential to the rezoning. On
the older ones or the ones already approved that would be the Planning D irector’s call.
Mr. Joseph asked what façade treatment means.
Mr. Edgerton replied that a façade treatment is basically like a s tage front. It would be like if Barracks Road
Shopping C enter decides to double the rent, leave all the buildings the same and take dow n the façade and put up
new fac ades that have fake roofs and new columns.
Ms. Jos eph asked what it means within a C ode of Dev elopment. If they are asking for a façade treatment what are
they as king for?
Mr. Edgerton replied what he thought was intended w as that they are not really concerned about what is happening
inside the building but w hat is on the outside or the façade of the building and the impact it would have on the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Jos eph questioned how that is different from architectural styles because they hav e taken out architectural
styles and kept in façade treatments.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was more comfortable w ith dealing w ith the façade treatment. They could have a very
contemporary building next to a very traditional building and have it work with the traditional building if there w as
some respect for the rhy thm that was es tablished in the traditional building. Perhaps it could be in the height of the
windows and the coursing of the lev els to the building. This is done quite often and done very successfully . He
thought that the way this was w ritten it would instead of saying that it all has to look like Williamsburg that there has
to be s ome respect for that. That becomes very subjec tive and some people will not like that.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that in the Downtown Crozet zoning they had façade treatments as the part of the
language in the ordinanc e about at what distance you break and that ty pe of thing.
Mr. Edgerton said that ins tead of pick ing a particular style and s aying this is what it has to be, attention should be
paid to getting the rhy thm right and getting respect for the elements of the building so that they don’t end up having a
high rise next to a twostory house.
Mr. Morris said that he liked the comment that he was really concerned about the outside appearance of the building
rather than w hat the building is being used for in side.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the Commission has been addressing that on several projects in recent months . He thought
that the project on Berkmar Extended for the old amusement park was a good example.
Ms. Echols noted that Berkmar Business Park was where they had a onestory building that they wanted to look like
twostories . She said that faç ade treatments are actually the features that help break up the mass ing. The façade
treatments are on the exterior of a building that will show us that there are floors, rhythm and spacing of those things
that make it less like a box and more like a building. There is one thing that was pointed out that was missing,
which w as missing w ords on page 18 under B parking and loading needs study. The w ording did not make it back
into this version.
Mr. Kamptner agreed to put the words bac k in on page 18 under B for parking and loading needs study.
Mr. C ilimberg ask ed if the Commis sion dec ides to have the parking as an either/or at the time of rezoning or at s ite
plan staff will make sure that the wording is added.
Ms. Porterfield said that on page 3 regarding mapping interval it say s the modific ation to the fee schedule will
include a fee for variations sometime in the future. She asked if they k now when that is.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that they have to get subdivision ordinance fees done first whic h are being adv ertised for the
March 10 meeting. After that Mr. Graham plans this year to bring forw ard the zoning ordinance fees.
Ms. Porterfield ask ed if it would be better to go the lesser distance now so they would not have to w orry about the
variations. She assumed that variations w ould have to be mapped in a more exact form.
Ms. Echols noted that they do hav e a few examples where that has happened. But she thought that they were
going to get variation requests regardless . They will hav e variations that are requested for Planned Dis tricts.
Mr. Cilimberg said that v ariations referred to here are not about changes in contours. That is what he thought Mr.
Porterfield w as asking about. Those variations are actually about how a layout might be changed ov er what was in
the original zoning action. It could be as a result of market changes or more fine tuning in the des ign because they
are not going to get down to level of a site plan at the rezoning stage and they are getting into their site and realiz ing
that they have to make some changes because of that. That will be coming to the Commission as a package.
Ms. Porterfield said that on page 5 under individual notice on the bottom they are talking about written notice of the
proposed amendment s hall be provided to the owner of each parcel within the Planned Development District. She
asked if they know who is going to provide that. She ask ed if that w ould be staff.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would be under the current procedures unless those get changed by a different decis ion
down the road.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he meant a different financing decision on it.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes because it could be a responsibility decision or a fee decis ion.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff wants to k eep it open ended the way it is .
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes that this would not be the time to do that.
Ms. Porterfield questioned w hy the Board of Supervis ors and Planning Commission titles are not capitalized in the
proposed amendment but are capitalized in reports. She sugges ted that the titles be consistently done one way or
the other.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the style of not having the titles capitalized is one that has been in the ordinance for 28
years is that most of the entities including the Board and C ommission are not capped. They are in the early stages
of looking at doing a rec odification of the zoning ordinance. One of the things that will be developing is a consistent
style in not only capitaliz ation but als o terminology. That is something that they will be looking at.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that they pull out the capitalizations because there are some in here already. On page 32
under zoning administrator they talk about the fact that they shall determine w hether the proposed permitted us es
comply w ith the applicable regulations and in doing so may permit as a use by right a commercial use that is not
express ly classified in this chapter if the zoning administrator further determines that the use is similar to general
character to a commercial use permitted by right. . . She asked if this a little bit about what they just had with the
issue they just determined. The reas on she asked that is there was a lot of dis cus sion as to w hether that w as
inappropriate comparison. If they had not had that they would not have had this issue.
Mr. C ilimberg said that this is about trying to make sure that they are able to get the commercial uses one might not
think about in a commercial setting within a N eighborhood Model District permitted even if they were not expres sly
identified. They are dealing right now w ith a zoning text amendment that is coming to the Commission for a beauty
shop in a c ommercial district w here some lik e uses are allowed but beauty s hops are not. So they have to do a
zoning text amendment. These k inds of circumstances under Planned Development where there is suppos e to be a
little bit of flexibility to accommodate w ith good plans some of the ideas and uses that could evolve over a few
years. The idea is to give the zoning administrator the opportunity to say w ell this use, this beauty s hop, is like a
barber shop w hich is something allow ed. So it could be permitted as w ell.
Ms. Porterfield said that it would be a much more similar situation than what they just had. That situation was so
different.
Mr. Cilimberg said that was a conventional zoning district whereas this is for Planned Development Districts. That
was for a different use type altogether.
Mr. Kamptner s aid that particular paragraph actually is mirroring the prov ision in the C1 conventional district
regulations that allow the z oning administrator to make a similar k ind of determination. What happened w ith the
application before that was simply a classical zoning administrator’s or zoning official’s determination as to whether
or not a particular proposed use fits in with one of the use classifications within the R A zoning district. He thought
that the research found that as the s peaker kept referring to it as a saw mill but he thought that particular
classification also inc luded wood yards. So zoning staff did research to determine w hether or not what is propos ed
could fall within that clas sification.
Ms. Porterfield said that it sounds like in this case it is narrower.
Mr. Kamptner said that it was narrower recognizing that the regulation does not capture ev ery single type of use or
the terminology that might be used.
Ms. Porterfield noted that on page 35 they have Section 8.5.4.4 twic e.
Ms. Echols replied that would be correc ted.
Ms. Porterfield questioned on page 40 under g #4 the architectural style, materials and textures if deemed to be
necessary. She understood in Rivanna Village that it definitely w as going to be done in the Williamsburg style. She
thought that the neighborhood bought into that and the developer as she understood thought it w as fine. She
wondered about adding s omething to this “and/or has been agreed to by the developer as a condition of their
rezoning.” In other words in the case if a particular style has been agreed to.
Ms. Echols asked if she was talking about ones that have previously been approved.
Ms. Porterfield replied y es if the applicant has agreed to a general style that most people know.
Ms. Echols said that in Rivanna Village at Glenmore, the styles indicated in the Code of Development would be
retained because they were important features of that rez oning. In new rezonings, the importance of s tyle would be
determined on a casebycase basis.
Ms. Porterfield said that Rivanna Village is fine, and past things are fine. If an architectural style is spec ifically put
in the C ode, then they would have a feel for what it is s upposed to look like.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Kamptner s aid that the reference to it being agreed to that w ould be memorializ ed either in a proffer or in the
Code of Development.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil W illiamson, of Free Enterpris e Quorum, said that he had two sets of remarks the first set of w hich are his own
and thus are disjointed, but touch on some of the things that Mr. Kamptner raised. H e was s till uneasy with regards
to the changes for 8.6 with regards to w hat property owners sign w hen and how they influence the other property
owners. H e w as really think ing specific ally of the Holly mead cas e and how that could be construed in a very tightly
understood language to impact every one. It really freez es that particular land ow ner. H e thought that was a reas on
not to go into a Planned District. He thought that Planned Districts generally have a very solid purpose and a
planning purpose. H e thought that it w ould be good to preserve those. He needed to spend a little more time
thinking about w hat Mr. Kamptner presented on the PowerPoint. In the R ound Table discussion staff quantified the
PD’s that were out there that might be impacted by this . He would love to have staff quantify an estimate of the
number of PD ’s that were created w ith the 1980 zoning, which is kind of w here they have honed down to. Also on
his wish list he also w ould love it if the provisions regarding the applic ation of parking and entrance corridor, etc.
could be applied in an ala carte method if it w orks better for the plan. He did not know if that could be c odified.
In addition Mr. Williamson noted that his good friend Valerie Long has put forth a very comprehensive memo w ith
details and things that he thought was worthy of his touching on it. He passed out a c opy to the Commission.
(Attachment – Valeria Long’s Memorandum) She cites a number of issues including the s ection that Mr. Kamptner
referenced 8.5.5.3(a) suggesting that the Planning Director/Zoning Administrator and all others makes sense but it
might have some language like other c hanges that the Planning Director deems reasonable to add some flexibility .
One of the key things that most of these recommendations in Ms. Long’s memo touch on is the need for the
flexibility within the Planned District to accomplish the ov erall goals. H e thought that the Commiss ion has been
pretty clear dating bac k to some of their s ervices on DISC II that flexibility and a level of trust is going to be required
to make these things work. There is a lot of good stuff in Ms. Long’s well organized memo that he did not write.
Therefore, he would turn the memo over to the C ommission to review. He would lov e to see them move this
forward, but he w ould also like to see if these issues can be addressed. As Mr. Kamptner proved from an
examination just this morning of the C ode there is alw ays more legal work to be done.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commis sion for discuss ion and action.
Ms. Porterfield suggested pushing off the decision for a couple of meetings so staff could go back and make the
changes before they adopt it.
Mr. Morris felt that w as a realistic suggestion in that there are so many changes that the Commission had
suggested. He did not k now if he could support the proposal as it w as before them. The majority of it is great, but
do they really want it to go forw ard before they have a chance to look it over.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that what Mr. Kamptner suggested was pretty straight forward and simple modification that staff
can tak e c are of very easily before the Board would see it. The Board is going to have a w ork ses sion before the
public hearing. H e asked if the Commiss ion felt that the things in the memo should be considered as well for
possible changes.
Mr. Edgerton s aid that he w as not comfortable saying to just hand the memo over and incorporating it. He thought
that the C ommission needs a chance to review it and if it puts it off a week or month it is okay.
Mr. Kamptner said that he would be happy to incorporate the changes they discuss ed and w ork with staff to review
Mr. Williamson’s comments and Ms. Long’s memo.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they would not need to have another public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner said that they don’t need to readvertise it if they set it to another date to come back and discuss.
Ms. Cilimberg noted that March 24 is going to be next real opportunity .
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Morris seconded to defer ZTA200802 Amendment to Planned D istrict (PD)
and Neighborhood Model District (NMD) Regulations.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Struck o noted that ZTA200802 was deferred to March 24, 2008.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 9, 2008
W ork Session:
ZTA200800002 Amendment to PD & NMD Regulations
The request is to amend regulations for Planned Districts and Neighborhood Model Districts, to modify grandfather
clause, provide clarific ation on requirements, update titles in acc ord w ith County reorganization, and change
architec tural and parking requirements . (Elaine Echols )
Ms. Ec hols presented a PowerPoint presentation and gave an overview of the previous discussion regarding ZTA
20082, Amendments to the Planned Dis tricts and N eighborhood Model Districts. (See PowerPoint presentation and
staff report)
In the spring the Commiss ion expressed some initial interest in dealing with mainly old zonings that were
c oming in and us ing old zoning regulations. It w as a concern to the Commis sion. The Commission ask ed
s taff to draft a resolution of intent, which was approved on April 22, 2008, to amend the zoning ordinance as
it related to the old regulations as part of the Planned Districts .
On July 29, 2008 the C ommission had a w ork session to provide comments and ask ed staff to set up a
R ound Table. The Round Table Discussion w as held on September 30, 2008. At the Round Table the
C ommission received a lot of public comment from members of the development community who were
c oncerned about the regulations applying to more c urrent developments and that what was originally
proposed was too onerous. The Commission asked s taff to look into that to see what other types of options
might be available and come bac k, which was what staff is doing tonight.
Staff discussed and reviewed their recommendations on the outstanding issues from the w ork session,
w hich included ves ting, signage, architecture and parking as outlined in the staff report and PowerPoint
presentation. Staff asked the Commission to review the propos ed changes and suggest modification where
necessary. Staff w ill then w rite the proposed ordinance language and hold a public hearing before sending
the Commiss ion’s recommendation on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Don Franc o, of KG Associates, provided input, as follow s.
He noted that at Rivanna Village there is a large range of arc hitecture that could be applied from
W illiamsburg to Downtown Mall arc hitecture. One of the problems with trying to pin that down at the time of
the rez oning has been w hat is it going to look like. They w ant the density, but are years from getting that
development to start coming out of the ground. If they get to 100,000 square feet there are probably going
to be two or three story buildings. . It is hard to make Williamsburg style look good at four stories.
The way the Code of Development is written they have a very broad range of what is going to happen. By
the time things start coming out of the ground they will hav e that pinned down. He thought that having the
ability to commit to massing aspects but not to the kind of materials and specific architecture at rezoning is
going to be important. That will help the developers.
If they had elements like Crozet he would consider that as an infill and materials become more important in
that particular setting. But, if they take potentially larger projects like Albemarle Place and Rivanna Village
that might have constraints on the outside their approach has been to hide it with a buffer. H e was not sure
if the public s hould be really inv olved at the rez oning stage of w hat the inside looks like as long as they c an
c reate the Neighborhood Model feel on the inside.
They are committed to Riv anna Village’s concept and are confident that they c an liv e within that broad
range. The s tyle will affect other elements. If they don’t have shared parking they may not be able to
c reate four story buildings. Some of that is not talked about at the rezoning stage. He questioned what
k ind of architecture they want to commit to. He w as not sure if he liked the Downtown Mall as a onestory
or twostory so much as he liked it slightly taller. He ask ed if flat roofs were appropriate at that height for a
N eighborhood Model District. He felt that they have to find the right balance of how do they commit to the
neighbors. But his real focus would be similar to the Entrance C orridor in foc using on the perimeter. The
s maller the projec t gets, such as potential projec ts in Downtow n Crozet, the more that will infiltrate into the
c enter of the s ite.
Mr. Loach ask ed when the developer should hav e to show the neighborhood something that they can judge besides
just a s quare on a piec e of paper showing how many stories it is.
Mr. Franco replied that it was a hard line to draw. He thought that in Crozet where he was could stand on an
existing street and see the building that it bec omes more important to him. If he cannot stand in Glenmore Way and
see the center of this town at some point in the future for Rivanna Village he was not sure that it was as important.
In his mind the line is draw n in how v isible it is to the outside community . There are a lot of projec ts around the
community that have different architectural sty les. If the project is self contained he felt that it w ould be ok ay to let
that detail happen a lot later on by the people going there such as the purchas ers and residents of the new village.
The question is how vis ible it is to the outside community .
Mr. Loach felt it was a reasonable approach. He did not know how they would codify it as far as where that line
would be draw n, but they would have to do their best. In Croz et he felt that the community was sacrificed for the
greater good and then they started to hear about the Neighborhood Model and dens ity. It has to be compatible. He
thought that the Neighborhood Model has been a net plus in Crozet. But he also worried that taken to its extremes it
might be a negative if there is no way for the community to get input.
Cliff Fox , resident of C rozet, said that there are a lot of other components of land development that impact the
pedestrian orientation suc h as street design. An example is the Dow ntown Mall that is such an enclosure that
comes from the tree canopy threequarters of the y ear. There is a lot of architectural differentiation there, but it still
can be sewed together. The Dow ntown Mall works because of that canopy regardless of the building size. There
are plenty of different forms. It is important to not only look at the architecture of the buildings , but the street
design. The new Croz et Main Street is being designed so that one w alks into a retaining w all. That is not ADA
compliant. There are long term components that are outside of the building form that they need to look at. Flexibility
with the building form c an actually help with some of the other components.
Valerie Long, repres entative for a number of owners of large planned district zoning projects, noted that she has
been particularly interested in this. She thanked the Commis sion and staff for a very productive w ork s ess ion in
late September. They had a large number of representatives of the development c ommunity in attendanc e. They
were very concerned and felt like the Commiss ion and staff listened and heard them. They are grateful for that and
hoped that they could continue that proc ess both on this initiative as well as others.
Personally, she liked the direction staff is going in the sense of us ing the 1980 date as a cut off. She
understands that the original reason for this initiative was to address the concerns the Commis sion had w ith
one or two projects that had pre1980 zoning. She felt that was a good way to address those issues without
having very dire negative impacts. But they are still concerned about it. By having to prove a vesting case
on other issues like landscaping, parking, lighting and so forth they are not completely free of the concerns
that they have.
The vesting c riterion that is in the Virginia Code is very subjective and is subject to significant
interpretation. As Mr. Kamptner said at the work session there is little to no case law that exists that
provides guidance to any one about what it means to diligently pursue a project or to rely on a governmental
approval or act. She w as concerned that even though it has been scaled back significantly that by hav ing
to still make a vesting argument that landscaping, lighting or something like that it c ould make it
impossible. One, they could spend a tremendous amount of time with the applicant and the staff trying to
determine if they have a vested right to do the landscaping the way they want to do it. That w ill eat up
everybody’s time in trying to deal w ith those subjective standards. Also, they could create situations where
they have an approved zoning application plan, the standards change dramatically and all of a sudden they
c ould no longer build the projec t the way it was approved after going through the long z oning process which
they spent a lot of time and effort on. They still have a lot of c oncerns about that vesting.
She thought that if the is sue was to addres s those pre1980 projects then they could just s tart with the
threshold and just leave it at that, w hich solv es the problem without causing any of the adv erse impacts .
C ontinuing the vesting argument for post 1980 projects on some of these other issues, although it might
s eem minor, raised many concerns that it will continue to have some of those same adverse impacts. She
s upports the staff’s proposals to provide greater flexibility on the arc hitectural standards . She thinks the
dialogue has been very helpful. It makes s ense after hav ing worked on a number of these C odes of
D evelopment and spelling out architectural requirements, details and orientation that it makes sense not
having them be too detailed due to the enforcement issues. It is a very diffic ult line to w alk. She thought
that moving away from that and focusing on what really matters is a great approach.
Finally she wanted to raise the question and make sure that some of the other minor housekeeping matters
that were disc uss ed over the las t year with regard to this zoning text amendment will still be considered as
they move forth. Staff has talked about that under the bullet for removing redundancies, mak ing
c larifications and making things c onsistent. The chart that staff attached to the July 29 work session walk ed
through a lot of other housekeeping rev isions to the language that w ere all logical and very productive for
everybody. She wanted to make sure that those don’t fall through the cracks because they made a lot of
s ense.
Ms. Porterfield noted that what staff is s uggesting are just specific areas such as the landscaping, entrance corridor
and things lik e that. She asked are there so many problems in those that they could not just be updated. In other
words is that going to cause a huge problem to a developer w ho has not started a project since 1980? She asked if
it is going to be s o tough to put in lights that are up to the standard at the time as opposed to what happened in
1980.
Ms. Long replied that it is hard to say because it is hard to predict what changes might occur with those regulations
and how those changes would affect an approved zoning project.
Ms. Porterfield asked are those big limiting factors compared to other things that w ould be w orth the fight to find out
whether they were ves ted or not.
Ms. Long replied that compared to other things they are not as significant. But, again w ithout being able to predict
what c hanges might tak e place and how they might affect a project with the level of detail that is required for an
application plan these days it is hard to tell. The application plan required is so detailed that it is essentially a s ite
plan.
With lighting it is harder to conceive of a regulation that would make it difficult other than saying no lighting
in this area at all when they might have a retail tenant for instance that ins ists on having lighting.
Landscaping is an example that is easier to use as an illustration. If on an approved application plan there
is an area shown that is going to be landscaped along the entrance corridor and all of a sudden the
landscaping regulations were to double along the entranc e corridor because that is what the Board and
C ommission deemed appropriate it could be a problem.
Another problem would be if an approved application plan that no longer w orked because the lands caping
w as designed for a particular tenant that was lost and then they no longer had enough room for parking or
access roads as show n on the plan. It w ould tak e a lot of time to proof that they had a good c ase to show
they had a right to us e the landscaping regulations in effect in 2007 instead of those in 2010. She
questioned how one prov es that they have a vested right. They have to demonstrate essentially for three or
four criteria that they have relied on a subs tantial governmental ac t and diligently pursued the approvals .
H ow does one prove that they have diligently pursued it? Who is to say w hat diligently pursued really is ?
Those are the issues that she worries about.
She questioned whether they really need to go through this exerc ise to address it when the original reas on
this all got started was one or two pre1977 projects, which she felt they were appropriately to be concerned
w ith. The Commission seemed to agree in late September that they did not want to undo all of the time and
efforts that went into thes e recent planned district application plans. She asked that they just focus on the
ones from pre1980 where there are concerns and let ev ery body from 1980 on, particularly those in the last
few years that hav e so much detail, just mov e forw ard and use the current regulations.
Mr. Struck o asked if it was a business risk in terms of the timing. If he was a developer that laid out a plan, got it
approved and sat on it for 20 years and in the meantime community standards have changed through the elected
representatives of the community, the business risk he assumes by not acting in that time is now that he had to
comply with standards that now meet the new community demands. Whereas , if he acted earlier he would have
had his plan completed. Community s tandards will adjust and change to meet the opinions of the time through
elected representatives through a legis lative act. If he was doing bus iness in that environment he has to know that
there is a risk and he will face some c hanges if he does not act in a timely enough fas hion.
Ms. Long said that his point w as a good one. But, it may not be that the developer has just sat around and failed to
develop it. It may be that especially with a lot of these project that are large significant projects w ith 10 and 15 year
build outs that phase 5 of the project w as not done because the developer had spent the last 10 or 15 y ears work ing
on phas es 1 through 4. Now at phas e 5 the developer may find that the regulations are all different.
Mr. Struck o questioned if that w ould be a vested right, and Ms. Long replied perhaps.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that they could not control the way the term vested is interpreted in the Commonw ealth of
Virginia.
Mr. Kamptner noted that they can’t be more restric ted. He noted that everything that they are talking about the
county is being more generous to the development community than is the minimum required by s tate law . What
they hav e right now in place and w hat is proposed is grandfathering for the most part for these projects that were
approved many years ago.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Strucko that one has to assume that new regulations and requirements were put in at the
request of the public in association with its elected officials. W hat he is hearing tonight is that they really look at the
lowest common denominator and that is what he was arguing against before. H e thought that the community has a
right to ex pect that the regulations they feel is necessary be carried out. But that is not w hat he is hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied certainly w hat the draft is saying right now is that any project that has been approv ed since
1980 they w ill grandfather everything that was approved w ith limited exceptions, such as the outdoor lighting,
landscaping and features like that. In those cases they can proceed under the regulations in effect at the time they
were approved if they can show that they have vested. There are ac tually two way s in which they can establish
vesting. One is under the s ignificant governmental act with the diligent pursuit and all of that. The other is that if
they had proffered substantial cash, s ubs tantial land or substantial improvements. That throws in some additional
protections for them. There is no requirement for diligent pursuit. There is not even a requirement of spending
money in the interim as long as they can meet the other tests outlined in the materials. It protects them under that
standard as to uses, density and floor area ratio. For example, if the landscaping standards c hange and they
somehow doubled in size or if they had substantial c ash proffers and met the other requirements, then the new
landscaping requirements could not be imposed in a way that w ould reduce their density, reduce their floor area ratio
or change any of the uses that are in place.
Mr. Strucko asked what about a standard that impacts public safety and if a new regulation came into effect that
substantially improves public safety and has some impact. He asked if that circumstance was cov ered outside of
the entrance corridor exc eptions.
Mr. Loach noted that VDOT’s driveway standards might be applied now as versus then.
Mr. Strucko as ked if they did not have a vesting in the project w ould they be required to comply with new standards
that enhance public safety .
Mr. Kamptner noted that today he reviewed the draft VDOT Entrance R egulations. Ev en in matters of public safety
they do realize that rights will ves t. In their proposed regulations they hav e a cut off date. If the project existed
before a certain date they are allowed to proceed under prior regulations. This partic ular regulation was dealing w ith
entranc e spacing requirements. Those requirements are going to change if and when these regulations take effect.
In any matter of public s afety it is recognized that rights will vest and protect the ow ner’s financial interest.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they did include one public safety regulation for the flood haz ard overlay, whic h changes ov er
the years.
Mr. Strucko said that was a very s pecific one in a targeted area. He asked about broader language. H e was try ing
to keep in mind the spirit of what initiated this whole proc ess , which was s tarted by Mr. Edgerton. They had parc els
that were under old regulations that were coming before the Commiss ion over 30 years later and they were say ing
this does not comply w ith anything they have and if there w as something that they could do.
Mr. Edgerton said that staff has come up with a reasonable compromise and drawn a line in 1980. They have
picked things in the current regulations that the community has declared a concern for and the new regulations were
developed. A specific example is lighting. If a project was approved in 1981 and there was no D ark Sk y Ordinance
and that w as not applied under this it c ould undo all of the good in the surrounding neighborhood. A line is being
drawn. Certainly from the development c ommunity pers pective the bes t answ er from all of them would be let’s forget
about z oning and do anything that they want to do. Ms. Echols pic tures are very informativ e. The picture of the
little one story house next to the four stories is Houston, Texas. That is an example given in architectural sc hool of
a c ommunity that was allowed to develop w ithout any zoning at all. From a development pers pective that is the
ultimate dream. But there is no conc ern for the community there. That is w hy they hav e zoning and are here.
Mr. Struc ko noted that he gets uneasy w hen they start talking about specific architec tural features. That is a matter
of style and taste. He really gets concerned w ith something like the Dark Sky Ordinance or a stream buffer.
Mr. Edgerton opposed hav ing an architec tural style in an ordinance. Staff has tried to speak to the ambiance of the
Neighborhood Model. A good architect w ill respond to that in an appropriate way. He had his own selfish sty les
that he liked better, but there are differences of opinions. A lot of the historic s tyles that have been represented as
being more appropriate for the Neighborhood Model he sees more as a fas hion statement. But a good architect and
a good des igner will respond to scale and massing. Ms. Echols has done a marvelous job in explaining that.
Ms. Porterfield said that if a project was phased out over a long period of time and w as being done in phases s he
was ass uming that starting the first phase would indic ate vesting.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it depends on the significant governmental approval that they are relying on or if it is the
proffered rezoning. The rez oning action is going to have the proffers, the Code of Development and all of the cash
offered. That is going to be the significant governmental act and if they find vesting then it is going to apply to the
entire rezoning. The significant governmental act may jus t be a site plan or a site plan that pertains to a spec ific
piece of property. He thought that here in almos t all of the cases the action that will determine what is vested is
going to be the rezoning action. So once they find vesting then it is going to apply to everything.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if it was regardless of what phase they were in, and Mr. Kamptner replied y es.
Neil Williams on, with The Free Enterprise Forum, said that one question Mr. Kamptner brought to mind w as the
change in ownership of phase 5 or that they have multiple owners in these options and how that mov es in. He
noted the following points.
First and foremost they continue to be concerned about the signage issue and look forward to working w ith
s taff when that comes forw ard. Mixed use c ommunities require mixed uses that have an opportunity to
s ucceed, whic h he felt was the goal of everyone on the Commission.
With regard to parking it is important to recogniz e staff’s c ontention that the uses are not alw ays known.
There is less need for more parking. There are probably more opportunists for shared parking and less
impervious surface if they delay that to the s ite plan for review.
He remains concerned with the vesting issue that this is not a legal employ ment act. The level of case law
that is available and where the c ounty is headed does not s eem very clear. While he could see some points
w ith the first point of ves ting with regards to the 1980 line in the sand he really thinks that there is a
question with ves ting and what is involved there.
In regards to Mr. Strucko’s point, he felt that the adoption of this would add a new risk. Since this did not
exist today it was a new bus ines s risk. Jus t k now ing what they are doing is important.
He was of the opinion that members of the business community work within the framework that they have.
There are s ome really nice projec ts out there that are the benefit of zoning, this Commission and the
development community that put them forward.
Mr. Morris invited further public comments .
Don Franc o asked to res pond to Mr. W illiamson’s comments.
H e noted that a lot of the developers are the larger landowners in the community, too. They are protected
by the zoning around us. Therefore, he personally supports zoning. If they can play within the rules, then it
is good for everybody. He agreed, but did not k now how to draw the line. Health and s afety is not really
the magic line. He felt that outdoor lighting and D ark Skies is important, but was not sure about signs.
He was trying to figure out how parking w ould be something that could hurt him. The only way it might hurt
him is if they double the parking requirements increasing the impervious surface and maybe there s hould be
an out not to have to do that.
An entranc e corridor would not hurt him unless it w as increased in size or restrict w hat can be done in it.
So again that was something that he would probably want to be protected in. It is not just the phasing of the
project, but Rivanna Village is now going through the state and federal permitting. So it may be a number of
y ears before they get to a site plan level, before they actually pay a proffer and they may be spending a
million dollar to get to that phase. He was still not sure if they were vested yet. So if the entrance corridor
w as to double in size that could be a real problem for them. That vesting aspect is still a problem that
needs to be worked out.
Regarding the comment on the ARB, he felt that being managed by the development is fine, but they need
to make sure the language is created correctly. From their pers pective the language would be at the sale of
a property or at concept lev el with the site plan and it may have conc eptual architecture. He would not
necessarily say final approval. That final approval w ill come with the building permit. If they make them the
regulator of this do they need to include iss uance of a c ertificate of compliance at the end. H e questioned if
that needs to be added to the CO process as well. Those would be the steps they would look at. It would
be conceptually what kind of architecture and what it is generally going to look at. If they all agree on that
then they proceed with the site plan. Then w hen they get to the building permit they get to that level of
detail. At the end they certify that w hat they build w as consis tent to what they all agreed to.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris c losed the public comment and bring it back to the Commiss ion
for disc uss ion.
Mr. Kamptner noted there w ere some questions by Mr. W illiamson that he would like to address.
The first iss ue w as in response to the change in ownership question. Earlier this year in H ollymead Town
C enter they determined that they needed all of the signatures w ithin one of the developments for an
application. Under the current regulations they determined that they needed to have the signatures of all of
the owners to sign. Staff is going to addres s that issue in the text amendment. That was in relation to a
use and the increase in intensification. What they are looking at doing is that there are certain cases where
there is not an increased intensific ation of the use but generally there was some kind of an amendment
required it would require that only the ow ner of that lot within the planned development s ign the application.
That was the is sue here of who signs the application. Notic e would be required to be given to everybody
else within the planned development. But at least for the application to go forward only the owner of the lot
that was affected would be required to sign the application. One of the reasons for that shift that is going to
become essential, particularly as time goes on, is because as these developments get established and
become denser the boundaries between one dev elopment and another are going to blur. The development
c ommunity is going to be hamstrung if everybody ’s consent to simply filing the application is required. One
owner may have a lot of control over another ow ner where they don’t really have an interes t at stake. They
w ill get notice and be entitled to voice their objections at the public hearing. But this at least gets the
applicant in the process. Staff is going to deal with that.
Regarding the signage and parking issues , those are becoming more flexible. The current sign regulations
w ill be up for amendment s oon. Over the last decade the sign regulations have been amended several
times. The way the current regulations operate is that the ow ner cannot pick and choose which ordinance
they want to have applied. If they have a 1985 development they may be s tuc k w ith the 1985 sign ordinance
that allows only certain types of signs. There is a movement to allow the LED type of signs. They
c urrently allow signs w ith what is called rare gas or neon in c ertain districts. They w ould not have that
option to do that. It is wrong just to assume that regulations are alw ays in the future going to become more
and more restrictiv e. They are try ing to deal w ith current situations and address them.
The last question was regarding vesting. He reviewed the four c ases outlined in the slide presentation.
One is a Virginia Supreme Court c ase, the Suffock case. Tw o of the other cases, the Robertson case and
the Salem Fields c ase are trial court cases. The Medical Struc tures case is an old Virginia Supreme Court
c ase before vested rights were codified in Virginia Code. They have a very limited pool from w hich to
determine what diligent pursuit means. They have one case that the owner acted within a year. There is
one case where they started acting w ithin five years. In the third case the owners did not begin acting until
50 years after the date of the decision. So it does not really help define what the perimeters are. From the
c ases they hav e a pretty good understanding of what it means to rely on the approval. The cases are
s imply outlined and once approved the ow ner starts hiring c onsultants to do various types of activities .
Then with the amount of money that needs to be expended to establish extensiv e obligations or substantial
expenses the c ases are very limited. They hav e the Suffock case, the Medical Structures case and one
other cas e. The range of money spent is between about $35,000 up to the Suffock c ase, which w as
$115,000. The Suffock case dealt with a rezoning of a few hundred acres. It is a lot of money, but in the
c ontext of several hundred acres not necessarily a tremendous amount.
Ms. Echols asked the Planning Commiss ion to go through each one and decide whether to move on or if they need
further dis cussion what they want to do.
Mr. Strucko reiterated that his c oncern is entrance c orridor, flood hazard overlay, outdoor lighting and signs and the
public safety concerns in whether it is pollution, effluents or spacing. H e asked if they w ere covered, if not in here,
by other law.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the vesting issues they were dealing w ith here are really dealing with w hat is addres sed in
the zoning ordinance. There is a separate provision that applies to subdivision which really vests for a limited period
of time. Regulations that are beyond the zoning ordinanc e are not vested. So the applicant needs to deal with the
regulations in place at the time of the development.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Water Protection Ordinance, as an ex ample, is in a different Code s ection and has
to be applied.
Mr. Strucko noted that they were going to postpone discussion on signs. He ask ed w hat the conc ern is about the
landscaping.
Ms. Echols replied that it is something that generally does not seem to affect the site plan so much, but it is a
standard adopted several years back for appearance sak e. They have a percentage requirement of canopy coverage
and thos e have not changed in many y ears. Staff is not thinking that will be an onerous thing for someone to have
to deal w ith. If they were doubling the amount it could. But if somebody did not hav e a plan and they did not have
proffers that might not make a huge difference. If they met their vesting and hav e a detailed plan with proffers,
which most of the rec ent projects do, s taff does not think it will affec t them that muc h.
Mr. Strucko asked what the pressing landscape issue is that allow ed it to mak e the short list, and Ms. Echols
replied the appearance.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that speaks quite directly to the Neighborhood Model and the scale of the effects.
Ms. Echols as ked if the Planning Commiss ion is okay with what staff has proposed, including the architectural
standards.
Mr. Loach asked to see more specificity .
Mr. Morris felt this would be covered more in the planning stage and not in the Code.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he agreed w ith staff’s rec ommendation. He felt that the massing, sc ale and getting
away from the nonpedes trian feeling are what they should focus on as opposed to style.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there were only two Commissioners involved w ith master plans present and they were
trying to say that there is a lot of community involvement in the master plan concept. She asked if there was any
chance the others c ould go back and just think about it to see if there was any way to try to do what the community
of the area is looking for as a concept.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he was not s ure if the master plans have defined architectural style specifically. That is all
they were talking about here. They don’t have in their master plans anything dictating the architectural styles. They
would be removing the requirement in the C ode of Development to specify which styles they were going to use.
That is all they were saying. The rest of it is exactly what they have said that they want to see. It is at a level of
specificity that staff does not think w as intended.
Mr. Loach noted that he w ould like to go back and disc uss it with the C rozet Advis ory Committee and get some
input. H e agreed with Ms . Porterfield that there were only two C ommissioners who are going to have to live w ith
this. Therefore, they w ould like this to be looked at further.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they consider an option in deciding whether architectural s tyles are being appropriately
reflected.
He was not s ure that master plans go to this detail on dictating architectural style. But if they did and in a
master plan they decided that a particular area was only to hav e certain styles that would actually govern
the review of the rezoning. A rezoning that comes in would need to meet thos e styles, w hich is part of the
w ork that staff would have to do. It w ould not be an option that they would suggest to the Commission as
acceptable as part of that development to the extent that architectural styles are dictated through a master
plan and projec ts that come in that master plan area are going to meet those styles. Staff would let the
C ommission k now what they are and say that they should make sure that the project achieves those styles.
In terms of translating the master plan to the actual development of the property that is the way it would
happen. So s taff w ould certainly capture that in staff review.
In C rozet for an infill project staff would want to make s ure that a new project coming in under the
N eighborhood Model zoning would reflect styles in D owntown. Staff w ould have to spec ify what those are
in that case. Comparativ ely what they are also s aying is if spec ific sty les are not otherwise determined for
a particular master plan area and that projec t comes in they are not going to worry so much about the
internal styles. There will be external considerations if it is on an Entrance C orridor. But internally they are
not going to worry about them and say that is up to the dev eloper to self enforce it so to speak unless the
master plan said that there needs to be certain styles. Nothing prevents a dev elopment from tak ing
s uggestions from the community on architectural styles and that would be put into the s tyle. Staff would
s ay that they know what that is and it w ould be self enforcing. That is the approach staff is trying to take
w ith this . If that works for the Commission, then he thought that they were all on the s ame page and were
accomplishing what they were interested in accomplishing. If the Crozet Advisory Council has comments
on D owntown Crozet it can be addressed in the upcoming five year Master Plan update.
Mr. Loach said that it sounded reasonable and he would get feedbac k from the Crozet Advisory Counc il.
Mr. Cannon noted that he liked the way s taff framed it here in the sense of eliminating attention to more focus ed
projects that are going to be established in existing settings where architectural conflict w ould be most acute. For
the res t he agreed that they should let it go unless it w as addressed in the master plan. There are s ome risks here if
they do something like this that they are going to over determine everything and end up with landscapes and
developments that are not very interesting.
Ms. Echols asked if there was a consensus about that.
Ms. Porterfield asked that it be looked at further. Staff is talking about that infill being different and it was brand new
in an area. They have numerous acres that are being looked at this point. She suggested that Mr. Franco converse
with Ms. Echols since he had some good ideas about the outside and inside. She suggested that they try to get
that into the master plan so that it does not pigeon hole them but prov ides some direction in the master plan that
makes the community that has been working close w ith him for numerous years feel more comfortable.
Ms. Echols asked if there was agreement on allowing a parking study with rezoning or the site plan level.
Mr. Morris replied yes .
Ms. Ec hols noted that the rest of the items the Commission agreed to last time. The other c hanges in the table
referred to by Ms. Long will be brought back to the Commission and made available to the public for further review to
make s ure everything is in there. Also, it includes bringing the staff titles in line with what is current, cleaning up the
requirements to be consistent and putting the special use permit as an option in the Code of Development where an
applicant might not be able to anticipate the conditions now.
Mr. Morris thanked the public for their participation.
In summary, the Planning Commiss ion held a work session as a followup to previous discussion on the options
available for the proposed changes to the Planned Development regulations. The Planning Commission review ed
and discussed the proposed changes, and took public comment. It was the consensus of the Commission to move
forward with staff’s recommendations .
The Planning Commission agreed w ith staff’s recommendation to make the following changes to the proposed text
for ZTA200800002 and set the public hearing.
Set parameters for new regulations on old zonings
Remove/add some architectural requirements
Allow parking s tudy w ith rezoning or at site plan
Bring staff titles inline with current Community Development staff titles, where staff has decisionmaking
authority
Remove redundancy, make clarifications, mak e c onsistency in requirements
Add “special use” option for Code of D evelopment where applicant may not be able to anticipate conditions
Postpone signage changes. The Zoning D ivision will bring back a set of signage changes that will include the
Neighborhood Model district.
Staff will draft the proposed amendment language and set the public hearing.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 30, 2008
W ork Sessions:
ZTA200800002 Amendments to PD & N MD Regulations
The request is to amend regulations for Planned Districts and Neighborhood Model Districts to modify the
grandfather clause, prov ide clarification on requirements, update titles in accord with C ounty reorganization, and
change arc hitectural requirements.
(Elaine Echols)
Ms. Ec hols presented a power point presentation and gave an overv iew of the prev ious discussion regarding ZTA
20082, Amendments to the Planned Dis tricts and N eighborhood Model Districts. (See pow er point presentation and
staff report)
In the work session the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the content of the proposed changes to the
Planned D evelopment regulations in a round table disc ussion with the development community. Comment was
received from the sev eral members of the public, as noted below:
o C huck Rotgin;
o N eil W illiamson, with Free Enterprise Forum;
o Valerie Long, attorney; representing several clients and as one involved in several of these type of
projects;
o Morgan Butler, w ith Southern Environmental Law Center;
o W endell W ood;
o C harlie Armstrong, with Southern Development; and
o D on Franco, with KG As soc iates.
Mr. Morris said that they have gotten a very good s tart on the beginning of the disc uss ion. That is about as far as
they have gotten unless they are w illing to c ome up to the table. He felt that the next item on the agenda deserv es
some of the Commiss ion’s attention, also. Therefore, he suggested that the disc ussion of this be ended at this time
and brought up at a later time.
Mr. C ilimberg noted in order to end the dis cussion he wanted to point out w hat he heard. It is not complete in terms
of what the C ommission wants to further explore for more specific thresholds or standards that are important to be
preserv ed from our new regulations for old zoning. So it is not just about vesting. It would also be about ves ting in
combination with those things. H e also heard that the real c oncern is the old zoning and it may be that they c an
look into w hat might be even a date in time before whic h planned developments would be required to show that they
meet those tests of ves ting or they would be subject to new regulations. They would tend to be the old planned
developments that never had a plan and if they did get a plan as part of the 1980 rezoning of the county it was the
site plan in existence at the time that became the application plan. That is not a good standard to be working from in
a lot of cases. They can pursue that.
Mr. Morris said that was a good point. He echoed what Mr. Edgerton saying that he really thought that the thing that
was triggering this w as thos e things that happened prior to 1980. That not only caused the confusion to the
Planning C ommission, but a lot of confusion with the development c ommunity.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that he was also hearing that the real concern w as what the future implications are. They
can have a lot of disc uss ion about the pas t in look ing at the old z oning from 1980, but he thought they needed to
look at the implications of w hat this decision is for the future. That is background that he would like to get from Mr.
Kamptner. H e would like to know the definition of “vesting,” “diligence pursuit” and “s ignificant government act” so
he could truly understand this.
Mr. Kamptner said that the whole ves ting issue was codified about ten years ago. There has been one Supreme
Court case that has c ons idered these is sues. It was based on an unusual case w ith unique facts. H e can look at
finding the applicable criteria.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission could revisit the discussion at a later time. H e thanked the public for their
attendance and dialogue.
Mr. Rotgin said that it needs to be recognized partic ularly for the rec ent rezonings that go back up to 15 y ears ago
that the process was s o detailed that thos e rez onings should not be subject to this criterion. He felt that new
rezonings s hould only be subject to subdivision and s ite plan review.
Ms. Echols pointed out that staff would come back with information about the signage next time. There will be
opportunities for further dialogue.
In summary, The Planning C ommission held a work session to dis cuss the propos ed changes to the Planned
Development regulations. The Planning C ommission received an overview from staff, disc ussed the propos ed
changes , took public comment and made comments . N o formal action was taken.
The Planning Commis sion noted the following for further staff work:
1. Staff should sc hedule an additional Planning Commis sion w ork session with the Dev elopment Community
to discuss this z oning text amendment further.
2. The Commis sion wants to further explore s pec ific thresholds or standards that are important to be
preserved from our new regulations for old zoning. The issue is not just about vesting, but also about
v esting in combination with those regulations.
3. Because the real concern is the old zoning, s taff is reques ted to look into specific dates before which
planned developments w ould be required to show that they are ves ted; otherwise, they w ould be s ubject to
new regulations. For example, developments with a planned development zoning designation approved
before 1980 w ere rezoned to a “planned development” zoning designation under the 1980 zoning ordinance
w ithout an application plan.
4. Staff s hould bring bac k information on sign regulations (in particular, information pertaining to sign size)
applicable to the Neighborhood Model District at the next meeting.
5. The C ommission needs to look at future implications of this decis ion. Mr. Kamptner was asked to provide
background information pertaining to vested rights , including definitions of “v esting,” “diligent purs uit” and
“significant governmental act.”
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 29, 2008
W ork Sessions:
ZTA200800002 Amendments to PD & N MD Regulations
The request is to amend regulations for Planned Districts and Neighborhood Model Districts to modify the
grandfather clause, prov ide clarification on requirements, update titles in accord with C ounty reorganization, and
change arc hitectural requirements.
(Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented a pow er point presentation and ex plained the s taff report. (See power point presentation and
staff report)
In summary, the Planning C ommission held a w ork sess ion on ZTA200800002, Amendment to PD & NMD
R egulations. On April 22, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to begin work on
c hanges to the Planned District regulations to require that s ite plans and subdivision plats permitted under
old planned development zoning comply with c urrent rather than “old” regulations that existed at the time of
rezoning approval. The resolution also noted that some “cleanup” of Sections 8 and 20A w ould be provided,
as well. The C ommission ask ed for a roundtable discussion on the proposal to get input on the propos ed
c hanges as w ell.
Staff recommends that the Commission review the content of the proposed changes. If the Commiss ion
believes that the changes appropriately address the issues raised by the Commission and staff, then the
s taff will schedule a roundtable meeting w ith the dev elopment community. Staff will include any
recommended c hanged to park ing studies w ith the ordinanc e amendment brought to the Commission.
The proposed changes are in the staff report, which would require current regulations to be applied to
Planned Distric ts where no vesting has occurred, to bring the staff titles in line with the current titles in
C ommunity Dev elopment w here there is s ome decision making authority, to remove redundancy, make
c larifications and consistency in the requirements, to modify the requirements for detailed architectural
information and to add a special use permit option for the Code of Development where the applicant may not
be able to anticipate conditions. N ot included in the staff report, but proposed, staff w ants to bring
s omething else bac k to the Commis sion that is to make the required park ing study in the N eighborhood
Model D istrict optional rather than mandatory. Because so many of the N eighborhood Model Districts have
s o much flexibility built into the uses it is really hard to know what the parking requirements are going to be
at the rezoning level. Some of these Neighborhood Model Districts are fairly tightly defined and there is
k now ledge about what the parking needs would be.
There needs to be more work done on one part of what staff has given the Commission with regards to
v esting and variations. On page 9 of the staff report in item 6 of Attachment C, there is some propos ed
language variations to applicable requirements where the Planned Development was approv ed under prior
z oning and subdiv ision regulations. At the time the site plan or subdivision plat is review ed under current
applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and the applic able requirement cannot be s atisfied without
amending the application plan, the variation s hall be only to the extent necessary to allow the site plan or
plat to be approved w ithout amending the application plan. No requirement may be varied to a standard
below that in effect when the Planned Development w as approved. This is one that the County Attorney’s
Office wants to provide some additional information on at a later date. That section may need to be
modified somew hat because they want to mak e sure that there is no c onflicts betw een approved Planned
D istrict zonings and what a variation might be allowed by the Planning D irector. Therefore, that one is not
totally settled and staff will bring some information back.
Staff has not published this greatly because they wanted to get Planning Commission input first. Several
regular applicants have contacted staff about this. One applicant has suggested that the N eighborhood
Model District sign regulations be modified w ith this amendment to allow for commercial s ignage that is
c onsistent with commercial signage in the other zoning districts. The Neighborhood Model is a mix ed
district and has commercial aspects and res idential as pec ts. For example, the Albemarle Place Mixed U se
D evelopment would like to hav e signage that is consistent with what they allow for commerc ial zoning
districts elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinanc e rather than be restricted to signs of a residential size. By and
large staff supports this request and thinks that is s omething they could inc lude in this pac ket. Also, staff
has heard from the dev elopment community that they w ant it to be included. Staff totally agrees with that
request.
Mr. Strucko ques tioned if the signs in the N eighborhood Model D istrict are going to be the s ame size as the signs in
a commercial district.
Ms. Echols replied that there are different types of signage for c ommercial uses. Staff is hearing from the public
that they would like to have commercial uses in a Neighborhood Model D istrict to have the same area of signage
that is allowed for commercial uses in commercial districts. This is s omething that staff would lik e to bring back to
the Commission.
Mr. Struck o pointed out that he would like to understand what the impact of that would be. He questioned if it would
be a billboard or something similar. He noted that this was not a commercial dis tric t, but a N eighborhood Model
District. Therefore, he may be concerned about that.
Mr. Loach echoed Mr. Strucko’s conc ern.
Ms. Echols said that it was on the order of magnitude of a 48 square foot sign versus a 36 square foot sign. It is not
a huge different. Staff w ould w ant to bring that back in its entirety so that the Commission could consider including
that with this set of amendments.
Mr. Edgerton said that he shared the other Commis sioner’s conc erns. He would keep an open mind, but only
wanted to see it back as part of this if they can really fully vet it.
Ms. Ec hols noted that staff’s recommendation is for the Commission to review the packet information, to ask any
questions about the changes in wording and provide input. After that staff will schedule a round table discuss ion
with the dev elopment community. That input would be brought back to the Planning C ommission for review and
input. The public hearing w ould be set and then Mr. Kamptner would draft the final v ersion of the ordinance. The
public hearing w ould be held and the Commission would make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that the round table discussion be held in the form of a work session where the
Commis sion could hear the input from the development community.
Ms. Echols replied that it c ould be done as a work ses sion and would actually be easier for staff.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil W illiamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, thanked s taff for c oming forward w ith bringing the development
community into the loop. He encouraged the Commission to reach out to the commercial community in the mix ed
use/neighborhood model. In the discussions of DISC II the commercial aspect of this is a vibrant part of the
Neighborhood Model. They need to give every opportunity for that c ommercial district to succeed and be on a level
playing field with the other commerc ial dis tricts in the county, which generates the signage issue. He asked the
Commis sion to discuss the format of a w ork session/round table with the development community. The benefits of
a round table are that the folks are able to comment bac k and forth rather than having three minutes to comment and
an opportunity to sit dow n. He felt that there is an opportunity here to really talk w ith the folks that are implementing
it to find out the challenges with the projects in order to clean up the language. He hopes they can find a middle
ground on the signage that allows the bus inesses to succeed. He thanked the Planning Commission for considering
the entire c ommunity bec ause the res idential and the commercial as pects are important parts of the N eighborhood
Model.
Valerie Long, attorney speaking on behalf of her clients, express ed her appreciation to the staff for the very helpful
memo that explained the changes. She reviewed the memo and the v ast majority of the changes are all very
positive. She looks forward to working with the staff to address and fine tune some of those and provide some
comment. She echoed Mr. Williams on’s comments about the benefits of a round table discussion with the
development community. The ones she has participated in the past have been some of the most productive and
collaborative discussions on a number of different topics from the subdivision ordinance to the wireless
telecommunication policy over the years . It is really an opportunity for people to sit around, roll up their sleeves and
have some give and take. It is the giv e and take betw een staff and the development community that is really so
valuable. She asked that the Commission keep an open mind about a round table. She thinks that it is very
productive. They are more than willing to share their comments w ith the Commiss ion as well. But, Mr. Williams on
is right that sometimes just speaking for three minutes and not having that give and take is not nearly as effective
as a round table. U sually they c ome to consensus on a lot of iss ues and can come back to the Commission w ith
that information. They appreciate the Commission tak ing the time to look at it.
Mr. Morris asked what time s he would recommend holding the work session or round table since they want
maximum turn out.
Ms. Long replied that the afternoon might be the most likely to result in a large turn out by the most number of
people. It is important to get as many people partic ipating as poss ible. But, she would sugges t getting staff’s
opinion on that.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that late afternoon would work best for the community . One approach they could take was to
hold the round table as planned and any Commiss ioner could attend. He suggested that if the Commission wanted
to participate, then they need to adjourn to that meeting. Otherwis e, if they were just interested in hearing the
discussion between staff and the various participants from the public and dev elopment community he did not think
they need to adjourn to it.
Mr. Davis recommended that if three of more Commiss ioners were going to be in attendance that they adjourn to
that meeting rather than just being observers.
Mr. Edgerton said that by law the Planning Commiss ion has to have a public ses sion if there are more than two
Commis sioners together at one time. H e would welcome the opportunity to poss ibly change the format of the work
session so that it would allow for more comfortable conversation. He w ould hope that the Commission w ould be
able to participate in a discus sion with the development community. The Commission needs to understand first
hand what the development community’s needs are, but at the same time the development community needs to
hear the C ommissioner’s concerns as well. Rather than having thos e meetings separate, as has been done in the
past, it would be a healthier experience to hav e this as a public forum where ev ery body c an participant. If that
means changing the struc ture, he would welcome the opportunity of changing the structure and not limiting people to
certain specified times the way they do now.
Mr. Morris agreed and that it can be w ork ed out. He suggested that they us e room 241 or Fifth Street so they would
have a large area.
Mr. Loach suggested that staff contact groups like the Crozet Advisory Board, Plac es 29 and the Glenmore Master
Plan. Es sentially, these are the people who are going to be living w ith the changes that they are talk ing about. If
staff thinks that it is substantial enough they need to make sure that they get the w ord out to those people. Als o,
hopefully they can send some documentation out before hand in words that everybody is going to understand so that
they can react to those.
Mr. Morris invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commiss ion for discussion and action.
Ms. Echols noted that Bill Fritz and the Current Dev elopment staff s upport the proposed changes. They don’t want
the Commission to think that they enjoy the process of using the old regulations sinc e it is very time consuming and
a difficult process to go through.
Ms. Porterfield questioned how the Clifton Lake propos al w ould be affected by this.
Mr. D avis replied that is the type of dev elopment that would be impacted by this. Instead of having the automatic
option to go under the old rules there would have to be an evaluation as to whether or not they have established
vested rights under state law . Ms. Echols’ memo identified the statute of the test that basically has to be met. So
they would have to ev aluate whether or not there w as a substantial governmental act, w hether or not that has been
relied upon and whether or not there has been due diligence in expenditures of funds to advance that approval. In
some of the old cases that test may not be met and they would have to comply within the c urrent regulations under
this ordinance. For most other developments that hav e actual activ e plans, probably almost in every instance, they
would be v ested and would still have the option to choose to act under the zoning that was in effect at the time that
they w ere approv ed. The extent of the effect of this is going to depend upon how many ex isting planned
developments are out there that have not basically begun.
Mr. Morris asked Ms Porterfield if that ans wered her ques tion.
Ms. Porterfield said that it sounds like under that particular issue staff would hav e to evaluate s pec ifics from the
applicant to show the v esting.
Mr. Davis replied that is correc t in a development that is already being brought forward in which they were now
advancing the application and they w ould have to analyz e w hether or not it w ould impact that development.
Mr. Edgerton asked staff if they have covered every thing except the parking mentioned. He asked w hen that would
be done since they had been waiting for that.
Ms. Echols replied that there are different ways to deal with the parking. One would be just to add that there is an
option here. Another way would be to establis h a new park ing s tandard for mixed use districts. Staff has not done
that. It is something that the zoning administrator think s would be a very good idea. Right now if they w ant to move
this quic kly staff would put it in the optional category and they could be working on it. She did not k now how quic kly
that could be brought back. Staff could bring the sign information to the Commission fairly quickly because there
are people who have already been working on amending Neighborhood Model Dis tric ts. But, the other issue may
take a little more time.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if that w as the reas on for s ome of staff’s recommendations that were not part of the staff
report that came up on the screen that the parking plan be made optional.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was nerv ous about making a parking plan optional for a community of this scale.
Perhaps until they are able to w ork out a particular parking requirement for a Neighborhood Model they could as an
alternative make it optional and at leas t have the applicant show the worse case scenario of the parking. They are
not going to know and it may change with the market. But, it would be a shame to think that they might be including
commercial and not hav e enough space for the parking with the plan they look at. R ather than leaving it out and not
thinking about it maybe they could as an interim s tep have the applicant show a worse case scenario for parking so
that they would not be kidding ourselves to approve a plan think ing that they are going to get something that they
could not possibly get because there w as not enough space for parking. That w ould be one example. He asked if
that is something that could be worked on.
Ms. Echols replied that is something that they could talk about. What staff originally thought with the N eighborhood
Model District is that there would be greater clarity in the uses that w ere going to oc cur in a Neighborhood Model
District so that an applicant could get a pretty good handle on what that mix was going to be so that when they
provided a parking study it was realistic enough that the zoning administrator felt comfortable to be able to
recommend approval of it. W hat has happened with a number of the Neighborhood Model Districts, such as
Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Biscuit Run and N orth Pointe, w hich is a planned district, when they have gotten the
list of possible uses that could occur in those districts they are so broad that the z oning adminis trator has a real
difficult time say ing y es this park ing s tudy is realistic. The applicants just don’t know w hat kind of use they are
going to get. For example, Berkmar Bus iness Park has 275,000 square feet, which is a maximum amount that they
would be asking for plus 190 units. They don’t know if they are going to be doing 190 units. They don’t know if they
are going to be doing any units. The k inds of uses they put in their Code could be something like a light
warehousing for documents, which requires very little parking, to a restaurant, which requires a great deal of
parking.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that they could be done in an average. He noted that it was not good planning to just leave
the door wide open for any use, s how a plan that they all hammer out and then find out later after they decide their
use that they don’t have enough spac e for it and c an’t do that. H e w ould like to avoid a lot of confusion in the
planning process as opposed to having the zoning administrator make this determination case by cas e. As projec ts
are dev eloped in phases this w ould be important to get hammered out as much as possible before hand.
Ms. Monteith suggested rather than an av erage to us e a range based on the proposed uses.
Mr. Morris said that was a good point.
Mr. Edgerton agreed. He noted that the third paragraph mentions bringing titles of s taff in line w ith current titles
used in C ommunity Dev elopment, which means that some titles have changed. In the middle of the paragraph it
mentions administering arc hitectural standards. Staff is making the case for the difficulty in establishing the
architec tural standards at the early s tage. It says the applicants for building permits have not alw ays provided the
information that the Codes say will be provided. He questioned why staff would accept that as a completed
application if it was miss ing something that was required. He asked w hy that would ever happen.
Ms. Echols replied that it happens when people submit less than all of the information because properties get s old
and builders come in with their building plans and there has been s ome kind of failure in communication between the
sellers and the buyers. The builders are coming in with the building permits wanting immediate action on a building
permit and staff has to go back and get all of this information and analy ze it. The applicant should be providing the
information with the building permit applications. Staff has found from a practical standpoint that they c an s pend a
lot of time trying to get that together.
Mr. Edgerton said that an applicant comes in to get something rezoned and they promise A, B and C. Then they
sell it to a second developer and forget to tell them that they promised A, B and C. So now the sec ond developer
comes in and says that they did not know that they were required to do that. D oes staff feel that the county
should take responsibility for straightening that out?
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was staff’s responsibility in reviewing the permit to make sure that it does satisfy A, B
and C. If it does not, then the permit would be rejected. So that really is not the is sue. The issue is the judgment
that has to be rendered regarding arc hitectural designs w here they don’t have staff that can really review the
architec tural nuances to say yes it does or does not meet the architectural intention in the application as it w as
approved. Staff feels like it is at the lev el of detail that they really don’t have the s taff that has the judgment from
the architectural standpoint to say that is the arc hitecture that the Code said would be prov ided. Staff wonders if
that is critical anyway. H e questioned if they are trying to get too muc h in a Code regarding architecture. It is like
the discuss ion last week on using the Secretary of the Interior Standards and pass ing judgment on that and the
Commis sion ques tioned why are they doing that. This is really about not including in the Code requirements
regarding architecture that they don’t have s taff that can really judge. It is probably not in the public’s general
interest to have s taff rendering on these issues one w ay or the other, which would make the process work more
smoothly. It is not about the ability to accept or not acc ept the permits . Staff can reject permits and they do when
they don’t meet the requirements of A, B and C. It is really about whether A, B and C is needed to begin with. That
is what it is really about. Architec tural standards are something that has been included in Codes to the degree that
has gone far beyond w hat they even hav e the professional ability to judge. That is really what this is about.
Ms. Echols said that some of the Codes get down into the details about w hat the different colors on the building will
be and a lot of the details the AR B w ould be quite interested in, but they don’t have things that they are evaluating
those against. W hen they look at the Code of Development regarding architecture, staff’s ability to look at that for
what is going to look good does not exist. But, what they are looking for are the things that the ordinanc e requires
and whether it is something staff can judge when they get a building permit. Staff does not have the guidelines
similar to w hat the Architectural Review Board would be looking for in an Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Monteith as sumed that they were only talking about buildings w hen they are talking about architectural
standards because sometimes it is broader in terms that a building could hav e a cloister figuration versus not hav ing
a c loister configuration. One would consider that to be part of the building so that part of what they might be look ing
to achieve is whether or not the building establishes the same principle of enclosure or the same benefits in the
original plan. That can make a big difference.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the way they have been trying to deal with the elements of enc losure or less about the
architec tural features w as to deal more with the heights, the proportions, the setbac ks, the build to lines and what
they think that the Commission would look for in the proportions, sc ale and massing and those kinds of things. That
is what staff is sugges ting that they w ould keep in. But, the little details would include such items as the façade
treatment.
Mr. Edgerton said that it look s like they don’t have the staff to deal with this so they are not going to w orry about it.
Frankly , a lot of the projects at the varying level of detail that comes are often established not by a requirement, but
by a desire of the applicant to sell a project as being something that has some aesthetic value. He w as nervous if
they are swayed by that and think it is a good project and then a subsequent owner of that property disagrees w ith
that judgment, then they have a problem. He would like to avoid that problem, but did not know if the way to avoid it
is to jus t pull that requirement out and just hope that it comes in nice.
Ms, Echols suggested that the Commiss ion review the two columns on the screen regarding the Architectural
Landscape standards that apply to the Neighborhood Model District, which will address the following: The form,
massing and proportions of structures, which may be provided through illustrations.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the column on the left is w hat is in the ordinance now. The middle column is what is being
proposed.
Ms. Monteith asked the reason why they w ere not retaining the landsc ape treatments.
Ms. Echols replied that the lands cape treatments are where they would be asking for what is in addition to what is
already required in the zoning ordinance. There has been some confusion over landscape treatments because
people don’t know what it means. The applicant proposes their own landscape treatment. But, if it is less than what
is in the zoning ordinanc e, staff would not be endorsing it. There has been a lot of confusion about what they are
doing with the landscape treatments. They have some applicants that want to prov ide a greater amount of
landscaping in their project and they want staff to k now that is important. Thes e are the standards that they c an
hold them to. Other applicants feel that what their ordinance requires is sufficient and unless there is some need for
screening that they could not otherwis e require. Staff might agree with them.
Ms. Monteith questioned the cons istency if a portion of a development was developed and a portion was sold to
another owner. She asked if there is a w ay to have consistency betw een what the firs t ow ner did and the second
owner.
Ms. Echols replied that their expectation in terms of materials would be that there would be some covenants that
would go along with the land that the original owner es tablished regarding the k inds of materials and façade
treatments. W hen they deal w ith the form, massing and proportions they would not be looking at the consistency of
the arc hitectural materials .
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that s he w as a little concerned about leav ing out architec tural styles. For example, the
Rivanna Village is supposed to be a W illiamsburg type of look, w hich it was approv ed at. It would s eem that they
would need to leave something in that indicates w hat each one would look like. She questioned whether staff or the
ARB would help w ith this particular situation. It is important for everything built to be in that style. They are going
to lose that totally with what staff is showing here.
Mr. Edgerton asked if a rezoning was in the Entranc e Corridor and the ARB was being asked to review it to see if it
was consistent what they are going to judge it against.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it w ould be reviewed under their guidelines .
Mr. Edgerton asked if it w ould have nothing to do with what has been promised by the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the AR B’s review of the Entrance Corridor is based on the Entrance Corridor Guidelines,
which is what they are allow ed to do under the ordinanc e. The ARB can’t reach into other areas of review. If there
were totally different architectural sty les, materials, colors , roof forms and pitch that were part of the zoning action,
they don’t actually have jurisdiction over those either being or not being in conformanc e with the z oning. They are
evaluating the project based on the Entrance Corridor Guidelines.
Ms. Ec hols noted that the ARB would be able to look at the form, massing and proportions during the rezoning. The
Design Planner would be looking at those for consistency with the Entrance Corridor Guidelines . They w ould get
the framework established early on, but those details that are important to the ARB are what they w ould be setting
the perimeters around.
Mr. Edgerton voiced concern ov er the hodgepodge effects that will c ome out of this because projects do get brok en
up into phases and pieces of projects get sold to other dev elopers. As Ms. Porterfield points out without some k ind
of a theme for the entire project, which they hope would occur at the rezoning level, it c ould be a real problem down
the road. Down the road money could be the reason for future developers to go to a less sympathetic s tyle.
Ms. Echols as ked if it would be sufficient for the applicant to say what kind of architecture that they are going to be
providing and provide more of the details that are currently the ordinance, but provide for the recordation of
covenants which would ens ure that those things are taking plac e. Then it bec omes solely a private matter of
enforcement where the staff is not doing the enforcement of those details. But, the applicant is bec ause he made a
commitment that they w ere going to record these things.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that would work.
Mr. Loach asked to w hat degree does the community during the master planning process help make these
architec tural decisions. In the original Crozet Master Plan there were a number of suggestions, w hich were
published by staff, about elements that they could incorporate in the Master Plan. If they were doing aw ay with a lot
of thes e do the c ommunities have the ability to mak e some of these judgments during the master planning process .
On the optional parking he had the same concerns as Mr. Edgerton. It goes back to the master planning where they
identified in Crozet those centers. So they did have an idea of w hat they w ould be in size and scale. Even in
downtow n Crozet they established minimums for the parking. He felt that is important. He asked if this would lead
in the mas ter planning process, to a call on the community for a higher degree of specificity w ithin the plan. That is
one concern, which may be good or bad. He ask ed if the master planning process override this vested interest they
have since the master plan is a Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Davis replied that it would not unless it w as a c omprehensive dow n zoning, whic h was difficult to achieve. It
would be treated like any other rezoning. If someone has an ex isting zoning and it has vested rights to that zoning
or to a plan that would supersede any subsequent action by the Board unless the dev eloper chos e to abandon the
plan.
Mr. Loach asked if staff has identified how many exist in the growth area. He asked if this was a large problem they
were going to be facing.
Ms. Echols replied that staff was still working on identifying how many are out there and w ill bring that number back
to the Commission. With regards to the kinds of things that are in the C rozet Master Plan that relate to architectural
what they had in there was building height and stories (how many s tories are appropriate) and the kinds of setbac ks
that are appropriate. Those things are still in the Code of Development. Those are still requirements. If someone
came in for a rezoning and w anted to use the Neighborhood Model D istrict their C ode of Development would be
assessed against what the Master Plan says for the number of s tories, for the w alkability aspects and the
setback s. It would be similar to what w as down in Downtow n Crozet. It is v ery similar. There were no spec ific
architec tural regulations for D owntown Crozet, but they had requirements that related to the proportions to the
façade breaks as to how many stories w ere allowed by use. Those requirements would remain.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if by chance there was a master plan done for a particular area that specified a certain
architec tural style that should be achieved for that master planned area that is an expectation that any rezoning
would be evaluated against. The other thing to think about in terms of zoning that exists, whether it is planned
development or any of the conventional districts, any zoning that is in place is by right and can be utilized by the
owner contrary to what the master plan c alls for unless the county takes an action to change the zoning. One place
where they did that proactively was Crozet for the downtown area, to actually establish in zoning allowances that
would permit them to develop differently than what their byright zoning was at the time. That was considered an
incentive in that case. But, without an action to actually change zoning anyone can develop according to the zoning
that they have w hether or not it is cons istent with the master plan for that area.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission had questions about the parking and the architec tural standards .
Mr. Edgerton noted that on pages 8 and 9 it talked about the review of plans and subdivision. It refers back to the
vesting and reviewing the applicable Code of Development in effect w hen the site plan or subdiv ision plan w as
under c ounty review. He questioned if that was what they were trying to get away.
Mr. Davis noted that what this basically says is as compared to currently planned development the developer has
the abs olute option to choose whether or not he is going to use the rules that were in effect at the time it w as
approved or today’s rules. It is his choice. W hat this would say is unless the developer has vested rights there is
not a choice. The dev eloper w ould have to assert that he has vested rights. The way that the State Code deals
with that is that the zoning administrator with the concurrence of the county attorney has to make a determination as
to whether or not vested rights exist. That determination then would be binding unles s it was appealed.
Mr. Cannon noted that there w as a question of “diligenc e” in the applicant’s pursuit of his vested rights.
Mr. Davis said that determination of ves ted rights was going to be the totality of circumstance on a case by case
basis.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that architectural style be left in and that the applicant is required to submit renderings.
Mr. Davis said that the c hallenge is if it is something essential to the approval and they leave it up to covenant, then
there are alw ays some provisions for c ovenants to be amended. Cov enants have to be self enforced. The county
does not have the legal authority to enforce covenants . That would be the challenge of trying to balance what is
essential versus the details that really is not essential. Staff does not feel it should codify if it is not essential.
Ms. Echols noted that one of the challenges that they have in terms of the styles is that they don’t have anything to
compare against. For ex ample, R ivanna Village at Glenmore, there was a preferenc e for a particular architectural
style, but it w as based on the aesthetic value of that particular c ommunity with the dev eloper. The county does not
have something to evaluate against. So w hen it comes to staff’s evaluation regarding architec tural style there is not
a lot they can say about them. It becomes something that the applicant thinks is important in this particular setting,
and then it would be acc epted by the Planning Commission, the Board and the County. Staff would not have
something to evaluate against like the AR B has with the Entrance Corridor standards. Staff has a hard time getting
an applic ant to make a commitment to a rendering bec ause they are setting up the zoning and have not designed the
buildings yet to know what the buildings are going to look lik e. It has been a difficult to challenge to hav e an
applicant to submit a draw ing and say it is what the development will look like.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that staff ask the applicant to s ubmit the s tyle to be used on the development.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that if a Code of Development show s a style and includes a commitment to some sort of
covenants, which may be adjus ted as noted by Mr. D avis, but at least it would declare an intention. The only iss ue
would be whether that could be legally transferrable to the next owner if the property were sold.
Mr. Davis s aid that the challenge would be in the covenant documents its elf. Sometimes c ovenants require 100
percent of the property owner approval. If it is only one property ow ner, that would be easy to achiev e.
Mr. Edgerton noted that if they are crafted the right way the applicant controls that as long as they need to in order
to market the property.
The Planning Commis sion noted the following for further staff work:
1. The architectural standards and parking are the tw o areas of concern that need to be further addressed.
2. Staff should schedule a round table discussion w ith the development community to include Planning
C ommission participation.
The Planning C ommission took a break at 7:09 p.m.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 22, 2008
Item Called Up From the C onsent Agenda:
Resolution of Intent – to amend section 8.5.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Greg Kamptner)
Mr. Morris said that this item originally appeared on the consent agenda, but the Commission w anted to pull it. This
is strictly the first step in actually c oming up with a resolution of intent. Last week the Commission requested
counsel to take a look at this and draft some language. H e thanked Mr. Kamptner for being so res ponsive.
Mr. Kamptner summarized the proposed amendment.
Over the last ten years or so there have been several projects that c ame forward that were approved as
planned developments, most likely with the comprehensiv e rezoning in 1980. Some of those were actually
approved under the 1969 zoning ordinance as some form of planned dev elopment. That planned
development designation w as carried over. The most recent project was Clifton Lake that came before the
C ommission a couple of w eeks ago. The current regulations under Section 8.5.5.2 allow, as an option, the
owner of the property to proceed under the regulations that were in effect when the planned development
w as approved or under the current regulations . The zoning and subdiv ision ordinance regulations have
c hanged over the years and the C ounty has tried to improve the standards of development over time.
The Commiss ioners have ex pressed some frustration that the applicants coming before them always select
the regulations that w ere in effect when the planned development was approv ed. There w ill be a number of
reasons why they chose thos e regulations. One reason is that their projects have approved application
plans that accompanied the rezoning. Clifton Lake is an example where there was an approv ed application
plan. When the applicants are developing the project, they c annot deviate s ignificantly from the approv ed
application plan. That might be one reason why the applicants choose to proceed under the regulations that
w ere in effect when the planned development district was proposed. The C ommission has expressed some
frustrations with the old regulations.
Therefore, they have pres ented the resolution of intent with the concept in mind to require that land
developments proceed under current regulations unless the applicants can establis h that they hav e a vested
right under state law. There are a number of ways in which an ow ner c an establish that it has a vested
right. Particularly, the planned developments that have been approved by the county over the last several
y ears likely have substantial cash proffers or propose to dedicate substantial amounts of land hav ing
s ignificant value. Under the proffer statutes, that is enough to establish vested rights. Staff recognizes that
there may be some circumstances where the applicant cannot establish vested rights. But, at the same
time, if the current regulations applied, the owner could not stay w ithin the parameters of the application
plan. The concept is to create a safety valve in those c ircumstances that w ould allow variations to the
application plan to the extent that a variation is needed in order to meet the current regulations.
Mr. Morris asked if once this is drafted would it come bac k to the Planning Commis sion for an open public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied y es, that the C ommission could c ertainly ask that it come bac k first for a work s ession and it
could be farmed out to c ommunity development to establish a round table type of dis cus sion that they sometimes do
with new regulations. Before it is acted on the ordinanc e has to come to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing and a recommendation before it goes to the Board of Superv isors.
Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment.
Neil W illiamson, of the Free Enterpris e Forum, spoke. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to direct
staff to hold round table dis cussions w ith folks w ho in some cases are unaware of the impacts this may hav e on
them, how to mitigate those impacts and how to establish vested rights. Als o, they need to have information on
what is the actual sc ope of this amendment. He felt that the best way to move forward w ith this and address the
frustration that exists is to involve those that are going to be regulated and have a v ery open conversation.
Valerie Long echoed Mr. Williamson’s comments and expressed great interes t on behalf of the development
community and a number of clients s he represents who have obtained rezoning approvals for planned district
projects about the significance of this issue and the concern that it has c reated with their clients who have invested
tremendous amounts of money in projec ts that have obtained zoning approval and hav e spent years and hundreds of
thousands of dollars preparing and obtaining z oning approvals for application plans or mas ter plans for their projects.
She knew that there have been c ases that have been very frustrating. She w as present last w eek at the Clifton
Lakes hearing and she appreciated their frustration about that. There are a handful of those types of projects. She
asked that they don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of the projects of s ignificant size that have been
approved in this community are a planned district. She asked that the Planning Commission not make it too big of a
solution when it is a few number of projects that are causing the problem. They w ould w elcome the opportunity to
participate in discussions on behalf of clients that they work w ith. Their clients would as well be interested in
participating.
Mr. Morris reiterated that this w ill come before the Commis sion again. H e closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton said that in response to the comments that it would be very healthy to have a handle on the number of
projects mentioned that do not fit into this situation because they have been approved under the existing ordinance.
It is the projects that are being grandfathered back 30 years that he thought they were s truggling with. H e very much
would w elcome the participation and engagement of the development community in this process . H e felt that it may
be important in an effort to be fair to all to try to get a handle on it by ask ing the development community to let us
know w hich projects they feel w ould be unfairly treated under what is being proposed. In the project reviewed last
week there has been no effort in 30 years to ves t any rights. As Mr. Kamptner noted under state law it would not
qualify for any vesting. They are trying to address a glaring loophole in the ordinance that goes bac k to stale zoning
that does not exist any more. Certainly they need to hear about the ones that may feel that they are being
challenged by this.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Strucko s econded to approve the resolution of intent to amend sec tion 8.5.5.2 of
the zoning ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that the Commission looks forward to this item coming back.
Return to exec summary