The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-3-03 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E MARCH 3, 2010 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Recognitions: a. Resolution Designating 2010 as The Year of the Rivanna in recognition of the 40th Anniversary of Virginia’s Scenic Rivers Program. b. Thomas Jefferson Health District, Virginia's H1N1 Vaccination Program. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 9:45 a.m. – Presentations and Informational Items 8. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, Ron Price, School Board Chairman. 9. Presentation: Jail Re-entry Program, Pat Smith and Col. Ron Matthews. 10. County’s Performance Management System, Lori Allshouse. 11. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Artisan Trail Project, Susan Stimart. 10:45 a.m. – Transportation Matters 12. a. VDOT Monthly Report, Allan Sumpter. b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda. 11:15 a.m. - Work Session 13. ZTA-2009-009. Entrance Corridor Process Amendments, Margaret Maliszewski. 14. Closed Meeting. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. 16. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. 17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Recess and Reconvene at 6:00 p.m. 18. Call to Order. POSTING OF COLORS Monticello High School AFJROTC, Unit VA-20023, Honor Guard 19. Pledge of Allegiance. 20. Moment of Silence. 21. Proclamation recognizing the 16th Annual Virginia Festival of the Book. 22. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the County Executive’s FY 2010/2011 Recommended Budget. 23. Adjourn to March 8, 2010, 9:00 a.m., Room 241. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: January 6, January 13 and February 10, 2010. 7.2 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 7.3 Resolution Endorsing The Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad Company. 7.4 The Crossings at Fourth and Preston - Approve Commitment of Project-based Housing Choice Vouchers. 7.5 Resolution accepting road(s) in Old Ballard Farm Subdivision into the Secondary System of State Highways. 7.6 Resolution accepting road(s) in Indian Springs Subdivision into the Secondary System of State Highways. 7.7 Adopt Resolutions to approve amendments to Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, and §P-30, Classified Employee Reduction-in-Force. FOR INFORMATION: 7.8 Copy of 2009 Fourth Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Community Development Department. 7.9 Copy of 2009 Year End Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Community Development Department. 7.10 Copy of 2009 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Community Development Department. 7.11 Copy of 2009 Year End Building Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Community Development Department. 7.12 Copy of letter dated February 19, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to J. Walker Richmond, III, Richmond & Fishburne, re: LOD-2009-00023 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 46, Parcel 92 and Tax Map 46, Parcel 93D (Property of The Grove Hill land Trust) Rivanna Magisterial District. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page ______________________________________ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2010064, #2010065, #2010066, and #2010067 for various school and local government programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which 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 County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc. The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $94,251.25. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the cumulative appr opriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of four (4) FY 2010 appropriations as follows: Three (3) appropriations (#2010064, #2010066, and #2010067) totaling $79,751.25 for Education donations/programs; and One (1) appropriation (#2010065) totaling $14,500.00 for operational costs of the EMS Cost Recovery program. A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $94,251.25 and the approval of Appropriations #2010064, #2010065, #2010066, and #2010067. ATTACHMENTS A – Appropriation Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2010064 $ 13,000.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $13,000.00 January 14, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Albemarle High School received donations totaling $13,000.00. The Freas Foundation donated $10,000.00, the AHS Key Club donated $600.00 , and $2,400.00 came from various donors. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. Appropriation #2010065 $ 14,500.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $14,500.00 This appropriation will provide $14,500 in operational costs such as the fee paid to a third-party billing agency, printing and overtime costs to administer the Emergency Medical Services Cost Recovery program in FY 09/10. These costs will be funded through a portion of the revenues received from this program. Appropriation #2010066 $ 5,401.25 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $2,123.25 Fund Balance: $3,278.00 January 28, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Albemarle High School received donations totaling $2,123.25 from Jennifer and Lucian Lewis ($100.00), Rita Schnipke ($100.00), Catherine Coffman ($300.00), Scott and Debbi Goodman ($1,000.00), Fleishman-Hillard Inc. ($100.00), and miscellaneous cash donations ($523.25). These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $23,706.00 including these donations and the donations in Appropriation #2010064 above. The balance from FY 08/09 was $4,366.66 for a grand total of $28,072.66. A fund balance of $325,000.00 is required to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $296,927.34 to secure matching funds . The balance required to advance construction is $650,000.00. The Computer Equipment Replacement Fund has an unexpended fund balance of $3,278.00 from FY 08/09. This will re-appropriate those funds for use in FY 09/10. Appropriation #2010067 $ 61,350.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $350.00 Federal Revenue: $61,000.00 February 11, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Western Albemarle High School received donations totaling $350.00 from Brian and Esther Hannon ($150.00), Mr. and Mrs. Ballard Jr. ($25.00), Robert and Birgit Gutkowski ($150.00), and John W. Boswell Jr. ($25.00). These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 WAHS Synthetic Turf Project is $350.00. The balances from FY 07/08 and FY 08/09 were $8,450.00 and $10,711.66 respectively, for a total of $19,511.66. A fund balance of $325,000.00 is required to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Western Albemarle High School to raise an additional $305,488 .34 to secure matching funds. The balance required to advance construction is $650,000.00. Albemarle County Schools has been approved for additional School Improvement Funds under Title I, Part A, Section 1003(a) of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The approved school, Mary Carr Greer Elementary, has been awarded $61,000.00. These funds will be used to support Responsive Classroom Training (1 week for 25 teachers) and Expeditionary Learning Professional Development. Return to exec summary RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION OF BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the projects; and WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost $266,893.00; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of Albemarle County’s transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the area, provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports the project and the retention of the rail service; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all allocation and distribution of the funds provided; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad. ********** Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: The Crossings at Fourth and Preston SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approve Commitment of Project-based Housing Choice Vouchers STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and White LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) is proposing the development of sixty (60) studio apartments on the former Region Ten property located at the corner of Fourth Street and Preston Avenue (see Attachment A) in the City of Charlottesville. At least thirty (30) of the units are proposed to be supported by project-based vouchers (21 from the City and 9 from the County) and will be reserved for homeless single adults. The County vouchers would be restricted to persons who currently live and/or work in Albemarle County. Although this project is in the City of Charlottesville, VSH views it as a regional proposal which would benefit both the City and the County. VSH received a $75,000 catalyst grant from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. The City is expected to commit $1.6 million to purchase the property and intends to provide a long-term lease to VSH or its affiliate to build and operate the facility. VSH also plans to apply for Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits on March 12, 2010. The commitment of vouchers from the City and the County is a critical element for demonstrating the financial feasibility of the proposed development, which must be shown in order to receive tax credits. STRATEGIC PLAN: By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those who work and/or live in Albemarle County. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County, through its Office of Housing, acts as a Public Housing Agency (PHA) for the purpose of administering the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Vouchers are provided to families who use them to subsidize the rent in privately-owned units. The vouchers are generally “portable” and stay with the family as long as they are eligible. HCV regulations also provide authority to PHAs to “project-base” up to twenty percent (20%) of allocated vouchers. These vouchers stay with the unit for up to ten years and are not portable with the family. Currently, the County has 46 project-based vouchers in use and another 30 committed to pending projects. The County has the authority to designate 85 vouchers as project-based, leaving a balance of nine vouchers the County can designate for project-based use. HUD regulations limit the number of project-based vouchers based on the annual budget; specifically, not more than 20% of the budget can fund project-based vouchers. Considering the budgetary impacts of the vouchers in use and the additional 30 committed vouchers, County staff estimates that the County currently would be limited to providing only four or five additional project-based vouchers for this project. Additional funding from HUD or a reduction in the amount of the budget used to fund existing project-based vouchers could change this projection. Because HUD does not provide additional vouchers or funding, the impact of commiting up to nine vouchers to The Crossings at Fourth and Preston is that the County would have nine fewer vouchers to use to meet the demand from its existing voucher waiting list. This is the main negative to the proposal. However, the fact that additional affordable housing would be built within the region (more importantly a type of housing that does not currently exist and serving a AGENDA TITLE: The Crossings at Fourth and Preston March 3, 2010 Page 2 “difficult-to-serve population”) and that the County would be a regional partner in the proposed project may be considered as factors in favor of project-based vouchers for this project. As with current project-based vouchers, the County’s Office of Housing would maintain control of the vouchers through the process of determining eligibility and approving tenants. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no impact on the general fund budget. Impacts on federal funds were previously noted. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) to approve a commitment of up to nine (9) housing choice vouchers as project-based vouchers for The Commons at Fourth and Preston and to authorize the Chief of Housing to execute the necessary documents to commit the vouchers upon confirmation of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority committing twenty-one (21) project-based vouchers, the project receiving Federal Housing Tax Credits, and HUD providing sufficient funds to s upport the vouchers. ATTACHMENTS A – VSH Request B – Resolution Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods and access to support services by residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to preserving existing and promoting the development of new affordable housing stock both within the County and regionally; and WHEREAS, Virginia Supportive Housing is applying for Federal Housing Tax Credits to develop 60 studio apartment units located in Charlottesville at Fourth Street and Preston Avenue and known as The Crossings at Fourth and Prestion; and WHEREAS, all proposed units in the development will be restricted to households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Office of Housing proposes the use of Housing Choice Vouchers to provide project-based assistance for up to nine (9) of the proposed housing units with household incomes limited to those families at or below 40% of the area median income; and WHEREAS, vouchers provided by the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) and Albemarle County will be reserved for homeless single adults with Albemarle vouchers restricted to those who live and/or work in Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves a commitment of up to nine (9) housing choice vouchers as project-based vouchers for The Crossings at Fourth and Preston and authorizes the Chief of Housing to commit the vouchers upon confirmation of the CRHA committing twenty-one (21) project-based vouchers, the project receiving Federal Housing Tax Credits, and HUD providing sufficient funds to support the vouchers. ********** Return to exec summary The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the 4th day of November 2009, adopted the following resolution: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the street(s) in Old Ballard Farm Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 3, 2010, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department o f Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor tation to add the street(s) in Old Ballard Farm Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 3, 2010, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. * * * * * The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is: 1) Old Ballard Farm Road (State Route 1643) from the intersection of Route 677 (Old Ballard Road) to the intersection of Route 1644 (Old Ballard Farm Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2773, page 620, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles. 2) Old Ballard Farm Lane (State Route 1644) from the intersection of Route 1643 (Old Ballard Farm Road) to the west cul -de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2773, page 620, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 miles. 3) Old Ballard Farm Lane (State Route 1644) from the intersection of Route 1643 (Old Ballard Farm Road) to the east cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2773, page 620, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.30 miles. Total Mileage – .43 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the 4th day of November 2009, adopted the following resolution: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the street(s) in Indian Springs Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 3, 2010, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor tation to add the street(s) in Indian Springs Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 3, 2010, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. * * * * * The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is: 1) Flintrock Way (State Route 1890) from the intersection of Route 664 (Markwood Road) to the intersection of Route 1891 (Indian Ridge Road), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 60-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles. 2) Indian Ridge Road (State Route 1891) from the intersection of Route 1890 (Flintrock Way) to the west cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.61 m iles. 3) Indian Ridge Road (State Route 1891) from the intersection of Route 1890 (Flintrock Way) to the east intersection of Route 1892 (Spring Forest Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.12 miles. 4) Indian Ridge Road (State Route 1891) from the east intersection of Route 1892 (Spring Forest Lane) to the east intersection of Route 1893 (Misty Ridges Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in D eed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles. 5) Indian Ridge Road (State Route 1891) from the intersection of Route 1893 (Misty Ridges Lane) to the east intersection of Route 1894 (Footpath Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40 -foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.25 miles. 6) Indian Ridge Road (State Route 1891) from the intersection of Route 1894 (Footpath Lane) to the east cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.19 miles. 7) Spring Forest Lane (State Route 1892) from the intersection of Route 1891 (Indian Ridge Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.16 miles. 8) Misty Ridges Lane (State Route 1893) from the intersection of Route 1891 (Indian Ridge Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albema rle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles. 9) Footpath Lane (State Route 1894) from the intersection of Route 1891 (Indian Ridge Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office th e Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 478, page 512, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles. Total Mileage – 1.73 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Revision of Personnel Policies §P-63 and §P-30 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt Resolutions to approve amendments to Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, and §P-30, Classified Employee Reduction-in-Force STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliot, and Davis, and Ms. Kim, Ms. Suyes and Ms. Gerome LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: As a strategy to address the budgetary need to reduce the workforce, staff proposes an amendment to Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, to create a targeted incentive that would offer additional voluntary early retirement options for employees in certain positions. By offering these options, the need to terminate employees by involuntary reductions-in-force may be minimized or eliminated. In addition, in order to provide transitional income and insurance coverage to those employees in positions that may be involuntarily reduced, staff proposes an amendment to Personnel Policy §P-30, Classified Employee Reduction-in-Force. This amendment would provide separation benefits based on years of service. Substantially identical policy amendments will be considered by the School Board at its February 25, 2010 meeting to establish a targeted retirement incentive for the division’s classified employees, a modified retirement incentive for teachers, and separation benefits for involuntarily reduced classified employees. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: Targeted Retirement Incentive - §P-63, Retirement The Proposed incentive has been designed for Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) eligible employees in positions that are paygrade 16 and higher whose retirement will not impair the essential functions of their department. This proposal provides an extended opportunity for those employees to apply for VERIP benefits and to elect one of the following options: Option 1: Lump sum payment equivalent to 20% of current salary. Considerations: May be desirable for individuals who wish to receive a one-time lump sum payment. Option 2: Monthly payments, the total of which is equivalent to one week of pay for every full year of service with Albemarle County up to 20% of current salary. The number of months would be determined by the County. Considerations: W ould allow for the continuation of income while transitioning to retirement. Option 3: Extend continuation of the full Board medical contribution toward health insurance an additional three years or to age 65 (whichever comes first) in addition to the current VERIP benefit. Considerations: Addresses concerns for employees ages 60 and younger regarding the “gap” that may exist between VERIP coverage and eligibility for Medicare (which occurs at age 65). To be eligible for the targeted incentive an employee must meet the VERIP eligibility criteria, apply for VERIP by March 15, 2010 and retire by June 30, 2010, and the County Executive must determine that the employee’s retirement would AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Revision of Personnel Policies §P-63 and §P-30 March 3, 2010 Page 2 not impair the essential functions of the employee’s department. The County Executive may extend the retirement date beyond June 30th by up to six months if delaying the employee’s retirement serves the best interest of the County. Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, currently states that the deadline for VERIP applications is December 1 and that VERIP is payable for 5 years or until age 65. A Resolution to approve a proposed amendment to this policy changing the application deadline to March 15, 2010 and indicating the options listed above is attached (Attachment A). Separation Benefits - §P-30, Classified Employee Reduction-in-Force To assist full-time employees impacted by a reduction-in-force in transitioning from County employment, in addition to a sixty day notice provision, separation benefits are proposed as follows: 1) Separation Pay: Pay would be paid for a period as defined below: Length of Service: Separation Pay Period: Less than Two Years Two weeks of pay Two Years and above One week of pay for every full year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks 2) Insurance Contribution: For employees enrolled in the medical and dental plans, the Board contribution will continue for the duration of the separation pay period. A Resolution to approve a proposed amendment to Personnel Policy §P-30, Classified Employee Reduction in Force, to clarify the reduction criteria and to add a provision for separation benefits as set forth above, is attached (Attachment B). BUDGET IMPACT: Based on the savings in regard to staffing costs, staff projects a long term cost savings. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the following: 1) The Resolution to approve the proposed changes to Personnel Policy §P-63 (Attachment A); and 2) The Resolution to approve the proposed changes to Personnel Policy §P-30 (Attachment B). ATTACHMENTS A – Resolution approving amendment to §P-63 B – Resolution approving amendment to §P-30 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-63 is necessary to add a targeted retirement incentive to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following section of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-63 RETIREMENT §P-63 RETIREMENT I. REGULAR RETIREMENT A. General Retirement shall be at the discretion of the employee. Full-time regular employees of Albemarle County who qualify are eligible for the benefits of the Virginia Retirement System (“VRS”). Additional information describing VRS benefits is available on -line at varetire.org. B. Continuing Participation in the County’s Medical and Dental Insurance Plans 1. All employees retiring under VRS and/or the County’s VERIP policy are eligible for continuous participation in the group medical and dental insurance plans until they are eligible for Medicare coverage if they participated in the County’s group medical and dental insurance plans on the day prior to separation from the County. The age and service criteria for VRS are as follows: 50 years of age with 10 or more years of continuous regular employment by a VRS-participating employer; or 55 years of age with 5 or more years of continuous regul ar employment by a VRS-participating employer. 2. Individuals eligible to participate in the County’s group medical and dental insurance plan shall pay the full cost of health insurance coverage, including any applicable administrative expenses. 3. Any retirees or Board members who participated in the County’s group medical and/or dental insurance plans as of December 1, 2009 shall continue to be eligible to participate, at their own cost, until they are eligible for Medicare coverage. II. LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM The County values the service of all of its employees, both full -time and part-time. Since part- time employees are not covered by VRS, the County has elected to establish a Longevity Incentive Program (the “Program”) and thereby provide eligible part-time employees with certain benefits as more fully explained in this section. A. Scope of Program All regular, part-time employees of the County will be covered by the Program provided that they work the minimum number of hours necessary to establish eligibility for County benefits. Salaried Board Members are not eligible for participation in this program. 2 B. Benefits The following benefits will be provided to eligible part-time employees under the Program: 1. Life Insurance: A term life insurance policy will be provided equal to twice the employee’s annual salary with double indemnity for accidental death and dismemberment payments for the accidental loss of one or more limbs or of eyesight. 2. Annuity Program: Based on length of service in the County, part-time employees will be provided with an annuity program. The Board will contribute an annual amount according to the following formula: a. 5 - 9 years of County service - five percent of annual salary. b. 10 - 14 years of County service - seven percent of annual salary c. 15 - 19 years of County service - nine percent of annual salary. d. 20+ years of County service - eleven percent of annual salary. III. Retirement Pay/Payment upon Death In recognition of employee service to Albemarle County, regular full -time and part-time employees who meet the age and service criteria for retirement under VRS and have been employed a minimum of five (5) years with Albemarle County shall be paid upon their retirement or death in service $200 per year for each year of service to the County as a regular employee up to a maximum payment for 25 years of service, less any years previously paid for under this policy. Years of service do not have to be continuous. IV. Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP) A. Eligibility 1. Participants in the Albemarle County VERIP must be regular full-time or regular part-time employees eligible for benefits as defined in P-02, Definition of Employee Status and meet the following additional requirements: a. Full-time employees must be eligible for early or full retirement under the provisions of VRS. Part-time employees must meet the same age and service criteria as if they were full-time employees covered under VRS. b. Have been employed by the County government and/or school division for 10 of the last 13 years prior to retirement. 2. Employees retiring under the disability provisions of VRS and/or Social Security shall not be eligible for the VERIP. 3. VERIP benefits will cease if the retiree returns to work in a regular full -time or regular part-time position with the County government and/or school division. 4. VERIP benefits will continue if the retiree returns to work in a temporary part - time or temporary full-time position with the County government and/or school division. 3 B. Benefits 1. VERIP benefits shall be paid monthly for a period of five years after retirement or until age 65, whichever comes first. The VERIP benefits consist of a stipend calculated in accordance with Section B.2 (“stipend”) and an annual monetary contribution in the amount of the Board’s current contribution to Board employees for health insurance (“medical contribution”). 2. Stipends under VERIP will be calculated as follows: a. Compute the annual VRS benefit. This computation shall include any reductions for early VRS retirement if appropriate. b. Recompute the annual VRS benefit with the addition of five more years of service or the number of additional years needed to reach age 65, whichever is lesser. c. The difference between these two calculations is the annual VERIP stipend (“Stipend Value”) to be paid on a monthly basis. d. Stipends for part-time employees who are eligible to participate in VERIP shall be determined as if the part-time employees are eligible for an annual VRS benefit and the amount shall be calculated in the same manner as benefits for VRS-eligible employees under subsections (a) – (c) above. 3. The County Executive will recommend to the Board an annual adjustment to the VERIP stipend after having been apprised of the VRS adjustment for retirees. 4. The Board will pay to the employee an amount equal to the Board’s annual contribution toward an employee’s health insurance as long as the employee remains eligible to receive VERIP benefits. 5. Effective December 2, 2009, the VERIP stipend shall continue to be calculated in the manner provided in Section B.2, but the stipend amount shall be modified in accordance with the following schedule: a. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2012 but before July 1, 2013: 80% of the Stipend Value. b. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2013 but before July 1, 2014: 60% of the Stipend Value. c. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2014 but before July 1, 2015: 40% of the Stipend Value. d. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2015 but before July 1, 2016: 20% of the Stipend Value. e. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2016: No VERIP Stipend. C. Application Applications for VERIP must be made to the Human Resources Department prior to December 1st of the year preceding the fiscal year the employee’s participation in VERIP takes effect. Applications after December 1 may be approved based on the needs of the County. 4 D. Approval All VERIP applications are subject to approval by the County Executive or designee. E. Duration The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to modify this policy in its discretion, and all benefits described in this policy shall be subject to future modifications and annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors. F. Additional Benefits 1. Current employees who apply for VERIP by February 27, 2009 and who meet the eligibility standards identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their election, one of the following: a. Two additional years of Board contributions toward health insurance beyond the duration established by Section IV.B, paid on a monthly basis. Employees who retire at 65 years of age or older shall receive two years of contributions toward health insurance. b. The cash equivalent of two additional years of Board contributions toward health insurance, calculated at the FY 2009-10 annual rate and paid in one or more installments. 2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must: a. Submit VERIP applications by February 27, 2009; b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2009 establishing a retirement date no later than June 30, 2009; and c. Retire after the effective adoption date of this subsection (F) but no later than June 30, 2009. G. Targeted Retirement Incentives 1. Current employees holding positions in paygrades 16 and higher whose retirement is determined by the County to not impair the essential functions of the department, who apply for VERIP by March 15, 2010, and who meet the eligibility standards identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their election, one of the following: a. A lump sum payment equivalent to 20% of the employee’s current salary. “Salary,” for non-exempt employees receiving benefits pursuant to this section, shall mean the employee’s current annualized pay based on his regular hourly rate and regularly scheduled work hours. b. Monthly payments, the total of which is equivalent to one week of pay for every full year of service with the County for up to 20% of the employee’s salary. The number of monthly payments will be determined by the County, however, it shall not exceed sixty (60) monthly payments. 5 c. Continued full Board contributions toward the employee’s health insurance for an additional 3 years beyond the contributions specified in Section B of this policy, or until the age of 65, whichever comes first. 2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must: a. Submit VERIP applications by March 15, 2010; b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2010 establishing a retirement date no later than June 30, 2010; and c. Retire after the effective date of this subsection G but no later than June 30, 2010. 3. The County Executive or his designee may extend for up to 6 months the June 30, 2010 retirement date required by G.2.b and G.2.c for an employee who is otherwise eligible for the benefits in this subsection G upon a finding that such employee’s retirement serves the interest of the County. Amended: August 4, 1993; April 19, 1995; June 2, 2004; January 7, 2009; December 2, 2009; March 3, 2010. Return to exec summary 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-30 is necessary to clarify the reduction criteria and process and to add a provision for separation benefits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following section of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-30 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE REDUCTION IN FORCE §P-30 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE* The Board recognizes that occasionally a department must reduce its number of staff members. The reasons for such a reduction include, but are not limited to, the following: a general downsizing of the total organization; a change in the organizational structure of the given department; the changing needs of the clients served by that department. * Social Services employees are covered under the State’s reduction in force policy and procedures. The following procedures shall be applied when a reduction-in-force becomes necessary for the reduction of any full-time, regular employees of the County: I. Employee Notification When a reduction-in-force becomes necessary, the department head will notify the Director of Human Resources and the employee(s) being affected as soon as a potential reduction is known. Full- time employees will be notified in writing as soon as possible, but no less than 60 calendar days prior to the effective date of the elimination of the position. The affected full-time employee(s) will be notified of the potential reduction in writing and will be given the opportunity to discuss the reduction with the Director of Human Resources and department head. Such notification will take place prior to June 1st of any given year, whenever possible. The Director of Human Resources will make reasonable efforts to place an affected employee in a vacant position for which he is qualified. II. Reduction Criteria and Process In any reduction implemented under this policy as herein above described, the performance, level of training and experience of the personnel involved compared to other members of the same position and/or same job group will be considered. “Job group” for purposes of this policy shall mean a group of related job positions which serve a common function or functions within a department. The following process will be utilized: A list will be developed, as needed, by the Director of Human Resources, according to the following: A. The list will be developed rank-ordered from the most senior down to the least senior employee within job groups certain classes. “Seniority” for this purpose will be defined according to length of continuous service, including any approved leaves of absence, as an 2 a regular, full-time employee in that the current position and in any prior full-time position within the same job group class in Albemarle County. The list will be further refined to group employees according to their respective positions: Secretary Office Associate, Custodian, Police Officer, Etc. B. Once the seniority list for each of the respective groups has been developed, then the employees’ performance and discipline, as documented in their Human Resources personnel files evaluations for the past three years, will be reviewed by the County Executive and rank ordered. In the event that unsatisfactory evaluations or disciplinary actions have occurred, the The County Executive may consider this in making the decision on all such documented performance and discipline to determine who will be reduced affected by the lay-off. Displaced employees who have more seniority will be eligible to assume vacant positions within the same or lower pay classifications provided they hold appropriate qualifications or have had previous successful experience in the particular position. If the displaced employee assumes a position in a lower paygrade, he will be bound by the provisions of policy §P -60, Procedure for Salary Administration and Position Classification, section H.3. In the event that two employees in the same position/job group with the same hiring date, qualifications, and performance record are being considered for a reduction, the County Executive will apply the following criteria, not necessarily in this order, to determine which employee to lay off: A. Additional training; B. Written documentation of skills and abilities; C. Total experience in present position; D. Total experience in Albemarle County; E. Recommendation of administrative staff the employees’ department head. III. Reassignment and Recall A member of the Human Resources Department will meet with employees in positions identified to be eliminated to determine their skills, experience, education, training and interests in order to identify other positions in the County for which they may qualify, or for which retraining is feasible. Every reasonable effort will be made to place an affected employee in a vacant position for which he/she may qualify. In lieu of being laid-off, full-time employees may be eligible to assume vacant positions within the same or lower pay classifications provided they hold appropriate qualifications or have had previous successful experience in the particular position. An employee reassigned to a position in a lower paygrade pursuant to this policy will be bound by the provisions of policy §P -60, Procedure for Salary Administration and Position Classification, section H.3. If an individual’s employment is not renewed because of reduction-in-force, that employee’s Laid-off employees’ names will be placed on a recall list at that time and for that will remain effective until the end of the next fiscal year. If a position becomes available during that period, and the employee is qualified to fill that position, the employee will be notified in writing. The employee will then be interviewed for this vacant position. After the period on the recall list has expired, the former employee may apply/reactivate his/her application for any vacant position for which he/she is qualified. IV. Separation Benefits Laid-off, full-time employees will receive the following separation benefits to assist them in their transition from County employment: 3 A. Separation Pay. Pay will be calculated at the employee’s regular rate of pay at the time of the reduction-in-force, based on the length of service and the schedule provided below. “Length of service” shall mean years of continuous service, including any approved leaves of absence, as a regular, full-time employee in the employee’s current position and in any prior, full-time position within the same job group. Length of Service: Separation Pay Period: Less than two years Two weeks of pay Two years and above One week of pay for every full year of service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks B. Continued Insurance Contributions. The Board contribution for medical and dental insurance coverage will continue for the duration of the separation pay period for laid-off employees who were enrolled in those plans at the time of the reduction. Upon completion of the separation pay period, the employee may elect to continue coverage under COBRA. Unless otherwise specified, an employee who declines a reassignment to another vacant position prior to the effective date of the reduction shall not be entitled to separation benefits under this policy. If an employee receiving separation benefits is rehired by the County, he/she will be under no obligation to repay those funds. Amended: August 7, 1996; March 3, 2010 Return to exec summary I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment Community Development Department 2009 FOURTH QUARTER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT County of Albemarle INDEX Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 - 1 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural 1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 393 220 340 171 346 172 Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 100 132 518 2009 Totals 104 84 2009 YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 511613 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS 128 Totals 202 Totals 102 207 During the fourth quarter of 2009, 132 certificates of occupancy were issued for 132 dwelling units. There were 7 certificates of occupancy issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $17,500. There were 40 certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 200820082007 2007 107 151 Quarter 198 127 Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area 2007 2008 2009* 2010 2011Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units SF Unit Other Units*Through Fourth Quarter Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 2 - 4th Quarter 2009 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 8 0 19 0 0 0 0 1 28 21% JACK JOUETT 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 12 9% RIVANNA 6 0 16 0 0 0 1 1 24 18% SAMUEL MILLER 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 11% SCOTTSVILLE 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 19 14% WHITE HALL 30 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 35 27% TOTAL 76 1 43 0 0 0 8 4 132 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 10 8% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 12% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 6% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 9 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 36 27% CROZET COMMUNITY 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 12% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 13% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 15 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 33 25% RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 24 1 43 0 0 0 0 1 69 52% RURAL AREA 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16 12% RURAL AREA 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 6% RURAL AREA 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 23 17% RURAL AREA 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 12% 52 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 63 48% 76 1 43 0 0 0 8 4 132 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 4th Quarter 2009 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 9 2 0 0 9% Baker Butler 1 0 0 0 1% Broadus Wood 5 0 0 0 4% Brownsville 20 0 0 1 17% Cale 2 0 0 0 2% Crozet 6 0 0 2 7% Greer 1 8 0 0 7% Hollymead 0 17 0 0 13% Meriwether Lewis 5 0 0 0 5% Murray 5 0 0 0 4% Red Hill 3 0 0 0 2% Scottsville 3 0 0 1 3% Stone Robinson 6 16 0 0 17% Stony Point 4 0 0 1 4% Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0% Yancey 6 0 0 3 7% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 28 38 0 15 81 JOUETT 12 22 0 0 34 RIVANNA 24 53 0 8 85 S. MILLER 14 119 2 2 137 SCOTTSVILLE 19 39 2 4 64 WHITE HALL 35 74 1 1 111 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. 0 0 0 0 0 76 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,768,507$ 10,605,549$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,245,250$ 2,985,897$ 7,972,011$ 7,266,660$ Amount-$ Amount-$ 2,983,011$ 3,719,603$ 58,000$ 0 1 TOTAL Amount-$ 0 0 0 1 0 1,617,000$ 4,412,000$ 3,481,557$ 1,368,897$ 1,899,934$ 8,232,100$ 132 3,086,373$ 2,292,449$ 345 36,000$ TOTAL 23,988,641$ 14,464,433$ 5 277,500$ 45,000$ 885,100$ -$ 0 0 Amount-$ 1,014,100$ 4,346,050$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ 0 48 0 0 0 225,000$ -$ -$ 7,500$ 0 0 0 0 10 00 0 0 AA 1 0 0 0 12 1 5 22 3 4 2 9 9 17 557,200$ 132 TOTAL UNITS 23 5 0 9 6 5 .. 100% 30 5122,113,300$ 40,843,874$ Amount-$ 577,000$ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment INDEX Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 Community Development Department 2009 YEAR END CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT County of Albemarle - 1 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural 1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 393 220 340 171 346 172 Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area In 2009, 412 certificates of occupancy were issued for 518 dwelling units. There were 40 certificates of occupancy issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $100,000. There were 40 certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 200820082007 2007 107 151 Quarter 198 127 YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 511613 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS 128 Totals 202 Totals 102 207 100 132 518 2009 Totals 104 84 2009 Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Other Units SF Unit Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 2 - 2009 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 28 0 37 0 0 0 0 2 67 13% JACK JOUETT 8 1 17 0 0 12 0 1 39 8% RIVANNA 26 0 75 0 0 92 2 1 196 38% SAMUEL MILLER 40 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 44 8% SCOTTSVILLE 46 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 56 11% WHITE HALL 84 6 8 0 10 0 7 1 116 22% TOTAL 232 10 138 0 10 104 17 7 518 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 1 19 4% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 22 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 27 5% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 74 0 0 92 0 0 166 32% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 13 3% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 35 0 95 0 0 104 0 4 238 46% CROZET COMMUNITY 43 6 8 0 10 0 0 0 67 13% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 2 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 36 7% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 45 6 42 0 10 0 0 0 103 20% RIVANNA VILLAGE 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% 85 6 137 0 10 104 0 4 346 67% RURAL AREA 1 43 3 1 0 0 0 5 2 54 10% RURAL AREA 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 27 5% RURAL AREA 3 46 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 50 10% RURAL AREA 4 34 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 41 8% 147 3 1 0 0 0 17 4 172 33% 232 9 138 0 10 104 17 8 518 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 2009 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 25 4 0 0 6% Baker Butler 6 0 0 0 1% Broadus Wood 16 0 0 2 3% Brownsville 57 1 10 1 14% Cale 11 0 0 0 3% Crozet 14 7 0 4 6% Greer 1 17 0 0 6% Hollymead 2 34 0 0 7% Meriwether Lewis 16 0 0 0 3% Murray 14 1 0 0 3% Red Hill 11 0 0 0 2% Scottsville 10 0 0 1 2% Stone Robinson 23 74 0 2 19% Stony Point 10 0 0 1 20% Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0% Yancey 16 0 0 6 4% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 67 104 12 64 247 JOUETT 28 59 4 8 99 RIVANNA 106 118 7 23 254 S. MILLER 44 203 18 8 273 SCOTTSVILLE 56 97 19 14 186 WHITE HALL 111 167 13 14 305 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. .. 100% 131 1,36438,743,501$ 268,126,207$ Amount-$ 5,877,825$ 2,457,850$ 518 TOTAL UNITS 100 103 0 22 18 18 31 6 18 70 11 11 13 31 30 36 0 0 AA 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 12 10 2,915,000$ 61,500$ 3,372,093$ 5,930,345$ 104 0 0 0 0 92 0 3,467,500$ 0 817 8,851,860$ 7,935,701$ 12,588,383$ 0 0 Amount-$ 2,595,177$ 12,096,125$ 0 412 6,637,773$ 7,291,069$ 748 7,294,417$ TOTAL 170,178,945$ 34,605,463$ 73 24,598,298$ 9,568,000$ 81,457,180$ 18,592,006$ 4,446,853$ 12,500,234$ 35,965,400$ 0 2 TOTAL Amount-$ 0 0 0 1 0 26,094,503$ 26,664,736$ 96,104,880$ 35,348,484$ Amount-$ Amount-$ 5,397,782$ 8,236,808$ 2,589,325$ 24,510,857$ 59,402,746$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 3 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. 0 0 0 0 0 232 9 0 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 INDEX Community Development Department 2009 FOURTH QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle - 2 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2009 Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals 1st Quarter 88 57 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 58 2nd Quarter 351 88 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 97 3rd Quarter 78 55 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 80 4th Quarter 105 53 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 104 622 253 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 8301079 599 20082007 875 1720 During the fourth quarter of 2009, 79 building permits were issued for 104 dwelling units. There were no permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2009 339575 831 418 Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Other Units SF Unit*Through Fourth Quarter Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 4th Quarter 2009 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 6 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 26 25% JACK JOUETT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% RIVANNA 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 13% SAMUEL MILLER 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9% SCOTTSVILLE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% WHITE HALL 16 0 0 0 14 24 0 0 54 52% TOTAL 39 0 26 0 14 24 0 1 104 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 6% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 17 16% CROZET COMMUNITY 11 0 0 0 14 24 0 0 49 47% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 19% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5% 16 0 20 0 14 24 0 0 74 71% RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 26 0 26 0 14 24 0 1 91 88% RURAL AREA 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4% RURAL AREA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% RURAL AREA 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3% RURAL AREA 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4% 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13% 39 0 26 0 14 24 0 1 104 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 4 - 4th Quarter 2009 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 4 0 0 0 4% Baker Butler 5 0 0 0 5% Broadus Wood 2 0 0 0 2% Brownsville 12 0 14 0 48% Cale 3 0 0 0 3% Crozet 2 0 0 0 2% Greer 0 0 0 0 0% Hollymead 0 20 0 0 19% Meriwether Lewis 1 0 0 0 1% Murray 2 0 0 0 3% Red Hill 4 0 0 0 4% Scottsville 0 0 0 0 0% Stone Robinson 1 6 0 0 7% Stony Point 1 0 0 0 1% Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 1% Yancey 1 0 0 0 1% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 26 20 2 36 84 JOUETT 0 22 1 6 29 RIVANNA 13 33 3 22 71 S. MILLER 9 36 1 5 51 SCOTTSVILLE 2 19 1 11 33 WHITE HALL 29 29 0 10 68 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. TOTAL 100% 90 33613,919,245$ 45,285,210$ Amount-$ 4,506,000$ 7,121,027$ 0 780,500$ Amount-$ 0 14 150,000$ 335,000$ 870,000$ 260,000$ 1,200,000$ 24 TOTAL UNITS 7 1 1 1 1 4 917,490$ 24 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 50 0 3 2 0 0 0 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 20,790,521$ 7,760,443$ 8 2,815,000$ -$ Amount-$ 643,350$ 4,770,121$ Amount-$ 879,200$ 3,522,335$ -$ 2,440,000$ 5,130,000$ 780,350$ 402,000$ 8,048,400$ 79 557,000$ 1,378,208$ 159 13,734,499$ 1,895,850$ 5,106,690$ 9,029,913$ 5,615,000$ 9,903,258$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Amount-$ 0 0 476,650$ 104 117,578$ SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF AA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 INDEX Community Development Department 2009 YEAR END BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Office of Geographic Data Services - 2 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2009 Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals 1st Quarter 88 57 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 58 2nd Quarter 351 88 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 97 3rd Quarter 78 55 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 80 4th Quarter 105 53 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 104 622 253 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 8301079 599875 1720 In 2009, 313 building permits were issued for 339 dwelling units. There were 6 permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $15,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter 2006 2009 339575 831 418 20082007 Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Other Units SF Unit Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 2009 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 26 0 52 0 0 0 0 3 81 24% JACK JOUETT 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 11 3% RIVANNA 19 0 67 0 0 0 2 1 89 26% SAMUEL MILLER 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 9% SCOTTSVILLE 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 22 6% WHITE HALL 63 2 0 1 14 24 1 1 106 31% TOTAL 159 3 124 1 14 24 5 9 339 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 67 20% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 10 3% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 35 0 72 0 0 0 0 3 110 32% CROZET COMMUNITY 37 2 0 1 14 24 0 0 78 23% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 2 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 54 16% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1% 44 2 52 1 14 24 0 0 137 40% RIVANNA VILLAGE 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1% 82 2 124 1 14 24 0 3 250 74% RURAL AREA 1 23 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 29 9% RURAL AREA 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 18 5% RURAL AREA 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 7% RURAL AREA 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 5% 77 1 0 0 0 0 5 6 89 26% 159 3 124 1 14 24 5 9 339 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 4 - 2009 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 21 0 0 0 7% Baker Butler 8 0 0 0 2% Broadus Wood 12 0 0 1 4% Brownsville 41 0 14 0 24% Cale 7 0 0 0 2% Crozet 9 0 0 0 3% Greer 0 5 0 0 1% Hollymead 2 52 0 0 16% Meriwether Lewis 8 0 0 0 3% Murray 12 0 0 0 4% Red Hill 12 0 0 0 4% Scottsville 5 0 0 0 1% Stone Robinson 14 52 0 2 20% Stony Point 4 15 0 0 6% Woodbrook 2 0 0 0 1% Yancey 2 0 0 2 1% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 81 96 4 130 311 JOUETT 10 85 4 28 127 RIVANNA 89 124 12 79 304 S. MILLER 30 124 8 36 198 SCOTTSVILLE 22 96 15 41 174 WHITE HALL 81 134 5 91 311 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. TOTAL 100% 405 1,42529,527,794$ 427,866,954$ Amount-$ 29,470,703$ 48,812,506$ 243,057,261$ 40,412,848$ * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. 3,860,216$ 6,430,900$ 9,660,600$ 5 2,041,712$ Amount-$ 12,309,465$ 25,055,604$ 215,395,000$ 13,485,000$ 3,672,000$ 24 TOTAL UNITS 69 19 2 4 9 12 8 11 1 0 24 8 14 81 5 0 159 3 0 0 0 1 14 0 1 1 0 0 5 54 24 3 0 TOTAL 95,465,224$ 31,961,867$ 48 270,912,069$ 995,000$ 27,222,900$ 313 6,095,595$ 659 Amount-$ 2,331,982$ 13,806,121$ Amount-$ 4,105,170$ 9,641,370$ 14,975,000$ 19,696,875$ 12,849,575$ 6,740,190$ 6,914,753$ 3,047,560$ 28,702,678$ 37,410,957$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF AA 9 14 Amount-$ 0 0 1 0 0 3,097,462$ 339 4,436,903$ SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 124 1 0 0 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: The County’s Performance Management System SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To provide an update on the County’s current Performance Management System and obtain Board input regarding the Performance Dashboard prototype STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L. LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, government entities at all levels have increased their emphasis on measuring performance and results for their programs and activities. Utilizing many tools and methods employed in the private sector, government performance management systems provide focus while increasing accountability, improving transparency and ensuring that expenditures are achieving the organization’s desired results. Over the years, the County of Albemarle has continually improved its ability to measure progress with regard to its strategic and departmental goals. Currently, County departments monitor key performance measures (KPIs) while the County’s annual Strategic Plan Report provides data regarding progress against key indicators of success. In the County’s 2009 Resource Management Study, the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute at the Center for Public Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University stated that Albemarle County’s current performance management system is strong. The study recommended that in order to move the County’s performance management system to the next level the County should make performance management an organizational priority as well as a more formal part of its overall management system. Furthermore, the study recommended that the County continue to refine the structure of its performance management system, make measures more meaningful, and input should be sought from the Board as well as citizens regarding future improvements. STRATEGIC PLAN: A performance management system provides data and insight regarding how well the County is performing in relation to the County’s mission and its organizational and departmental goals. The County’s strategic plan itself includes 41 KPIs. DISCUSSION: Since the 2009 Resource Management Study, the County has continued to make improvements to its performance management system. The County Executive’s Office has identified key organizational level measures and the County’s Leadership Council reviews and discusses this information on a quarterly basis. These top-level indicators provide information regarding the County’s progress against specific performance and efficiency targets and offers insights regarding staff workloads, the safety of the community and the County’s economic climate. To improve the efficiency of the collection and dissemination of performance information and to make the County’s performance data more readily accessible and meaningful, staff has worked with University of Virginia’s Internship Program students to develop a Performance Dashboard using the County’s Microsoft SharePoint technology. AGENDA TITLE: The County’s Performance Management System March 3, 2010 Page 2 This effort is a work in progress. Staff believes the performance system needs to be developed only to the level that it can be sustained and updated on a regular basis in order for the data to remain meaningful and current. Over time, however, staff desires to include department performance indicators and to develop a web interface to make this performance information easily accessible by citizens. Before these next steps are taken, staff requests the Board’s review and suggestions regarding the Performance Dashboard prototype. At the March 3 meeting, Lori Allshouse, the County’s Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance, will provide a demonstration of the County’s Performance Dashboard including a review of select key organizational measures as well as Department of Social Services’ workload and trend measures that have been requested by the Board on a quarterly basis. After the meeting, Board members will be sent an electronic link to the Performance Dashboard and will be asked to review the prototype some time before April 1st from their computers. After the Board’s review, staff requests that Board members provide feedback to Lori Allshouse regarding the system’s content and ease of use. After the Board’s input is received, the County will make necessary improvements to the system, and with the continued assistance of the University interns, will begin to develop the associated website interface. Once a performance management website interface is developed, staff will obtain input from a focus group of citizens before the information is finalized and published on the County’s website. BUDGET IMPACT: The Performance Dashboard prototype has been developed in-house with the assistance of students enrolled in the University of Virginia’s Internship Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that, after Board members have been provided the Performance Dashboard prototype via an e-mail link, Board members review the prototype and, by April 1, provide suggestions to Lori Allshouse regarding the prototype’s content and ease of use. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Screen shots of select pages currently included in the County’s Performance Management Dashboard. Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Artisan Trail Project SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: 2010 Planning Grant for Artisan Trail Development STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, Stimart LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Albemarle County is partnering with the Artisan Center of Virginia and Nelson County to develop a project to showcase the region’s artisans. In September 2009, the partnership initiated the application process for a Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Planning Grant for its proposed Artisan Trail project. On January 19, 2010, Nelson County was notified that the Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”) had established a $3,000 reserve to reimburse expenses incurred for five tasks that must be completed prior to the formal submi ttal of a CDBG Planning Grant proposal for this project (see Attachment A). If the Grant is awarded, these expenses will be reimbursed and additional funds, not exceeding a total of $15,000, may be awarded. The purpose of this project is to enable the Artisan Center of Virginia to develop a website as well as a brochure and map highlighting local artisans to promote and create awareness of this segment of our economy, spur further visitation and enhance the vitality of this region. The brochure/map will be distributed to regional points of interest, such as breweries, vineyards and historic sites throughout Albemarle and Nelson Counties while a marketing campaign will be launched to make key target audiences aware of the website and its content. One requirement in this grant process is for the County to hold an initial public meeting to give citizens and stakeholders in artisan and cultural development an overview of the proposed project. The purpose of this presentation is to satisfy that requirement. STRATEGIC PLAN: Fund the County’s future needs DISCUSSION: A Planning Grant proposal cannot be submitted unless the following tasks are completed by March 19, 2010: 1) Conduct an initial public meeting and identify community leaders as “sparkplugs” for inclusion on the management team (Nelson County held its public meeting in February and Albemarle County’s public meeting is scheduled on March 3, 2010); 2) Hold an initial management team meeting (held February 8, 2010 at the Albemarle County Office Building); 3) Develop an Artisan survey instrument and methodology (in progress); 4) Draft a project scope of services and an agreement between the County and the Artisans Center of Virginia for DHCD review (in progress); and 5) Complete a second management team meeting (scheduled for March 8, 2010 in Nelson County). Upon completion of the initial general public and management team meetings, the Counties must submit a copy of the survey instrument, methodology and scope of services to DHCD by the March 19, 2010 deadline noted above. AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Artisan Trail Project March 3, 2010 Page 2 As required by the DHCD, community leaders have been identified as “sparkplugs,” or energized community leaders, for the initiative and have been included as members of the management team. These people are Ann Mallek, Melissa Wiley, Meredith Young, Sherri Smith, Richard Christy, Meghan Williamson and Mike Harvey (see Attachment B). Both Albemarle and Nelson Counties are required to identify key stakeholders and to secure their commitment to serve on the project management team. A list of the management team members and information about the initial management team meeting are included in Attachment B. The management team is currently developing the survey instrument and methodology for reaching out to the artisan community for survey participants. Outreach will include, but is not limited to, the Artisan Center of Virginia members, Crozet Arts & Crafts festival participants and members of the Piedmont Council of the Arts working in three-dimensional media. Once developed, the Artisan Trail Network will enhance the local tourism experience, increase tourism revenues and positively impact job growth within those business operations associated with increased tourism patronage. The participating artisans will be identified on the trail map, along with the other destinations that will include the region’s breweries, vineyards, farmer’s markets, bed & breakfasts, and restaurants specializing in local food. Examples of specific Albemarle businesses expected to benefit include Starr Hill Brewery, Over-the-Moon Bookstore & Artisan Gallery, Crozet Arts & Crafts Festival, Crozet Music Festival, Monticello Wine Trail members, Brew Ridge Trail members, local farms and farmer’s markets, and historic sites such as Monticello and Michie Tavern. New artisan- craft businesses can be added to the trail network at any time. While enhancing the tourism experience, the project is intended to have important impacts to economic development in supporting local job creation and increasing entrepreneurship and revenues. The survey instrument will be designed to help measure and quantify those impacts; specific questions will address the portion of household income derived from craft, the number of jobs, internships and apprenticeships created in the craft field, and the portion of household income derived from farming (to identify how many in the rural areas supplement their farming income from the sale of crafts). After completion of steps 1 through 5 above, the next step will be the formal submittal, in partnership with Nelson County, of a CDBG Planning Grant proposal. BUDGET IMPACT: On January 13, 2010, the Board approved the expenditure of $1,000 to match the DHCD grant and Nelson’s County’s $1,000 match for the production of an Artisan Trail brochure. No additional funding is anticipated. The program is designed to be self-sustaining with trail-participant funding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board accept this report to satisfy the “initial public meeting” requirement for the CDBG Planning Grant and authorize, upon the completion of the required activities, the County Executive to submit a Planning Grant proposal in conjunction with Nelson County for a 2010 CDBG Planning Grant for the Artisan Trail development. ATTACHMENTS A – January 19, 2010 DCHD Letter B – Management Team members and February 8, 2010 Management Team Meeting minutes Return to regular agenda Page 1 of 3 Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT MARCH 3, 2010 MONTHLY MEETING ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS • Maintenance to gravel roads – Crews continue to address roads that have damage due to the freeze/thaw cycles as a result of winter weather. These include roads mentioned in February’s Board meeting. Crews have been working to address these by adding stone to address muddy ruts, washouts and potholes. • Tree Clean up- Work is ongoing to address trees fallen as a result of winter weather are present possible safety hazards. Clean up is occurring on a priority of Interstate first, primaries next, and secondaries. • Route 29 South Task Force – VDOT traffic engineering staff has completed a safety review of the Route 29 corridor from I-64 to the Nelson County line. Several roadway elements were reviewed including signing, sight distances, clear zones, along with crash data. Recommendations include short term and intermediate improvements including installation of additional warning and guidance signs, upgrades to pavement markings, select tree removal, guardrail replacement and an advance warning flasher at Plank Road. A goal has been set to complete improvements within the next 18 months. • Hatton Ferry -The Virginia Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting from 9:00AM to 11:00AM on March 8, 2010 at its Charlottesville Residency office located at, 701 VDOT Way, Charlottesville, VA 22911 for the purpose of receiving comments regarding the discontinuance of maintenance of that portion of State Route 625 in Albemarle and Buckingham Counties known as Hatton Ferry, between the normal water shorelines of the James River, pursuant to §33.1-150 of the Code of Virginia. Written comments must be received by noon, March 8. This process of discontinuance is related to maintenance of the travel way and is not related to VDOT’s previous decision to discontinue operations of the ferry service. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Albemarle County • Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501 Right of Way authorization has been received for this project. • Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258 P101, R201, C501 Right-of-way staff continues to work on appraisals and negotiations with affected property owners throughout this project. • McIntire Road Extended, U000-104-V02, PE-101 Award of this project is pending. CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges • Grading work and storm drain installation nearly complete. Contractor will be maintaining the E&S controls and will install the drainage structure at the SWMB. Contractor will be adjusting structure tops to final grade. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Page 2 of 3 • Placement of steel girders for the bridge over NS RR phase I complete. Contractor will work on placement of stay in place deck forms followed by overhang forms and deck rebar in prep for deck pour. • Substructure of the proposed bridge over Meadow Creek is complete. Steel girders will arrive last week of February and placement will follow as weather permits. • Clearing and grubbing for 36” Sewer interceptor contract C will start as weather permits. 0743-002-282, B658 Bridge and Approaches over North Fork of the Rivanna River • Metal formwork installation for the concrete bridge deck complete. • Concrete placed for the east abutment backwall. • Storm events have severely hindered progress during this month. PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Land Development Items Total This Month Total This Fiscal Year Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 5 23 Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 1 23 New Entrance Plan Reviews 8 38 Total Permits Processed 42 311 Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 12 182 Inspection of new entrance conducted 78 682 Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0.43 4.47 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Completed RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS Owensville Rd. (Route 676) Between Route 250 and Holkham Drive (Route 1636) Safety Study Existing signing will be modified to indicate a 20 MPH advisory speed. Installation should be complete this month. Richmond Rd (Rt 250) Between Peter Jefferson Parkway and Worrell Dr. Request from ACPD to review the crossover due to the high accident rate Review is complete. Report is being drafted. Irish Road (Rt 6) Scottsville Safety Review in the vicinity of the Scottsville Fire Dept. Review complete; installation pending. Dunlora Drive (Rt 1177) Entire Route Traffic calming VDOT and County staff met with Homeowners Assn. representatives. Plan development is underway. Options will then be taken to the community for input. Ivy Road (Rt 250) Between Crozet Ave. and Three Notch’d Road Speed study Watch for turning vehicle signing and 35 MPH advisory speed signs will be installed at this location. Buck Mountain Road (Rt 663) Earlysville Speed study Under Review MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED Patching on Routes I-64 with plant mix, 29 Seminole Trail, 664 Markwood Rd, 601 Old Garth Rd, 656 Georgetown Rd, 665 Buck Mtn. Rd., 20 Stony Pt Rd, 53 Jefferson Pkwy, and 250 Richmond Rd. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Page 3 of 3 Tree cleanup on Route I-64. Emergency flood repair on Routes 614 Sugar Hollow, 672 Blufton, 673 Breakheart, 810 Browns Gap, 601 Old Ivy Rd, 627 Frys Path, 627 Green Mountain Rd, 631 Old Lynchburg, 697 Sutherland Rd, 703 Pocket Ln, 704 Fortune Ln, 713 Glendower Rd, 714 Riding Club Rd, 717 Secretary’s Sand Rd, 718 Murrays Ln, 721 Old Dominion Rd, 722 Old Green Mountain Rd, 723 Sharon Rd, 728 Ed Jones Rd, 735 Mt Alto Rd, 737 Mountain Vista Rd, 774 Bear Creek Rd, 792 Stump Town Ln, and 805 Henderson Ln. Grading, machining and adding stone to gravel roads on Routes 606 Dickerson Rd, 643 Rio Mills Rd, 671 Blufton Mill Rd, 743 Breakheart, 672 Via La, 668 Fox Mtn, 764 Link Evans, 687 Shifflett's Mill, 776 Buck Mtn. Ford, 667 Catterton Rd, 674 Clark Rd, 614 Sugar Hollow, 629 Browns Gap, 824 Patterson Mill, 688 Midway, 683 Shelton Mill, 811 Jones Mill, 611 Jarman's Gap, 612 Hammocks Gap Rd, 640 Turkey Sag Rd,639 Harrington Rd, 600 Stony Pt Pass, 774 Bear Creek Rd, 717 Secretary’s Sand Rd, 735 Mt Alton Rd, Ditch and pipe work on Routes 29 Seminole Tr, 601 Free Union Rd, 743 Earlysville Rd, 664 Markwood Rd, 810 Browns Gap Tnpk, 673 Slamgate Rd, 672 Blufton, 684 Lanetown Rd, 788 Railroad Ave, 811 Jones Mill, 689 Burches Creek drop inlet, and 250 Rockfish Gap. • Worked emergency operations for snow events and flood event. PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – MARCH 2010 • Routine maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include: o Pavement and pot hole patching; o Machining and adding stone to gravel roads; o Cleaning ditches and pipes; o Litter pickup; o Tree trimming and removal. o Repair wing wall at bridge abutment on Route 691 (Jarman’s Gap) and Route 626 (James River Rd); o Repair side of concrete deck Route 626 James River road. 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 MAINT BUDGET FORECASTED EXPENDITURES CUMULATIVE ACTUAL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). STAFF CONTACT(S): Kamptner, Cilimberg, Maliszewski LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Y BACKGROUND: The Development Review Task Force (DRTF) was charged by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in 2006 to review and assess legislative land use processes to identify needed improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and public participation. One of the DRTF’s recommendations to the BOS in 2007 was to clarify the extent of ARB review expected by the BOS. As a result of the DRTF’s recommendations, the BOS, the Planning Commission (PC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) met in two joint meetings in 2008 and 2009 to discuss these issues, and County staff presented recommendations for streamlining the ARB review process. The BOS adopted a Resolution of Intent (Attachment A) to amend the ordinance on March 4, 2009 and drafts of a zoning text amendment were reviewed by the PC in work sessions on May 9 and November 9, 2009. On December 15, 2009 the PC held a public hearing on the proposed ZTA and voted 7:0 to recommend adoption of the ZTA, with the incorporation of minor corrections identified during the meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN: Relevant Goal: Enhance the Quality of Life. DISCUSSION: This work session is to familiarize the BOS with the primary changes proposed in the text amendment. Attachment B is a 2/22/10 draft text amendment that includes the minor corrections identified at the December 15 Planning Commission meeting, with text displayed in strikeout and underline to designate proposed changes and additions. In this draft, it appears that nearly all of the existing text of section 30.6 is to be deleted. In reality, much of the existing text remains, but it has been relocated and/or re-worded in the proposed draft. Attachment C is a table that compares the current ordinance text with the proposed text, section by section. The far right column in the table provides summary and/or descriptive comments about the changes that are proposed. When possible, revisions to the text that were requested by the Planning Commission have been identified in this column. Please note that in this table the current text is provided in the order in which it appears in the current ordinance, and the proposed text is re-ordered as necessary to correspond to the current text. Although this makes the order of the proposed text different than that in Attachment B, it provides a side-by-side comparison of existing and proposed text and helps identify how the existing text is changing or moving. One of the most significant changes proposed in the draft amendment is the provision for county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness (c-wCofA), which is a new approach to reviewing EC applications. This approach would allow similar classes of structures and improvements to be reviewed and approved by staff without being heard at an ARB meeting, if criteria previously outlined by the ARB for that specific type of improvement or structure have been met. Some examples of structures and improvements for which the c-wCofA might be utilized include: telecommunications facilities, buildings located 2000’ or more from the EC, and minor alterations to buildings and landscaping. This concept was discussed at the joint meetings of the BOS, PC and ARB. Another significant change proposed in the draft amendment is the detailing of the submittal and review process for Entrance Corridor applications. Attachment D is a flow chart that outlines this process as it is proposed in sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. RECOMMENDATION: Following discussion and any additional Board direction, staff recommends the Board set a public hearing for this ZTA. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution of Intent Attachment B: 2/22/10 Draft Zoning Text Amendment Attachment C: Zoning Text Amendment Comparison Table Attachment D: Entrance Corridor Application Submittal and Review Process Flow Chart View Planning Commission minutes: December 15, 2009, November 17, 2009, May 12, 2009 Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance § 30.6 was adopted in 1990 for the purpose of implementing the enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts within the County or in contiguous localities (hereinafter, “entrance corridors”), requiring that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels contiguous to those streets and highways, be architecturally compatible with those historic landmarks or structures, and establishing the substantive and procedural requirements for approving development by the Architectural Review Board within the entrance corridors; and WHEREAS, the Development Review Task Force (the “DRTF”) was charged by the Board of Supervisors in 2006 to review and assess current legislative land use processes to identify needed improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and public participation; and WHEREAS, one of the DRTF’s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in 2007 was to clarify the extent of Architectural Review Board review expected by the Board of Supervisors and development proposals that would later be considered by the Board of Supervisors and as a result of that recommendation, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board have recently held two joint meetings to discuss issues pertaining to the DRTF’s recommendation and, related thereto, discussed recommendations presented by County staff for streamlining the Architectural Review Board review process in Zoning Ordinance § 30.6; and WHEREAS, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and quality in Zoning Ordinance § 30.6’s substantive and procedural requirements, Zoning Ordinance § 30.6 and related sections of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to reorganize, revise and streamline applicable procedural requirements, to reorganize, revise and amend applicable substantive requirements, to further clarify the authority and the role of the Architectural Review Board to facilitate the exercise of its powers, and to make other changes deemed appropriate in order to better achieve the purpose of Zoning Ordinance § 30.6 and to address the recommendation of the DRTF. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance §§ 3.1, 4.15, 30.6 and any other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. * * * * * Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 1 ORDINANCE NO. 10-18( ) 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, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals By Amending and Renaming: Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and iIntent Sec. 30.6.2 Application Boundaries of the district Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards Sec. 30.6.4 Area and bulk regulations; minimum yards and setback requirements; height regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features Certificates of appropriateness Sec. 30.6.7 Administration Submittal, review and action on application; final review By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming (old section number first, followed by name, followed by new section number): Sec. 30.6.3.1 By right Sec. 30.6.3 (part) Sec. 30.6.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 30.6.3 (part) Sec. 30.6.6 Nonconformities; exemptions Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness Sec. 30.6.5 Sec. 30.6.6.1 Untitled Sec. 30.6.5 (part) Sec. 30.6.6.2 Repair and maintenance of structures Sec. 30.6.5 (part) Sec. 30.6.6.3 Exemptions By Adding: Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered By Repealing: Sec. 30.6.5 Signs Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Certificate of appropriateness: A decision made by the architectural review board or, on appeal, by the board of supervisors, certifying that a proposed structure and/or site improvements located within the entrance corridor Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 2 overlay district, as may be modified by terms and conditions of the certificate, are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board establishing specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement or architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria. . . . Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming structure” means a lawful structure existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district, including any overlay district, in which the structure is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or other structure requirements of that zoning district. (Amended 6-14-00) . . . Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions (36.1) Opaque background: The term “opaque background” means the portion of the face of a sign that lies behind the message portion of the sign, made of a material through which light cannot pass when the sign is internally illuminated at night. . . . Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the entrance corridor overlay zoning district: a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5. b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set forth in sections 30.6.4, 30.6.7 and 30.6.8 30.6. of this chapter, and as follows: 1. The agent is authorized to review and act upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign if the sign will not require a variance and the sign: (i) will either not be internally illuminated or will be internally illuminated with an opaque background; (ii) will replace an existing sign that will be substantially the same as the existing sign; or (iii) will be in a multi- business complex or shopping center, the architectural review board has completed its comprehensive sign review therefor, and the sign will meet all of the requirements established by the architectural review board during its review. The agent may require that a sign otherwise eligible for review by the agent be reviewed by the architectural review board 2. The architectural review board shall review and act upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for each sign that is not eligible for review by the agent as provided in subsection (B)(1), or that is referred to the architectural review board by the agent. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 3 3. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by a site plan that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan. c. Scope of review and authority to impose conditions. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be reviewed for consistency with the purposes and requirements of this section 4.15 and the architectural review board’s design guidelines, and conditions may be imposed upon the certificate of appropriateness to assure such consistency, including but not limited to conditions minimizing window signs. d. Comprehensive sign review. For each proposed new multi-business complex or shopping center, the architectural review board shall conduct a comprehensive sign review prior to issuing a certificate of appropriateness. The review shall include, but not be limited to, a review and determination of the appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other provisions of the architectural review board’s design guidelines. c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque background. (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.6 Entrance corridor overlay district - EC (Added 10-3-90) Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and iIntent The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county’s natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto. The purpose of this section 30.6 is to implement the enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts within the county or in contiguous localities, and to require that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels contiguous to those streets and highways as provided herein, be architecturally compatible with those historic landmarks or structures. The comprehensive plan provides that scenic resources contribute to the community’s desirability as a place to live, enhance and protect property values, and contribute to the overall quality of life for the county’s residents. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that scenic resources are important to visitors as well as the county’s residents, and that visitors to the Blue Ridge Mountains and the county’s rural historic structures gather a lasting impression of the county as they travel the county’s scenic roadways. The significant routes of tourist access within the entrance corridor overlay district provide access to the county and to many of the county’s historic landmarks, structures and districts including, but not limited to Monticello, the home of Thomas Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 4 Jefferson, which is on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations and a National Historic Landmark, Ash Lawn-Highland, the home of James Monroe, the University of Virginia, whose Rotunda is on the World Heritage List and a National Historic Landmark, and whose academical village is on the World Heritage List, a National Historic Landmark and a National Register Historic District, and the county’s eight historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the county’s scenic resources because they are essential to the county’s character, economic vitality and quality of life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county’s roadways by using design guidelines. The entrance corridor overlay district will ensure that development is compatible with the county’s natural, scenic, historic and architectural resources by providing for review of new construction along the identified significant routes of tourist access by an architectural review board under design guidelines promulgated by that board and ratified by the board of supervisors. Sec. 30.6.2 APPLICATION Boundaries of the district The entrance corridor overlay district is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: (i) along arterial streets or highways designated as such pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Virginia Code found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; (ii) to historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by Virginia Code § 15.2-2201; or (iii) to designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. a. An entrance corridor overlay district may be established over any basic zoning district and/or any other overlay district, and upon the highways and their rights-of-way identified in subsection (c) (the “EC streets”), regardless of whether such EC streets are otherwise within a zoning district. b. Entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon the parcels of land contiguous to the EC streets delineated in subsection (c), from the edge of the right-of-way to the greater of either: (i) the full depth of the parcel, as the parcel existed on the original adoption date of section 30.6; or (ii) a depth of five hundred (500) feet. c. Subject to subsection (b), entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon and along the following highways: The entrance corridor overlay district is established upon and comprised of those parcels contiguous to significant routes of tourist access, regardless of the underlying zoning district or the existence of other applicable overlay districts, as provided in section 30.6.2(b) as follows: a. Significant routes of tourist access. The following arterial streets and highway are found to be significant routes of tourist access and are hereinafter referred to in section 30.6 as “EC streets”: 1. U.S. Route 250 East (Richmond Road). 2. U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail). 3. U.S. Route 29 South (Monacan Trail). 4. Virginia Route 20 South (Monticello Avenue and Scottsville Road). Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 5 5. Virginia Route 631 South (5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road) from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708 (Red Hill Road) and Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road West) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Route 743 (Earlysville Road). (Amended 11-14-90; Amended 4-12- 00) 6. U.S. Route 250 West (Ivy Road and Rockfish Gap Turnpike). 7. Virginia Route 6 (Irish Road). 8. Virginia Route 151 (Critzers Shop Road). 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North (Stony Point Road). 11. Virginia Route 22 (Louisa Road). 12. Virginia Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway). 13. Virginia Route 231 (Gordonsville Road). 14. Virginia Route 240 (Three Notch’d Road). 15. U.S. Route 29 Business (Fontaine Avenue) 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654 (Barracks Road). (Added 11-14-90) 18. Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street). (Added 11-14-90) 19. Virginia Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 606 (Dickerson Road). (Added 4-12-00) 20. Virginia Route 743 (Hydraulic Road and Earlysville Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 676 (Woodlands Road). (Added 4-12-00) 21. Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) easterly to the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. (Added 11-2-05) b. Parcels contiguous to EC streets. Parcels contiguous to EC streets are: 1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. Each parcel that had a boundary that was shared at any point with the right-of-way of an EC street on one of the following applicable reference dates: (i) on October 3, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(1) through (16); (ii) on November 14, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(17) and (18); (iii) on April 12, 2000 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(19) and (20); and (iv) on November 2, 2005 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(21) (hereinafter, the “applicable reference date”). 2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. Each parcel within five hundred (500) feet of the right-of-way of an EC street that did not share at any point a boundary with the right-of-way of an EC street on the applicable reference date. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 6 c. Extent of overlay district. The overlay district extends across the entire width of each parcel contiguous to an EC street. The overlay district extends to the depth of each parcel as follows: 1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. If the parcel shared a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(1), the overlay district extends to the full depth of the parcel. 2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. If the parcel is within five hundred (500) feet of an EC street and did not share a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(2), the overlay district extends to a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the right-of-way of the EC street. d. Effect of subsequent change to parcel boundaries. The subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or any other change to the boundaries of a parcel after the applicable reference date shall not reduce the area subject to this section 30.6 without a zoning map amendment that changes the boundaries to the entrance corridor overlay district. (12-10-80, § 30.6.2; 11-14-90; 9-9-92; Ord. 00-18(4), 4-12-00; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(9), 11-2-05) Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards Within the EC overlay district: a. Uses. The following uses may be permitted within the EC overlay district in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section 30.6 and the underlying zoning district: 30.6.3.1 By right 1. By right. The following uses shall be permitted by right in any EC overlay district: Uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted by right in the EC overlay district, except as otherwise provided in section 30.6. a. Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts except as herein otherwise provided. Sec. 30.6.3.2 By special use permit Each of the following uses are authorized within the entrance corridor overlay district only by special use permit 2. By special use permit. The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the EC overlay district: a. All uUses authorized by special use permit in the underlying zoning districts;. b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted uses, other than a residential, agricultural or forestal use, any portion of which would be visible from an the EC street to which it is contiguous or from any other EC street which is located within five hundred (500) feet; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of this section determining whether the outdoor storage, display and/or sales is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. Residential, agriculturaland forestal uses shall be exempt from this provision.(Amended 9-9-92) Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 7 c. The construction or location of any structure, including any subdivision sign or sign identifying a planned development as provided in section 4.15.16(I) of this chapter, upon the superjacent and subjacent airspace of an EC street that is not required for the purpose of travel or other public use by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other political jurisdiction owning such street. b. Area and bulk and other regulations. The area and bulk, minimum yard and setback requirements, and maximum building height requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply to all uses and structures in the EC overlay district. c. Bonus factors. A condition of a certificate of appropriateness that requires improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted under the applicable district regulations shall not affect the eligibility for the bonus. d. Grading or land disturbing activity. No grading or other land disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas designated on the site plan to be preserved, nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. e. Method for preserving designated features. An applicant for a development subject to the provisions of section 30.6 shall sign a conservation checklist provided by the director of planning or his or her designee (the “director of planning”) specifying the method for preserving the designated features, and the method shall conform to the specifications contained in Standard and Specification 3.38 at pages III- 393 through III-413 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; provided that the architectural review board, or the director of planning, may require alternative methods of tree protection if greater protection is deemed necessary. f. Designating and protecting preserved features. Areas on a site containing features to be preserved shall be identified on approved site plans and building plans and shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to commencing grading or other land disturbing activity, including trenching or tunneling. No grading, other land disturbing activity, or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within the delineated areas. The visible delineation of the boundaries of the areas to be preserved shall be maintained until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the county. All features designated for preservation shall be protected during development. (12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) Sec. 30.6.4 Area and bulk regulations; minimum yard and setback requirements; height regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features Certificates of appropriateness Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements, and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying district, except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated EC street. 30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following: a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to such building permit. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 8 b. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section 32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon. The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon the final site development plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification. In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94) 30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9, landscaping and screening requirements, shall apply within any EC overlay district except that: a. In addition to the provisions of section 30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may require specific landscaping measures in issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, as the same may be related to insuring that the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved except as necessary for location of improvements as described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that the architectural review board may authorize additional activity upon finding that such activity will equally or better serve the purposes of this ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from EC streets to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines. b. The certificate of appropriateness shall indicate the existing features to be preserved pursuant to the preceding paragraph; the limits of grading or other earth disturbance (including trenching or tunneling); the location and type of protective fencing; and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. c. No grading or other earth disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. d. Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to commencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be maintained until the completion of development of the site. In addition, an applicant for development subject to the provisions of section 30.6, shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the designated agent of the architectural review board to further ensure that the specified existing features will be protected during development. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 9 agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297. The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is contiguous, as follows: a. Development requiring a certificate of appropriateness. The following developments require a certificate of appropriateness: 1. Building permits required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is required, even though it is not a development for which a site plan is required, unless the structure and/or site improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building permit shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained. 2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is required in a development for which a site plan is required, unless the improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No site plan shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained. b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the following types of certificates of appropriateness: 1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits or a single site plan. 2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi- business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi- business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. 3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness for specific classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to specific design criteria that each structure, site, improvement or architectural element within the class must satisfy in order to be subject to the county-wide certificate, subject to the following: a. Factors considered in issuing. The board shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a county-wide certificate of appropriateness: (i) the proposed distance of the structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements from an EC street; (ii) the proposed location of the structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements relative to an EC street and other buildings and structures; (iii) consistency with design or appearance; and (iv) the anticipated limited impacts from the structures, sites, improvements or architectural elements based on their size or scope. b. Design criteria. The board may establish appropriate architectural or design features under the design guidelines that a structure, site, improvement or architectural element must be found to be consistent with in order to be eligible to be subject to a county- wide certificate of appropriateness. The architectural or design features may include, but are not limited to: (i) building and structure height; (ii) building and structure size; (iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof forms; (v) appropriate building materials and/or colors; (vi) minimum planting requirements; (vii) minimum screening requirements; Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 10 (viii) building, structure and/or site improvement locations; and (ix) the structural and design details of signs. c. Determination of compliance by director of planning. Once a county-wide certificate of appropriateness is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The director or a member of the architectural review board may request at an upcoming meeting that the architectural review board, instead of the director, determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness. d. Action and appeal. Any person requesting a determination whether a proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of a county-wide certificate of appropriateness shall submit a request to the director of planning providing the information required by the director. The procedure for submittal and action under section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall apply. 1. By the director. If the director determines that the proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the director shall send notice to the person requesting the determination of his decision. The person requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the director’s decision to the architectural review board by filing an appeal with the director within ten (10) days after the date of the director’s notice of decision; or (2) file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. 2. By the board. If the board determines in its own review or on an appeal of the director’s decision that the proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the county- wide certificate of appropriateness, the board shall send notice to the person requesting the determination of its decision. The person requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the board’s decision to the board of supervisors under the procedure in section 30.6.8(b), (c) and (d); or (2) file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. c. Authority to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines. In determining whether a structure or associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify the following, which are in addition to the requirements of the underlying zoning district or of section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any maximum standard to be exceeded, or any minimum standard to not be met: 1. Architectural features. The appearance of any architectural feature including, but not limited to, its form and style, color, texture and materials. 2. Size and arrangement of structures. The configuration, orientation and other limitations as to the mass, shape, area, bulk, height and location of structures. In considering the arrangement and location of structures, the architectural review board may require that the existing vegetation and natural features be used to screen structures and associated improvements from one or more EC streets to which the parcel is contiguous as provided in section 30.6.2(b). 3. Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping. The location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 11 4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping measures determined to be appropriate to assure that the structures and associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. 5. Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. The preservation of existing trees, wooded areas and natural features. 6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other applicable design guidelines. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for one or more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan or sketch plan. 7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all fencing, including safety fencing. d. Authority to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in conjunction with any approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board also is authorized to approve plans showing, or identifying in a certificate of appropriateness, existing trees, wooded areas and natural areas to be preserved, the limits of grading or other land disturbing activity including trenching and tunneling, in order to, among other things, protect existing features, and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine compliance with certificate of appropriateness. The zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a development, including a sign, satisfies the terms and conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each structure or associated improvement for which a certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be established and maintained in accordance with the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site plan and building permit shall demonstrate that the structures and associated site improvements will satisfy the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. 30.6.5 SIGNS In addition to the special use permit requirement for those signs identified in section 30.6.3.2, signs within the entrance corridor overlay district shall be subject to the regulations set forth in section 4.15 of this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 30.6, the agent shall be authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for eligible signs under section 4.15.15. For such qualifying signs, the provisions of sections 30.6.4.30.6.7 and 30.6.8 shall apply to the agent as it does to the architectural review board. (Amended 7-8-92) (12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 7-8-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) 30.6.5.1 GENERAL REGULATIONS (Repealed 7-8-92) 30.6.5.2 REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS (Repealed 7-8- 92) 30.6.5.3 (Repealed 7-8-92) Sec. 30.6.65 Nonconformities; Exemptions Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 12 30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC overlay district which does not conform to the provisions of the EC overlay district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance. 30.6.6.2 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES An owner may repair and maintain a nonconforming structure or a structure occupied or used by a nonconforming use as provided in Section 6.2(C), 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(B) of this chapter, upon determination by the zoning administrator that such repair or maintenance would not be contrary to the intent and purposes of this section 30.6. (Amended 6-14-00) 30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94) The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities: a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures: 1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect on exterior appearance of the building or structure. 2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped in accord with section 4.9. 3. The repair and maintenance of structures authorized pursuant to section 30.6.6.2. (Amended 6- 14-00) 4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings where no site development plan is required for the work subject to the building permit. 5. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or material is proposed. 6. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6: a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter. b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter. c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section 5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7). d. Temporary signs and sandwich board signs. e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial change in design or materials. f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by section 6.3(B). Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 13 g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial change in design or materials. h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar federal or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities. i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(A)(5). j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the structures. k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit has also been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those sections does not change the external appearance of the structure. Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review Applications for preliminary review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following: a. Applications. An application for preliminary review shall contain a completed county-provided application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The application may be filed with the department of community development by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent (the “applicant”). Eight (8) collated copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a preliminary review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of its filing. b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that provides the information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the submittal deadline. 1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. 2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided herein. c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.6(b), the applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.6(a) together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 14 period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to submit the new application. d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following: 1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so. 2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time, provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that decision is made. 3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.6(f). 4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence. e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting at which the application will be considered. f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant (collectively, the “decision date”). g. Recommendations and decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for consistency with the applicable design guidelines as follows: 1. Recommendation and decision on preliminary review. In making its recommendations on applications for preliminary review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. In making a decision on the application for preliminary review, the board also may make any recommendations it Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 15 deems appropriate. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the preliminary review. 2. Decision as action on final review. The board, in its discretion, may determine that additional review of the application is not necessary and make a decision on the application under section 30.6.7(g). h. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by subsections 30.6.6(b), (d), (e) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email. i. Application defined. For the purposes of sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7, the term “application” means an application for a certificate of appropriateness and a review to determine whether submitted drawings satisfy the conditions of a certificate of appropriateness, and any other request by an applicant for review. Sec. 30.6.7 Administration Submittal, review and action on application; final review Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered by an architectural review board created and appointed by the board of supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural review board, of this ordinance. The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certificates of appropriateness as required by this section. Application for a certificate of appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the architectural review board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reasonably required to make the determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. The zoning administrator shall forward the application together with all accompanying materials to the architectural review board within five (5) calendar days of the date of application. Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each member of the commission and board of supervisors. No certificate of appropriateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of development, including magisterial district, appropriate county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the architectural review board meeting. Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule the same for hearing and shall cause such notice to be sent as herein above required. The architectural review board shall confer with the applicant and shall approve or disapprove such application and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness therefor, with or without conditions together with such modifications as deemed necessary to insure compliance with this section. Failure of the architectural review board to approve or disapprove such application within sixty (60) days from the date of application shall be deemed to constitute approval of the application. Nothing contained in section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the commission in its exercise of preliminary or final site development plan review as set forth in section 32.0, site development plan, of this ordinance. It is the express intent of the board of supervisors that matters related to public health and safety as may be defined by the commission shall prevail over issues of aesthetics as may be defined by the architectural review board. Therefore, the commission in its review of any preliminary or final site development plan may modify, vary or waive any requirement of the certificate of appropriateness as issued by the architectural review board upon finding that such action would better serve the public health or safety. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 16 Applications for final review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following: a. Applications. An application for final review shall contain a completed county-provided application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The application may be filed by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent (the “applicant”), with the department of community development. Eight (8) collated copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a final review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of its filing. b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that provides the information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the submittal deadline. 1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. 2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided herein. c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.7(b), the applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.7(a) together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to submit the new application. d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following: 1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 17 without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so. 2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time, provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that decision is made. 3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.7(f). 4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence. e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting at which the application will be considered. f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant (collectively, the “decision date”). 1. When application may be deemed approved. If the decision date has passed without the application being acted upon, the applicant may make a written demand for action that is delivered to the director of planning. If the board fails to act on the application within twenty- one (21) days after the receipt of the written demand, the application shall be deemed to be approved. 2. Notice if application deemed approved. If an application is deemed approved, the agent shall send notice that the application was deemed approved to the applicant, the zoning administrator and the county executive. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period in which the architectural review board had to act. 3. Consent to extend time for decision. The applicant may consent to extend the time for a decision. g. Decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for consistency with the applicable design guidelines, exercising the authority granted by section 30.6. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. 1. Issue or deny. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the board may issue the certificate of appropriateness and impose conditions and grant modifications if it finds that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or would be consistent with the applicable design guidelines subject to conditions of approval or Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 18 specified modifications. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the final review. 2. Recommendations. In lieu of issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness, the board may make any recommendations it deems appropriate to the applicant to revise the application so that it is consistent with the applicable design guidelines before the board acts to issue or deny the application. If the time for a decision under section 30.6.7(f) would expire before the application could be thereafter considered by the board, the board must obtain the applicant’s consent to extend the time for decision. h. Period of validity of certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for the same period that the site plan is valid or, if no site plan is required for the structure or site improvements, for three (3) years. The architectural review board may extend the period of validity of a certificate of appropriateness upon the written request of the applicant. The written request must be received by the director of planning before the certificate’s period of validity expires and, upon receipt, the running of the period of validity shall be suspended until the architectural review board acts on the request. The board may grant an extension determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the proposed development and the laws, ordinances, regulations and design guidelines in effect at the time of the request for an extension and changes thereto since the certificate of appropriateness was originally issued. i. Resubmittal of similar denied application. An applicant may not submit an application that is substantially the same as the denied application within one (1) year after the date of denial. j. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by subsections 30.6.7(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email. Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. Draft: 02/22/10 ATTACHMENT B - 19 A decision of the architectural review board on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, and an application deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f), may be appealed to the board of supervisors as follows: a. Persons and entities having right to appeal. An appeal may be filed by the applicant, any person aggrieved, the zoning administrator, or the county executive. b. Written appeal required; timing for filing. An appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the architectural review board’s decision under section 30.6.7(g), or within ten (10) days after the date of the required notice if the application is deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f). The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. c. Consideration of appeal by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the certificate of appropriateness. In so doing, the board shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. d. Appeal of board of supervisors’ decision. The applicant or any person aggrieved may appeal the final decision of the board of supervisors to the circuit court by filing a petition setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of the final decision. Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered Where the public health or safety and any requirement of this section 30.6 or any term or condition of a certificate of appropriateness conflict, the public health or safety shall prevail. Therefore, nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the agent or the commission in their review of a preliminary or final site plan under section 32. In their review of any preliminary or final site plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or waive any term or condition of a certificate of appropriateness upon finding that such action would better serve the public health or safety; provided that the agent may modify, vary or waive any such a term or condition only after consulting with the building official, the county engineer, a representative of the department of fire rescue or other public official who advises the agent that the public health or safety would be at risk if the condition is not modified, varied or waived. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT C- 1 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Comparison of Original and Proposed Text ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED TEXT (2/22/10 draft) COMMENTS 1 30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC (Added 10- 3-90) 30.6.1 INTENT 30.6.1 Purpose and intent 2 The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto. The purpose of this section 30.6 is to implement the enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts within the county or in contiguous localities, and to require that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels contiguous to those streets and highways as provided herein, be architecturally compatible with those historic landmarks or structures. The comprehensive plan provides that scenic resources contribute to the community’s desirability as a place to live, enhance and protect property values, and contribute to the overall quality of life for the county’s residents. The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that scenic resources are important to visitors as well as the county’s residents, and that visitors to the Blue Ridge Mountains and the county’s rural historic structures gather a lasting impression of the county as they travel the county’s scenic roadways. The significant routes of tourist access within the entrance corridor overlay district provide access to the county and to many of the county’s historic landmarks, structures and districts including, but not limited to Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, which is on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations and a National Historic Landmark, Ash Lawn- Highland, the home of James Monroe, the University of Virginia, whose Rotunda is on the World Heritage List and a National Historic Landmark, and whose academical village is on the World Heritage List, a National Historic The original text in this section has been deleted. The new text establishes a more direct link to the section of Virginia Code that enables the creation of Entrance Corridors and to establish a more direct link to Albemarle’s comprehensive plan. Additions include more direct reference to significant routes of tourist access, identification of some of the County’s significant historic resources, and references to the applicable goals of the County’s comprehensive plan. Planning Commission discussion at the May 2009 work session suggested adding “including but not limited to” prior to the list of the County’s historic landmarks to clarify that the list included here is not complete. ATTACHMENT C- 2 Landmark and a National Register Historic District, and the county’s eight historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the county’s scenic resources because they are essential to the county’s character, economic vitality and quality of life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county’s roadways by using design guidelines. The entrance corridor overlay district will ensure that development is compatible with the county’s natural, scenic, historic and architectural resources by providing for review of new construction along the identified significant routes of tourist access by an architectural review board under design guidelines promulgated by that board and ratified by the board of supervisors. 3 30.6.2 APPLICATION 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district 4 The entrance corridor overlay district is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: (i) along arterial streets or highways designated as such pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Virginia Code found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; (ii) to historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by Virginia Code § 15.2-2201; or (iii) to designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. The entrance corridor overlay district is established upon and comprised of those parcels contiguous to significant routes of tourist access, regardless of the underlying zoning district or the existence of other applicable overlay districts, as provided in section 30.6.2(b) as follows: a. Significant routes of tourist access. (See next cell down.) b. Parcels contiguous to EC streets. Parcels contiguous to EC streets are: 1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. Each parcel that had a boundary that was shared at any point with the right-of-way of an EC street on one of the following applicable reference dates: (i) on October 3, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street The original text in this section has been deleted and replaced with text that more specifically identifies how the boundaries of an EC Overlay District are established, particularly regarding contiguous parcels, parcels within 500’ of the right-of-way, and subdivided parcels. The new text outlines current practice, with the following exception. Text of the existing ordinance indicates that EC parcels are the parcels as they existed at the time the EC section of the ordinance was adopted, which was 1990. The proposed text revises this to parcels as they existed at the time the corresponding street was designated an Entrance Corridor; for ATTACHMENT C- 3 a. An entrance corridor overlay district may be established over any basic zoning district and/or any other overlay district, and upon the highways and their rights-of-way identified in subsection (c) (the “EC streets”), regardless of whether such EC streets are otherwise within a zoning district. b. Entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon the parcels of land contiguous to the EC streets delineated in subsection (c), from the edge of the right-of- way to the greater of either: (i) the full depth of the parcel, as the parcel existed on the original adoption date of section 30.6; or (ii) a depth of five hundred (500) feet. identified in section 30.6.2(a)(1) through (16); (ii) on November 14, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(17) and (18); (iii) on April 12, 2000 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(19) and (20); and (iv) on November 2, 2005 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(21) (hereinafter, the “applicable reference date”). 2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. Each parcel within five hundred (500) feet of the right-of-way of an EC street that did not share at any point a boundary with the right-of- way of an EC street on the applicable reference date. c. Extent of overlay district. The overlay district extends across the entire width of each parcel contiguous to an EC street. The overlay district extends to the depth of each parcel as follows: 1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. If the parcel shared a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(1), the overlay district extends to the full depth of the parcel. 2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. If the parcel is within five hundred (500) feet of an EC street and did not share a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(2), the overlay district extends to a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the right-of-way of the EC street. d. Effect of subsequent change to parcel boundaries. The example, Route 29 North in 1990 and East Rio Road in 2005. ATTACHMENT C- 4 subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or any other change to the boundaries of a parcel after the applicable reference date shall not reduce the area subject to this section 30.6 without a zoning map amendment that changes the boundaries to the entrance corridor overlay district. 5 c. Subject to subsection (b), entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon and along the following highways: 1. U.S. Route 250 East. 2. U.S. Route 29 North. 3. U.S. Route 29 South. 4. Virginia Route 20 South. 5. Virginia Route 631 South from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708 and from U.S. Route 29 North to Route 743. (Amended 11-14-90; Amended 4-12-00) 6. U.S. Route 250 West. 7. Virginia Route 6. 8. Virginia Route 151. 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North. 11. Virginia Route 22. 12. Virginia Route 53. 13. Virginia Route 231. 14. Virginia Route 240. 15. U.S. Route 29 Business. 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90) 18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90) 19. Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606. 20. Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676. 21. Virginia Route 631 from U.S. Route 29 North easterly to the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. 30.6.2.a. Significant routes of tourist access. The following arterial streets and highway are found to be significant routes of tourist access and are hereinafter referred to in section 30.6 as “EC streets”: 1. U.S. Route 250 East (Richmond Road). 2. U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail). 3. U.S. Route 29 South (Monacan Trail). 4. Virginia Route 20 South (Monticello Avenue and Scottsville Road). 5. Virginia Route 631 (5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road) from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708 (Red Hill Road) and Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road West) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Route 743 (Earlysville Road). 6. U.S. Route 250 West (Ivy Road and Rockfish Gap Turnpike). 7. Virginia Route 6 (Irish Road). 8. Virginia Route 151 (Critzers Shop Road). 9. Interstate Route 64. 10. Virginia Route 20 North (Stony Point Road). 11. Virginia Route 22 (Louisa Road). 12. Virginia Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway). 13. Virginia Route 231 (Gordonsville Road). 14. Virginia Route 240 (Three Notch’d Road). 15. U.S. Route 29 Business (Fontaine Avenue) 16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17. Virginia Route 654 (Barracks Road). 18. Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street). 19. Virginia Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 606 (Dickerson Road). 20. Virginia Route 743 (Hydraulic Road and Earlysville There are no proposed changes to the list of designated Entrance Corridors. Street names have been added to the list of route numbers for easier identification, as requested by the ARB. ATTACHMENT C- 5 Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 676 (Woodlands Road). 21. Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) easterly to the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. 6 30.6.3 PERMITTED USES 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards 7 30.6.3.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted by right in any EC overlay district: Within the EC overlay district: a. Uses. The following uses may be permitted within the EC overlay district in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section 30.6 and the underlying zoning district: No substantive change. 8 a. Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts except as herein otherwise provided. 1. By right. Uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted by right in the EC overlay district, except as otherwise provided in section 30.6. No substantive change. 9 30.6.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Each of the following uses are authorized within the entrance corridor overlay district only by special use permit: 2.By special use permit. The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the EC overlay district: No substantive change. 10 a. All uses authorized by special use permit in the underlying districts; a. Uses authorized by special use permit in the underlying zoning district. No substantive change. 11 b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an EC street; provided that review shall be limited to the intent of this section. Residential, agricultural and forestal uses shall be exempt from this provision. b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted uses, other than a residential, agricultural or forestal use, any portion of which would be visible from the EC street to which it is contiguous or from any other EC street which is located within five hundred (500) feet; provided that review shall be limited to determining whether the outdoor storage, display and/or sales is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. This text has been revised to clarify that this section applies to outdoor storage, display and sales that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is contiguous, or visible from an EC street that lies within 500’. This section does not apply to storage, display or sales outside these parameters, even if visible. Changes have also been made to clarify that the intent is to ensure that display is consistent with the EC guidelines and that the special use is compatible with the building. This text describes current practice. 12 c. The construction or location of any c. The construction or location of any structure, No substantive change. ATTACHMENT C- 6 structure, including any subdivision sign or sign identifying a planned development as provided in section 4.15.16(I) of this chapter, upon the superjacent and subjacent airspace of an EC street that is not required for the purpose of travel or other public use by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other political jurisdiction owning such street. including any subdivision sign or sign identifying a planned development as provided in section 4.15.16(I), upon the superjacent and subjacent airspace of an EC street that is not required for the purpose of travel or other public use by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other political jurisdiction owning such street. 13 30.6.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; HEIGHT REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING; PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES 14 Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except where the provisions of this section require provision of improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and rural preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements, and height regulations shall be as provided by the underlying district, except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any development or portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated EC street. 30.6.3.b. Area and bulk and other regulations. The area and bulk, minimum yard and setback requirements, and maximum building height requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply to all uses and structures in the EC overlay district. 30.6.3.c. Bonus factors. A condition of a certificate of appropriateness that requires improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted under the applicable district regulations shall not affect the eligibility for the bonus. In response to PC recommendations, the text regarding bonus factors has been updated to indicate that a CofA condition cannot affect eligibility for a bonus factor. 15 30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following: 30.6.4 Certificates of Appropriateness 16 a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued for any purpose unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to such building permit. The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is contiguous, as follows: a. Development requiring a certificate of appropriateness. The following developments This section has been reworked to clarify the types of improvements that are subject to ARB review/approval. It describes current practice. ATTACHMENT C- 7 b. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any development subject to approval under section 32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan shall be approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings and improvements shown thereon. require a certificate of appropriateness: 1. Building permits required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is required, even though it is not a development for which a site plan is required, unless the structure and/or site improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building permit shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained. 2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is required in a development for which a site plan is required, unless the improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No site plan shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained. 17 b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the following types of certificates of appropriateness: 1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits or a single site plan. This section has been added to clarify the various types of Certificates of Appropriateness. It describes current practice. 18 2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. This section identifies comprehensive sign reviews as a type of CofA. It describes current practice. 19 3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. The new provision for countywide ATTACHMENT C- 8 County-wide certificates of appropriateness for specific classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to specific design criteria that each structure, site, improvement or architectural element within the class must satisfy in order to be subject to the county-wide certificate, subject to the following: a. Factors considered in issuing. The board shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a county-wide certificate of appropriateness: (i) the proposed distance of the structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements from an EC street, (ii) the proposed location of the structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements relative to an EC street and other buildings and structures, (iii) consistency with design or appearance, and (iv) the anticipated limited impacts from the structures, sites, improvements or architectural elements based on their size or scope. b. Design criteria. The board may establish appropriate architectural or design features under the design guidelines that a structure, site, improvement or architectural element must be found to be consistent with in order to be eligible to be subject to a county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The architectural or design features may include, but are not limited to: (i) building and CofAs is located here. This section addresses the factors to be considered in issuing a county-wide CofA, the design criteria to be followed under a county-wide CofA, the method for determining compliance with a county-wide CofA, and the process for determining if a proposal satisfies the county-wide criteria. These factors (3a) and criteria (3b) were added following suggestions at the November PC work session that the parameters of the county-wide CofA should be defined in the ordinance. The factors cover the types of development identified in the 2008 and 2009 joint meetings of the ARB, PC and BOS as potential candidates for county-wide CofAs. The design criteria include criteria that are already established in the EC Guidelines. They provide direction for establishing the parameters of county-wide CofAs. ATTACHMENT C- 9 structure height; (ii) building and structure size; (iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof forms; (v) appropriate building materials and/or colors; (vi) minimum planting requirements; (vii) minimum screening requirements; (viii) building, structure and/or site improvement locations; and (ix) the structural and design details of signs. c. Determination of compliance by director of planning. Once a county- wide certificate of appropriateness is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county- wide certificate of appropriateness. The director or a member of the architectural review board may request at an upcoming meeting that the architectural review board, instead of the director, determine whether a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of the county- wide certificate of appropriateness. d. Action and appeal. Any person requesting a determination whether a proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria of a county- wide certificate of appropriateness shall submit a request to the director of planning providing the information ATTACHMENT C- 10 required by the director. The procedure for submittal and action under section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall apply. 1. By the director. If the director determines that the proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the director shall send notice to the person requesting the determination of his decision. The person requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the director’s decision to the architectural review board by filing an appeal with the director within ten (10) days after the date of the director’s notice of decision; or (2) file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. 2. By the board. If the board determines in its own review or on an appeal of the director’s decision that the proposed structure, site, improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the board ATTACHMENT C- 11 shall send notice to the person requesting the determination of its decision. The person requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the board’s decision to the board of supervisors under the procedure in section 30.6.8(b), (c) and (d); or (2) file an application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. 20 The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions of issuance. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may be modified by the conditions of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon the final site development plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification. 30.6.4.e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine compliance with certificate of appropriateness. The zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a development, including a sign, satisfies the terms and conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. 30.6.4.f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each structure or associated improvement for which a certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be established and maintained in accordance with the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site plan and building permit shall demonstrate that the structures and associated site improvements will satisfy the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. No substantive change. 21 In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized 30.6.4.c Authority to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines. In determining whether a structure or associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, the architectural review board may specify the following, which are in addition to the requirements of the underlying zoning district or of section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any maximum standard to be exceeded, or any minimum standard to not be met: 1. Architectural features. The appearance of any architectural feature including, but not limited to, its form and style, color, texture and This section provides additional detail regarding the features of buildings and sites that the ARB may address in its review. It is consistent with current practice. Some of this draft language was simplified at the request of the PC. ATTACHMENT C- 12 under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94) materials. 2. Size and arrangement of structures. The configuration, orientation and other limitations as to the mass, shape, area, bulk, height and location of structures. In considering the arrangement and location of structures, the architectural review board may require that the existing vegetation and natural features be used to screen structures and associated improvements from one or more EC streets to which the parcel is contiguous as provided in section 30.6.2(b). 3. Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping. The location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements. 4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping measures determined to be appropriate to assure that the structures and associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. 5. Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. The preservation of existing trees, wooded areas and natural features. 6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other applicable design guidelines. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for one or more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan ATTACHMENT C- 13 that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan or sketch plan. 7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all fencing, including safety fencing. 22 30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9, landscaping and screening requirements, shall apply within any EC overlay district except that: a. In addition to the provisions of section 30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may require specific landscaping measures in issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, as the same may be related to insuring that the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors for the specific EC street. Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved except as necessary for location of improvements as described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that the architectural review board may authorize additional activity upon finding that such activity will equally or better serve the purposes of this ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from EC streets to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines. b. The certificate of appropriateness shall indicate the existing features to be preserved pursuant to the preceding paragraph; the 30.6.4.d. Authority to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in conjunction with any approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board also is authorized to approve plans showing, or identifying in a certificate of appropriateness, existing trees, wooded areas and natural areas to be preserved, the limits of grading or other land disturbing activity including trenching and tunneling, in order to, among other things, protect existing features, and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. The text in this section has been simplified. ATTACHMENT C- 14 limits of grading or other earth disturbance (including trenching or tunneling); the location and type of protective fencing; and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree walls. 23 c. No grading or other earth disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. 30.6.3.d. Grading or land disturbing activity. No grading or other land disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or wooded areas designated on the site plan to be preserved, nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the words “designated on the site plan to be preserved” have been added to this section to clarify that all existing trees are not automatically required to be preserved. 24 d. Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing features shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to commencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within such area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be maintained until the completion of development of the site. 30.6.3.f. Designating and protecting preserved features. Areas on a site containing features to be preserved shall be identified on approved site plans and building plans and shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to commencing grading or other land disturbing activity, including trenching or tunneling. No grading, other land disturbing activity, or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within the delineated areas. The visible delineation of the boundaries of the areas to be preserved shall be maintained until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the county. All features designated for preservation shall be protected during development. No substantive changes. 25 In addition, an applicant for development subject to the provisions of section 30.6, shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the designated agent of the architectural review board to further ensure that the specified existing features will be protected during development. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297. 30.6.3.e. Method for preserving designated features. An applicant for a development subject to the provisions of section 30.6 shall sign a conservation checklist provided by the director of planning or his or her designee (the “director of planning”) specifying the method for preserving the designated features, and the method shall conform to the specifications contained in Standard and Specification 3.38 at pages III-393 through III-413 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; provided that the architectural review board, or the director of planning, may require alternative methods of tree protection if greater protection is deemed necessary. The reference to the E&SC handbook has been updated. 26 30.6.5 SIGNS In addition to the special use Signs are now addressed in 4.15 ATTACHMENT C- 15 permit requirement for those signs identified in section 30.6.3.2, signs within the entrance corridor overlay district shall be subject to the regulations set forth in section 4.15 of this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 30.6, the agent shall be authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for eligible signs under section 4.15.15. For such qualifying signs, the provisions of sections 30.6.4.30.6.7 and 30.6.8 shall apply to the agent as it does to the architectural review board. (below) and 30.6.4 (above). 27 30.6.6 NONCONFORMITIES; EXEMPTIONS 30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC overlay district which does not conform to the provisions of the EC overlay district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of this ordinance. This section was reworked as 30.6.5 Exemptions. See below. 28 30.6.6.2 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES An owner may repair and maintain a nonconforming structure or a structure occupied or used by a nonconforming use as provided in Section 6.2(C), 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(B) of this chapter, upon determination by the zoning administrator that such repair or maintenance would not be contrary to the intent and purposes of this section 30.6. Repair and maintenance are addressed under 30.6.5 Exemptions. See below. 20 30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94) 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness 30 The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the following activities: a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures: The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6: a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter. The list of exemptions has been expanded to include: temporary construction headquarters, temporary construction yards, temporary mobile homes, temporary signs, changes/repair/maintenance to ATTACHMENT C- 16 1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect on exterior appearance of the building or structure. 2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped in accord with section 4.9. 3. The repair and maintenance of structures authorized pursuant to section 30.6.6.2. (Amended 6-14-00) 4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings where no site development plan is required for the work subject to the building permit. 5. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or material is proposed. 6. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter. c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section 5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7). d. Temporary signs and sandwich board signs. e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial change in design or materials. f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by section 6.3(B). g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial change in design or materials. h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar federal or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities. i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(A)(5). j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the structures. k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5- 203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit has also been issued and the work authorized by the permit improvements that don’t constitute a substantial change in design, and sub- permits associated with building permits for which the main construction permit has already been approved. Primary and accessory dwelling units have been added to the list. These additions would codify long-standing ARB practice. The sub-permit exemption would eliminate duplicate review of permits following issuance of a CofA.Additional procedures will need to be established to take advantage of the sub-permit provision. The amendment adds “site improvements” in sections e, f and g, consistent with current practice. ATTACHMENT C- 17 classified in those sections does not change the external appearance of the structure. 31 30.6.7 ADMINISTRATION Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review Sec. 30.6.7 Submittal, review and action on application; final review The “Administration” section has been expanded to outline submittal and review processes for both preliminary and final EC applications, thereby eliminating inconsistencies in the current application procedure. (See the flow chart for a graphic representation of this submittal/review process.) 32 Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered by an architectural review board created and appointed by the board of supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural review board, of this ordinance. Applications for preliminary review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following: Applications for final review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following: The proposed text of section 30.6 outlines the submittal and review process for preliminary applications. The proposed text of section 30.7 outlines the submittal and review process for final applications. Sections 30.6 and 30.7 are very similar and are presented here side- by-side for comparison. 33 The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certificates of appropriateness as required by this section. Application for a certificate of appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0, fees, of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator. Materials submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the architectural review board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reasonably required to make the determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. a. Applications. An application for preliminary review shall contain a completed county-provided application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The application may be filed with the department of community development by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent (the “applicant”). Eight (8) collated copies of the a.Applications. An application for final review shall contain a completed county-provided application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The application may be filed by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent (the “applicant”), with the department of community development. Eight (8) collated copies of the Changes here allow the owner’s agent to make application and require owner’s written consent. The consent is a new requirement for EC applications, but is consistent with the requirements for other similar applications. The remainder of this section describes current practice. ATTACHMENT C- 18 application and all other information required by the application form for a preliminary review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of its filing. application and all other information required by the application form for a final review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of its filing. 34 The zoning administrator shall forward the application together with all accompanying materials to the architectural review board within five (5) calendar days of the date of application. Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each member of the commission and board of supervisors. No certificate of appropriateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of development, including magisterial district, appropriate county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the architectural review board meeting. 30.6.6.e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting at which the application will be considered. 30.6.7.e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting at which the application will be considered. Changes in this section would simplify notification requirements by allowing for electronic mailing of such notification, which has been a long-standing practice. Changes also modify the notification procedure to coordinate with the requirement for determining if an application is complete. 35 Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule 30.6.6.g. Recommendations and decisions. The 30.6.7.g. Decisions. The architectural review board This section has been reworded and expanded for consistency with the ATTACHMENT C- 19 the same for hearing and shall cause such notice to be sent as herein above required. The architectural review board shall confer with the applicant and shall approve or disapprove such application and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of appropriateness therefor, with or without conditions together with such modifications as deemed necessary to insure compliance with this section. architectural review board shall review the application for consistency with the applicable design guidelines as follows: 30.6.6.g.1.Recommendation and decision on preliminary review. In making its recommendations on applications for preliminary review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. In making a decision on the application for preliminary review, the board also may make any recommendations it deems appropriate. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the preliminary review. shall review the application for consistency with the applicable design guidelines, exercising the authority granted by section 30.6. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. preliminary and final review procedures outlined elsewhere in this draft. 36 30.6.6.g.2. Decision as action on final review. The board, in its discretion, may determine that additional review of the application is not necessary and make a decision on the application The ARB process is typically a two- step process, with a preliminary review followed by a final review. Occasionally, only a single review is required by the ARB. This new text clarifies that the ARB may take a final action on a preliminary review. ATTACHMENT C- 20 under section 30.6.7(g). 37 1.Issue or deny. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the board may issue the certificate of appropriateness and impose conditions and grant modifications if it finds that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or would be consistent with the applicable design guidelines subject to conditions of approval or specified modifications. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the final review. This section has been reworded and expanded for consistency with the preliminary and final review procedures outlined elsewhere in this draft. 38 2.Recommendations. In lieu of issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness, the board may make any recommendations it deems appropriate to the applicant to revise the application so that it is consistent with the applicable design guidelines before the board acts to issue or deny the application. If the time for a decision under section 30.6.7(f) would expire before the application could be thereafter considered by This new text clarifies that with the applicant’s consent, the ARB can postpone approving or denying an application when additional revisions would make the proposal consistent with the guidelines. This describes current practice. ATTACHMENT C- 21 the board, the board must obtain the applicant’s consent to extend the time for decision. 39 Failure of the architectural review board to approve or disapprove such application within sixty (60) days from the date of application shall be deemed to constitute approval of the application. 30.6.6.f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant (collectively, the “decision date”). 30.6.7.f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant (collectively, the “decision date”). This section clarifies that an application must be acted on in 60 days, which is current practice, or later at the applicant’s request/agreement. 40 1. When application may be deemed approved. If the decision date has passed without the application being acted upon, the applicant may make a written demand for action that is delivered to the director of planning. If the board fails to act on the application within twenty- one (21) days after the receipt of the written demand, the application shall be deemed to be approved. 2.Notice if application deemed approved. If an application is deemed approved, the agent shall send notice that the application was deemed approved to the applicant, This section outlines specific steps required for approving a final application if the 60-day review period expires without the ARB taking action. Although the review period rarely expires, staff recognizes that in situations where significant amounts of time have lapsed in negotiation for changes, the applicant could demand approval of the original proposal at the end of the 60 days. The new provision would allow for ARB action in this situation. Staff has requested this clarification to address reviews that are extended due to the need for multiple rounds of revisions, or due to long periods of time that lapse between the end of the comment period and the submittal of revisions. ATTACHMENT C- 22 the zoning administrator and the county executive. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period in which the architectural review board had to act. 3.Consent to extend time for decision. The applicant may consent to extend the time for a decision. 41 30.6.6.b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that provides the information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the submittal deadline. 1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. 30.6.7.b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that provides the information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the submittal deadline. 1.Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. This and the following several sections are all new text intended to address concerns of staff and the ARB related to the acceptance and review of incomplete applications. These sections outline the specific steps to be taken for processing complete and incomplete applications, and for re-submitted applications. The new text is intended to encourage the submittal of complete applications, and to eliminate time wasted in the review of incomplete applications. This section clarifies the official submittal date. 42 2. Incomplete application; 2.Incomplete application; This section allows incomplete ATTACHMENT C- 23 notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided herein. notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10) days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided herein. applications to be rejected and outlines the steps necessary for doing so. It requires that the applicant be notified within 10 days of the submittal deadline. 43 30.6.6.c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.6(b), the applicant may 30.6.7.c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.7(b), the applicant may This section outlines the steps required for accepting resubmitted applications that were originally incomplete. It allows the applicant 15 days to submit a complete application, and it requires a reinstatement fee. It moves the official submittal date to correspond with the resubmittal date and it allows ATTACHMENT C- 24 resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.6(a) together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to submit the new application. resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.7(a) together with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to submit the new application. for denial of the application if resubmittal is not made within the 15 days. 44 30.6.6.d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the application 30.6.7.d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the application This section clarifies the process to be followed when additional information or revisions are submitted for an application that has been determined to be complete. This situation would occur when all submittal materials have been provided, but staff has identified aspects of the proposal that don’t meet the EC Guidelines. This section requires the suspension of the 60-day review period if the applicant chooses to provide revisions. But, these provisions also allow the applicant to choose not to provide the revisions and remain on the original review schedule, which ATTACHMENT C- 25 on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following: 1.Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires to make some or all of the requested on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following: 1.Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires to make some or all of the requested addresses Planning Commission concerns about maintaining some flexibility in stopping the review clock, balanced with the need to keep the review process moving forward. ATTACHMENT C- 26 revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so. 2.Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time, provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that decision is made. 3.Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.6(f). 4.Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence. revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so. 2.Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time, provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that decision is made. 3.Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.7(f). 4.Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence. ATTACHMENT C- 27 45 30.6.6.h.Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by subsections 30.6.6(b), (d), (e) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email. 30.6.7.j.Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by subsections 30.6.7(b), (d), (e), and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email. These sections have been added for clarification regarding the method of sending correspondence. It allows for email, which is already standard practice. 46 30.6.7.h. Period of validity of certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for the same period that the site plan is valid or, if no site plan is required for the structure or site improvements, for three (3) years. The architectural review board may extend the period of validity of a certificate of appropriateness upon the written request of the applicant. The written request must be received by the director of planning before the certificate’s period of validity expires and, upon receipt, the running of the period of validity shall be suspended until the architectural review board acts on the request. The board may This is all new text. It addresses staff’s request for the addition of a provision for expiration of CofAs to accommodate updates to guidelines and policies. It aligns the period of validity for an ARB approval with that of a site plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission and the ARB. It also allows the applicant to request an extension of the approval. ATTACHMENT C- 28 grant an extension determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the proposed development and the laws, ordinances, regulations and design guidelines in effect at the time of the request for an extension and changes thereto since the certificate of appropriateness was originally issued. 47 i. Resubmittal of similar denied application. An applicant may not submit an application that is substantially the same as the denied application within one (1) year after the date of denial. This is new text added at staff’s request to limit re-hearing of denied proposals. 48 30.6.6.i.Application defined. For the purposes of sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7, the term “application” means an application for a certificate of appropriateness and a review to determine whether submitted drawings satisfy the conditions of a certificate of appropriateness, and any other request by an applicant for review. This section has been added so that the proposed review timeline applies to all types of EC submittals that require review. 49 (30.6.7 cont.) Nothing contained in section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered Changes in this section clarify the relationship between EC requirements ATTACHMENT C- 29 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the commission in its exercise of preliminary or final site development plan review as set forth in section 32.0, site development plan, of this ordinance. It is the express intent of the board of supervisors that matters related to public health and safety as may be defined by the commission shall prevail over issues of aesthetics as may be defined by the architectural review board. Therefore, the commission in its review of any preliminary or final site development plan may modify, vary or waive any requirement of the certificate of appropriateness as issued by the architectural review board upon finding that such action would better serve the public health or safety. Where the public health or safety and any requirement of this section 30.6 or any term or condition of a certificate of appropriateness conflict, the public health or safety shall prevail. Therefore, nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the agent or the commission in their review of a preliminary or final site plan under section 32. In their review of any preliminary or final site plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or waive any term or condition of a certificate of appropriateness upon finding that such action would better serve the public health or safety, provided that the agent may modify, vary or waive such a term or condition only after consulting with the building official, the county engineer, a representative of the department of fire rescue or other public official who advises the agent that the public health or safety would be at risk if the condition is not modified, varied or waived. and public health/safety issues. At the recommendation of the PC, new text specifies that an ARB condition may be waived for public health/safety reasons only after consultation with the building official, the county engineer, a representative of fire/rescue, etc. 50 30.6.8 APPEALS Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals 51 The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectural review board made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefore in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the architectural review board. When considering an appeal A decision of the architectural review board on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, and an application deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f), may be appealed to the board of supervisors as follows: a.Persons and entities having right to appeal. An appeal may be filed by the applicant, any person aggrieved, the zoning administrator, or the county executive. b.Written appeal required; timing for filing. An appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the architectural review board’s decision under section 30.6.7(f), or within ten (10) days after the date of the required notice if the application is deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f). The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. This section generated discussion at the PC. Currently, the ARB, PC and BOS members can appeal a decision of the ARB. This practice is not consistent with other comparable appeal provisions. Revised text in this section provides for appeal by the applicant, aggrieved persons, the zoning administrator and the county executive. The other provisions of this section haven’t changed. ATTACHMENT C- 30 pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In considering an appeal, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court. For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof. c.Consideration of appeal by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the certificate of appropriateness. In so doing, the board shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board together with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. d. Appeal of board of supervisors’ decision. The applicant or any person aggrieved may appeal the final decision of the board of supervisors to the circuit court by filing a petition setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of the board of supervisors. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of the final decision. 52 Sec. 3.1 Definitions Certificate of appropriateness: A decision made by the architectural review board or, on appeal, by the board of supervisors, certifying that a proposed structure and/or site improvements located within the entrance corridor overlay district, as may be modified by terms and conditions of the certificate, are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The Planning Commission asked that a definition be provided for the county-wide CofA. The CofA and c- wCofA definitions are being added for clarity. The county-wide CofA is a new approach to reviewing EC applications. It would allow similar ATTACHMENT C- 31 Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board establishing specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement or architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria. classes of structures/improvements to be reviewed/approved by staff without being heard at an ARB meeting, if criteria previously outlined by the ARB for that specific type of improvement or structure have been met. Some examples of structures and improvements for which the c-wCofA might be utilized include: telecommunications facilities, buildings located 2000’ or more from the EC, and minor alterations to buildings and landscaping. 5 Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming structure” means a lawful structure existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the structure is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or other structure requirements of that district. Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming structure” means a lawful structure existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district, including any overlay district, in which the structure is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or other structure requirements of that district. The “nonconforming structure” definition is being revised to clarify that it pertains to overlay districts. 54 Sec. 4.15.15 Signs - Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district Sec. 4.15.15 Signs - Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district 55 In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the entrance corridor overlay zoning district: a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the entrance corridor overlay zoning district: a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5. This text has been revised to clarify that it doesn’t apply to signs that are exempt under 30.6.5. ATTACHMENT C- 32 appropriateness for that sign. 56 b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set forth in sections 30.6.4, 30.6.7 and 30.6.8 of this chapter, and as follows: b.Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set forth in section 30.6. No substantive change. 57 1. The agent is authorized to review and act upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign if the sign will not require a variance and the sign: (i) will either not be internally illuminated or will be internally illuminated with an opaque background; (ii) will replace an existing sign that will be substantially the same as the existing sign; or (iii) will be in a multi- business complex or shopping center, the architectural review board has completed its comprehensive sign review therefore and the sign will meet all of the requirements established by the architectural review board during its review. The agent may require that a sign otherwise eligible for review by the agent be reviewed by the architectural review board. 2. The architectural review board shall review and act upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for each sign that is not eligible for review by the agent as provided in subsection (B)(1), or that is referred to the architectural review board by the agent. The current language in this section of the ordinance allows staff to process most sign applications without forwarding them to the ARB for review. In the proposed draft, most of this language is deleted. The current practice of staff review of sign applications will be able to continue after a county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness is processed. The county-wide certificate will identify the criteria by which the application must be reviewed/approved, including the criteria outlined in the current text of the ordinance. Signs in shopping centers are also addressed in 30.6.4.b.2. 58 3. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by a site plan that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots 30.6.4.c.6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other applicable design No substantive change. ATTACHMENT C- 33 subject to the site plan. c. Scope of review and authority to impose conditions. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be reviewed for consistency with the purposes and requirements of this section 4.15 and the architectural review board’s design guidelines, and conditions may be imposed upon the certificate of appropriateness to assure such consistency, including but not limited to conditions minimizing window signs. guidelines. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for one or more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan that shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan or sketch plan. 59 d. Comprehensive sign review. For each proposed new multi-business complex or shopping center, the architectural review board shall conduct a comprehensive sign review prior to issuing a certificate of appropriateness. The review shall include, but not be limited to, a review and determination of the appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other provisions of the architectural review board’s design guidelines. 30.6.4.b.2.Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi- business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. No substantive change. 60 4.15.15.c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque background. The EC sign design guidelines have included a guideline for opaque backgrounds for internally illuminated cabinet signs since 2004, and the ARB consistently required opaque backgrounds for such signs prior to 2004. The proposed changes in these sections codify this requirement. Both staff and the ARB have requested this change to facilitate sign review and approval. Go to next attachment ATTACHMENT C- 34 Return to exec summary ATTACHMENT D [Type text] ATTACHMENT D r ATTACHMENT D [Type text] ATTACHMENT D Proceed to action ARB APPLICATION SUBMITTED (30.6.6.a; 30.6.7.a) Submit complete application. (30.6.6.a; 30.6.7.a) In 5 days send notice to ARB, BOS, etc. (30.6.6.e; 30.6.7.e) Staff or ARB want revisions for consistency with guidelines (30.6.6.d; 30.6.7.d) Are revisions needed to meet the guidelines? No one wants revisions Inform applicant in writing (30.6.6.d.1; 30.6.7.d.1) Applicant responds in 15 days (30.6.6.d.1; 30.6.7.d.1) No (30.6.7.f.1) Submit incomplete application (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Applicant doesn’t respond in 15 days (30.6.6.d.1; 30.6.7.d.1) Proceed to action without revisions No, will not make changes Yes, will make changes Proceed to action without revisions (30.6.6.d.1; 30.6.7.d.1) Yes Revisions received (30.6.6.d.4; 30.6.7.d.4) 60 day review period is suspended (30.6.6.d.3; 30.6.7.d.3) Next submittal deadline is official submittal date (30.6.6.c; 30.6.7.c) Resubmittal not received in 10 days (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Request that omitted info be submitted (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Don’t request omitted info Allow at least 10 days to resubmit (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Resubmittal received in 10 days (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) $Application is denied (30.6.6.c; 30.6.7.c) Send action letter (30.6.6.g; 30.6.7.g) Was action taken within 60 days? (30.6.6.f; 30.6.7.f) ARB does not take action within 21 days (30.6.7.f.1) ARB takes action within 21 days (30.6.7.f.1) Applicant requests action within 21 days (30.6.7.f.1) $Application incomplete. Reject. (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Send approval letter within 5 days (30.6.7.f.2) Applicant informs Director of Planning (30.6.6.d.2; 30.6.7.d.2) Applicant wants to make revisions (30.6.6.d; 30.6.7.d) Revisions received 60 day review period is suspended (30.6.6.d.3; 30.6.7.d.3) Next submittal deadline is official submittal date (30.6.6.d.4; 30.6.7.d.4) Fail to inform applicant in writing within 10 days of submittal deadline (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Application is accepted for review (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Applicant responds after 15 days, wants to make revisions (30.6.6.d.1; 30.6.7.d.1) Reject application & inform applicant in writing within 10 days of submittal deadline (30.6.6.b.2; 30.6.7.b.2) Applicant fails to resubmit in 15 days (30.6.6.c; 30.6.7.c) $Applicant resubmits in 15 days w/ reinstatement fee (30.6.6.c; 30.6.7.c) Next submittal deadline is official submittal date (30.6.6.d.4; 30.6.7.d.4) Staff confirms app is complete within 10 days of submittal deadline. (30.6.6.b.1; 30.6.7.b.1) Delay, but better chance of approval w/ resubmittal Fastest route to approval Route to denial, rejection, additional fees Staff action/result of staff action Post-60-day review route KEY Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission December 15, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, 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. This is the last meeting for three of the Commissioners. Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton and himself will not be here next year. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, commented on the level of detail in staff reports and the necessity for such detail in all cases. He indicated his purpose in raising these questions was to examine the process, staff workload and how the level of detail required by the Planning Commission far exceeds the requirements in any ordinance. He also thanked those Commissioner s who will not be returning in 2010 for their service to the County. Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Williamson for his service to the community. There being no further speakers, the meeting moved to the next item. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – December 9, 2009 Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 9, 2009. Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes – February 19, 2008, September 23, 2008, October 21, 2008, December 16, 2008 and November 17, 2009. Mr. Strucko asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any item from the consent agenda. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Public Hearing Items: ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Amendments Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable to the entrance corridor overlay district, and 30.6.8, Appeals; Amend and rename Secs. 30.6.1, Intent, 30.6.2, Application, 30.6.3, Permitted uses, 30.6.4, Area and bulk regulations; minimum yards and setback requirements; height regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features, and 30.6.7, Administration; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 2 Amend, renumber and rename Secs. 30.6.3.1, By right, 30.6.3.2, By special use permit, 30.6.6, Nonconformities; exemptions, 30.6.6.1, Untitled, 30.6.6.2, Repair and maintenance of structures, 30.6.6.3, Exemptions; Add Secs. 30.6.6, Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review, and 30.6.9, Public health or safety considered; and repeal Sec. 30.6.5, Signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend and reorganize the regulation pertaining to lands within the ECOD by adding and amending definitions related to the ECO D ((All references are to new Sec. numbers) 3.1 and 4.15.2; amending the regulation of signs in the ECOD by requiring certain sign styles to have opaque backgrounds and moving the sign review regulations to Sec. 30.6 (4.15.15); amending the stated purpose and intent of the ECOD (30.6.1); restating the existing boundaries of the ECOD (30.6.2); amending the permitted uses and applicable standards for development in the ECOD, and combining those regulations in a single section (30.6.3); clarifying the types o f development for which a certificate of appropriateness ("CA") is required, establishing a new class of CA - the county-wide CA - to allow expedited review of certain classes of development, and delineating the scope and authority of the architectural review board ("ARB") in reviewing an application for a CA (30.6.4); expanding the types of development exempt from the requirements of Sec. 30.6 (30.6.5); delineating the procedures for the submittal, review and action on an application for a CA, for both pre liminary (30.6.6) and final review (30.6.7); restating the procedure to appeal a decision of the ARB to the Board of Supervisors (30.6.8); and, amending the authority of the planning commission to supersede any condition or requirement of a CA for any public health or safety reason, and expanding that authority to the agent under prescribed circumstances (30.6.9). 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. (Margaret Maliszewski) Ms. Maliszewski noted tonight the Commission was reviewing the most recent changes to the draft amendment to the Entrance Corridor sections of the Zoning Ordinance. This draft is dated December 7, 2009. The changes are primarily to address the Commission’s comments from the last work session on November 17. Many of those changes are rewording for better clarity. Other changes are related to additional information that has been added regarding the county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff reviewed the comparison table in the staff report to note the more significant changes, which were underlined in the comparison table that was included as an attachment to the staff report. (See Staff Report) In Section 3.1 the definition of county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness has been clarified with the addition of the words “sites” and ”architectural elements”, as noted below. Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board establishing specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement or architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria. Minor wording changes have been made in 30.6.1 INTENT that don’t change the meaning of the section. In 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district: The words “routes” and “significant routes of tourist access” have been changed to “Entrance Corridor streets”. In Section 30.6.4 Certificates of Appropriateness the following changes were made to clarify the following: - Building permits in the Entrance Corridors do require ARB approval even if a site plan is not required for that project. That is current practice. - Under #3 is where county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness has been expanded. Section 3a, factors considered in issuing, has been added following suggestions at the Commission’s last work session that the parameters of the county-wide certificate should be outlined more specifically. That is what has been done under 3a. - Section 3b, design criteria has been added to outline mo re specifically the types of design features that the ARB specifies as criteria for the certificate. The factors listed in 3a would allow the types of projects that were discussed back in the early work sessions and joint meetings of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 3 the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and ARB -- the types of things that the ARB would consider establishing the county-wide certificates for, such as telecommunication facilities, developments 2,000 feet or more from the Entrance Corridor, minor amendments, etc. Under design criteria #9 that reads other architectural or design features required for compliance with the architectural design guidelines there has been more thought about this particular section. That particular criteria is a very important one and staff is recommending that it should be made a more prominent consideration in the text. Staff has recommended a minor change to bring that out more specifically. - Sections 3c and 3d, action and appeal, addresses the review process for the county-wide certificate. This is an addition since it was not outlined this specifically in the last version. Under section c it says that the director of planning determines if the proposal meets the criteria that had been established by the ARB, but the Director can forwar d that proposal on to the ARB for a decision if that is found to be the better route for that particular proposal. Section 3d says that an applicant who wants this sort of determination made needs to submit an application for review. Section 3d1 says if the director determines that proposal, which has been received, does not meet the criteria that had been established by the ARB, that the applicant can appeal the decision to the ARB. Section 3d2 says that if the ARB determines that the proposal does not meet the criteria that the applicant can appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors. That is the current process. There being no questions on the process, Ms. Maliszewski continued. - Section 30.6.6.g.1 has been added. This section clarifies that the ARB can make a final decision on a preliminary application. Generally the ARB process is a two -step process with a preliminary first with the applicant coming back for a final. On occasion the ARB will find that only one review is needed. This is simply saying that an applicant does not have to come back for a final if the ARB thinks a single review is all that is required. - In row #39 a section has been added to address the times when an applicant has gone through a preliminary review and is back for a final review and the ARB is not ready to approve the application yet. If the applicant agrees the ARB would not have to approve or deny, but the applicant could come back again with the additional revisions that the ARB suggests. - In signs and definitions there had been a request to revise the opaque background definition to not use word the word “background” in the definition. The definition has been revised. - The flow chart has been revised. Staff added some color and made some other changes based on the Commission’s recommendations. The ARB also had some recommendations on the flow charts to simplify them. The overall flow chart was broken down into two separate ones that simplify the process for complete applications and incomplete applications. Staff presented and explained the revised flow charts for a complete application and the simplified version of the process for an incomplete application. Mr. Morris noted that the yellow was very difficult to see especially on paper. Ms. Maliszewski reviewed the flow chart for an incomplete application that outlined all of the options. An incomplete application comes in and staff either informs the applicant or doesn’t. If the applicant does get informed within the time period, the applicant has 15 da ys to resubmit. That would be with a restatement fee. If the applicant does not resubmit within 15 days, then the application is denied. If they do resubmit , then the application continues in the process with the next submittal deadline. If staff fails to inform the applicant within the specified time period that the application is incomplete , that application is accepted for review. There is still an opportunity to ask the applicant to submit the omitted information. If that request is not made, then that application proceeds on to the ARB for review. If the request for the omitted information is submitted and received in ten days, then it would proceed to action. If it is not submitted within ten days, then it is determined that application is incomplete and rejected. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4 Ms. Porterfield noted that the flow chart was a lot easier to read with the colors. Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted that he sincerely appreciat es staff’s efforts on this. There are some really good things in here. But, he finds this to be window dressing and not comprehensive reform. His understanding from the Development Review Committee was that there was going to be a discussion process in how the ARB process could be integrated with the Planning Commission process so that applicants could move through in a uniform manner. He did not believe that this addresses that unification process at all. Most of the errors that he sees in most of the charts point to “NO”, which is always a challenge to have that very narrow band to getting to “Yes”. Rather than bump this up and approve it today to a new Board of Supervisors who won’t have the background that they do, he would encourage this Commission to defer a decision on this until a new Commission is seated so they can review and perhaps enhance some of the very good work that is here rather than losing a month or two or whatever bouncing between the elected body and the appointed body. Paul Wright, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, made the following comments on the amendment. Mr. Williamson’s criticism was one reason the ARB improved the flow chart. To fully guarantee everybody’s rights all of the extra boxes have to be put in because even if they say “no” they can allow someone to do many different things. He thought that was best displayed in the way they have done so. The majority of applications that come in are complete. In reality the very first flow chart does accomplish a great deal of everything that they are looking for. Secondly, to the streamlining process he thought that it would take a lot of flexibility out of the applicant’s hand. A lot of people like to come to the ARB first and other s to the Planning Commission first. There is nothing that would prevent the applicant from doing both at exactly the same time. What he had learned, which he was looking forward to implementing in this time when things are slower, is there is absolutely nothing that prevents them from hearing something earlier than six weeks if they have the staff time and effort. He thought that it was going to be extraordinary to do and may be a little difficult. But, at least they can be accommodating when it is possible given staff time. There is absolutely nothing that prevents them from doing so. He thought this was a good first step. There are many things that they need to deal with in the future that he looks forward to dealing with the Planning Commission on. For example, environmental issues are very important yet he did not think that he could take LEED Certification into any sort of condition simply because they could promise to be LEED Certified in anything, but at the end if the applicant does not get it there is nothing they can do about it. That is something he would like to resolve in some sort of meaningful way. Another example is the Crozet Library, which was not done in a way that was good for anyone. Now he was looking at the fact that there might be revisions on something th at is not even on the CIP for the next ten years. Perhaps they need to be a little bit more careful with the County’s business in those issues and not use up staff time where it might be better spent on other things. He supported the request and encouraged the Planning Commission to take action on this today. There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Ms. Joseph suggested that they talk with staff about the implementation of the process. She felt that they have done some streamlining of that in the past couple of years regarding rezoning and special use permits. She asked staff if that is true. Mr. Maliszewski replied that in terms of Entrance Corridor review for rezonings and special use permits what they have done in the past couple of years is not immediately forward all of those proposals to the ARB. The ARB Planner has been reviewing the proposal and providing comments to the lead planner on ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 5 those requests to incorporate into that review process. The Entrance Corridor comments are forwarded on to the lead planner for those requests. That has reduced a lot of the work that the applicant was previously doing in having to make another application and go through another whole process. Ms. Joseph said that was an attempt in streamlining, and Ms. Maliszewski agreed that was definitely streamlining. Ms. Joseph noted that the other thing they heard is that the applicant can determine themselves whether they want to come before the Planning Commission or the ARB first. The applicant can decide how they are going to deal with that. Staff does not pressure the applicant, but tells them w hat the best process is for their project. She asked if that is correct. Ms. Maliszewski replied that for site plans the ARB approval is required prior to the final site plan approval. So that leaves it up to the applicant at the preliminary site plan stage if they want to apply for the ARB application and the preliminary site plan at the same time or do one or the other first. If there are different circumstances or something in particular that is really complicating , staff might suggest that they do them together or one or the other first. But it is totally up to the applicant. Ms. Joseph reiterated that staff has made some attempts to streamline the process with the ARB by simplifying the process, which was in the document. Ms. Maliszewski said that the other way that staff has simplif ied the process is through the ARB’s comprehensive sign review for shopping centers and buildings with multiple businesses. That process has significantly reduced the number of sign applications that go to the ARB for review. Ms. Joseph noted that the other attempt at streamlining is the county-wide certificate of appropriateness. Ms. Maliszewski noted that would be very similar to that process. Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Wright regarding the flow chart, but disagreed with Mr. Williamson because most of this is not a “no”. In fact, there are only two instances in the flow chart where the application is denied or rejected. Depending on what the applicant does, the rest take the applicant into the process or back into the process and again to completion. Again, he thought that the flow chart is good. Mr. Franco asked for clarification on how the design guidelines are maintained. In other words, there were some changes that could be adopted for the overall county-wide permits and things like that. He asked if those changes get adopted by just the ARB or does the Board get involved. Ms. Maliszewski replied that it goes to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Mr. Franco pointed out that he was not at the previous work session. He did not disagree with what Ms. Joseph said that there have been some things that have been done to streamline the process. One of the confusing things was trying to apply this to his experience on the Planning Commission. The Commission heard a special use permit request for a church in Keswick where there was a lot of discussion back and forth about who had the final authority on a site layout. One of the things he was a little disappointed in is that they have not resolved some of that process issue. He thought what they have here is good in the fact that it takes the existing ordinance and helps to simplify it somewhat. But he still did not know if they were addressing some of the overall concerns of how the ARB folds into the rest of the process. He agreed that it is nice to have the applicant have the ability to go to the ARB first, but he was still struggling having been an applicant before on whether the ARB is going help dictate the land use issues or whether the rezoning or the Planning Commission helps to lay that out. A lot of time there is some conflict back and forth between the Commission and the ARB. Ms. Joseph said what he was talking about is the land use decisions, which normally occurs with the rezoning request. What they are hearing now is that the rezoning application does not go to the ARB, but goes to staff and staff makes the comment. She was hearing that the process has changed a bit . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 6 Mr. Franco agreed that the process has changed as far as having to go to the ARB. He was not trying to put blame on the ARB so to speak. But, it is still the application of the Entrance Corridor provisions. It is going back to that core question of should that be involved in the land use. Again, if they go back to the church it was not a rezoning but a s pecial use permit. There were considerations that they have that are not listed in here as exceptions. Ms. Joseph pointed out when a rezoning or special use permit comes in there is an application plan. The Planning Commission looks at the application plan. It has been her experience that it has to be in compliance with or in conformance to the application plan itself. The Planning Commission looks at the application plan and makes that determination of where the buildings are and the ARB is kind of st uck with where the buildings are located and can’t move them around. That is the way she understands the process. Mr. Cilimberg said that there was a little confusion in the church case about what the Commission and ultimately what the Board’s decision meant in terms of the ARB review. It was clarified in the Board meeting that while comments on the Entrance Corridor are considered during the legislative process of a special use permit and taken into consideration that those things that the Board decide s are absolutes or conditions of a special use permit cannot be modified by the ARB. There is an understanding of what is superior in terms of the ultimate decision on a plan. In the case of that church what was not know n is how the ARB might require landscaping along the road to be provided. But that was not affecting the location of the church or the parking lot. Mr. Franco understood that there was a lot of discussion about the location of the building and the parking lot. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there was discussion about location, but what was brought to the Planning Commission was the recommendation for a particular location as the applicant wanted to provide. The Planning Commission is then in the position of advising the Board as to whether t hey want to go with what the applicant desires to provide or whether they want to go with what the ARB staff have recommended might have been a better location. In that case he believed that the Commission went with the applicant’s proposal. He did not think that was confusing the process, but really just laying it before the Commission as to which decision they want to make and ultimately what the Board would make. Mr. Franco asked staff to talk briefly about the Montessori School site plan and Certificate of Appropriateness. There was a complication in that the site plan was approvable to planning staff but the building was not approvable because of the way it looked. He asked how that played out. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that it was a question of how the building was being designed by the applicant for possible consideration of a kind of certification like LEED. There was concern about how that design might play out by the ARB. That was not in a legislative decision. That was in a site plan decisio n that a design of the building itself was up to the ARB. Mr. Franco noted this is where the complication comes in. He understood from other people that the issue on that particular building came because there was not LEED certification that th ey were pursuing, but it was capturing the storm water. They had a special design that accommodated that and the ARB did not like the design. At some point they now have a conflict between sort of an engineering choice and an ARB side of things. He heard from Mr. Wright that LEED certification is not enforceable and therefore something they don’t really consider as a good thing in the design side. He questioned how that plays out. He sees exceptions for health and safety, but in his mind he thought that environ mentally better design ought to be something that the applicant has the ability to pursue in a by-right scenario. Mr. Cilimberg said that the best way that it could play out would be the Board would establish what the priorities are in consideration of the plans. They established an Entrance Corridor Ordinance with guidelines adopted for the ARB to implement. They can only implement what they have to work with. If ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 7 the Board feels there are other considerations in design to deal with other priorities of the county, they need to decide that and establish that as overriding. That is not for this ordinance. Ms. Joseph pointed out that is what needs to be worked on for the ARB to take a look at some of these other issues, which would be guidelines. Mr. Franco noted that was the part that he would like to see incorporated into this process whether it is something attached to this or it is something that follows this. It is important that some of that structure take place. Ms. Joseph pointed out when they were looking at this initially she was talking with people in the city to see how they approve LEED Certified, etc. buildings. That information is in their guidelines. That is how most localities do it. She noted that it is not in their ordinance. Bu t it is in their design guidelines themselves that allow for that flexibility for the ARB to look at those issues. She was voting that the ARB or the county looks at their guidelines and changes those and does not put it in the ordinance. Mr. Franco asked if there was any reaction to what Mr. Williamson suggested. Mr. Edgerton replied that he did not see how bringing three new people into this process would be beneficial to the process. Back to the initial concerns he pointed out that Ms. Joseph and he over a year ago had several meetings with several representatives of the ARB trying to talk about streamlining the process and some of these issues. Some of it was triggered by concerns related to the Montessori School rainwater collection system. There is a difference that comes from the Code of Virginia in the mandate of the ARB and what it can and can’t do. But he thought that a lot of that is represented in the existing guidelines, which are more focused on more traditional architecture. Until those guidelines are changes there is some limiting language in the Code about that. Mr. Kamptner said that what the enabling authority does is give Virginia l ocalities who wish to do so the ability to regulate visual impacts in certain designated areas. He suggested that they look at the example of the special use permit of South Plains Church. They may look at location of a building and may be trying to deal with the land use impact. It may be that the new building needs to be setback from a property line because of the impacts it may have on the house next door. The ARB can look at the exact same issue for the location of the buildings for a completely different reason for the visual impacts and how that location is important to being in compliance with the Architectural Guidelines that the Board has adopted. The enabling authority is unique, different and very specific. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have any authority in the development of the guidelines. The ARB develops the guidelines working with the Board and then the Board makes the decisions of what the guidelines say. The ARB was following their guidelines when they challenged the design of the Montessori School. If the guidelines did incorporate and put aesthetic value on LEED Certified project or sustainable project, then it could be reviewed as part of their review. Under the current guidelines that is not the case. The recommendation would be that the ARB go back and determine whether the guidelines need some adjusting. That direction needs to come from the Board of Supervisors and not necessarily the Planning Commission. The ARB makes recommendations for amendments to the guidelines. But, ultimately it is the Board of Supervisors’ decision. The guidelines are not passed through the Planning Commission for comment. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he was not happy about it. Mr. Franco asked that the minutes reflect that this is a concern. As the process moves forward for a reform that is not just to the procedures related to the guidelines, to incorporate some of those other things into it. Mr. Cilimberg said that the guidelines could address how development appears from the Entrance Corridor. Where they can’t change the guidelines is getting in how it relates to adjacent properties. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 8 Mr. Franco noted that is where he struggles that it really needs to be part of the process though. There are times when the applicant comes in after meeting with the neighbors. The applicant will reflect their concerns. The neighbors are pushing the development away from them and the ARB is pushing it away from the street. There is a lot of conflict and in the end there are not a lot of good negotiations that take place because the neighbors really have no standing in some of this. The neighbors can present their case to the ARB, but their domain really is to consider the Entrance Corridor and not the adjacent properties. He thought that the process should somehow include those neighbors and give them some type of standing. Ms. Joseph disagreed. She though the neighbors do have some standing. When neighbors come to the ARB meeting and speak that the ARB does not ignore them, but listen to them and try to make some sort of compromise that they are dealing with the aesthetics and the concerns of the neighbors. The ARB listens to people just as the Planning Commission does. Mr. Franco suggested that could be part of the streamlining in that they might be able to do that earlier. His focus has been as the applicant submitting this in if he has met with the neighbors ahead of time and develop a plan that meets that. Then if he has to go to the ARB and they send him the other direction how does he get that compromised faster and sooner. That is the streamlining that he thought would help. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant has the choice in working with neighbors to go to the ARB as early as they want to get a response even before they are filing anything. Nothing in these regulations prevents that. There is a lot of flexibility in how the ARB can review projects. Mr. Franco noted that the other minor comments he has are questions in the flow chart regarding when they look at a submittal and the applicant chooses to make revisions. He asked are revisions always of such a big nature that they can’t be similar to site review. It seems the loop always ends up suspending the review and resubmitting. Are there any kinds of plans that are quick changes to those that could enable them to stay in the process? The site review normally has about 11 days so they can stay in the process versus being kicked out. He asked if there was a way to allow small revisions so the applicant can stay on the time line. If revisions could be done within one or two weeks would it be possible to stay on track. Ms. Maliszewski replied that she was not sure how to define what can be done quickly and what might be longer. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant is informed in writing if he responds in 15 days the application stays on track. A lot of the issue with the suspension has to do with how quickly the applicant responds. The submittal date runs in cycles. The suspension allows for the restart once it is resubmitted. If it is submitted quickly it will hit the next submittal date and the suspension will be only the time when it is resubmitted and the next submittal date. There are two submittal dates per month. Ms. Porterfield noted that they would lose two week at most. Mr. Franco said that he was not hung up on it, but was just pointing out some concerns. Ms. Porterfield suggested that it might be helpful to determine what should come first. She questioned if it would be better if the ARB review was first so when the request comes before the Planning Commission they already have the information from the ARB on how they want the site treated. Then the Planning Commission can use that information in their review along with concerns regarding the neighboring properties. Mr. Loach said based on their knowledge with staff he would agree that it should go to the ARB first. Ms. Porterfield noted that there are so many Entrance Corridors in the county. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 9 Mr. Loach asked does the applicant have the knowledge of which they should go to first or should they make it procedural. Mr. Franco noted that it had been years since he had gone through his process. There were two different things. One is whether it looks appropriate. The other is can you do it and what are the technical concerns. When talking about going to the ARB he did not know if all of the details would be worked out at that point in time, such as if the parking is going to be relegated or how tall the buildings are. There also may be site plan waivers required. In order to get some questions answered such as access poin ts, etc. one would have to have a site plan. In the end the building layout may change because when he goes back to the ARB they may say these buildings need to be arranged differently for Entrance Corridor concerns. He asked if he should go to the ARB f irst with the assumption that he was going to get the waivers or how. There is a lot of confusion in that process. Maybe they could circumvent that by saying they have made a legislative act as far as giving the critical slope, but then they would have t aken some of the power away from the ARB if they create that condition. Mr. Loach asked if staff makes a recommendation to the applicant based on what has been submitted as to what they should do first. Ms. Maliszewski pointed out that there is always the pre-application conference where representatives from each of the divisions are present to make comments. That is an early point in the review process where some of these possible conflicting issues come out and the applicant is made aware of those. For a site plan submittal ARB staff doesn’t make comments until there is an ARB application. Mr. Strucko felt that it was not a linear process where an applicant moves from a to z. Mr. Kamptner asked which type of applications presents the most conflicts between an ARB’s decision and what is approved by the Commission and Board. Ms. Maliszewski replied that the biggest issues in the past were with the special use permits and rezoning that went to the ARB for review. That seems to have worked itself out s ince they are doing those as staff comments to the lead planner. There does not seem to be conflicts very often with waivers. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the biggest conflicts in the past was with big rezoning that either were looked at by the ARB and their comments were not part of the action taken by the Board or they never saw it and the Board took action that kind of tied the ARB’s hands. That created issues. To address that staff that was very knowledgeable of what the ARB looks for reviewed the rezoning and some special use permits before the Commission reviewed the application to provide comments so that could be factored into the decisions that got made. He thought that those had generally gone away as issues. The legislative matters are ultimately decided on by the Commission and Board. Site plans are being worked out ministerially. Mr. Strucko said that this process as outlined is probably the best they can do with what information they can control. He did not think it was going to be a perfectly linear way of getting through the process. He supported the Commission taking an action at this stage since they were at the public hearing stage and not at the work session stage. Therefore, he did not think they should defer it to another Com mission. Ms. Porterfield pointed out she had some editorial changes to submit to Ms. Maliszewski for review. Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend adoption of ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Amendments, with the incorporation of minor nonsubstantive corrections identified by Ms. Porterfield. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Strucko noted that ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Amendments would go to the Board of Supervisors on a February 10, 2010 with a recommendation for approval. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 10 Go to next set of PC minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission November 17, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, at 5:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Absent were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman; and Julia Monteith, AICP, non- voting representative for the University of Virginia. Other officials present were Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Session: ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Administration Process Amendments Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). (Margaret Maliszewski) Ms. Maliszewski presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed summarized the staff report. (See PowerPoint presentation) ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Administration Process Amendments Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). (Margaret Maliszewski) Ms. Maliszewski reviewed the current ordinance text with the proposed draft in a PowerPoint presentation, which included the chart and flowchart. (Attachment: Flowchart) The first section deals with previous discussion with the Planning Commission regarding what a county- wide Certificate of Appropriateness is. The following portion has been added: ―An ARB action that outlines design criteria that a particular type of building, structure, landscape feature or other site element must adhere to in order for the proposed element or development to be approvable by staff without being forwarded to the ARB for review at an ARB meeting.‖ There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. Section 30.6.1 deals with the intent of the overlay district and, as discussed at the previous work session, this part of the ordinance was added to expand on the connection between the text of the ordinance, the enabling legislation, and the County’s Comprehensive Plan. There had been some concern that the last draft of the text mentioned some but not all of the historic resources in the County. The language was changed to read ―including, but not limited to‖ to take care of that problem. That was the language the Commission proposed at the work session. There was also some discussion in that section about using the term ―quality development‖ and that term has been taken out and changed to ―development compatible with.‖ Again that was the Commission’s suggestion at the work session. There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 2 Section 30.6.2 talks about the boundaries of the district and there have not been any changes since the last work session. Included in this section is the list of Entrance Corridors. The Entrance Corridors themselves have not changed. The actual street na mes for each State route number have been added as previously requested. There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. Section 30.6.3 talks about permitted uses, and there have been no changes since the last work session. There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. Section 30.6.4 will be renumbered to 30.6.3.c. There was discussion at the last work session about bonus factors. That language has been changed based on the Commission’s recommendations to indicate that a condition of a Certificate of Appropriateness can’t affect eligibility for a bonus factor. There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. Section 30.6.4.c had some discussion on the language proposed previously that said ―without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district.‖ That language led to some confusion and was a bit misleading. Therefore that language has been reworded to cover elements which are in addition to the requirements of the underlying zoning district. That language is more to the actual point that was intended Section 30.6.3.d engendered discussion about potential wording confusion that could cause somebody to think that all of the existing trees at a site had to be maintained. That wording has been taken out and the previous wording reinserted, which was a recommendation from a previous work session. Section 30.6.5 in sections e, f and g previously referred to structures. Those sections have been changed to include structures and site improvements, which is the cu rrent practice. Wording reflects the current practice. There being no questions, staff moved to the next section. Sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7 have changed since the previous review. This section on administration now outlines the processes for preliminary and final applications for review in the Entrance Corridors. Staff moved to the review of the flow chart, since the chart makes it easier to review this section. Using the flow chart, staff reviewed the submittal process of an application including all the options with regard to deadlines. The right side of the chart outlines the process that would be followed if an application is determined to be not complete. On the left side is the process if the application is complete. Starting on the left, staff noted that within 10 days of the submittal deadline staff needs to determine whether the application is complete. If found to be incomplete there are two things that can happen. One, the application would be rejected and the applica nt informed of this decision within 10 days of the application deadline. The second occurs if staff fails to meet the review deadline and to inform the applicant. If staff has informed the applicant two things can happen. One, within 15 days the applicant can submit the needed information to make the application complete. If the applicant does that the next submittal deadline is the official submittal date, the application is deemed complete and comes in for review. If the applicant fails to submit the application information that would make it complete, then that application is denied. If staff fails to advise the applicant within 10 days that the application is incomplete, then staff will accept that application. Two things can happen. One, staff can reques t that the needed information be submitted. If that happens, then the applicant has 10 days to supply that information. If that information is received in 10 days , then the review continues. If that information is not submitted within 10 days, then that application is deemed to be incomplete and is rejected. If staff fails to inform the applicant that it is incomplete, then staff accepts the application for review. If staff does not ask for additional information, then the review process continues and proceeds to the action. Those are all of the options that can happen when an application is submitted but not complete. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 3 Mr. Morris asked what can be done to impress upon the applicant that an application has to be complete as incomplete applications require more staff time and therefore incur more cost to the applicant. Ms. Maliszewski replied that the point is that they don’t have this process in place right now. That will occur once an applicant realizes that the application can be denied and reject ed and that a new fee will be required in order to get it back in the process. Mr. Morris asked if staff can emphasize the process right up front so the applicant realizes that it is not the County dragging their feet but the applicant not submitting a complete application that is delaying the process. Ms. Maliszewski replied that staff feels that this would make it clearer. Ms. Porterfield asked if the days are counted as working days or just days in general. Mr. Kamptner replied that it is calendar days. Ms. Porterfield questioned if that is doable for staff because if there are weekends and holidays it can really cut the time frame down. She asked if staff really wants to count calendar days. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the language in other sections of the ordinance right now is based on calendar days. Mr. Kamptner agreed with the concept of working days and suggested when the County looks at the ordinance as a whole that can be considered. He noted that it is easier for everyone to use th e same measurement. Actually these 10-day and 15-day periods are also carried over from other application regulations. Consistency helps everybody keep all of these deadlines in mind. Ms. Maliszewski noted that if within 10 days of the submittal deadli ne staff determines that the application is complete, a notice (display ad listing applications received) is sent within 5 days via email. The Planning Commission is on that email list. The review begins at this time. If staff finds that the proposal does not meet the guidelines, then staff might ask the applicant to provide additional information or to make some changes so the application meets guidelines. These revisions are not like the revisions on the other side of the chart because an application has been deemed complete but staff does not believe it meets the guidelines. Staff would notify the applicant in writing, and the applicant would have 15 days to respond. If the applicant responds in 15 days , the applicant can make a choice whether to make those changes. If the applicant doesn’t make the changes the review continues, staff writes the report and the request continues on to the ARB. If the applicant wants to make those changes, then the 60 -day review period is suspended. Staff waits for the applicant to make those revisions. Then the next submittal deadline is the new submittal deadline, and staff continues with the review of that application. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that is not any different than how they are treating other applications in the review process. If they have a special use permit or rezoning that comes in and staff provides comment within the specified time frame, the applicant chooses whether to resubmit based on those comments. When the applicant wants to resubmit, there are several submittal dates each month and the clock stops until they resubmit again. Ms. Maliszewski said that if staff has informed the applicant that they would like revisions for consistency with the guidelines and the applicant does not respond in 15 days, then staff would proceed to action, write the staff report and move it on to the ARB. If the applicant responds but it is after 15 days and they want to make revisions, they can still proceed, the 60 day period is suspended and staff waits for those revisions. Again, it moves on to that next submittal deadline. If staff finds that the application is complete, they begin the review. If no revisions are needed they proceed to action, write the report and it goes on to the ARB. The applicant could also decide that they want to make revisions even if staff did not ask for them. In that case, the applicant should inform staff of that and then that 60-day review period is suspended and staff waits for the revisions and goes with the next submittal deadline. Any applications ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 4 that go to the ARB have a 60-day period within which action has to be taken. If action is taken within 60 days, staff sends the action letter. If action is not taken within 60 days , the applicant can request that action is taken. Such action needs to be taken within the next 21 days. If the ARB does take action within that 21-day period, staff sends the action letter. If the ARB does not take action, an approval letter is sent within 5 days. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the procedure Ms. Maliszewski described is borrowed in part from the state subdivision law regarding subdivision and site plans where the localities are required to take action within 60 or 90 days if there is state review. But the process gives the sub-divider or the developer the ability to essentially demand action within 10 days. For this particular process, staff selected 20 days because of the standard schedule of the ARB. Staff is confident that within a 21-day period they will capture the next ARB meeting. Mr. Strucko asked if an application followed this diagram with staff and the applicant taking the maximum length of time allowed to make their deliberations, how long would it take for the application to work through the system. Ms. Maliszewski replied that if staff is getting revised information, she could not put a number on it because it depends how long the applicant takes to resubmit. An action would be taken within 60 days, but in actuality it is less than that because staff is doing it within six weeks. Mr. Strucko said that one of the driving forces of doing this is to streamline the process and expedite it. Within ten days of the deadline, there is a determination of completeness. So that is ten days. Then there is five days to send out notice. Therefore they are up to 15 days. If there are no revisions, then it would take 60 days at most to get to the diamond in the middle of the chart. Ms. Maliszewski noted if the application is not taking extra time to resubmit information, definitely it will be done within 60 days. Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Morris that at first sight, this is an intimidating chart. Staff has done a remarkable job in trying to clarify exactly what has to be done, when it has to be done and what happen s if there has to be a delay. He suggested adding some color to the chart such as using green to lead to the most expeditious review, red would be a delay caused by the applicant and maybe yellow a delay caused by the ARB or staff. The colors could emphasize the quickest route to approval. Ms. Maliszewski noted that the ARB thought the flowchart was a good thing to share with the public. Mr. Morris said that the traffic-light concept could show an applicant the steps to the most expeditious review timetable. The burden is on the applicant’s shoulders to submit a complete application; and if they want to change it, it is going to cost them days. It m akes a great deal of sense. Mr. Edgerton suggested putting some additional dollar signs in if there are additional fees required because of delinquency in response. Ms. Maliszewski referred to the table where they are comparing the text; 30.6.6 and 30.6.7 are the sections they just went through in the flow chart. In 30.7.h, the period of validity of the Certificate of Appropriateness was a point of discussion at the last work session. That period is aligned with that of the site plan. Section 30.6.8 on appeals was another point of discussion of the work session , and the revised text provides for appeal by the applicant, Mr. Edgerton asked who is an aggrieved person. Mr. Kamptner replied that an owner of an adjoining property would typically be the aggrieved person. Mr. Edgerton asked if the adjoining property owners would be notified and be part of this whole process. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 5 Ms. Maliszewski noted that they don’t do that type of notification for Entrance Corridor applications. Mr. Edgerton asked how adjoining property owners would know they were aggrieved until the process was completed if not notified. Mr. Strucko said that was a change to consider. He suggested that they discuss notification. It was mentioned that the ARB, Planning Commission and the Board were notified. He asked who in the public would get notified about an application. Ms. Maliszewski replied that the only people right now notified are the members of the public who have been asked to be added to the email list. Mr. Strucko reiterated that only persons on the general email list are notified and the adjacent property owners are not. Ms. Porterfield said that she had assumed that Entrance Corridor applications would have notification just like other items. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the process is in part for the large number of certificates tied in with site plan review, which is a notification review. There are different types of applications that include signs and building permits that don’t get notification for the permitting process now. If they add notification , they are going to add cost and time to applications, which was what the Commission discussed last week. There is no doubt more time and cost would be incurred with additional notification. Mr. Morris asked how staff notifies the people. He agreed with what Mr. Cilimberg said regarding the written letter etc., but how does staff do it. An email and web site don’t do it. Mr. Cilimberg replied that they don’t do it now. A Certificate of Appropriateness application is not in and of itself subject to the notification requirement. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there was the notice requirement that was attached to site plans. For building permits, the State Code allows a person to challenge the issuance of a building permit within 15 days of the start of construction. There are a number of zoning d ecisions made all of the time for which notice is not given to adjoining property owners. These decisions are probably being made on a daily basis. Mr. Strucko asked if one of the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness is consistency in an entrance corridor in terms of architectural features. Adjacent property owners would have to be in compliance with that presumably. Mr. Kamptner said that it is really compatibility with the Design Guidelines. So the determination of compatibility can result in likeness in adjoining properties but not necessarily looking consistent provided that each individual property satisfies the ARB that their design is compatible with the Design Guidelines. Ms. Porterfield asked if they have had any instances where they did not have notification but had a problem. She asked if anything has arisen out of not notifying except for what was indicated by Mr. Kamptner. Ms. Maliszewski replied that it seemed that when there were people that are interested, they find out that something is happening. Some interested people attend ARB meetings. It is not typical, but it does happen. Staff has started putting the ARB agendas on line so as to be available to the public. She noted that anyone could request to be on the email list. Mr. Cilimberg noted that as mentioned earlier a large number —including some of the more significant-- Certificates of Appropriateness applications and the ensuing review process are part of a site plan. That site plan receives notification, so people can find out about all of the reviews going on through that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 6 notification and their follow up. Sometimes the public comes to site review meetings , which is an indicator that something is going on. Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has ever had people show up after the approval to say that they have not been notified and did not know this was happening or did not agree with it . Ms. Maliszewski replied that she did not get much of that, but it was not to say that everybody is completely happy with everything that gets built. Mr. Cilimberg noted that experience to date has been that the largest number of disagreements or concerns ends up being with the applicant not liking what the Certificate of Appropriateness issuance is and appealing to the Board. Those are the typical cases. Ms. Maliszewski noted she had presented all of the primary points. She asked if there were other questions or issues. Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff. Ms. Porterfield suggested the following two changes in the draft language: On Page 18, section H, ―shall be valid‖ is repeated. Replace the word ―background‖ in the opaque background definition. There being no further questions, Mr. Strucko invited public comment. Morgan Butler, representative for Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked Mr. Kamptner for going over his questions for an hour yesterday when he made some suggestions. He hoped his suggestions would be acted upon. He made the following comments. o He recommended that notice be required to abutting landowners similar as it is for s pecial use permits. Streamlining means notice to adjacent owners is more important . It will ensure that those property owners who will be most directly affected by a Certificate of Appropriateness will at least have notice that this proceeding is going on, can review the plan and attend the ARB meeting. The compatibility/consistency concept in the Entrance Corridors means abutting owners have meaningful input to contribute to that dialogue. o Page 11 doesn’t spell out how the county-wide CofA will happen. The ordinance should spell out the categories/uses that qualify. The public should have an opportunity to weigh in whenever there is a change in these uses and should trigger an ordinance change. o 30.6.9 states that the Planning Commission and the Site Development Plan agent can waive Entrance Corridor conditions for public health reasons. Currently this is limited to the Planning Commission. It is odd to add staff ability to overstep the ARB. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, made the following comments. o The comprehensive plan changes regarding economic development state that costs associated with new ordinances must be outlined. This hasn’t been done yet. o He agreed with the previously stated health/safety comments. o Regarding notice, the ARB/ARB staff see a lot of applications that aren’t huge (signs, for example). Placing the notice cost on the county or the applicant for this is unfair. o Regarding page 44 of attachment C, 30.6.7.i. it is grossly unfair to not allow an applicant to resubmit the same application as was denied. It is the job of the ARB to receive applications. There being no further public comment, the matter came back before the Planning Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 7 Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Williamson and Mr. Butler for their comments and agreed with a few of their points. Personally he liked the notion of getting the public involved and giving them a fair opportunity to get involved in a kind of deliberative process. The ARB like the Planning Commission is such a process and do take public comment as a matter of course for their business. At least to the abutting landowner or adjacent property owner there should be some sort of notification that there is an application that is being submitted by the adjacent owner. He did buy the argument that the whole point of this process is architectural compatibility. Certainly somebody on an adjacent property would have an interest as to what is going on. He supported a change in this text amendment to give the public that opportunity for input As far as delegating the authority to staff of determining public health and safety he would like to hear the thoughts from others. He agreed with Mr. Williamson that any kind of new ordinances or text amendments should have a cost component to it. He did not think it would be too onerous to at least overlap the fee structure with the process chart so applicant s know what kind of fees they are facing and can factor in the cost of their decisions regarding whether to resubmit or to change or to add to information. Mr. Cilimberg noted that is actually a standard that they include in the final report for the public hearing for zoning text amendments. Mr. Strucko invited other comments or thoughts. Mr. Morris said that as far as public notice, he agreed that they really need to get public involvement. But regarding what Mr. Cilimberg said, he believed that when they put out the notice that something is happening it indicates that there will be a hearing and if in the Entrance Corridor the ARB is going to get involved. It is all one umbrella. He did not see the need at this time for additional notification because it adds expense and time to the process. He agreed that they really want public input; but he also agreed with Mr. Cilimberg that once the steps are set in motion regarding a proposed development, church etc., that is where the public notice goes out. Then the process begins, and ARB is just one of the steps in the process. Mr. Edgerton said that if there was a site plan or a rezoning, certainly that would cover the notice. The language in the notice could include that this is going to be reviewed by the ARB. It could be a problem when there is no rezoning notification. If the neighbor does not know about a hearing, he/she will not be able to act on being an aggrieved person. It is tricky determining where they draw the line on how many notices are sent. He was sympathetic to what staff is saying that this will overwhelm and add cost to the process. The reason this is being reviewed is to streamline the process. At a certain point, the public has to take some of the responsibility of knowing the process. If notice is not required by State law, then perhaps there is another way to provide notice such as a sign or something that could go up o n the site instead of mailing notices out. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they don’t put public notice signs up for site plans. To be very frank, it is a choice between streamlining and literally adding more time and cost to the process. They can’t do b oth. After last week’s discussion and considering the budget conditions of the county and the concern about fees and the cost of the time the county takes with things, he thought that public notification regarding what they don’t notify on right now is adding to that cost. If the public being informed is the most important thing, then there is a cost to that and there is a time commitment necessary to do it. These letters do take time to be produced even if no recipients respond. Mr. Strucko asked what the definition was of ―abutting.‖ Mr. Kamptner replied that abutting was touching. Mr. Cilimberg said that he thought those receiving notification would be concerned about the design, architecture, and color of what is before the ARB. Those are all judged based on guidelines that are set out separately from the ordinance itself. Maybe public opinion could persuade the ARB to look at things a little differently in terms of architecture, but in a sense people were talking about a fairly specific kind of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 8 review by the ARB that is set out by the guidelines that are in place. He could see it opening potentially other issues when the ARB/staff are trying to focus on the design of a building or the color of a sign. Ms. Porterfield clarified that if the applicant is asking for more than what is allowed, would that trigger neighbor notification. Mr. Kamptner replied that if the applicant was requesting a variance, the notices would go to the abutting owners. It is under a different state law. Mr. Edgerton asked whether the notices mention if the property is in the Entrance Corridor and therefore will receive ARB review. He suggested adding language to the site plan letter that would state whether the applications will require ARB review. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the letter indicates the property is located in the Entrance Corridor. In a rezoning, the fact that a property is located in an Entrance Corridor does not in and of itself mean that it is going to go to the ARB. The Planning Commission gets input based on staff review of those as to their fit so to speak. Mr. Edgerton suggested adding language to the site plan letter that states the application will require ARB review. Ms. Porterfield suggested adding wording that it is possible that ARB revie w will be required and if interested the neighbor could check the county website and the actual ARB agenda. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the letter includes a reference regarding getting in touch with the planner handling the project with any questions. The lead planner would know whether ARB review is necessary. He thought that the contact opportunity is certainly there. One thing to note in the county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness process is that for any county-wide certificate to be in effect, there must be a determination made by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Kamptner agreed that it was an action by the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said that it was an action taken by a body in a public meeting to decide a certain type of certificate is county-wide. It would be hard to enumerate what could be Certificates of Appropriateness that are county-wide. They would be hard to identify until actually considered by the ARB. Mr. Kamptner noted identification would actually elevate this issue to a Board decision, which could be done. But it is the ARB that has the expertise in these issues. One thing they could add to the ordinance is the criteria as to eligibility for a county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness. That would establish the parameters of the types of structures for which a county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness might be available. Mr. Strucko agreed that type of clarification would help. He asked Mr. Kamptner to talk about the determination of public safety. Mr. Kamptner said that he would try to explain a couple of ideas as to why the language was changed and why it was expanded to include the site plan agent. One is that at the time these regulations were originally adopted, all of the site plans came to the Planning Commission for review and approval. So that is why the language was expanded to include the authority to the agent. The other is that at least the expectation is that kind of determination is going to be very technical in nature and may have a situation where the building official, county engineer, someone from fire/rescue has identified an issue that creates a public health or safety concern. If the item or site plan is not otherwise going to the Planning Commission for review, it seemed like an expeditious approach to allow the site plan agent to make that call. Staff can provide some additional criteria as to when the site plan agent can do it. That action can be upon consultation with the building official, county engineer, someone from fire/rescue if there is a public health or safety issue that needs to be addressed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 9 Mr. Morris said that he liked the idea that they were trying to streamline and make it easier. But that additional language would be helpful. Mr. Strucko noted that there were only four Commissioners present, but he would like to get a general feeling about the one issue he was still hanging on regarding the public notification. He would potentially like to see a requirement to do the abutting landowners even though it may add some cost and time t o the process. A common criticism that the Commission had heard arose due to an action or activity by the county that adjacent property owners felt they didn’t get appropriate notification. It is just a perception and may not be true since the adjacent property owners may have gotten a fair notification. He did want to be sensitive to that criticism. He asked if he was the only Commissioner that thought that at least the abutting property owners should receive some sort of notification. Mr. Edgerton said that he was sympathetic with the idea in a perfect world where it did not cost an arm and leg and did not slow the process down. But the whole reason this issue is being revisited is to try to figure out how to make it a more responsible expeditious re view. Since this is not a perfect world, he would defer to staff on this one. Ms. Porterfield asked staff to go back and think if there was a way to provide notification at not very much cost. For example, maybe there was a poster-type sign that the applicant could hang in their window with the information. She agreed with Mr. Strucko that notification would be good. She had heard tonight that at least anything that would be out of the ordinary would trigger notification of the neighbors. She firmly believed that if it was out of the ordinary, they need to notify. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he thought out of the ordinary fell into areas already receiving notification Ms. Porterfield asked staff to think of a simple, cost-effective way to provide abutting owners knowledge of what is happening without having to constantly be checking the county website. Mr. Morris said that as much as he encourages public input, he felt this was adding one more step that is not needed. Mr. Strucko noted that he was in the minority here. There would be another opportunity for this discussion at the public hearing on December 15. The Planning Commission was in agreement to endorse staff to schedule the public hearing on December 15 and take the public comment and the ir comments and responses into consideration as summarized below. Revise the flow chart by adding colors (such as red, green, yellow) to emphasize the quickest route to approval. Also add $ to emphasize where fees occur. Page 18, section H, ―shall be valid‖ is repeated. Replace the word ―background‖ in the opaque background definition. The Planning Commission agreed with the notion of getting the public involved and giving the public opportunity to comment. Abutting land owners should get notice. The architectural compatibility issue was mentioned. The new ordinance should address the cost component/fee structure. Agreed with the public safety/health issue and questioned the language expansion to give authority to the agent. Staff was requested to work on this language. Fair notification to the public is needed without adding time and cost. The question was raised on where to draw the line on the types of applications to provide public notice. The public has some responsibility for knowing the process. It is a choice between streamlining and cost. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 10 A question raised: can wording be added to the notification letter for SPs and ZMAs regarding upcoming ARB review? ARB review doesn’t always follow these applications. A suggestion was made by Mr. Kamptner to add criteria to the ordinance regarding parameters for the county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness. In reference to public safety, Mr. Kamptner noted that when the original ordinance was adopted, all site plans went to the Planning Commission. The determination is very technical in nature. Criteria can be added for when the site plan agent can make that determination, which would be in consultation with the county engineer, building official, and fire/safety. Concerns over the costs of notification were expressed. Mr. Strucko expressed concern over lack of notification in general. Ms, Porterfield asked if there was a way to provide on-site notification at a lesser cost. Mr. Morris said notification was adding an unnecessary step. Staff assured the PC that anything out of the ordinary already fell within notification bounds. Mr. Strucko noted that the meeting was five minutes behind schedule. The Commission would take a five minute break and reconvene at 6:10 p.m. The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 6:05 p.m. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 11 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES – NOVEMBER 17, 2009 12 Go to next set of PC minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission May 12, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday, May 12, 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, Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Linda Porterfield was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non -voting representative for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Brent Nelson, Landscape Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner and Greg Kamptner, 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. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – May 6, 2009 Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 2009. Ms. Joseph asked about the significant VDOT budg et cut from 13 million to 7 million which she heard discussed by a VDOT representative at the Board meeting. Mr. Benish noted that VDOT’s funding for maintenance in the Charlottesville District was reduced from 12 to 7 million. He offered to email the slide presentation on VDOT’s proposed plan regarding the funding for maintenance. Work Sessions: ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements - Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). (Margaret Maliszewski) Ms. Maliszewski presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The proposal is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). This amendment will provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the review of applications for development proposals made under section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will highlight the changes, as well as issues raised by Ms. Joseph, as follows. Sections 3.1 and 4.15.15: Definitions and Signs  Proposed Revisions: • Specify that all internally illuminated box/cabinet style signs must have an opaque background. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 2 • Add definition for “opaque background.” • The EC sign guidelines have included a guideline for opaque backgrounds for internally illuminated cabinet signs since 2004. • The ARB consistently required opaque backgrounds for such signs prior to 2004. • Add definition for “Certificate of Appropriateness” and clarify that a CofA applies to both structures and site improvements. Sections 30.6.1 and 30.6.2: Purpose and intent  Proposed Revisions: • Clarify the purpose and intent of the entrance corridor regulations. • Establish a more direct link to the relevant section of the Virginia Code (15.2-2306) • Provides more direct reference to significant routes of tourist access, • Identifies some of the County’s significant historic resour ces • References the applicable goals of the County’s comprehensive plan.  Questions from PC: • Why identify specific landmarks and scenic resources? • Define “quality development”? These revisions establish a more direct link to the relevant enabling legislation or section of the Virginia Code (15.2-2306), with more direct reference to significant routes of tourist access, identification of some of the County’s significant historic resources, and by referencing the applicable goals of the County’s comprehensive plan. There was a question about why we were identifying some of the specific landmarks. Again, that is just to provide that more specific connection to the enabling legislation. There was a question about the definition of quality development. That is not something that was added in. Section 30.6.4: Certificates of Appropriateness Summary of Proposed Revisions: Proposed revisions to this section more clearly state the circumstances under which a CofA is required, clarify that site improvements (not just structures) are subject to CofAs, clarify that ECOD requirements apply to improvements visible from the EC street to which the parcel is contiguous (not from EC streets to which the parcel is not contiguous), and outline more fully the elements included in a CofA. Proposed revisions also provide for County-wide CofAs. Comment: The provision for County-wide CofAs is intended to address the DRTF’s concern, and staff’s recommendations, for more streamlined review. With this provision, County-wide CofAs would be available for certain classes of structures and improvements that are recurring or have minimal visual impacts, once specific criteria have been satisfied. When an application for a structure or improvement within a specified class is thereafter received, staff would review the application to determine whether the criteria were satisfied. A similar process is currently followed for most of the EC sign review. Possible classes for County-wide CofAs might include: a. Buildings/additions located more than a certain distance from the EC (for example, buildings proposed more than 2,000’ from the EC) b. Buildings/additions located behind other buildings as viewed from the EC (“2 nd tier buildings”) c. Proposals for telecommunications facilities d. Minor amendments to site plans or architectural plans The County-wide CofA concept and the four above-noted classes have been discussed with the ARB. The ARB supports the concept of County-wide CofAs and staff has held discussions with the ARB regarding specific criteria applicable to the various classes. Staff recommends that the criteria and procedures related to County-wide CofAs be finalized following the adoption of the text amendment. Section 30.6.6: Exemptions Summary of Proposed Revisions: Proposed revisions to this section to expand the list of development types exempt from EC regulations by adding temporary construction trailers, temporary signs, and sub-permits (if a building permit has already been issued and the sub - permit does not change the external appearance of the structure). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 3 Comment: Staff has requested that temporary construction trailers and temporary signs be added to the list of exemptions to codify typical practice. The ARB agrees with the proposed revision. The sub-permit exemption would eliminate duplicate review of permits following issuance of a CofA. Section 30.6.7: Administration Summary of Proposed Revisions: Proposed revisions to this section clarify and expand the requirements for submitting, reviewing and acting on an application for a CofA; al low for rejection of incomplete applications; allow for expiration of CofAs; and clarify requirements regarding the 60-day window for acting on an ARB application. Comment: These revisions address inconsistencies in the current application procedure and are intended to encourage the submittal of complete applications, to eliminate time wasted in the review of incomplete applications, and to allow for the expiration of CofAs to accommodate updates to guidelines, policies, etc. These changes have been reques ted by both staff and the ARB. Proposed changes in this section would also simplify notification requirements by allowing for electronic mailing of such notification, which has been a long-standing practice. Proposed changes also outline specific steps to be followed in the event that the 60-day review period is reached without an action by the ARB. Staff has requested this clarification to address reviews that are extended due to the need for multiple rounds of revisions, or due to long periods of time that lapse between review and submittal of revisions. 30.6.8: Appeals Summary of Proposed Revisions: Proposed revisions to this section limit the right to appeal to the applicant, the agent, the Zoning Administrator and the County Executive. Comment: This revision, recommended by staff, simplifies the text. It eliminates the specific reference to members of the ARB, PC and BOS to appeal a decision of the ARB to the Board of Supervisors, but any member of these bodies could still request that the County Execu tive, agent or Zoning Administrator file an appeal on the County’s behalf. Other sections of the ordinance that contain similar provisions are planned to be similarly revised as amendments are considered in those sections. Administration/Review Process: The proposed amendments will allow more efficient review of applications for development proposals made under section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Housing Affordability: Increased administrative review would allow some residential development subject to CofAs the opportunity for quicker review and approval, potentially reducing the “carrying cost” of the project’s development and creating the opportunity for that reduction to be passed along to the purchase or lease cost of future residents. Implications to Staffing/Staffing Costs: Adoption of this zoning text amendment would reduce staff time and costs associated with preparing staff reports and making presentations at ARB meetings as well as reduce the time necessary for ARB meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is providing this for the Commission’s information, questions/feedback and direction as to any changes. Staff recommends that the Commission endorse taking the zoning text amendment to public hearing. Ms. Joseph asked why they are referencing these specific places and why it could not stay in the guidelines. She worried that people will read this and feel that these are the places they need to look at and no place else. She questioned why this has to be so specific in the Code right now. Mr. Kamptner replied that the purpose and intent section puts the rest of the regulations in context . It explains why the county is doing what it is doing if someone is asked why this particular route was designated as a significant route of tourist assess. The purpose and intent section gives the reader some of the key historic structures and landmarks within the county and the city that persuaded the Board of Supervisors to adopt these regulations. That is the purpose that it serves. It is not all inclusi ve and they recognize under State law that in Albemarle County the county can designate a significant route of tourist access to historic landmarks and structures in an adjoining locality such as Nelson, Fluvanna, Louisa or Green. It is simply to enhance and explain the purpose of these regulations. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 4 Ms. Joseph suggested that with so much verbiage it could overpower people. She wondered if there was some other way this could be done rather than just putting in specific references because they are leaving some things out, too. There are other places that people can use as a guide for new architecture or sites. She worried about the specificity of these things because people just want their project approved and it might stifle creativity. Mr. Strucko said that they use the legal magic language of “including but not limited to”. Ms. Joseph said that it was a long paragraph with a lot of references. She felt that “quality development” belongs in the guidelines because it is a very subjective term. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the word “quality” is actually carried over from the current statement of purpose in the regulations. He was not sure for purposes of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District beyond architectural compatibility which standard is applied. He was not sure that the word “quality” really adds anything to the policy. Mr. Strucko noted that the sentence that reads, The Entrance Corridor Overlay District will ensure “quality development compatible with the county’s standards.” He asked if it could read, “The Entrance Corridor Overlay District will ensure compatibility with the county’s natural, scenic, historical and architectural resources.” Ms. Maliszewski said if they go back to the current ordinance it actually says “a quality of devel opment and compatible with.” Ms. Joseph said that it was the quality development that is making her feel uncomfortable. Mr. Cilimberg suggested just dropping “quality.” Mr. Strucko asked if they could drop the word “development” and just say “compatibil ity.” Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is about development. So having the term “development compatible with” is referencing what the reviews are of and that is development proposals. Therefore, he suggested that they keep development in there because generally it is not ensuring overall compatibility since there were some things the ARB does not get to look at. Mr. Strucko asked if it was possible that compatibility meant no development. Mr. Cilimberg replied not within the confines of this ordinance becaus e this is only in play when something is being reviewed for development. Ms. Joseph said that it was not up to the ARB to stop development. The ARB is supposed to make it so it is compatible with what is going on. Mr. Morris noted that in dealing with the term “quality” with a business it is generally accepted that “quality” is in the eye of the beholder. One develops a product based upon what the customer wants and that varies from customer to customer. He asked if that was what they were saying. He q uestioned how they determine quality. Ms. Joseph noted that is where the guidelines come in. Mr. Morris said that everyone thinks that they know what “quality” means, but they don’t, and Ms. Joseph agreed. Mr. Kamptner said that in the context of these regulations “quality” means compatibility. Mr. Morris noted that it was a good point. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 5 Ms. Joseph suggested that they use the term compatibility so they can move on. Mr. Cilimberg asked if it would be okay with saying, “to ensure the development is compatible with.” Ms. Joseph and Mr. Kamptner agreed. There being no other questions, the meeting proceeded to the next item. Section 30.6.2: Boundaries  Proposed Revisions: • Clarify the extent of the overlay district. • Makes it easier to understand which parcels, or which portions of a parcel, fall within the ECOD. • Clarifies that ECOD is based on parcels as they existed at the time the individual ECOD was adopted. Ms. Maliszewski pointed out the new text that helps clarify which parcels fall within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. It is confusing to a lot of people. The extra text really does spell it out a little more clearly. It does not really change anything except on page 9 under b1. Currently the ordinance is written to say the parcels that fall within the overlay district are the parcels as they existed in 1990 when the original ordinance was adopted. This would change it to be the parcels when each individual Entrance Corridor was adopted. Section 30.6.3: Permitted uses and other regulations  Proposed Revisions: • States that ECOD boundaries don’t change without a ZMA. • This is further clarification re: which parcels fall within the ECOD. • Outline the availability of bonus factors as they relate to EC requirements. • Intended to address ARB’s concern that maximum building height restrictions can limit area available for required landscaping. • Outline requirements regarding designating and preserving trees and wooded areas. • Corrects the reference to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. • States that the ARB may require alternate methods for greater tree protection.  Questions from PC: • Can ARB determine that affordable housing bonus cannot be enacted? • What other bonuses might be affected by this provision? • Grading/land disturbing activity: How determined? Must save all trees? Ms. Joseph asked what the intent on the bonus question was. Mr. Kamptner replied that the intent was that if someone is required through the certificate of appropriate process to do something, such as the environmental bonus factor, where someone can get density credits for preserving a certain percentage of trees on the site. If the ARB is going to require that the applicant preserve, for example, 15 percent this provision would not allow them to also get the bonus density factor for preserving 15 percent. Ms. Joseph said that she did not like the proposed change at all since she thought that they ought to have these bonuses remain the way they are. They have a hard enough time getting the density in the growth area that they want. Mr. Kamptner noted that this is just a carry over of the existing regulations. Ms. Maliszewski said that 30.6.4 is the section of the existing ordinance that it comes from. Ms. Joseph said that this is another instance where the ARB will be making a land use decision when they should be making decisions on the aesthetics or the way something looks. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 6 Mr. Strucko and Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said that essentially they were saying if a requirement of the ARB for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness might earn the applicant the opportunity for a bonus that they were okay with that. Ms. Maliszewski said that in response to the questions related to the tree protection that change was made simply to correct the reference to the E & S Handbook. Most of that other text is really just moved around from other sections that already exist. Ms. Joseph asked if they are being redundant with these. She asked if someone writes on the site plan that they are going to grade up to a point and do tree protection the expectation is that is going to happen. She was wondering why they are hammering on this. If it is a normal site plan not in the Entrance Corridor that is what they are going to expect there also. So she was wondering why they are doing this here. Ms. Maliszewski replied that this is not new and it has been in the ordinance. Ms. Joseph questioned if this wording exists in the ordinance in the EC section somewhere now. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that on page 12 it is struck through, but it is 30.6.4.2.c. A little of the wording was changed, but essentially it is the same subject matter. Ms. Joseph said that it was under landscaping and screening requirements and says the requirements shall apply in an y overlay district. It is written under 30.6.3.d permitted uses and other standards. It worries her because they need to keep all the trees. Under Section 30.6.3.d after “(including trenching or tunneling) add “designated on the site plan to remain” or something like that so the scope of that provision is limited to what the applicant is actually showing on the site plan as being protected. Mr. Kamptner agreed that is a good point. They can add some clarifying language to that. After the parenthetical clause including trenching or tunneling on line 2 they could add “designated on the site plan to remain” or something like that so the scope of that provision is limited to what the applicant is actually showing on the site plan as being protected. Ms. Joseph said that she would really appreciate that because it is helps clarify what is going on. She wondered how they would determine what needs to be saved because there is nothing in here that says what is important to be saved on the site. Mr. Franco agreed. What they broke up used to be 30.6.4.2.c and made it into 2 sentences and the last part of the old language, which qualified what it pertained to, was dropped out. So if they can get that back in the first part it would help. Ms. Maliszewski noted that there were several sections that talk about tree preservation and protection. She did not think any of them was intended to say that all trees should remain. Ms. Joseph noted that she loved trees, but they have urban areas that they need to build in. Mr. Franco said that in section b he did not get a chance to compare this to the old language. He asked what is different in the area, bulk and other regulations. It says that the setbacks and yards, etc. shall apply to all uses and structures in t he EC overlay districts. He asked if that already applies to all uses and structures in the underlying zoning district. Mr. Kamptner said that there was one thing he was trying to address. There was a question as to whether the ARB could allow a building to be taller than what the zoning regulations otherwise allow. So they were trying to clarify the requirement of what the scope of their authority is in their review of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 7 architectural compatibility. In the middle of page 11 the struck out under Sec. 30.6 .4 that is where the area and bulk and other related language was in the prior version. Ms. Maliszewski said that was the issue about the ARB concern about a building if it was too big for a site and the site could therefore not accommodate all of the required landscaping that if a building could be taller they could then accommodate the required landscaping. Ms. Joseph pointed out that she had talked with staff about what they need to do is to look at the other part of the zoning ordinance to see if maybe the coverage that they allow now is more than they should be allowing as far as the hardscape, etc. If they want more green then maybe they should change the ordinance to allow for less building and more green. When the Commission looked at that at th e Pantops site she thought that everybody was appalled that it just covered everything. Ms. Maliszewski noted that is the ARB’s concern. Mr. Franco said that he was confused. What he heard her saying is that this confirms that the ARB does not have the right to approve something that would not meet the underlying zoning district requirements. Mr. Kamptner noted that what they were trying to clarify is that the ARB cannot modify these types of regulations. They need to deal with those in the particula r zoning district regulation such as the building height, setbacks, area, etc. where the underlying zoning regulations establish either minimum or maximum standards. Those need to be addressed in the other regulations. Mr. Franco said that he did not have a big problem with it not being in there. But it seems like the proffers they had were saying that they proffer to follow the ordinance. Mr. Kamptner recognized that there was some duplication, but the question has been raised can the ARB do this or that. Hopefully this section puts that kind of uncertainty to rest. It may be that in five years practices change and it becomes obvious and it can fall away. As someone is not forced to work in Section 30.6 everyday and he looks at this and they kind o f tear it apart there are a lot of holes in it. He thought that there were a lot of practices that developed over the years, which have worked fine. But it helps the public who does not work in this everyday to be able to understand what the scope of the ARB is, what the rights and procedures and everything for someone who needs a Certificate of Appropriateness. It helps everybody if they can look in the regulations and hopefully find the answers to these questions. So they have tried to fill in these blanks for those who work with the ARB, development staff and the people in the development community who come in on a regular basis and are familiar with the practices they have tried to provide that right here in the regulations. Mr. Edgerton said that conceptually he can hear what he is saying. But it worries him a little bit because he felt that Mr. Franco and Ms. Joseph have good points. The ordinance should be the standard. He worries if they miss something in this restating of provisions of the ordinance what is going to prevail. If they have two documents that are both part of the ordinance and one says you can do a, b and c and the other one says you can do a, b, c, d, e and f it is going to be confusing. He asked how they can resolve the differences. What he was hearing in the justification, which he felt was very considerate of the public that does not deal with this all the time, is that they will feel that they can get it all in here and they only have to read this section. That puts the county at risk at setting up a dynamic where if there is an omission in one section of the ordinance that contradicts another section of the ordinance that they will all be tripping over it down the road. Mr. Kamptner noted that when they draft these ordinances that in the work sessions they have already identified some things that can be added to clarify to the work session process and just through their ongoing review before final adoption they try to close all of those holes. They have also found som e holes that exist in the current procedures and practices that they are correcting. The current regulations provide that if the ARB does not act within 60 days the application is deemed approved. But it is kind of unclear. They have built in a mechanis m that gives the applicant the right to get a timely approval, but it also is paralleling the state law that applies to site plans and subdivision plats. It requires an additional step so that everybody is on notice that the action has to be taken quickly or it will be deemed approved. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 8 In answer to his question as they go through this process they try to close all of the potential gaps, loopholes and things like that. They strive for it even though they cannot guarantee perfection. Mr. Franco asked if there are uses or structures that are not regulated in the underlying zoning district that are now regulated because it is in the EC district. He asked if they are reaching out further in the EC district because there is some kind of use or structure that is not dealt with in the underlying zoning. Ms. Joseph noted that outdoor display would be the only different one, which is outlined in this section. Ms. Maliszewski pointed out that wording is already in the ordinance and that part is not going to cha nge. Mr. Franco noted that this is just a work session. Ms. Joseph noted that Mr. Kamptner brought up a tangential point about the 60 day review. She pointed out that the way the city does their review is if the applicant does not have everything done t hey get a denial letter from the city listing the things that they have to do giving them a number of days to resubmit. Sometimes there are circumstances where an applicant can’t resubmit within those 60 days. The applicant can ask the director to extend that and very often they do as long as the applicant documents what is going on. She wondered why the county can’t adopt something like that and just go ahead and deny these things because they don’t have whatever it is that is holding them up causing th is delay. She asked if they can do it that way so that everybody knows what is going on so they don’t get into the sticky type of situation where staff has to get something to the ARB very quickly or whatever. Ms. Maliszewski replied that she felt that m ight be able to work. They would have to figure out exactly what the process would be. She asked if that was a denial from the ARB or from staff. Ms. Joseph asked if staff could act as proxy for the ARB say that the application is denied because it does not have x, y and z. Mr. Kamptner noted that the process has built in a step that requires the staff to determine whether the application is complete. Technically it is only the ARB that can act on an application. So it would be by the ARB. If they want to do it they meet every other week and it could be on their consent agenda. Mr. Edgerton asked if a simple solution could be that if staff deemed that the application was incomplete then they would make a recommendation that the following applications have been judged by staff to be incomplete and recommend denial. Then the ARB could review the requests on the consent agenda very quickly. He pointed out that he had read it three times and felt it was confusing. He was struggling with the duplication over and over again. He asked if there is a different time requirement for ARB review versus site plan review per the state code. Mr. Kamptner said that the enabling authority does not really specify the time in which an ARB is required to act. The practice here has been to try to coordinate it with site plan review. Mr. Edgerton asked if that was a 90 day review. Mr. Kamptner replied that it is 60 days but then that period is added on if there is any state agency review. Ms. Maliszewski noted that part of the proposed changes do address incomplete submittals. That is not really the problem that this additional 21 days was trying to address. The problem is that sometimes applications come in for review and they are working with an applicant and it takes longer than 60 days to get the revisions done. It is not that it is an incomplete application, but sometimes resubmittals take longer than the 60 days. Ms. Joseph said that if an applicant goes to the city for a site review they get a list of thi ngs that need to be done. The letter says that the request is denied and lists the reasons. If there is some way that sort of thing can happen that would alleviate that problem because obviously the applicant is working and trying ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 9 to get something finished. Mr. Kamptner replied that staff can certainly look at the city’s process. The question for the department is philosophically do they want to deny an application and have the applicant resubmit or just stop the clock. Mr. Edgerton said that he did not think they could have it both ways. If the applicant is going to hold the county’s feet to the fire about the deadline then he thinks the county has the responsibility and the right to hold the applicant’s feet to the fire about what is a complete app lication. The clock should never start ticking until the application has been judged complete. This is not just limited to the ARB but is also an issue for the Commission in instances where they are forced to deny a request or persuade the applicant to ask for an extension. That sets up a hostile situation right from the beginning. Missing information needed for review ties up staff and the Commission with a lot of unnecessary things. If the applicant is going to revert back to the State Code for expeditious review and hold us to the 60 days or 90 days if a state agency is involved then he thought that they need to be more hard boiled about making sure that these applications are complete before the clock starts ticking. If they want to work with an a pplicant and it is taking longer he thought that maybe some document in the review process should state that the clock has not started ticking yet because this application is still not complete. There needs to be a time that is declared if in fact they are going to have to work under the rules of the State Code. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that has been addressed on page 16 and 17. On page 16 under b is essentially giving staff the authority to reject an incomplete application. Also, under c it is saying how quickly the resubmittal of that application needs to be made. So the clock is not ticking yet. There is a period of time in which staff does need to reject the request. But it can be rejected by staff. It does not need ARB action to be rejected. Mr. Franco noted that it is the wholesale changes aspect when there are major changes. On the site plan level there are huge changes that occur and the applicant has to run around for ten days and make these large changes. Then when the revised site plan comes back in to staff it is like re-reviewing it but they only have whatever of 3 or 4 days to do it. That is the situation that they are trying to address here as opposed to the other scenario. Mr. Cilimberg noted that in c the applicant has a period of time to resubmit and meet their requirements. Mr. Edgerton noted that he was confused in paragraph c in the second sentence which stated the date of the next application deadline following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the d ate upon which the application was officially submitted. Mr. Cilimberg said that is their standard practice. Mr. Edgerton said that goes back to the date when the application comes in complete or not. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Kamptner replied it was not. Mr. Cilimberg replied no, that it was the new date. The clock still does not start if after an applicant resubmits and within ten days it is rejected again because it is incomplete and then it is back again to b and c. This is addressing the issue mentioned by Mr. Edgerton. The question that Ms. Joseph was raising is that once it is on the clock basically how that process works. It is not on the clock until it is officially accepted by the county. Ms. Joseph said that even with Ms. Malisze wski experience she says that even if it is complete there are still some things that may be missing that need to be addressed. Ms. Maliszewski replied that not necessarily missing, but just something does not meet the guidelines and the applicant is willing to change it, but it is just going to take time to get that done. Mr. Franco asked if there are guideline issues is it as simple as trying to take it to the ARB with yes they ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 10 are going to put hardieplank on this instead of brick or they will paint it blue instead of yellow. Ms. Maliszewski noted that it usually has to do with a sign and normally is easy to figure out which changes need to be made to have the proposal meet the sign guidelines. The sign maker has to go back to his client, the client has to go back to the corporate office, the corporate office has to go to the headquarters and then it has to come all the way back down. It takes more than 60 days to get that done. That is really the primary type of application that this is meant to de al with. Mr. Kamptner noted that while all of the background work is being done it would be helpful for staff to be able to stop the clock. Everyone is working towards the same goal, but it just takes time. The County needs to be able to stop that clock. Mr. Edgerton agreed that is what needs to happen. The ARB as well as the Commission needs that protection with site plans and subdivisions so it does not come back in their face without having adequate time to address the issues. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the application has been accepted at this point, but now they are talking about the review time. At this stage there should not be missing submittal information, but as Ms. Maliszewski mentioned they find that the applicant has not addressed guidelines in the way they need to. Mr. Kamptner agreed that staff would work on it. Ms. Maliszewski moved on to Section 30.6.4 which talks about the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The revisions would add text that would more clearly state the circumstances under which a COA would be required. It clarifies that site improvements and not just structures are also subject to COA’s as well as follows.  Proposed Revisions: • Clearly state circumstances under which a CofA is required. • Clarify that site improvements (not just structures) are subject to CofAs. • Clarify that ECOD requirements apply to improvements visible from the EC street to which the parcel is contiguous. • not from EC streets to which the parcel is not contiguous. • Outline more fully the elements included in a CofA. • Provide for County-wide CofAs. Ms. Joseph asked if there was a problem if a property is visible from other Entrance Corridors. Mr. Edgerton asked what review is required when there is a parcel in between the Entrance Corridor and the subject parcel. Ms. Maliszewski replied that whatever is visible within 500’ of the right -of-way is included in the overlay. She moved on to the County-wide COfA’s.  County-wide CofAs • Address the Development Review Task Force’s concern, and staff’s recommendations, for more streamlined review. • Definition: • The term County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness means • A decision made by the architectural review board establishing specific design criteria, that are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, • That must be met for a particular class of structure or improvement located within the entrance corridor overlay district. • Once the County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness is established, the director of planning or his designee may approve individ ual applications for that particular class of structure or improvement that meet the established design criteria. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 11 This works much like our comprehensive sign reviews do right now. The ARB establishes the criteria for sign design on a multiple business building. The ARB approves those criteria when the building design is approved and then later on as tenants come into the buildings they submit their individual sign applications. If those proposals meet those criteria that were previously established then staff approves those signs without having to go back to the ARB. With the County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness that concept would hopefully work for things outlined below.  Possible classes for County-wide CofAs might include: • Buildings/additions located more than a certain distance from the EC • Buildings/additions located behind other buildings as viewed from the EC • Proposals for telecommunications facilities • Minor amendments to site plans or architectural plans  Questions from PC: • What is a County-wide CofA? • Existing vegetation to remain: • Require maintain all? • Define natural features? • Will this limit density/development? Mr. Franco asked why it is called County-wide versus EC wide. Mr. Kamptner replied that it was just a name they came up with. It is modeled after the nation-wide permits that are issued by the Corps of Engineers for certain wetland actions. The term County-wide is intended to apply to any EC District within the County. Mr. Strucko asked if it would ruin the intent if they were more specific as Mr. Franco requests. He asked if it compromises it at all. Mr. Kamptner replied no, that whatever term the Commission or the Board desires is fine. The way they look at it is they have different Entrance Corridors. So calling it an Entrance-wide permit may imply to someone that it only applies to Route 29 or only to Route 20. They wanted to make certain that it was clear that it applies within Entrance Corridor District. Ms. Joseph requested that the definition be expanded a bit so that it explains that here are the possibilities such as buildings that are located more than a certain distance or whatever they determine. To help clarify what is going on with this she suggested that a listing be provided. Mr. Franco disagreed because he would tend to omit those kinds of things because it would be extra verbiage. Ms. Joseph felt that it needs a definition somewhere in the definition section of the ordinance so that someone would know what these things are. She asked if he could agree with the definition proposed by staff. Mr. Franco replied that he could agree only in general. Ms. Joseph said that she still did not know what it is. Mr. Morris asked Mr. Franco is he agreed with keeping that County-wide and changing it to say County- wide EC so that they are clear that they are talking about Entrance Corridor. Mr. Franco said that he did not have a lot of heart ache about leaving it County-wide. When he looks at that it starts to suggest that it is county-wide and that these would be standards that would apply everywhere and not just to Route 29. But that this is now the model for a sign in the middle of no where and county-wide. That is his only fear. Ms. Maliszewski noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness only applies to Entrance Corridors. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 12 Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it was in the Entrance Corridor section so can’t apply beyond. Mr. Franco agreed, but that it seems that it is reaching out. Since it is a work session they can deal with that as it moves forward. Mr. Cilimberg said that also they would be defining it. Mr. Franco said that it is easier to say County-wide than Entrance Corridor wide. Ms. Maliszewski moved on to Section 30.6.6, Exemptions.  Proposed Revisions: • Expand the list of development types exempt from EC regulations by adding: • Add Temporary construction trailers and temporary signs • Historically, these have not been reviewed by the ARB. • Include Sub-permits (if a building permit has already been issued and the sub- permit does not change the external appearance of the structure). • This would eliminate duplicate review of permits following issuance of a CofA. Ms. Monteith asked if there is a definition for temporary. Mr. Kamptner replied that temporary construction headquarters currently are for 18 months. There is a text amendment dealing with those regulations, which ties it to active construction recognizing that they are now in an era where there are multi-year construction projects and not requiring the applicant to keep requesting extensions as their construction goes on. Ms. Maliszewski asked if temporary signs allow for four signs for two weeks. Mr. Kamptner replied that temporary signs are for four 15-day periods within a calendar year. Mr. Cilimberg noted that temporary sign regulations are included in the ordinance. Mr. Franco asked to move backwards. On page 13 in section d on the third line of the opening paragraph it says the ARB may specify the following without regard to requirements of the underlying zoning district or section 32. He questioned if that was too powerful. Ms. Maliszewski replied that she was not sure if that is different from what is in there now. Mr. Cilimberg noted that landscaping typically has had a greater allowance than what the underlying section 32 site plan requirements are. Mr. Edgerton said that this is not to release people of responsibilities that are in the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that it was a layer of what is already in the ordinance. Mr. Edgerton noted that the language sounds like they don’t have to pay attention to the ordinance in the underlying zoning district at all. Mr. Franco said he read it that they don’t necessarily get to rely on the underlying zoning. It sounds like they need to keep all the trees on their site regardless of what the site plan that is going forward wants to do. That seems like the ARB has the ability to make land use decisions and he was not sure that was the purpose or intent to give that authority to the ARB. Mr. Edgerton said if the intent of this authority is to give the ARB the opportunity to require more than what the underlying ordinance says then he felt that it needs to be stated that way. If the Planning Commission is comfortable granting that authority then it should be stated that way as opposed to just ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 13 wondering. Mr. Franco pointed out that he was not comfortable with that. If that is the goal he felt that they need to word it that way so they can have that debate. Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton agreed. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the question for Mr. Kamptner is that alternative language may specify the following in addition to the requirements of the underlying district or something along those lines. Mr. Kamptner agreed that would work a little better and it is consistent with the tone of the content of other clauses there. Mr. Franco asked if this runs into the question that they had when they reviewed the church in Keswick in that the parking lot and the arrangement that was on the conceptual plan that was not being proffered was adequate and the Commission felt that they wanted to have it proffered so that it would give some direction to the ARB. He asked if this gives them the right to say forget all of that. Mr. Morris agreed. Ms. Joseph suggested that they take out without regard and replace with in addition to. Ms. Maliszewski noted that those words came from the existing ordinance Section 30.6.4.1.b. The next section to review was Exemptions. 30.6.6 Exemptions 30.6.7 Administration  Proposed Revisions: • Clarify & expand the requirements for submitting, reviewing & acting on a CofA application • To address inconsistencies in the current application procedure • Allow for rejection of incomplete applications • Encourage the submittal of complete applications • Eliminate time wasted in the review of incomplete applications • Allow for expiration of CofA • To accommodate updates to guidelines, policies, etc. • Simplify notification requirements • By allowing for electronic mailing of such notification, which has been a long - standing practice. • Clarify requirements regarding the 60-day window for acting on an ARB application. • Outline specific steps to follow in event that 60-day review period is reached without an ARB action. • Addresses issue of reviews lengthened by multiple revisions or slow revisions.  Questions from PC: • Amount of reinstatement fee? • 81 days to review an application? Is denial an easier way? • CofA expiration: 5 years or 3 years? Ms. Joseph asked if there any way they can connect the expiration date with the approval date of the site plan. Ms. Maliszewski replied that it does that. On page 17, letter g the certificate is valid for the period that the final site plan is valid or if it was granted for a project for which a site plan was not required, then it is three years. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they were also doing CofA’s for building permits. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 14 Mr. Franco asked the way it is written what happens if it is built. If they have a CO for a building it does not expire after a certain period of time. He understands that it is tied to the site plan and as long as the site plan is valid that is good. If it does not require a site plan then the certificate expires even if you build it after three years. Ms. Maliszewski noted that if it is built then it is done. Mr. Kamptner noted that within the context of the regulations it would be found to have vested and would be established. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if someone vests the site plan by doing something and not building the building then that site plan is vested and that means the Certificate of Appropriateness is vested also. Mr. Kamptner replied that it should. But, the analysis could be a little bit different. Therefore, it should but not necessarily because the Certificate of Appropriateness is assuming that it deals onl y with the structure and if nothing has taken place with the structure itself that needs clarification. He noted that staff would take a look at that to make the two fit together. Mr. Franco asked to go backwards to page 15 in the exemptions. As he read those one of the questions that came up was where are things like hardscape changes or landscaping changes dealt with. He asked if there are changes to landscaping that don’t necessarily require a site plan that are minor enough. Ms. Maliszewski replied that if the changes were minor enough they could call it not a significant change in design and it would fall into those exemptions. Mr. Franco questioned where it would fall in the exemptions because it keeps talking about the structures. Hardscaping and landscaping are not structures. He suggested that the language be expanded to include those things. Mr. Edgerton suggested adding language to e and g. Ms. Maliszewski suggested g because it would be an addition or a modification rather than repair o r maintenance. Mr. Franco suggested e and g or both. Mr. Edgerton asked who would decide if it was substantial. Ms. Joseph replied that it would be Ms. Maliszewski. Ms. Maliszewski replied that it would be the Design Planner. The next section was Appeals.  Proposed Revisions: • Limit the right to appeal to the applicant, the agent, the Zoning Administrator and the County Executive. • Simplifies the text. • Eliminates the specific reference to members of the ARB, PC and BOS. • Any member of ARB, PC and BOS could still request that the County Executive, agent or Zoning Administrator file an appeal on the County’s behalf. There being no further comments, Mr. Strucko invited public comment. Morgan Butler, representing Southern Environmental Law Center, ask ed to make four points. He noted that he actually read this earlier tonight liked it. On page 2 of the staff report under County-wide CofA that the paragraph underneath sets forth four potential examples. It says staff has discussed this with the ARB. There is a sentence that says Staff ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 15 recommends that the criteria and procedures related to the County-wide CofA’s be finalized following the adoption of the text amendment. His concern and question is that this concept is very much being hammered out and these four different classes of potential County-wide CofA’s have not been formalized yet. He was wondering if there would be another opportunity for public comment to weigh in not only on those potential classes of County-wide CofA’s but the standards and procedures that would be developed to implement them. It seems like an important concept and he was concerned that they could be removing it entirely from the realm of public comment by doing it in this way. Moving on to the ordinance itself his first question is on page 15, which mirrors a concern raised earlier about the tem porary construction headquarters and temporary construction yards. There is the effort going on right now to basically remove the time limit from those different uses. He believ ed that Ms. Joseph raised the point during that work session a few weeks ago that it would be helpful to have a definition of those terms to reduce the likelihood of potential abuse for someone to say well this is a temporary construction yard and it does not have a time line. In this case this is a temporary construction yard that is exempted from ARB review. It would be helpful to have a definition that limits those particular terms to curtail abuse. Regarding the appeal process on page 19 in Section 30.6.9 both the agent and the Commission would have the ability to basically override the ARB when there is an issue of public, health or safety. In the current ordinance it is only the Commission that has that authority. He asked if the agent is referring to the ARB’s agent or the Planning Commission’s agent. Ultimately he felt that it really did not matter. It seemed that neither one of those should have the authority to override the ARB. It is something that should be limited to the Planning Commission as it is in the current ordinance. That would be his suggestion there. In Section 30.6.8.d appealing the Board of Supervisors decisions to the Circuit Court. In the prior version of the ordinance this was pointed out tonight there are different parties that may appeal the final decision of the Board of Supervisors. This proposal would limit it to just the applicant. Again, he was wondering if that level of limitation is really where they want to go. He asked if that is being done to match a state law requirement or if it is more of a policy shift. If it is the latter he would actually suggest that opening up jurisdictional review to a couple more parties would be the preferred rout. Neal Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum: recommended retaining the bonus factor provisions; stated that only one item in this zta responded to the DRTF recommendations; questioned the need for an expiration date; and recommended that there was no need to “stop the clock” because an applicant can defer. He was all for staff determining when an application is complete. A level playing field suggests that once staff makes that determination the clock starts. If there is additional information that is required of the applicant that is above and beyond the concerns in the ordinance staff can chose to refuse it or the applicant can chose to defer. That does not set up a hostile environment but does demand accountability so that every time requests come back from staff on the applicant the applicant has to respond. They can determine whether they responded timely. He hears again and again about multiple conflicting requests coming back on various applications and notes coming back that were in conflict to the notes they received at the last iteration. This is a probl em and the clock helps them keep tabs on that problem. With all due respect the idea of stopping clocks it seems that the clock requirements is from the State Code and should be followed. There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the hear ing to bring the matter before the Commission. Mr. Strucko noted that some good questions were brought up by the public. He assumed staff would take those comments into consideration. He asked if a second work session was planned for this. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the question asked had to do with public review of CofA’s that subsequently were put into place. He thought that they should talk about that in terms of how that could happen. It could happen as part of the Design Guidelines, which actually gets approved by the Board of Supervisors. So that is a public hearing process. The idea was to get the provisions in place now and they would be working on what kinds of CofA’s would get County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness if that is the term decided upon. Under the question of who the agent is under this particular reference the agent is the agent for the site plan administration under Section 32. Staff needs to know whether or not the Commission wants the agent to be included under 30.6.9. . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 16 Mr. Kamptner explained why the agent was added. At the time that the original ARB regulations were put into place typically all site plans came to the Planning Commission. Over the years a number of site plans can be approved by the agent. The agent was added here to provide internal consistency. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that under the ordinance right now the agent would be Amelia McCulley. He thought that would change because of the structure in the department, which would ultimately be the position of Bill Fritz as the agent. The other question asked was about r ight of appeal to the Circuit Court. He asked Mr. Kamptner to address that question addressed on page 19. Mr. Kamptner said that Ms. Maliszewski explained it in the staff report and PowerPoint presentation that although the members of the Commission and the Board are not expressly authorized they can ask the County Executive or the Zoning Administrator to appeal on behalf of the County. He did not know if Mr. Butler had in mind other people having the right to appeal. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it said the a ppeal was to the Circuit Court and said that the applicant may appeal. He thought that the question was whether it should only be the applicant. There was a question whether there is a legal reason why only the applicant could appeal the final decision of the Board to the Circuit Court. He asked if Mr. Kamptner knew the answer to that question regarding 30.6.8.d on page 19. Mr. Kamptner said that it was probably worded this way because it is only an appeal from a decision of the Board of Supervisors and they assume that is a denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Joseph asked what if it is an approval and someone does not want it to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kamptner said that the ordinance could be amended to provide for that. What the State enabling authority does is authorize the County to decide who has the right to appeal these to the Circuit Court. Mr. Cilimberg asked under any current ordinance provisions do they have any rights of appeal to the Circuit Court other than applicants in other sections. Mr. Kamptner replied that site plans and plats are reserved to the applicants. That is probably where this is modeled after. Appeals of Board of Zoning Appeals decision to Circuit Court are different. It includes any person aggrieved including any county departments that have the right to appeal those decisions. Mr. Edgerton asked if adjoining property owners have the right to appeal the Board of Supervisor decision. Mr. Kamptner replied that it depends on the nature of the decision. The enabling authority for the ARB or the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is unique in that it allows the locality to decide who has the right to appeal the board’s decisions to the Circuit Court. Mr. Edgerton asked if there was an aggrieved property owner that is unhappy about an ARB decision he thought that it ought to be considered to give them the right. Mr. Cilimberg noted that they were speaking to an appeal of a Board of Supervisor’s decision to the Circuit Court. Mr. Edgerton noted that the way the language was written the applicant would be the only one who could appeal. It is conceivable that somebody could be unhappy about an approval. Mr. Butler requested to make a comment. The current provision in effect says that any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Supervisors may appeal such decision to the Circuit Court. But the term “person aggrieved” itself lim its it to the applicant, the ARB or any member thereof, the Commission or any member thereof, the agent, the Zoning Administrator, the County Executive and the Board of Supervisors or any member thereof. What he understands these changes to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 17 be doing at least with respect to appealing the ARB’s decision to the Board is to say let’s limit that to a smaller subset of groups and then if one of those now excluded subsets of groups is upset they can talk to one of the groups that may still appeal. He thought that makes some sense to have that smaller subset of groups. His concern is that they are then talking about appealing the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court and limiting it just to the applicant, whereas in the current ordinance there was a longer list. He suggested that there maybe an intermediate step to not necessarily allowing any person aggrieved under the sun but perhaps this subset of groups that the ordinance is moving toward. His main concern is if they just limit it to the applicant then it really cuts off that right of appeal in these different situations that may not need to be a decision but a member of the Commission or some other person with that power could then pursue. Mr. Loach agreed with the recommendation and also including Mr. Edgerton’s suggestion of including adjacent property owners. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff needs guidance if they want to expand that. Ms. Joseph asked that it be expanded. Mr. Kamptner said that was fine, but noted that for site plans and subdivision plats the third parties do not have the right to appeal approvals of those decisions. But Certificate of Appropriateness is a different type of approval than a subdivision and site plan. Mr. Franco disagreed in that he would not like to see it expanded. It is a long process to go through anyway. If someone can actually come out on the other end with an approval and Certificate that meets the County’s guidelines and then go through the appeal to the Board of Supervisors he would hate to think an aggrieved neighbor could continue the fight forward if they did not like the project. Ms. Joseph noted that it is part of the juridical process. Mr. Franco noted that it was not right now unless they added it. Ms. Joseph and Mr. Loach agreed that it should be added to the process. Mr. Cilimberg asked regarding Mr. Williamson’s points if there was something different that staff needs to prepare for. One of his comments had to do with the expiration or the time period for the Certificate of Appropriateness building permit type of application. The edit would be the years. The other was regarding the processing of an application once it is deemed to be complete, which the Commission had some discussion about. He asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Williamson. He did not think they could change the rules. What he was suggesting was that they have a set of rules for what is required for a complete application. If additional information is requested he did not think they should stop the clock at that point. He thought that they had a responsibility from the County’s perspective to be clear enough about what they expect to be submitted to be deemed a complete application. It would be totally unfair to say a week later that they need some additional information and then use that to stop the clock. He did not think that would be appropriate. But at the same time he felt that they need to be very firm about not accepting applications unless they are complete. That would solve that problem. It puts the onerous on the applicant to submit a complete application and puts the onerous on the County to review the application to make sure it is complete and then declare it is a complete application. Ms. Joseph noted that they were into the semantics of what is a complete application. There is a checklist with the information that needs to be submitted and once staff gets that information the information has to be analyzed. She suggested that they need to define complete application in the way that they are doing this. Sometimes there are things missing that are requirements of the ARB or in the Guidelines or whatever that may not come to light until they get deeply involved in the review process . That is what she was thinking was going on. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 18 Ms. Maliszewski said that there is a distinction. There is a checklist and an applicant either has the stuff on the checklist or they don’t. If it is not there she would call that an incomplete application. Once staff has a complete application and reviewing it they might find that the proposal does not meet the Guidelines and that is a different thing. That is something staff is working with the applicant on to meet the Guidelines. Mr. Franco noted that it was a debate about the quality of the development which could be very subjective things that they are going back and forth on. It is a completely different issue with a subjective nature that is drawing the timeline out. So it is not always a fault of the applicant or the County. It is just the back and forth that occurs. Ms. Maliszewski noted an example is a sign that meets all of the checklist requirements for a sign but they have proposed it as an internally illuminated cabinet with a background that is not opaque. That does not meet the guidelines and requires revisions to meet the Guidelines, which takes time to get that revision in. Mr. Franco pointed out that another example is that the sign does not meet the location requirements and requires moving. Ms. Maliszewski noted that could involve moving utilities or something that takes longer than 60 days. That is where the problem is. Mr. Cilimberg noted that at the end of the 60 days an action has to be taken even if all of the information has not been supplied, which can penalize the applicant. Ms. Joseph agreed that it takes time to get revisions done. Mr. Loach noted that it has to be some way to make a decision at some point in time and it could be appealable. But the decision has to be made sometimes as to when that clock stops so that when it gets to the Commission it is complete. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that in this particular case in this ordinance these matters would not come to the Planning Commission. It is about what is necessary to take the action on the Certific ate of Appropriateness. Mr. Kamptner said that they were still talking about whether the application is deemed complete and what criteria can be used to reject an application. On page 16 is what constitutes a complete application. What Ms. Maliszewski will do is look at subsection a) and it may need to be further em bellished. He assumed that once these regulations are adopted staff will establish a checklist that is applied. When the application comes in that is what staff looks at to determine whether or not the application is deemed complete. The qualitative analysis is what happens after that initial determination is made and that is when the 60 day clock is running. Staff looks at whether the particular proposal satisfies the Guidelines. That is where the clock is running, which is the period where revisions may need to be made. Those are two different stages to the review process Mr. Cilimberg noted that the checklist is going to be based on what the ordinance requires. Ms. Joseph suggested that some language can be added to the application that will help the applicant and staff get through that process and allow for the stopping of the clock. She noted that the applicant has the option if denied that they can go forward to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that is actually built into the special use permit and rezoning review processes that any applicant can say I have done what I am going to do and wants to move on. Ms. Joseph suggested that they add that language in here that if it is necessary that it gives the applicant the understanding that they can decide to move forward if they really want to. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 19 Mr. Strucko thanked staff for the presentation. In summary, the Planning Commission made the following comments: The Planning Commission discussed and asked questions about the proposed amendment, took public comment and provided input on the draft ordinance language changes as summarized as follows. No formal action was taken. Staff to address the Commission’s comments and bring the draft back for Commission review at a future work session. In a work session on ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements the Planning Commission asked staff to consider incorporating the following comments and suggestions into the draft ordinance text. In 30.6.1, the question was raised how one defines a “quality development”. One commissioner felt that “quality development” belongs in the guidelines (not the ordinance) because it is a very subjective term. The Commission suggested changing the wording to “Ensure the development is compatible with”. In 30.6.1, the question was raised why the references to historic resources have to be so specific in the Code and not remain in the guidelines. Is there some other way that this could be done? The concern was raised that some resources will be left out and some people will read this and feel that these are the only resource they need to be concerned with. In 30.6.3.c, the Commission generally felt that the bonuses should stay the way they ar e. This is an instance where the ARB would be making a land use decision rather than an aesthetics decision. The Commission generally agreed that if a requirement of the ARB earned the applicant the opportunity for a bonus, that would be okay. In 30.6.3.d after “(including trenching or tunneling)” add “designated on the site plan to remain” or something like that so the scope of that provision is limited to what the applicant is actually showing on the site plan as being protected. When the statement in 30.6.4.2.c was broken into 2 sentences, the meaning changed. The last part of the old language, which qualified what it pertained to, was dropped out. It should be put back in. Regarding the ARB’s concern about “overbuilding” a site, it was noted that the ordinance could be reviewed to determine if coverage requirements need to be revised. If the ARB thinks more green is required, then maybe the ordinance could change to allow for less building and more green. Concern was expressed that the ordinance should be the standard. If there is an omission in one section of the ordinance, and that contradicts another section of the ordinance, it will be a problem. Regarding 30.6.4.d, a Commissioner asked if the “without regard” wording was too powerful. It was recommended that “without regard” should be changed to “in addition”. It was also noted that it should be made clear which types of requirements the ARB can/can’t modify. This may need to be dealt with in each individual regulation. The current regulations provide that if the ARB does not act within 60 days the application is deemed approved, which is unclear. The Commission discussed several options for staff to look at to simplify the process including denial of the request by the ARB or staff, ways to deal with an incomplete application such as placing item on consent agenda, the starting and stopping of the time clock, and consideration of modeling the City’s denial letter procedure. A mechanism is needed that gives the applicant the right to get a timely approval, but also parallels the state law that applies to site plans and subdivision plats. Staff will work on addressing the issue ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009 FINAL MINUTES 20 concerning the review time particularly when staff finds out that applicant has not addressed guidelines in the way they need to. Discussion was held on the term “county-wide COA”. It was recommended that a definition be provided in the ordinance. In 30.6.5 f and g, “and site improvements” should be added after “structures”. The section on appeals, 30.6.8, should be expanded to include the ability of adjacent property owners to appeal to the circuit court. Regarding 30.6.7.e/f the commission discussed incomplete applications and the timeframe of review of applications that don’t meet all the guidelines. The count y should be given some flexibility in stopping the clock based on circumstances, but the language must allow applicant to move forward. Section 30.6.7.b should be further embellished. In 30.6.7.g, vesting requirements relative to CofAs may need to be cla rified. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff would come back with another work session to go over the changes.” The Planning Commission took a break at 7:33 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:41 p.m. Return to exec summary County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: March 3, 2010 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were received as follows: CHART Committee: One vacancy. No applications received. Equalization Board: One vacancy. (Samuel Miller District) John Lowry (Samuel Miller District) Deborah Rutter (Scottsville District) Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy. No applications received. Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. No applications received. Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee: Two vacancies. No applications received. Rivanna River Basin Commission: One vacancy. No applications received. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy. No applications received. The following reappointments require action by the Board: Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee: John Springett Kimberly Higgins 1 MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT CHART Advisory Committee Mac Lafferty 4/3/2010 4/3/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Equalization Board Alice Nye Fitch 12/31/2009 12/31/2010 Eligible, District, Samuel Miller Action Required,Advertised, 2 recd Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Mark Rooks 6/30/2010 Resigned No Advertised, No applications recv'd Pantops Community Advisory Council Andrew Dracopoli TBD Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Steven Smith 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Katya Spicuzza 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Clarance Roberts 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 Eligible No action required Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee John Springett 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 Yes Action required Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Kimberly Higgins 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 Yes Action required Rivanna River Basin Commission John Martin 4/30/2013 Resigned No Advertised, No applications recv'd RSWA Citizens Advisory Committee Stephen Kirkup 12/31/2009 12/31/2011 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd Route 250 West Task Force Eric Bryerton 4/4/2010 4/4/2013 Eligible No action required Revised 02/24/10 VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within and outside its borders; and WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over 1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books and publishing; and WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 17, 2010 through Sunday, March 21, 2010 as the Sixteen Annual VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of available events and activities. Signed and sealed this 3rd day of March, 2010. ______________________________ Ann H. Mallek, Chair Albemarle Board of County Supervisors Return to regular agenda