Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-5-05
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E MAY 5, 2010 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Recognitions: a. Proclamation - Public Service Recognition Week 2010. 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). 9:30 a.m. – Presentations 8. Proclamation - National Travel and Tourism Week, May 8 –16, 2010. 9. Tourism Update, Kurt Burkhart. 10. Presentation of Streamwatch Annual Report, John Murphy. 11. Presentation of the Historic Preservation Committee’s 2009 Annual Report, Jared Loewenstein. 12. End of the year intern report, Lee Catlin. 10:30 a.m. – Public Hearings 13. ZTA-2009-00003. Farm wineries. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 5.1.25, Farm winery, 10.2.1, By right and 10.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Secs. 3.1, by adding definitions of “agritourism” and “farm winery event” and amending the definitions of “accessory use, building or structure” and “farm winery”; 4.15.2, by adding signs identifying farm sales, a farm stand, a farmers’ market, or a farm winery as an “agricultural product sign”; 5.1.25, by amending the regulations applicable to farm wineries by delineating those farm winery related us es allowed by right; requiring a special use permit for a farm winery event, wedding or wedding reception, or a use not expressly allowed but determined by the zoning administrator to be a usual and customary use at a farm winery, if more than 200 persons will attend at any time; requiring identified information and a sketch plan to be submitted with an application for a special use permit; establishing regulations for sound generation from outdoor amplified music and minimum yard requirements for farm wineries; and prohibiting restaurants and helicopter rides; 10.2.1, by amending the cross -reference to by-right farm winery uses; and 10.2.2, by adding certain farm winery uses as uses allowed by special use permit. 14. ZTA-2009-00018. Farm stands, farm sales, farmers’ markets. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.5, Signs authorized by special use permit, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, 11.3.1, By right uses, 11.3.2, By special use permit , 12.2.1, By right, 12.2.2, By special use permit, 13.2.2, By special use permit, 14.2.2, By special use permit, 15.2.2, By special use permit, 16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.2, By special use permit, 19.3.2, By special use permit, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20A.6, By right, 20B.2, By right, 22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit, 28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 35, Fees; repeal Secs. 5.1.19, Wayside stands, 5.1.35, Farm sales, 5.1.36, Farmer’s market; add Sec. 5.1.47, Farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would repeal the existing regulations pertaining to wayside stands (5.1.19), farm sales (5.1.35) and farmers’ markets (5.1.36) and establish new regulations for farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets (5.1.47) regarding the respective uses, maximum structure sizes, and minimum yard and parking requirements; w ould allow farm stands and farm sales by right in the RA (10.2.1), MHD (11.3.1) and VR (12.2.1) zoning districts, allow farmers’ markets by right in the NMD (20A.6), DCD (20B.2), C-1 (22.2.1), CO (23.2.1), HC (24.2.1), LI (27.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) and HI (28.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) zoning districts, and allow farmers’ markets by special use permit in the RA (10.2.2), MHD (11.3.2), VR (12.2.2), R -1 (13.2.2), R-2 (14.2.2), R-4 (15.2.2), R-6 (16.2.2), R-10 (17.2.2), R-15 (18.2.2), PRD (19.3.2), PUD (20.3.2), LI (27.2.2) (new structures) and HI (28.2.2) (new structures) zoning districts; and would amend and add definitions of various terms related to farms stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets (3.1), exempt off-site agricultural product signs from the requirement to obtain a special use permit (4.15.5), and exempt on -site agricultural product signs from the sign permit requirement (4.15.6); and, would create a new class of fees for a special use permit f or farmers’ markets and establish fees of $490.00 and $110.00 depending on existing on-site entrance and parking conditions, which is a $490.00 and $870.00 reduction, respectively, in the fees that would be charged under current regulations. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6). 11:00 a.m. – Presentations: 15. Presentation on Regional Economic Issues, Mike Harvey. 16. Economic Development Action Plan. 17. Closed Meeting. 18. Certify Closed Meeting. 19. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. 2:00 p.m. - Work Session: 20. Places29, David Benish. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 22. Adjourn. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: March 3 and March 8, 2010. 7.2 Adopt Resolution in Support of The Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission. 7.3 Schedule public hearing for the proposed renewal of the Old Crozet School Arts Lease Agreement for po rtion of the Old Crozet Elementary School. 7.4 Authorize County Executive to sign an amendment to the Fie ld School of Charlottesville’s Lease for portion of the Old Crozet Elementary School. 7.5 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. FOR INFORMATION: 7.6. FY2010 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report. 7.7 Third Quarter Financial Report. 7.8 2010 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Community Development Department. 7.9 2010 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community Development Department. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page PUBLIC SERVICE RECOGNITION WEEK MAY 3 – 9, 2010 WHEREAS, Americans are served daily by public servants at the federal, state, county, and city levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and recognize the valuable service that public servants provide to the nation; and WHEREAS, over 500 Albemarle County Local Government employees work tirelessly to serve our residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with outstanding customer service while maintaining careful stewardship of the resources with which they have been entrusted; and WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a democracy that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these public servants; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do proclaim May 3-9, 2010 as Public Service Recognition Week and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the County to recognize crucial role of public employees. Signed and sealed this 5th day of May, 2010. Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE RELATING TO THE SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR COMMISSION Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle (“the County”) is dedicated to the furtherance of economic development and tourism in Albemarle County; and Whereas, the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission (“the Commission”) was created in 2006 by the General Assembly for the purpose of preparing for and commemorating the 150th anniversary of Virginia’s participation in the American Civil War; and Whereas, the Commission has requested that each locality form a sesquicentennial committee to aid in planning for the commemoration period; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County will join other localities in Virginia to form a sesquicentennial committee; and WHEREAS, the sesquicentennial committee will plan and coordinate programs occurring within the locality and communicate regularly with the state Commission; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to undertake this endeavor with the Commission to promote and commemorate this important historic milestone . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby desires to support the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission and their efforts to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Virginia’s participation in the American Civil War; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that Albemarle County will designate Steven Meeks, President of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society, and Kurt Burkhart, Executive Director of the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, as joint-chairmen of a local sesquicentennial committee to work jointly and cooperatively to aid in the plannin g for the commemoration period. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: The Old Crozet School Arts Lease Agreement for Part of the Old Crozet Elementary School SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to schedule a public hearing for the proposed renewal of the lease agreement between the County and the OCSA for part of the Old Crozet Elementary School STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and Freitas LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1990 through 2007, the Charlottesville Waldorf School leased the facility. The Old Crozet Elementary School was then vacant until June 2009, when the County began leasing part of the facility to the Field School of Charlottesville and, in August 2009, a part to the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”). The two tenants together currently occupy approximately 15,165 square feet of the facility. The current OCSA lease term ends July 31, 2010. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing County -owned property. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development Master Planning Directional Statement: “Adapts and reuses sites rather than abandoning them.” DISCUSSION: Since occupying the facility, the OCSA has been an excellent tenant and is requesting to continue to lease the facility. For the most part, the proposed lease agreement would continue the same conditions as the current lease. However, the tenant would like to increase the term of the lease from the current one-year term. Proposed changes from the current lease include: automatic renewal of the lease for up to four additional one-year terms beyond the initial one-year term, unless notice is given by the Landlord or the Tenant no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of any annual term; discontinuance of the County’s reimbursement through a rent credit for the cost of any pre-approved alterations, additions, or improvements made by the tenant; an increase of 871 sq. ft. in leased space that includes access to an additional entrance as well as the girl’s restroom currently leased by the Field School. The removal of this restroom from the Field School’s lease will be presented to the Board for consideration on May 5th. With the inclusion of the additional space, the rent for the first term of the proposed lease agreement would be $18,387.06. This amount is based on a rental rate of $3.81/sq.ft. that was also applied to the recently approved lease for the Field School. This rental rate includes both rent and a utility charge, based on projected use. At the end of September 2010, when a full year’s utility data for the building with occupants is available, staff will evaluate utility consumption and adjust the utility cost component of the rent if warranted. BUDGET IMPACT: The renewal of this lease would result in an increase of $18,387.06 in annual revenue during the first year. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on June 2, 2010 to receive public comment on the proposed lease agreement. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Lease Renewal Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to the Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for Part of the Old Crozet Elementary School SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the lease agreement between the County and the Field School of Charlottesville for part of the Old Crozet Elementary School STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and Freitas LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County currently leases the Old Crozet Elementary School to two tenants. The Field School of Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases 11,210 sq. ft. Included in that square footage are the facility’s two large restrooms. The Board of Supervisors recently approved the renewal of the Field School’s lease with the County to rent the same square footage of the Old Crozet Elementary School to commence June 1, 2010. The second tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 3,955 sq. ft. Three of the four rooms included in that lease have an individual restroom. The proposed renewal of their lease will be presented to the Board for consideration on May 5th. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development Master Planning Directional Statement: “Adapts and reuses sites rather than abandoning them” DISCUSSION: During the first year that OCSA rented space in the Old Crozet Elementary School, the OCSA identified a need for additional restroom facilities. The OCSA approached the Field School about the possibility of using one of the large restrooms. The Field School has determined that it does not need both large restrooms and suggested one be taken out of its lease and added to OCSA’s lease. Both tenants are agreeable. A proposed lease amendment between the Field School and the County in which the rented space is reduced by 267 square feet (from 11,210 to 10,943) is attached. Because this lease amendment reduces the square footage of rented space than that in the le ase previously approved by the Board, a public hearing is not required. BUDGET IMPACT: The approval of this lease amendment would result in a decrease in annual revenue of $1,017.27 during the first term of the lease. However, if the Board were to approve the proposed OCSA lease agreement, there would be a corresponding increase in revenue in the amount of $18,387.06 from the OCSA lease. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Field School’s lease amendment contingent on the approval of OCSA’s lease and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease amendment. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Lease Amendment Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2010073, #2010074, #2010076, #2010077, #2010078, #201079, and #2010080 for various school and local government programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 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 $614,551.04. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations does 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 seven (7) FY 2010 appropriations as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2010073) totaling $17,000.00 for a Homeland Security grant; Three (3) appropriations (#2010074, #2010076, and #2010080) totaling $364,887.04 for various school programs; One (1) appropriation (#2010077) totaling $27,500.00 for the R. K. Mellon Family Foundation Grant; One (1) appropriation (#2010078) totaling $5,500.00 for Sheriff Reserve Program Contributions; and One (1) appropriation (#2010079) totaling $199,664.00 for the ECC Sprint/Nextel 800 MHz Re-banding. A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $614,551.04 and the approval of Appropriations, #2010073, #2010074, #2010076, #2010077, #2010078, #2010079, and #2010080. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Description Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2010073 $ 17,000.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 17,000.00 The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant from the State Homeland Security Program in the amount of $17,000.00. The purpose of this grant is to purchase a license plate reader system to assist in detecting, deterring, disputing, a nd preventing acts of terrorism. This system can capture license plate numbers and compare these numbers to a database which then communicates crime or infractions associated with the vehicle and/or registrant. There is no local match. Appropriation #2010074 $33,619.73 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 15,704.72 State Revenue: $ 2,279.04 Federal Revenue: $ 15,625.74 Fund Balance: $ 10.23 March 11, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Albemarle County Schools has been awarded additional funds totaling $15,625.74 for Migrant Education Programs (MEPs) under a United States Department of Education (USED) Literacy Education and Reading Network (LEARN) Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG). The grant requires State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to make consortium arrangements with other states to apply for the funds. The grant is designed to improve interstate and intrastate coordination of migrant education programs. Virginia, as a part of LEARN, will develop reading lessons/resources, scientifically-based writing and study skills lessons/resources, materials for parents to use with their children that align with the literacy lessons, a comprehensive literacy success plan, and a graduation plan to help MEP staff work with students in grades 7-12 and Out of School Youth (OSY) to identify and address barriers to high school graduation. The LEARN Consortium has 18 member states, eight of which are small states with a migrant population similar to Virginia’s population. These states are: Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah (lead state), Vermont, and Virginia. The Albemarle Regional MEP program will review, field test, and provide feedback on LEARN instructional materials; communicate, collaborate, and share information about results among consortium states, local/regional resources, and technical assistance providers; complete evaluation surveys; and participate in interviews about project implementation, outcomes, successes, and areas needing improvement. The mission of the Mentor Teacher Program is to support beginnin g and experienced teachers new to Albemarle County by appointing mentors, conducting mentor workshops, and offering professional development in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Mentor Teacher Program is responsible for mentor support, workshop s, and materials for new teachers. Albemarle County Schools received additional funds from the state for the Mentor Teacher Program in the amount of $2,279.04 for FY 09/10. There is also a local fund balance in the amount of $10.23 from FY 08/09 which may be reappropriated into FY 09/10. The funds will be used for staff development. Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $666.72. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High Scho ol. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $30,537.72 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $37,404.38. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $287,595.62 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Stone Robinson Elementary School has received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount of $5,000.00. This contribution was made to help purchase various technology equipment for the classrooms at Stone Robinson Elementary School. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Josh an d Elaine Attridge. The donors have requested that their contribution be used to purchase any items needed in the classroom at Broadus Wood Elementary School. Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a Target Grant in the amount of $2,000.00. These funds will be used to host three interactive family literacy nights where best research-based reading practices will be shared to help strengthen home-school reading connections, improve students’ reading achievement, and foster life-long learning habits. Every family attending will receive a book and other reading tools. For at-risk and ESL students, books on tape will be purchased and sent home on a routine basis. Hollymead Elementary School has been awarded a grant from the Science House Foundation in t he amount of $588.00. These funds will be used to purchase Lego Mindstorm Robotic Kits for the Hollymead Robotics Club. Stony Point Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Bama Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to implement a music program that will enhance literacy instruction. A professional songwriter will work with students and assist them with writing their own songs. Monticello High School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Bama Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to assist financially needy students with school-related costs such as field trips, school supplies, textbooks, and supply fees for CATEC courses. Target has awarded four Albemarle County Elementary Schools with Field Trip Grants. Recipients include Baker Butler in the amount of $800.00, Greer in the amount of $800.00, Meriwether Le wis in the amount of $800.00, and Yancey in the amount of $800.00. Appropriation #2010076 $ 51,221.76 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 51,221.76 March 25, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $287.50 made at Albemarle High School. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $30,825.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $37,691.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $287,308.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Western Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $275.00. 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 W AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $1,275.00 including this donation. The balance from FY 07/08 is $8,450.00. The balance from FY 08/09 is $10,711.66 for a grand total of $20,436.66. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor , requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $304,563.34 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. At the March 3rd, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting, several community members made donations to the Albemarle County Public Schools totaling $1,544.18: Aubrey Phillips donated $881.10; Gregory Quinn donated $20.00; Thomas Mix donated $272.08; Mary A. Kelly donated $365.00; and $6.00 was donated from anonymous attendants at the meeting. These contributions will be placed in the School Board Reserve fund. Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PATSO in the amount of $822.49. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help fund the Enrichment Time before 9 Program at Henley Middle School. Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $367.00 from Matthew Kessler. The donor has requested that the contribution be used towards any instructional needs at Murray High School. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,788.40 from the Murray Elementary PTO. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the M3 classes and SOL tutoring at Murray Elementary School. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Mandell family. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help supplement classroom instructional supplies at Broadus Wood Elementary School. The Monticello High School Booster Club and the Activity Club have ra ised funds to provide scorer’s booth/concession buildings at both of Monticello High School’s baseball and softball fields. Monticello High School received donations totaling $39,137.19. The MCHS Athletic Boosters Club donated $8,329.82, Monticello High School donated $15,807.37, and $15,000.00 was received from an anonymous donor. The donors have requested that their contributions go towards the construction of these buildings at Monticello High School. Appropriation #2010077 $ 27,500.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 27,500.00 The R. K. Mellon Family Foundation awarded Albemarle County Parks and Recreation an additional $27,500 grant to provide an accessible playground at Walnut Creek Park. The Foundation previously awarded a grant of $32,500 for this purpose which was appropriated on February 3, 2010. This additional grant will full y fund this $60,000 project with no local match required. Appropriation #2010078 $ 5,500.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 5,500.00 Funds for the Sheriff Reserve Program are contributions that have been made in support of the volunteer reserve programs. This money is vital to support the many programs that the volunteer reserves are involved with, such as Project Lifesaver, child fingerprinting, aid in Search and Rescue, etc. These contributions allow the volunteers to perform many services without impacting the needed funding for the Sheriff Office’s budget. Appropriation #2010079 $ 199,664.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $199,664.00 The Emergency Communications Center recently completed negotiations with Sprint/Nextel to re-band their 800 MHz radio system as defined by the FCC. This is brought about because of interference issues caused by Sprint/Nextel with certain 800 MHz radio frequencies. The re-banding process will begin with a kickoff meeting scheduled for April 21, 2010. Sprint/Nextel has agreed to pay the project costs that the Emergency Communications Center will need to complete its part of the overall project in the amount of $199,664.00. Appropriation #2010080 $280,045.55 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 2,741.55 Fund Balance: $277,304.00 April 15, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations: Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $471.00. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $31,296.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $38,162.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additiona l $286,837.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $300.00 from Amber Aiken. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the purchase of special education supplies at Hollymead Elementary School. Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,970.55 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of March at Henley Middle School. Following completing of the FY 08/09 audit and evaluation of current year revenues, reappropriation of school carryover funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. This includes the reappropriation of $250,432.00 of school carryover and $26,872.00 of building rental funds for a total of $277,304.00 from fund balance. Request the Board of Supervisors to amend the appropri ation ordinance accordingly. Return to executive summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY2010 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on non-cash proffers and cash proffer revenues and expenditures for the 3rd Quarter of FY 2010. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham , Higgins, Ms. McCulley, and Ms. Baldwin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, staff has continued to improve and expand these reports. The most recent reporting change includes the addition of designated non-cash proffer improvements that both benefit the County and mitigate the impacts of development. This report addresses both cash and non-cash proffers from January through March of 2010. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3: Develop Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs. Goal 5: Fund the County’s Future Needs. DISCUSSION: Cash Proffers January – March 2010 (3rd Quarter). A. Proffered: Although three rezonings were approved during this quarter, none of them contain new cash proffers. However, one rezoning did include other non-cash related improvements, which are further explained below. B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: No rezonings containing cash proffers were approved; however, the removal of potential revenue from the Biscuit Run rezoning has reduced the total obligated cash proffer amount from $56,758,832 to $38,851,330. C. Revenue: The County received a total of $49,100 in cash proffers during this quarter. The contributions are from Belvedere ($7000 for affordable housing), Poplar Glen II ($38,900, of which $22,400 is for Capital Improvement Projects and $16,500 is for affordable housing), and Liberty Hall ($3200.for for Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet). D. Total Interest Earnings: The total interest earned this quarter from collected cash proffers is $252.66 for a total $316,431.07. E. Expenditures: During the 3rd quarter, cash proffer funds in the amount of $1,838 left over from the Western Park study fund were allocated to Parks and Recreation projects. Additionally, funds from Avon Park ($2,836) and Stillfried Lane ($3,643) were allocated to the sidewalk CIP. F. Current Available Funds: As of February 2010, $1,081,922 is available in cash proffer funds. Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP (see Attachment A). Non-Cash Proffers A. Proffered: Two of the three rezonings that were approved this quarter, ZMA 2007-2 Timberwood Common Phase II and ZMA 2008-7 ATNA, only proffered to limit uses on the property. The third rezoning, ZMA 2005-3 UVA Research Park -North Fork, amended the previous rezoning and proffered several road improvements, recreation and greenway dedications, and a land dedication. B. A ffordable Housing: A Liberty Hall site plan approved this quarter designates eight affordable housing units. The Housing Department will determine whether a prequalified purchaser is available. If a prequalified purchaser is not available, the County can elect to receive a cash contribution of $19,100 per unit. BUDGET IMPACT: Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that help fund important County projects that would otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. Non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. One dedicated full-time staff person continues to monitor and collect proffered funds, improvements and land dedications with the assistance of other County staff and outside agencies. RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff welcomes any comments for improvements from the Board that they may wish to see in the future. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY10 Third Quarter Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Third Quarter Financial Report for the nine months ended March 31, 2010 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Wiggans, Walters, Davis, and Ms. Vinzant LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 05, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The attached Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of March 31, 2010. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous fiscal year. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs. DISCUSSION: ($ in Millions) A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report: a. Revenues: Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to be $5.768 million (2.7%) less than appropriations of $217.145 million, a $0.857 million increase over the previous estimate presented with the Second Quarter Financial Report. Revenues combined with the use of $2.538 million in transfers from other funds and $1.115 million in fund balance (Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance) will total $215.029 million, $5.845 million (2.6%) less than Budget. Most national indicators suggest that economic output is expanding, although growth is likely to remain weak for some time as the slack labor market and tight credit constrain consumers. Nationally, the Consumer Confidence Index of leading indicators rose 1.0% in February, its eleventh consecutive monthly increase, while the Virginia Leading Index fell 0.1% due to the severe winter weather. The unemployment rate in Virginia rose to 7.7% in February compared to the national unemployment rate of 9.7%. Nationally, the manufacturing sector marked its eight consecutive month above the expansionary threshold. The Virginia economy, although weak, continues to outperform the national economy. Positive conditions should accelerate once employment recovers. However, it will still take some time before we begin to experience significant improvements. Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY10 fiscal year: Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.223 million (0.2%) less than Budget, an increase of $0.971 million over the previous Financial Report. The improvement is due both to the current year impact from parcels formerly under land-use reclassified as fully taxable as well as improved collections. Revalidation revenues attributed to prior year roll-backs are set aside for one-time uses and not classified as general fund revenues. Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.722 million (8.1%) less than Budget, an increase of $0.183 million over the previous Financial Report. The improvement is due to increased business equipment purchases as economic conditions improve and the replacement of lower valued vehicles by higher valued vehicles from the Cash for Clunkers program. AGENDA TITLE: FY10 Third Quarter Financial Report May 05, 2010 Page 2 Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.555 million (25.5%), a decrease of $0.252 from the previous Financial Report. Delinquent fees previously implemented have encouraged timely payment resulting in subsequent reduced delinquent fee collections. Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.325 million (10.6%) less than Budget, a decrease of $0.225 million from the previous Financial Report. Taxpayers continue to reduce discretionary spending due to economic uncertainty. The volume of internet sales frequently treated as tax exempt has increased significantly. Increased business development in surrounding localities has shifted taxable sales from Albemarle to these other localities. Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to be $0.892 million (8.9%) less than Budget, a decrease of $0.187 million from the previous Financial Report. BPOL revenues are dependent upon economic activity. Sales tax revenue trends are a good indicator of BPOL revenues. Utility Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.746 million (7.9%) less than Budget, a decrease of $0.027 million from the previous Financial Report. Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.450 million (7.8%) less than Budget, a decrease of $0.150 million from the previous Financial Report. Consumers are continuing to eat more at home and visiting restaurants less frequently while minimizing discretionary spending. Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.836 million (8.1%) less than Budget, an increase of $0.553 million over the previous Financial Report. The improvement is due to Public Service tax, transient occupancy fees, and recordation fees. Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.251 million (6.0%), an increase of $0.026 million over the previous Financial Report. State Revenues are estimated to be $0.429 million (1.8%) less than Budget, a decrease of $0.150 million from the previous Financial Report. The decrease is due to budget actions of the General Assembly in a number of areas. Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have not been analyzed for this report. b. Expenditures: The Office of Management and Budget estimates that total fiscal year expenditures, including transfers, will be $212.050 million, an $8.824 million (4.0%) savings from Budget. The savings include frozen positions, operational savings, and reduced transfers including schools and capital. i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $78.296 million, a 5.0% savings of $4.134 million from Budget: A significant portion of departmental expenditure savings is attributable to savings in salaries and benefits from the County’s expanded hiring freeze and salary lapse, totaling $1.963 million. These savings include operational savings across all functional areas for expenditures related to fuel, utilities, telecommunications, travel and training and other areas. Staff is better able to identify operational savings in the Third Quarter Financial Report because nine months of actual expenditures for the fiscal year have occurred and only three months remain. These savings also include reductions in the transfers to the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and Bright Stars Fund totaling $295,000. These savings are allocated by functional area as follows: Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.268 million, a savings of $0.636 million. Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.702 million, a savings of $0.146 million. AGENDA TITLE: FY10 Third Quarter Financial Report May 05, 2010 Page 3 Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.428 million, a savings of $0.980 million Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.537 million, a savings of $0.497 million. Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.064 million, a savings of $1.019 million. Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.306 million, a savings of $0.104 million. Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.991 million, a savings of $0.752 million. ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and refunds are expected to total $18.458 million, a savings of $0.127 million. iii. Transfers are expected to total $115.296 million, a 3.8% savings of $4.563 million from Budget: Transfer to the School Division is expected to total $97.021 million, a 3.1% savings of $3.129 million. This transfer amount is $0.449 million higher than the projected transfer amount of $96.572 in the Second Quarter Financial Report. This is due to the projected increase in shared revenues detailed earlier in this report, particularly regarding real estate revenues. Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are expected to total $18.274 million, a savings of $1.433 million. This amount is $0.117 million higher than the projected transfer amount of $18.157 million in the Second Quarter Financial Report and reflects the projected increase in revenues detailed earlier in this report. c. Revenues less Expenditures: This report indicates that the fiscal year will end with $2.979 million of revenues in excess of expenditures. Revenues and transfers are projected to experience a $5.845 million shortfall which should be offset by $8.824 million in expenditure savings. This is an increase of $2.653 million from the $0.326 million surplus amount projected in the Second Quarter Financial Report. This increase, as detailed in this report, reflects an increase in projected revenues from the Second Quarter Financial Report of $0.857 million and a decrease in projected expenditures from the Second Quarter Financial Report of $1.796 million. The $2.979 million surplus results in Projected Available Funds as of 6/30/10 of $21.754 million, which equals approximately 8.3% of the FY 2010 General Fund and School Budgets. This exceeds the 8.0% level specified for this indicator in the County’s Financial Policies. . B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report: The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time. Revenues: Real Estate Taxes, Other Local Taxes, and Transfers from Other Funds show positive growth over FY09. Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Business Licenses, Utility Taxes, Food & Beverage Taxes, Other Local Revenues, State Revenues, Federal Revenues, and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from FY09. Expenditures: Judicial, Public Safety, Parks & Culture, and Non-Departmental show anticipated increases over FY09. Administration, Public Works, Human Services, Community Development, Non-School, and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY09. C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report: The report indicates that the County: Had an Audited FY09 Undesignated Fund Balance of $19.845 million as of June 30, 2009, Appropriated $1.070 million for Budgeted FY10 Initiatives and Reappropriations, Has a remaining June 30, 2009 Fund Balance of $18.775 million, Has not approved subsequent appropriations, and AGENDA TITLE: FY10 Third Quarter Financial Report May 05, 2010 Page 4 Has Projected Unobligated Funds of $18.775 million as of May 05, 2010. D. Budget Impact: This Financial Report is based on audited FY09 financial data and nine months of financial data for FY10. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required . ATTACHMENTS; A – General Fund Quarterly Financial Report B – General Fund Budget Comparison Report C – General Fund Balance Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A FY 08/09 Current FY 09/10 Full Year Actual 03/31/09 YTD Actual YTD Actual as % of Full Year 07/01/09 Adopted (1) 03/31/10 Appropriations 03/31/10 YTD Actual YTD Actual as % of Estimate Revenue Estimate (2) $ Variances Est-Approp Variances as % of Appropriations Revenues: Real Estate Taxes, Current $113.265 $56.608 50.0%$113.898 $113.898 $58.064 51.1%$113.675 -$0.223 -0.2% Personal Property Taxes, Current 20.946 11.881 56.7%21.147 21.147 10.108 52.0%19.425 -1.722 -8.1% Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 2.708 0.864 31.9%2.176 2.176 2.247 82.3%2.731 0.555 25.5% Sales Taxes 11.974 7.203 60.2%12.500 12.500 6.776 60.6%11.175 -1.325 -10.6% Business Licenses 9.608 5.193 54.0%10.065 10.065 4.448 48.5%9.173 -0.892 -8.9% Utility Taxes 8.939 5.664 63.4%9.395 9.395 2.938 34.0%8.649 -0.746 -7.9% Food and Beverage Taxes 5.447 3.554 65.3%5.750 5.750 3.438 64.9%5.300 -0.450 -7.8% Other Local Taxes 9.470 4.798 50.7%10.332 10.332 6.332 66.7%9.496 -0.836 -8.1% Other Local Revenue 4.638 3.150 67.9%4.177 4.220 2.974 66.5%4.471 0.251 6.0% State Revenue 23.408 14.022 59.9%23.486 23.486 14.000 60.7%23.058 -0.429 -1.8% Federal Revenue 4.318 2.793 64.7%4.138 4.176 2.824 66.9%4.224 0.048 1.2% Total Revenues 214.722 115.731 53.9%217.064 217.145 114.147 54.0%211.376 -5.768 -2.7% Use of Other Funds 1.366 0.134 9.8%1.781 2.659 0.137 5.4%2.538 -0.122 -4.6% Use of Fund Balance 1.816 1.362 75.0%0.146 1.070 0.802 72.0%1.115 0.045 4.2% Total $217.905 $117.227 53.8%$218.991 $220.873 $115.086 53.5%$215.029 ($5.845)-2.6% FY 08/09 Current FY 09/10 Full Year Actual 03/31/09 YTD Actual YTD Actual as % of Full Year 07/01/09 Adopted (1) 03/31/10 Appropriations 03/31/10 YTD Actual YTD Actual as % of Estimate Expenditure Estimate (3) $ Variances Est-Approp Variances as % of Appropriations Expenditures: Administration $10.953 $7.710 70.4%$10.823 $10.903 $7.405 72.1%$10.268 ($0.636)-5.8% Judicial 3.630 2.756 75.9%3.816 3.848 2.744 74.1%3.702 ($0.146)-3.8% Public Safety 28.198 21.309 75.6%29.204 29.408 21.355 75.1%28.428 ($0.980)-3.3% Public Works 4.766 3.462 72.6%4.593 5.034 3.340 73.6%4.537 ($0.497)-9.9% Human Services 18.074 11.240 62.2%19.084 19.084 11.408 63.2%18.064 ($1.019)-5.3% Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.196 5.623 90.7%6.403 6.410 5.641 89.5%6.306 ($0.104)-1.6% Community Development 7.488 5.956 79.5%7.497 7.743 5.628 80.5%6.991 ($0.752)-9.7% Subtotal Operations 79.305 58.057 73.2%81.420 82.429 57.521 73.5%78.296 ($4.134)-5.0% Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)13.850 13.744 99.2%17.713 18.586 18.095 98.0%18.458 ($0.127)-0.7% Transfers: Transfer to School Division 97.546 59.048 60.5%100.151 100.151 48.773 50.3%97.021 ($3.129)-3.1% Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 24.747 15.337 62.0%19.708 19.708 6.848 37.5%18.274 ($1.433)-7.3% Subtotal transfers 122.293 74.385 60.8%119.858 119.858 55.621 48.2%115.296 ($4.563)-3.8% Total $215.448 $146.186 67.9%$218.991 $220.873 $131.237 61.9%$212.050 ($8.824)-4.0% 7/1/09 > 03/31/10 = 75% of year Estimated Revenues in Excess of Expenditures (Deficit)$2.979 (1) July 01, 2009 Adopted General Fund FY10 Budget (2) Revenue Estimate as of April 22, 2010 June 30, 2009 Projected Unobligated Funds Available May 05, 2010 $18.775 (3) Expenditure Estimate as of April 22, 2010 June 30, 2010 Projected Available Funds $21.754 County of Albemarle General Fund Financial Report Year-To-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2010 ($ in millions) Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are over expenditures Attachment B County of Albemarle General Fund Budget Comparison Report Year-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2010 ($ in millions) - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Services Parks, Rec & Culture Community Development Non- departmental Non-School Transfers$ in millionsExpenditures 08/09 Actual July 1 Adopted 09/10 Appropriations 09/10 Estimate - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Real Estate Tax Personal Property Tax Sales Tax Business Licenses Utility Tax Food_Beverage Tax Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Transfers Other Funds Fund Balance$ in millionsRevenues 08/09 Actual July 1 Adopted 09/10 Appropriations 09/10 Estimate 95.0 95.5 96.0 96.5 97.0 97.5 98.0 98.5 99.0 99.5 100.0 100.5 1$ in millionsTransfer to School Division Attachment C June 30, 2009 Audited Fund Balance 19.845 Less FY10 Appropriations Approved to Date: Budgeted FY10 Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)0.146 Reappropriation of FY09 outstanding purchase orders 0.266 Reappropriation of FY09 uncompleted projects 0.702 Route 20 Visitors Center fund transfer of remaining balance -0.045 Total Appropriations Approved to Date 1.070 June 30, 2009 Fund Balance Available 18.775 Less Appropriations approved subsequent to this report:0.000 June 30, 2009 Unobligated Funds Available May 5, 2010 $18.775 Return to exec summary General Fund Balance Report Year-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2010 County of Albemarle ($ in millions) 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 (434) 296-5832 Community Development Department 2010 FIRST QUARTER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT County of Albemarle INDEX Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 - 2 - 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 Dev Rural 1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89 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 92 89 Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 181 2010 2010 Totals 181 0 0 During the first quarter of 2010, 177 certificates of occupancy were issued for 181 dwelling units. There was 1 certificate of occupancy issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 200820082007 2007 0 151 Quarter 198 127 Totals 202 Totals 102 207 100 YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 511613 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS 128 107 518 2009 Totals 104 84 2009 132 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 First Quarter Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 1st Quarter 2010 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 10 0 1 56 0 0 1 0 68 38% JACK JOUETT 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 3% RIVANNA 20 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 24 13% SAMUEL MILLER 18 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 23 13% SCOTTSVILLE 26 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 29 16% WHITE HALL 21 0 1 0 8 0 1 1 32 18% TOTAL 99 1 5 56 8 0 10 2 181 100% 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 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 16 9% CROZET COMMUNITY 5 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 14 8% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 3 0 1 56 0 0 0 0 60 33% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 8 0 2 56 8 0 0 0 74 41% RIVANNA VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% 22 0 5 56 8 0 0 1 92 51% RURAL AREA 1 17 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 11% RURAL AREA 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 12% RURAL AREA 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 19 10% RURAL AREA 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 29 16% 77 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 89 49% 99 1 5 56 8 0 10 2 181 100% 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 - 1st Quarter 2010 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 0 0 0 5% Baker Butler 2 0 0 0 1% Broadus Wood 6 0 0 1 4% Brownsville 11 1 8 1 12% Cale 2 0 0 0 1% Crozet 3 0 0 0 2% Greer 3 1 0 0 2% Hollymead 2 1 0 0 33% Meriwether Lewis 6 0 0 0 3% Murray 6 0 0 0 4% Red Hill 6 0 0 3 5% Scottsville 11 0 0 2 7% Stone Robinson 15 2 0 2 10% Stony Point 8 0 0 0 4% Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 1% Yancey 8 0 0 1 5% 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 68 2 1 6 77 JOUETT 5 7 1 1 14 RIVANNA 24 20 2 15 61 S. MILLER 23 15 1 0 39 SCOTTSVILLE 29 15 1 3 48 WHITE HALL 28 27 0 3 58 * 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. 379,800$ TOTAL 6,315,100$ 1,548,000$ 9,551,000$ 6,355,665$ 1,166,000$ 775,000$ 1818 2,525,465$ 65,000$ 1,800,000$ 22,000$ 145,000$ 2 3 4 59 .. 100% 28 2973,318,800$ 39,389,202$ 19 8 1 9 6 8 9 13 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 9 2 8 21 0 0 0 00 00 210 853,000$ 0 0 AA 0 0 1 Amount-$ Amount-$ 942,000$ 1,815,175$ 0 3,800,000$ 4,324,947$ 6 8,212,465$ 970,000$ 5,643,000$ 4,518,490$ 368,000$ 3,923,400$ 6,951,000$ -$ Amount-$ 135,000$ 1,527,100$ 0 177 238,022$ 826,750$ 8623,532,990$ Amount-$ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Amount-$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,157,550$ 0 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF 0 0 5 56 1 -$ 7,461,887$ 0 0 0 0 0 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 56 99 1 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 INDEX Community Development Department 2010 FIRST QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 - 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 2010 Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals 1st Quarter 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 115 2nd Quarter 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 0 3rd Quarter 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 0 4th Quarter 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 0 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 91 24 Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 20082007 1720 1079 During the first quarter of 2010, 114 building permits were issued for 115 dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2010 115831 418 339 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 575599 830 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 Area2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units Other Units SF Unit*Through First Quarter Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 1st Quarter 2010 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 7 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 27 23% JACK JOUETT 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 5% RIVANNA 10 0 27 0 0 0 0 1 38 33% SAMUEL MILLER 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 10% SCOTTSVILLE 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3% WHITE HALL 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 28 24% TOTAL 57 2 52 0 0 0 0 4 115 100% 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 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 9% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 27 23% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 4% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 9 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 45 39% CROZET COMMUNITY 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 18% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 9 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 25 22% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 28 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 46 40% RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 37 2 52 0 0 0 0 0 91 79% RURAL AREA 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 7% RURAL AREA 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2% RURAL AREA 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 10% RURAL AREA 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2% 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 24 21% 57 2 52 0 0 0 0 4 115 100% 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 - 1st Quarter 2010 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 5 4 0 0 8% Baker Butler 0 0 0 0 0% Broadus Wood 4 0 0 0 3% Brownsville 20 0 0 0 18% Cale 3 0 0 0 3% Crozet 3 0 0 0 4% Greer 0 5 0 0 4% Hollymead 9 16 0 0 22% Meriwether Lewis 3 0 0 0 3% Murray 2 0 0 0 3% Red Hill 3 0 0 0 3% Scottsville 1 0 0 0 1% Stone Robinson 0 27 0 0 23% Stony Point 1 0 0 0 2% Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 1% Yancey 2 0 0 0 2% 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 27 22 2 20 71 JOUETT 6 10 1 5 22 RIVANNA 38 25 7 27 97 S. MILLER 11 24 1 5 41 SCOTTSVILLE 4 16 2 7 29 WHITE HALL 28 27 0 11 66 * 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. 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 10,540,000$ 7,578,200$ 114 429,500$ 1,084,250$ 124 7,440,834$ 3,457,466$ 16,189,766$ 6,584,004$ 11,350,500$ 9,039,650$ 377,200$ 97,500$ 478,670$ 5,957,649$ 210,000$ Amount-$ 638,756$ 2,428,023$ 2,550,000$ 7,925,000$ 4,052,981$ 625,466$ 0 0 15,000$ 6,662,000$ 5,500$ 20,000$ 0 Amount-$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 21 1 3 5 0 0 5 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL UNITS 27 2 1 2 4 3 964,010$ 1 1 4 3 115 1 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. TOTAL 100% 75 3262,861,225$ 54,062,220$ Amount-$ 171,000$ 984,515$ 0 267,000$ Amount-$ 57 2 TOTAL 38,603,830$ 5,684,665$ 13 6,912,500$ -$ Amount-$ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services National Tourism Week May 8 through May 16, 2010 WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry in Albemarle County continues to be vital to our economic stability and growth; and it contributes significantly to our County’s cultural and social climate; and WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Albemarle County community, contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, international travel and relations, peace, understanding and good will; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the Virginia Tourism Corporation reported $268.8 million in tourism revenues were attributed to County businesses; and approximately 2,866 people in Albemarle County work in fields directly related to the tourism and hospitality industry, including lodging, food service, and attractions; and payroll for these individuals was $50.6 million; and WHEREAS, 1 of every 8 non-farm jobs in the United States is created directly or indirectly or is induced by travel and tourism; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association has estimated that each U.S. household would pay $1,000 more in taxes without the tax revenue generated by the travel and tourism industry; and WHEREAS, every citizen in Albemarle County benefits from the tourism industry; and it is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Ann Mallek, Chair of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of May 8 through May 16, 2010 as NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK in Albemarle County, and I call upon all citizens to recognize the value of the tourism industry in our community and to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities. Signed and sealed this 5th day of May, 2010. Return to regular agenda Biological Condition at StreamWatch Long-term Monitoring Sites – Summer 2006 through Spring 2009 At A Glance • Over 70% of StreamWatch’s 32 representative monitoring sites failed the Virginia aquatic life water quality standard during this assessment period. Most failing sites were moderately degraded. Five sites (13%) were badly degraded. Nearly 30% of sites were in good or very good condition. (Representative sites are selected to represent the range of streams typical of the Rivanna basin). • Average scores at representative tributary sites have not changed significantly during our 6½ years of comprehensive monitoring. • Reference streams (nearly pristine streams draining minimally disturbed watersheds) are significantly healthier than the healthiest representative streams. • See map and table on following pages for information about the health of specific sites. Or visit the Google Map display of this assessment at www.streamwatch.org/stream-conditions 1) Background Data for this assessment spans the period from summer 2006 through spring 2009. An average of seven benthic macroinvertebrate samples was collected at each of 35 sites (32 representative sites and three reference sites). Samples consist of over 200 organisms and are scored per an index that reflects the composition and diversity of the array of captured organisms. Site health is assessed based on all scores generated during the assessment window. The assessment procedure is described in detail in our 2008 report (Biological Condition at 33 Rivanna Basin Long- term Monitoring Sites — 2005-2007, available at www.streamwatch.org/reports ). 2) No overall change detected. The time window for our previous assessment was winter 2004-05 through fall 2007. The new assessment shows no detectable change in the biological health of representative streams as a whole since the 2005-2007 assessment. As for individual streams: At four sites ratings improved. At two sites, ratings declined. In most cases, rating changes reflected slight increases or decreases in sites’ scores rather than major changes in biological health. At one site— Rivanna @ Milton—health declined from fair to poor. This marks only the second case of “poor health” at a mainstem site, the other being South Fork Rivanna @ Forks of Rivanna. However, scores fluctuate greatly at this site and our confidence in this assessment is moderate. (For most assessments, our confidence is strong). Page 1 good 22% very good 6% poor 13% fair 56% very poor r 3% Over 70% of representative Rivanna basin stream sites fail the Virginia aquatic life water quality standard (fair, poor, very poor). Nearly 30% of sites meet the standard (good, very good). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12spring 2003fall 2003spring 2004fall 2004spring 2005fall 2005spring 2006fall 2006spring 2007fall 2007spring 2008fall 2008spring 2009Average VaSOS scores0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Average ASCI scoresAverage seasonal biological index scores from 20 re presentative Rivanna basin tributary monitoring sites. Scores for two indexes were calculated. Virginia Save Our Streams index average scores are shown in grey. Adapted Stream Condition Index average scores are shown in black. continued on page 4 StreamWatch · P.O. Box 181 · Ivy, VA 22945 · 434-242-1145 · www.streamwatch.org StreamWatch partners: Albemarle County · City of Charlottesville · Fluvanna County · The Nature Conservancy Rivanna Conservation Society · Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority · Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Page 2 Biological Condition of Rivanna Basin Streams Summer 2006 through Spring 2009 Colored dots indicate biological health at StreamWatch representative monitoring sites in the Rivanna watershed. Stream and site names can be referenced in table on following page. Site # on map Site Name Locality # of samples Average biological index score Biological condition Change from last assess- ment Assess-ment confidence 3 Roach/Buffalo River north of 648 Greene 7 53.6 Fair same strong 6 Preddy Creek west of Rosewood Drive Greene 8 55.4 Fair same strong 1 Doyles River upper @ National Park Boundary Albemarle 7 77.1 Very Good same strong 2 Lynch River @ 603 Albemarle 9 64.2 Good same strong 4 Swift Run @ 605 Albemarle 7 60.2 Fair same strong 5 North Fork @ Advance Mills Albemarle 7 51.0 Fair same strong 7 Buck Mountain Creek upper west of 666 - A Albemarle 8 70.4 Very Good better strong 8 Buck Mountain Creek @ 665 - A Albemarle 7 61.4 Fair same strong 9 Moormans River @ 601 Albemarle 7 64.5 Fair same strong 10 Mechums River @ 601 Albemarle 7 63.5 Good better strong 11 Doyles River @ 674 Albemarle 6 66.4 Good same strong 12 Lickinghole Creek south of Fairwinds Lane Albemarle 7 59.2 Fair same strong 13 Ivy Creek @ 601 Albemarle 6 52.0 Fair same strong 14 South Fork @ Forks of Rivanna Albemarle 11 43.0 Poor same moderate 15 North Fork @ Forks of Rivanna Albemarle 5 54.2 Fair same strong 19 Rivanna @ Milton Albemarle 10 48.5 Poor worse moderate 20 Mechunk Creek upper @ 600 Albemarle 7 49.4 Fair same strong 22 Carroll Creek in Glenmore Albemarle 7 39.4 Poor same strong 23 Buck Island Creek @ 729 Albemarle 7 59.0 Fair same strong - Albemarle County reference1 stream #1 Albemarle 7 76.5 Very Good same strong - Albemarle County reference1 stream #2 Albemarle 5 75.7 Very Good N/A strong 16 Meadow Creek west of Locust Lane Ct C'ville 6 26.3 Poor same strong 17 Rivanna @ Darden Towe C'ville 10 58.3 Fair same moderate 18 Moores Creek near Woolen Mills C'ville 6 21.2 Very Poor same strong 21 Mechunk Creek @ 759 Fluvanna 6 61.2 Good same strong 24 Rivanna @ Crofton - A Fluvanna 9 54.9 Fair same moderate 25 Cunningham Creek Middle Fork upstream of Bell Farms Ln Fluvanna 6 46.2 Fair N/A strong 26 Rivanna 5.2 km downstream of Palmyra Fluvanna 6 61.2 Fair N/A moderate 27 Cunningham Creek @ 15 Fluvanna 6 60.7 Fair same strong 28 Raccoon Creek @ 15 Fluvanna 9 66.7 Good same strong 29 Ballinger Creek @ 625 Fluvanna 6 62.9 Fair worse strong 30 Long Island Creek @ 601 Fluvanna 9 69.4 Good better strong 31 Carys Creek @ 15 Fluvanna 7 55.7 Fair same strong 32 Rivanna @ Rivanna Mills Fluvanna 8 64.4 Good better moderate - Fluvanna County reference1 stream #1 Fluvanna 4 73.9 Very Good N/A strong Biological health at StreamWatch Rivanna basin monitoring sites. Use site numbers to locate sites on map. This assessment is based on data collected from summer 2006 through spring 2009. The window for our previous assessment was winter 2004/05 through fall 2007. 1) With the exception of reference sites, the above site set was selected to be representative of Rivanna basin streams. The purpose of reference sites is to document conditions in streams that drain nearly pristine watersheds. Reference site locations are unpublished at landowners' request. Page 3 We also detect no significant change over the entire 6½-year span of our monitoring program. The chart on page one shows average seasonal scores at the 20 representative tributary sites possessing the longest data records (going back to spring 2003). These data suggest biological condition for the watershed as a whole has been consistently fair from 2003 to the present. However, our monitoring method may not be sensitive enough to detect subtle changes in moderately disturbed streams. Since the overall condition of the system is moderately disturbed, early stages of trends—either improvement or further degradation—may not be detected by our biomonitoring program. It is worth noting that seasonal scores generated by our professional protocol (Adapted Stream Condition Index) show less variance than scores generated by the volunteer-friendly Virginia Save Our Streams method. As discussed in earlier reports, biological scores at our 6 stations on the mainstem Rivanna River fluctuate more than scores at tributary sites. The Rivanna, of course, is much bigger than its tributaries. We are not certain whether score variability reflects true fluctuation in biological health or a weakness in our protocol when applied to the distinctively larger mainstem system. Because of this uncertainty we characterize our confidence about mainstem assessments as “moderate”. As with the tributary sites, we do not detect an overall trend in the mainstem over the last 6½ years. 3) Sites that meet the Virginia standard may be degraded relative to natural streams. During this assessment period StreamWatch expanded the Long-term Monitoring Program to include 3 new reference sites. Reference sites are situated on atypical streams that drain nearly pristine watersheds (e.g. 99% forested, no habitations). These reference sites allow us to compare typical (representative) streams to nearly natural streams. In total we have three permanent reference sites. One of these, Doyles River upper @ National Park Boundary, is also a representative site. (The National Park comprises about 5% of the Rivanna basin, so its streams should be represented). The other reference sites are located on private property in Piedmont portions of the watershed. During this assessment period we also maintained a temporary 4th reference site in conjunction with our 3-year land use study. Biological index scores at reference sites were consistently higher than at representative sites. Even our eight healthiest representative sites—all the sites we assess as “good” and “very good” and that meet the Virginia standard—did not approach the quality we found in reference streams (see chart above). This disparity reminds us that streams that meet the Virginia standard may be degraded relative to natural conditions. In assessing Doyles River upper @ National Park Boundary we departed from our automatic assessment procedure. In winter 2008-2009 we documented a blackfly population boom in many Rivanna streams. The phenomenon was particularly noticeable in reference and high-quality streams, and was sufficiently intense to depress diversity and therefore index scores. Blackfly population booms can happen naturally, so we reviewed all samples from winter 08/09 that could affect sites' assessed condition. There were several cases in which scores were depressed because of the blackflies’ dominance, but only one (upper Doyles) in which the depressed score tipped the stream into a lower assessment tier. The automatic assessment algorithm would have placed this very healthy stream into the "fair" category. Applying professional judgment, we discarded the anomalous winter 08/09 sample and assessed the stream as "very good". Scores from this site are usually the highest of any in the watershed. StreamWatch is a collaborative program of Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, Fluvanna County, The Nature Conservancy, Rivanna Conservation Society, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. In addition to partner support, we owe thanks to the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund, J&E Berkley Foundation, Virginia Environmental Endowment, generous private donors, and participating landowners. Finally, we extend our profound gratitude to StreamWatch’s dedicated and energetic volunteers. Please visit us at www.streamwatch.org. Page 4 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Healthiest representative sites Reference sitesAverage biological scoresAverage biological index scores at 4 reference condition sites substanially exceed average scores at the 8 representative sites that meet the Virginia aquatic life standard (aproximated by blue bar). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Historic Preservation Committee 2009 Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Historic Preservation Committee’s 2009 annual report STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish, and Ms. Maliszewski LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Historic Preservation Plan was adopted by the Board in September 2000. In April 2001 the Board adopted the “Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County” (Attachment A) as the action agenda to be used for Plan implementation. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) held its first meeting on January 8, 2002. The HPC last presented an update to the Board in November, 2008. STRATEGIC PLAN: Relevant Goal: Enhance the quality of life. The cultural resources of the County play a major role in establishing the historic and visual character of the area, as well as our sense of community identity, which contribute to our quality of life. DISCUSSION: In 2009 the HPC made progress on several of its Priority Recommendations. Its efforts focused on conducting heritage education programs and learning more about the demolition process in order to better document historic resources before they are demolished and to promote the preservation of historic resources . Attachment B is a summary of the HPC’s accomplishments. BUDGET IMPACT: This is a committee status report. As such, it has no budget impact. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the Historic Preservation Committee’s report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County Attachment B: Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee: Accomplishments in 2009 Return to regular agenda Attachment A PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION in ALBEMARLE COUNTY 1. Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning the County's historic preservation program. 2. Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's historic resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification of all historic sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric archaeological sites, and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources historic survey inventory data on Albemarle County resources. This information base should be consulted so that historic resources may be fully considered in the County's development review process, and should be made easily available to interested citizens for educational and informational purposes. This information base should also be coordinated with the County's GIS system. 3. Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of their property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation -related information concerning their historic resource. 4. Establish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan. 5. In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or renovation whenever possible. 6. Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other voluntary preservation measures. 7. Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County’s historic resources through heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational brochures on various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register listing, tax incentives, County policy, etc. 8. The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and implement community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These events should be coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National Preservation Week. 9. To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and developers of property within the viewshed. 10. Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in implementation of the County's historic preservation plan. 11. Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including the establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation. 12. Two years after the adoption of these recommendations, evaluate the County's progress on these preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for an historic overlay district ordinance. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment B Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee Accomplishments in 2009 Preservation Week Relevant Priority Recommendation: #7: heritage education; #8: community events Summary: HPC members contributed to the production of a “Lost Albemarle” exhibit which was on display in the COB 2nd floor lobby in the spring of 2009. The exhibit, which identified and illustrated several important County historic resources that had been demolished, was mounted as part of Preservation Week 2009. The exhibit moved to COB 5th Street in late summer and then to Mountainside Senior Living in Crozet in early fall. It was on display there in the main entrance for most of the fall. In early January 2010 the exhibit was moved to the Colonnades Retirement Community on Barracks Road. On January 13th, during the Colonnades’ social hour, Steven Meeks, President of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society and HPC member, presented the Lost Albemarle exhibit and displayed and discussed each of the Society’s additional 18 panels covering lost buildings in Albemarle County. The HPC’s display will move to the Scottsville Library in March. Ongoing efforts to display the exhibit focus on public facilities such as libraries, schools, community centers and residential communities. Work is also being done to make the exhibit available on the committee’s page on the County’s website. Website Updates Relevant Priority Recommendation: #7: Heritage education Summary: The HPC’s page on the county’s website has been updated with maps of each of the county’s National Register Historic Districts. Rosenwald Schools Relevant Priority Recommendation: #7: Heritage education; #8: Community events; #10: Resources; #11: Financial incentives Summary: Albemarle County was awarded a Community Preservation Grant from Preservation Piedmont for use by the HPC to help locate, research, and disseminate information about eight historic African-American Rosenwald Schools in the County. HPC members have completed research on the schools. Members also worked with the St. John's Baptist Church to research the St. John’s school and to assist the congregation with a homecoming celebration for their alumni. After weeks of preparation, several members of the HPC helped to record 24 oral interviews during one whirlwind day in June. The results of this work can be found on-line at: http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/schools/index.html. Real Estate Letters Relevant Priority Recommendation: #3: Owner notification; #6 Promote preservation Summary: 29 letters were sent to new property owners to inform them of the historic character of their houses and to offer the HPC as an information resource. Demolitions Relevant Priority Recommendation: #5: Document prior to demolition; #6 Promote preservation Summary: The HPC had a discussion with the County Building Official to learn about the requirements of the demolition process. A subcommittee of the HPC met with representatives of Fire/Rescue to discuss training burns. The subcommittee is working to finalize a process, in coordination with Fire/Rescue, to promote documentation and salvage of historic resources prior to those burns. The subcommittee has also begun work on promoting greater salvage of historic building materials through the Community Development Department’s demolition permit process. In 2009 twenty demolition permits were reviewed. Documentation Relevant Priority Recommendation: #5: Document prior to demolition Summary: Members of the HPC helped to document a house and barns at Sutherland Farm following application for a demolition permit. The historic buildings were subsequently allowed to remain standing. Database Relevant Priority Recommendation: #2 Compile comprehensive information base Summary: Members of the HPC have begun to work with the Piedmont Environmental Council to find ways to incorporate more information on National Register District buildings into the county’s GIS and CountyView systems. Ordinance Research Relevant Priority Recommendation: #12: Evaluate need for historic overlay ordinance Summary: HPC members have completed an initial round of research into historic preservation ordinances from other Virginia counties as background for determining Albemarle’s preservation needs. The committee has begun discussions about the ways in which historic preservation and heritage tourism can help improve the local economy. Return to exec summary 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA2009-00003 Farm Wineries SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance so that its current farm winery regulations are consistent with Virginia Code Section 15.2-2288.3, and in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s zoning regulations and meet the intent of the County’s Rural Area Plan and Rural Areas Zoning District. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, McCulley, Kamptner LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation limiting the extent to which localities, under their zoning powers, may regulate various uses and activities associated with farm wineries intended to promote the farm winery industry. The Planning Commission passed a Resolution of Intent on April 14, 2009 to consider amendments that assure consistency of the Albemarle County zoning ordinance provisions with the Virginia code. On July 15, 2009, staff held a roundtable with approximately 20 community and industry interests and received input on an initial set of concepts that would form the basis for new zoning text language. On November 10, 2009 , the Planning Commission held a work session on this matter, received input from the public attending and provided direction to staff regarding possible changes. On February 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a second work session, again receiving input f rom the public, and authorized staff to schedule a public hearing on the amendments, incorporating the Commission’s input regarding waiver allowances for setbacks. On March 16, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments which incorporated the Commission’s direction from prior work sessions. DISCUSSION: For the Planning Commission’s public hearing, staff incorporated the change regarding setbacks requested by the Commission on February 16 as well as other minor clarifying language into the proposed amendment. Most specifically, language was added to Section 5.1.25(f.) stating that, “the zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfa re; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.” Following the public hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZTA2009-00003 Farm Wineries as recommended by staff with the following change and addition: 1. Change definition of “agricultural product sign” to incorporate “farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets”. 2. Add the noise standard for outdoor amplified music. Attachments I and II reflect the Planning Commission’s recommendation. BUDGET IMPACT: No direct impacts are anticipated, although amendments that better define allowed uses and activities at farm wineries consistent with the Virginia Code should enable local winery and public interests a clearer understanding of what is allowed and result in fewer questions of staff and greater efficiencies in use determinations and enforcement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZTA2009-00003 Farm Wineries as provided in Attachment I. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT I: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment (Clean Version) ATTACHMENT II: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment (Compare Version) ATTACHMENT III: February 16, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report w/attachments 2 Planning Commission minutes: April 14, 2009; July 15, 2009; November 10, 2009; February 16, 2010; March 16, 2010 Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 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, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Accessory Use, Building or Structure: A subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use, building, or structure, and located upon land zoned to allow the primary use, building or structure; provided that a subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use, building or structure need not be located upon the same lot occupied by the primary farm use, building, or structure. (Amended 10-9-02) . . . Agritourism. Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions, regardless of whether or not the participant paid to participate in the activity. . . . Farm Wwinery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard, orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural products predominantly grown or produced on such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural pr oducts grown or produced elsewhere one or more lots in Albemarle County licensed as a farm winery under Virginia Code § 4.1-207. (Added 12-16-81) . . . Farm winery event. An event conducted at a farm winery on one or more days where the purpose is agritourism or to promote wine sales including, but not limited to, gatherings not otherwise expressly authorized as a use under section 5.1.25(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) through (b)(1 0) including, but not limited to wine fairs, receptions where wine is sold or served; wine club meetings and activities; wine tasting educational seminars; wine tasting luncheons, business meetings, and corporate luncheons with a focus on selling wines; gatherings with the ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 2 purpose of promoting sales to the trade, such as restaurants , distributors, and local chamber of commerce activities; winemakers’ dinners where wine is paired with food; agritourism promotions; and fundraisers and charity events. . . . Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15: (1.1) Agricultural product sign. The term “agricultural product sign” means a sign or signs identifying the produce, crops, animals or poultry raised or quartered on t he property, or identifying farm sales, a farm stand, a farmers’ market or a farm winery. (Added 3-16-05) Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery Each farm winery shall be subject to the following: a. The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. At least fifty-one (51) percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement; (Added 4-1-98) b. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling wine shall not be established until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and is in production; (Added 12-16-81) c. The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e): (Added 4-1-98) 1. On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet; (Added 12-16-81, Amended 1-1-84, Amended 4-1- 98) 2. Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted; (Added 1-1-84, Amended 4-1-98) 3. Special events. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only b y invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for t he purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty (150), or both; (Added 4-1-98) 4. Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four (4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at a farm winery for up to three (3) consecutive days ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 3 which is open to the general public and conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. (Added 4- 1-98) d. A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver; (Added 4-1-98) e. Special events and festivals shall be also subject to the following: (Added 4-1-98) 1. The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such festivals as provided herein: (Added 4-1-98) a. The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health; (Added 4-1-98) b. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be used, and the number of participants allowed to at tend each festival; (Added 4-1-98) c. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and any conditions of such approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon the owner’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance; (Added 4-1-98) d. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the application submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed with the zoning clearance. (Added 4-1-98) 2. No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at such special event or festival; (Added 4-1-98) 3. An outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited; (Added 4-1-98) 4. (Added 4-1-98; Repealed 10-3-01) a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”) are permitted at a farm winery: ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 4 1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the manufacturing of wine including, but not limited to, activities related to the production of the agricultural products used in wine, including but not limited to, growing, planting and harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities. 2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal course of business of the farm winery. 3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. 4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law. 5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law. 6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its agents . b. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm winery, provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales : 1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery. 2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 4. Hayrides. 5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery. 6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery. 7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors. 8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts. 9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard. 10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 11. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are wine sales related uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial impact on the health, ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 5 safety or welfare of the public, and at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. c. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use permit. The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to attend at any time, are permitted at a farm winery with a special use permit, provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales: 1. Farm winery events. 2. Weddings and wedding receptions. 3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or wine sales related uses which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under section 31.6.2, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c) shall include the following: 1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location, height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage, structure or other place where music will be performed. 2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated so they are not substantial. e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit. f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side and rear yard requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structures established after [insert date] and to all tents, off-street parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, provided that the zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction. g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: 1. Restaurants. 2. Helicopter rides. (§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-1-84; Ord. 98-20(1), 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01) ATTACHMENT I Draft: 04/14/10 6 Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(a) and (b) (reference 5.1.25). (Added 11-11-92) Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02) . . . 53. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c). . . . Return to exec summary Go to next attachment ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 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, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Accessory Use, Building or Structure: A subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use, building, or structure, and located upon land zoned to allow the primary use, building or structure; provided that a subordinate use, building or structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use, building or structure need not be located upon the same lot occupied by the primary farm use, building, or structure. (Amended 10-9-02) . . . Agritourism. Any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your-own activities, or natural activities and attractions, regardless of whether or not the participant paid to participate in the activity. . . . Farm Wwinery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard, orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural products predominantly grown or produced on such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or produced elsewhere one or more lots in Albemarle County licensed as a farm winery under Virginia Code § 4.1-207. (Added 12-16-81) . . . Farm winery event. An event conducted at a farm winery on one or more days where the purpose is agritourism or to promote wine sales including, but not limited to, gatherings not otherwise expressly authorized as a use under section 5.1.25(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) through (b)(10) including, but not limited to wine fairs, receptions where wine is sold or served; wine club meetings and activities; wine tasting educational seminars; wine tasting luncheons, business meetings, and corporate luncheons with a focus on selling wines; gatherings with the ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 2 purpose of promoting sales to the trade, such as restaurants, distributors, and local chamber of commerce activities; winemakers’ dinners where wine is paired with food; agritourism promotions; and fundraisers and charity events. . . . Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15: (1.1) Agricultural product sign. The term “agricultural product sign” means a sign or signs identifying the produce, crops, animals or poultry raised or quartered on the property, or identifying farm sales, a farm stand, a farmers’ market or a farm winery. (Added 3-16-05) Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery Each farm winery shall be subject to the following: a. The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. At least fifty-one (51) percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement; (Added 4-1-98) b. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling wine shall not be established until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and is in production; (Added 12-16-81) c. The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e): (Added 4-1-98) 1. On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet; (Added 12-16-81, Amended 1-1-84, Amended 4-1- 98) 2. Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted; (Added 1-1-84, Amended 4-1-98) 3. Special events. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty (150), or both; (Added 4-1-98) 4. Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four (4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at a farm winery for up to three (3) consecutive days ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 3 which is open to the general public and conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. (Added 4- 1-98) d. A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver; (Added 4-1-98) e. Special events and festivals shall be also subject to the following: (Added 4-1-98) 1. The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such festivals as provided herein: (Added 4-1-98) a. The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health; (Added 4-1-98) b. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival; (Added 4-1-98) c. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and any conditions of such approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon the owner’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance; (Added 4-1-98) d. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the application submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed with the zoning clearance. (Added 4-1-98) 2. No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at such special event or festival; (Added 4-1-98) 3. An outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited; (Added 4-1-98) 4. (Added 4-1-98; Repealed 10-3-01) a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”) are permitted at a farm winery: ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 4 1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the manufacturing of wine including, but not limited to, activities related to the production of the agricultural products used in wine, including but not limited to, growing, planting and harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities. 2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal course of business of the farm winery. 3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. 4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law. 5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law. 6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its agents. b. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm winery, provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales: 1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery. 2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 4. Hayrides. 5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery. 6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery. 7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors. 8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts. 9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard. 10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 11. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are wine sales related uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial impact on the health, ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 5 safety or welfare of the public, and at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. c. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use permit. The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to attend at any time, are permitted at a farm winery with a special use permit, provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales: 1. Farm winery events. 2. Weddings and wedding receptions. 3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or wine sales related uses which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under section 31.6.2, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c) shall include the following: 1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location, height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage, structure or other place where music will be performed. 2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated so they are not substantial. e. Sound. from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be subject to section 7-105(B)(5) and shall not be considered an exempt sound under section 7-106audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit. f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side and rear yard requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structures established after [insert date] and to all tents, off-street parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, provided that the zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction. g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited: 1. Restaurants. 2. Helicopter rides. (§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-1-84; Ord. 98-20(1), 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01) Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0" ATTACHMENT II Draft: 03/0104/14/10 6 Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(a) and (b) (reference 5.1.25). (Added 11-11-92) Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02) . . . 53. Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c). . . . Return to exec summary Go to next attachment ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 14, 2009 Work Sessions: ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries – Resolution of Intent (Wayne Cilimberg) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary. The executive summary states there have been some changes in State law in the last couple of years that staff feels warrant the amendment of elements of our ordinance pertaining to farm wineries so to be totally consistent with Virginia Code. (See Executive Summary) They would certainly be getting into the particulars of that as they would undertake the zoning text amendment. Tonight is simply a request that the Commission pass a resolution of intent to move that process forward. Staff would also like to get input on the type of process they use assuming that the Commission is agreeable with the resolution of intent. There are a couple of ways staff has approached roundtables in the past where they get public interest input on ordinance changes. One that they have primarily used is a staff process with the public. At a minimum they have one roundtable and in some cases there have been more than one. The second that staff actually used was with the Planned Development regulations with the Planning Commission sponsoring the roundtable. Staff would like to know which approach the Commission would like to take. Staff noted that the staff approach works a little better for more informal interchange between staff and the public. It is certainly a public meeting, but it is not in the public venue so to speak as an advertised meeting that the Planning Commission would hold. It allows for probably more general discussion about amendments with public interest. Certainly they could invite Planning Commissioners to attend. As long as the Commissioners were not participating he thought it would be okay. He asked Mr. Kamptner if the Commissioners were just observing if that was okay in that setting. Mr. Kamptner replied generally yes, but that the Commission could adjourn to that particular round table. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that it might be the more expeditious way to get input. But if the Commission wanted to sponsor the meeting, as was done with the Planned Development regulations, staff could certainly set it up in that way. He asked for the Commission’s gui dance on which approach they want to take in addition to their action on the resolution of intent. Mr. Morris asked if the Planning Commission would have a public hearing on the matter no matter what. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would envision a roundtable followed by a Planning Commission work session to discuss the results of the roundtable. That would certainly be open for public comment. Ultimately a public hearing, which would be advertised, would be necessary. Ms. Porterfield noted that it appears that all they were doing was bringing the ordinance up-to-date with what has been adopted at the state level. Therefore, she did not understand why they were having a roundtable. She asked if they were looking to make other changes in the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg replied no, but that various particular public interests, especially the local wineries, have been very involved with the State Code and he thought that they would want to have a chance to discuss the amendments before they come to the Commission. It was basically just to take care of Code requirements. The part of the State Code that was of the most interest in making the changes was cited in the discussion of the Executive Summary. The Code now stipulates that local restrictions shall take into account the economic impact on the farm winery of such restriction and whether such activities and events are usual and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. Staff believes that they can develop the language that would reflect usual and customary, but felt that it was good to have the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES 2 wine interest participate in that discussion. Mr. Morris noted that he was all for getting as much input as possible as long as they have the staff time to do it. He felt that it would be extrem ely good to invite the people in the industry and get their input to see if they need to do anything else just as long as the Commission has a chance to have a public hearing afterwards. Mr. Loach invited public comment. Matt Conrad, with the Virginia Wine Counsel, provided comment on the proposed resolution of intent. Over the past three decades or so Virginia Farm Wineries have become pillows of Virginia’s economy both in agriculture and in tourism. Since 2006 Virginia Wineries have pursued a consistent regulatory framework in statewide solution to disparity in local regulation of their production, marketing, retail and day to day operations. In 2007 with the assistance of the Governor and the Department of Agriculture the General Assembly responded to those requests by unanimously adopting an amendment to the Code that severely limits the degree to which localities may regulate licensed farm wineries. As noted in the executive summary provided by staff Albemarle County has largely conformed its practices to State Law even though the current zoning ordinance remains out of compliance to Section 15.2-2288.3. Since that statute’s enactment David King and other industry leaders have worked with staff to help conform that practice. Once again the Virginia Wine Counsel and its members stand ready to assist in developing whatever new ordinance is proposed before this body. They look forward to the roundtable if that is the desire of this body and the opportunity to participate in the process. It should be noted, however, that any attempt to regulate farm wineries must conform to Virginia Code particularly the section attached in Section C that he referred to earlier. That language requires that usual and customary activities and events at farm wineries shall be permitted without local regulation unless there is a substantial impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public. So before engaging in any regulatory practices they would need to meet that sort of burden of proof to establish that threshold. Secondly, local restriction upon such activities and events of farm wineries to market and sell their products must be reasonable and take into account the economic impact on the farm winery of such restriction. In this past General Assembly session the Virginia Wine Counsel and its members have pursued an additional amendment to this Code section requiring local bodies who wish to engage in further regulation to also take into account the agricultural nature of such activities and events prior to any regulation they may wish to enact. So they ask that the Commission consider all of those things. They look forward to this process if this is the route that the Commission chooses to pursue. He asked that the Commission feel free to contact him or any of the members at any time. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that the Free Enterprise Forum believes Albemarle County in its Comprehensive Plan Economic Development chapter calls for the support of rural enterprises that fit with the fabric of the rural areas. They consider farm wineries one manner to make rural preservation economically viable. Viticulture in Virginia is one of few growing agricultural sectors in the Commonwealth. Albemarle is located in the Monticello Appalachian, the richest wine Appalachian in the state. Albemarle County is filled with good citizen wineries that are operating in good faith and generating significant tourism revenue for Albemarle County. They agree with staff that the current provisions in Albemarle County Code are in direct violation of the State Code and as such the State Code supersedes the County Ordinance. To that end they question the need for local regulation on farm wineries at all and perhaps the intent of this resolution of intent. They believe that usual and customary activities and events at farm wineries shall be permitted without local regulation unless there is significant impact on health, safety and welfare of the public, which is pretty clear. What is the benefit to the citizens of Albemarle County to expend limited staff time to attempt this additional level of regulation? Simply the elimination of the farm wineries regulation would accomplish the task staff is seeking. If they do choose to move forward they encourage the Commission to go forward with the roundtable engaging with the Virginia Winery Association, The Jeffersonian Grape Growers Society, which are the founders of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES 3 Monticello Wine Trail, the Virginia Wine Council and all interested parties as these farm wineries ar e really an important part of the rural landscape of Albemarle County. There being no further public comment. Mr. Loach closed the public comment to bring the matter back before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Morris noted that Mr. Williamson did have an excellent point. However, they do have their own ordinance and personally he would like to see that brought into compliance with the State Code and moved forward. Mr. Kamptner asked to explain for the public benefit as to why they are bothering to regulate farm wineries. As Mr. Cilimberg pointed out probably most of the roundtable discussion will focus on the usual and customary activities. The General Assembly had a report prepared a couple of years ago that was intended to be the first step towards a proposed bill that failed which delineated what usual and customary activities were. But that report exists and provides a list of the events that have been determined to be usual and customary. It also puts a limit on the number of people that attend these events that this report concluded would be usual and customary. That number is 200 per event. When they met with some representatives of the Virginia Wine Council they said that they would rely on that report whenever they where challenged just to whether or not a particular event was unusual and customary. So it makes sense for the county to just simply delineate what those usual and customary events are for the benefit of the public so that every body knows what is going to be deemed to be usual and customary. That is the purpose. That is probably the main scope of the discussion that staff wants to have with the Farm Winery community. Mr. Morris asked if the question has normally been raised by the neighbors who complain about late night sessions at the wineries and so on. Mr. Kamptner replied that there have been those types of complaints, but he did not know if any of them had resulted in an investigation that led to a zoning violation. That is why the County is proceeding in this manner. They recognize that the current statute is self executing and the county does not need to. It probably would have helped staff in implementing the regulations a year ago when the new laws took effect. When they read Section 22.88.3, which is the State statute, they recognized that it was self executing and staff has simply been working within the framework of that legislation since then. But staff does want our ordinance to match the State law. Ms. Porterfield asked if they are achieving anything by having two different discussions on this. She asked if they could do this in one discussion if it was mostly in broiler plate from the State. She keeps hearing that staff only has X amount of time. She was wondering why they can’t do it at a public hearing here and just make sure it is done properly in the new ordinance and either bring it back on the consent agenda or whatever with one meeting as opposed to two. Mr. Cilimberg said that it was the Commission’s choice. At staff level they felt that it was important because they have had some conversation with the wine representatives that it would be important to have that conversation with them to make sure that the ordinance was doing what they felt it needed to do for the County and for the industry. As mentioned there have been some other public interests who have voiced their opinion when they have had one or two special use permits come before them. So they were trying to do that in a way that would give the best opportunity towards discussion of that and to be able to then bring the Commission something that they felt had resulted from that process. He did not think they would get away with just one meeting on this anyway. Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has the time to do it. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is part of what they have put into the work program. Mr. Edgerton agreed strongly with Mr. Kamptner’s explanation of the value that would come of identifying usual and customary. He would also like see if they can identify what is meant by safety, health and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES 4 welfare. Mr. Kamptner noted that the usual and customary element is the easier to define. The other problem with this particular legislation is that they don’t know before hand when they have a situation that is creating a substantial impact on health, safety or welfare. They try to capture most of the activities. He felt that what the report was trying to do by defining and establishing that threshold of 200 people was once one was below that level they were not going to have situations that create that kind of substantial impact. Once they go beyond that it is something that still needs to be worked out. They have not found a simple formula that they can plug in and say yes that will result in a substantial im pact. Mr. Loach asked does this supersede agreements that were made under special use permits in the past for the number of events they can have. He asked if that now becomes unlimited as long as it is 200 people or less. Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that in the way the ordinance is being proposed the number of particular events or activities per year provided that they fall within the usual and customary standard will be allowed to proceed. So if there is any special use permit that is out there that put a limitation on the number of those events that numerical limitation will probably go away. Mr. Loach asked if any constraints would have to be one size fits all or can they make the constraints equal to the size of what the events would be and how late they would go. In other words if there were 10 or 15 people and they go to midnight that is fine. But, if they have 200 people having a party next door that is a different story. He asked if they are given any latitude. Mr. Kamptner replied that they would have to look at that since he can’t give a definitive answer. He thought if they go with the General Assembly report as far as defining what usual and customary is they will be limited. There are some things that they can regulate such as noise under their normal noise regulations. They cannot single out farm winery events and activities for a separate noise standard. It will have to fall under the general regulatory scheme for noise. They will look at all of those issues. Ms. Porterfield asked if it is going to be a roundtable if the Commissioners can come but can’t participate or ask questions. Mr. Kamptner said that if more than two Commissioners are present they could not participate. If the Commission decides that they want to sit there but are concerned that they will not be able to say anything, then they can adjourn to that meeting or they could just decide to say not more than two Commissioners to attend the meeting. When they get to that point they can work it out. They may decide that the Commission wants to sit in on the meeting or that they don’t need to. Mr. Edgerton asked if the Commission wanted to participate then they could adjourn from the previous meeting. Mr. Kamptner agreed if they adjourned from the Tuesday meeting. Mr. Edgerton said that Ms. Porterfield’s point is a good one in why they need to have two meetings unless they might get more valuable input from two meetings. His concern was keeping the conversation going at a reasonable pace and not having too much time between a roundtable and a work session and sort of losing the train of thought. He questioned what kind of time schedule staff anticipates. Mr. Cilimberg replied that first they have to work up the information that they want to take to the roundtable for the people attending. Then the meeting has to be scheduled. The turn around after that is going to be based on what kind of input they get and how they can respond to that input to provide the Commission what they need. Mr. Edgerton said that the purpose of the roundtable, particularly if it was held in a remote location, would be to encourage public participation. It would be a shame to encourage that participation and then have ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES 5 the process get bogged down. He urged if they go that way, which he felt could be done in a valuable way; that they are tight about the schedule to try to keep it focused until something was achieved. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded for approval of the attached resolution of intent for ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries. The motion was approved by a vote of 5:0. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff will schedule the roundtable and let the Commission know in advance so that they can adjourn to that meeting if they so desire. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission July 15, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission participated in a roundtable meeting on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield and Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman. Absent were Don Franco, Calvin Morris and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning and Jay Schlothauer, Building Official. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Loach called the special roundtable meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Roundtable Discussion: ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries – Resolution of Intent (Wayne Cilimberg/Amelia McCulley) PROPOSAL: Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance so that its current farm winery regulations are consistent with Virginia Code Section 15.2-2288.3, and in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s zoning regulations and meet the intent of the County’s Rural Area Plan and Rural Areas Zoning District. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff is seeking roundtable feedback and input on the changes identified in the report. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to start this process so that the current farm winery regulations are in line with the Virginia Code, more specifically for administration of the ordinance. Staff asked that those in attendance ask questions and provide input. Legal questions will need to be deferred since someone from the County Attorney’s office is not present. Following the roundtable and with consideration of feedback and input provided, staff will finalize the zoning text amendment and schedule a public hearing with the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Those attending (approximately 16) introduced themselves and a sign up sheet was circulated to those in attendance to obtain individual names and email addresses for future notification. Matt Conrad, with the Virginia Wine Counsel , noted that in 2006 it began with a list of usual and customary uses. They came back in 2007 and put in place the framework of legislation which instructed counties what they could and could not regulate. Further in 2009 they came back and clarified that these events and activities all by their very nature were agricultural. That is the foundation where they come at this from today. It is that agriculture and wineries intertwine and that wineries or agricultural uses should not be subjected to any regulation greater than is given to other agricultural uses in Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the changes to winery regulations being considered (as also distributed via email). As Mr. Conrad mentioned they are trying to make sure they are reflecting the Code stipulations that have evolved over the last three years in the state of Virginia, which says local restrictions shall take into account the economic impact on the farm winery and such restriction for the agricultural nature of such activities and events and whether such activities and events are usual and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. The agricultural nature of such activities and events were highlighted because it was new as of July 1 of this year in the State Code and was not reflected in the report. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 2 He reviewed selected relevant sections of the Virginia Code pertaining to farm wineries as outlined in Attachment C of the staff report, which included the definitions, wine licenses, and limitations on Class A and Class B farm wineries. He reviewed proposed changes to winery regulations in the zoning ordinance as outlined in Attachment D of the staff report. (See Staff Report and Attachments) There are eight uses specified in the zoning ordinance to be allowed by right at a farm winery. Then there are what staff would consider to be by-right uses with a zoning clearance, which would be for uses that will not exceed 200 persons in attendance at any given time and a determination that the use will not have a substantial impact on the public health, safety or general welfare. That determination ultimately would be based on a zoning clearance issued by the zoning administrator. There are a number of uses related to agritourism that they define. In actuality these uses were pulled from the study that was done in 2006 that lead to the legislation of 2007 although that study in and of itself did not get legislated as the result of the uses in that study. These were identified in that study as being usual and customary uses at farm wineries. Many of the uses already have been occurring in Albemarle County. Some uses would be evaluated by the zoning administrator with a zoning clearance on a case by case basis. In all of these cases they are talking about by-right through a zoning clearance. The zoning clearance would be an application accompanied by a sketch plan. The zoning administrator may impose reasonable conditions to reduce the impacts from a use so that they are not substantial. The zoning clearance is a determination that the use conducted at a farm winery are usual and customary and do not create substantial impacts. There are other uses that are agritourism or sales related to the farm winery and which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. It would be left up to the individual winery whether to define the uses up front to submit for one blanket clearance for a number of activities and then come in for subsequent clearances for additional uses. Over the 200 persons in attendance at any given time, staff recommends a special use permit. Up to that point it is clearly through the zoning clearance process. Staff believes an outdoor simplified sound system, which is proposed to be changed to outdoor amplified music, should not be allowed due to the potential for noise impacts. In addition hot air balloons and hot air balloon rides should not be permitted. A definition of restaurant is proposed to be added for clarify. Questions and comments from the public were invited. Mr. Werner talked about the Code definition of restaurant and its traffic impact. Ms. McCulley replied that if a winery were situated on a road and there were peak times of release when an event is over and everybody leaves a site the Police Department would require that somebody be at the entrance, for example, making sure that traffic is being directed or whatever they may want to be assured that there is not a substantial negative impact to public health and safety. That is far as it would go to the traffic question. Mr. Williamson asked what reasonable conditions are. He noted that a lot of people present are wondering how this would be administered and the organization of - What is by-right v ersus what requires a zoning clearance. He asked what if 200 people show up at the tasting. Is this ok? If yes or no, then what is the number limit for tasting? He referenced page 4 - I & J and asked are these allowed by right and if there are additional uses. Ms. McCulley replied that the conditions will be limited and will be based on what they are proposing in terms of the use and the intensity of the use. Also, to some degree, particularly when dealing with something like traffic the access. When is traffic assistance warranted? It would include things like that. The conditions will be limited to whatever state agencies are going to require as part of their approval. The Water Protection Ordinance for any earth disturbance. Generally they want to make sure for events up to 200 people that they have area that is available to park those people, which does not have to be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 3 paved or graveled. It is hard to be specific about conditions. At some point a VDOT entrance may be required or traffic assistance for peak events is required. It is hard to know what kind of conditions might come up. Mr. Cilimberg said that in the spirit of the State Code, the zoning clearance is appropriate to make a determination that it is not a substantial impact. Mr. Werner mentioned the items on page 3-b and asked do all or any apply to uses permitted by-right without a zoning clearance? What is left out? Mr. Williamson said it was ridiculous to require a zoning clearance for some of the by-right uses, such as a picnic. Mr. Cilimberg noted the question is does a zoning clearance constitute further local regulation when they also have to make sure it was permitted through the State Code and not a substantial impact on public health, safety and welfare. There are two ways to do that - either judge through the submittal of a zoning clearance, which is a strictly administrative process and does not go through a separate body; or, basically make everything by-right and then deal with it afterwards when people start complaining that it is impacting them. Staff believes that in the spirit of the State Code in order to make sure there is no substantial impact on health, safety and welfare that having a zoning clearance for the uses they identified was appropriate to make that determination. It was not to approve or deny the use, but to make sure there was not a substantial impact. From today’s input, staff will go back to see what uses can fit in by-right categories. Mr. Williamson suggested that they focus on the Rural Area and the commerce conflict. An example is the lighting in parking lots. He felt this takes a broader brush than is necessary. They need to talk about the large items and a reasonable way to mitigate the impacts. They need to make sure that the use is really directly related to the sale of wine. The large list really scares people. Mr. Pollock said having just built a winery that he had been through the process. Almost everything was on the list permitted by right with a zoning clearance. He did not thi nk that he should need a clearance to do all of this. Ms. Shelton noted that she had just been through the building process, too. There are unintended consequences of putting these uses in line by line that can’t be applied across the county. There might be one instance where there is an issue, but another where it would not. This would require expense and time. She had to go to the ARB to build an addition to a barn. The County has a reputation for making it difficult to sustain agriculture. Now making it sustainable is what is driving what they are doing right now. Two or three weddings on her property would not be a huge impact on her neighbors due to the long distance away. There is an assumption there that might apply in a couple of instances, but not across the board. Ms. Porterfield said that four or five weddings at 200 people on the same day could be a real impact to the people around the property. But a couple of weddings spread apart could be handled as long as there were places to park with the ability to get them in and out without any problems. Ms. Shelton suggested that they make specific regulations to address those issues. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the number of weddings was not limited, but the zoning clearance would contain the numbers they planned to have. Ms. Joseph asked about a blanket zoning clearance. Amelia McCulley said that a blanket zoning clearance sounds fine. What is missing in the list is that everything is just listed out A – N and some of these involve large numbers of people and some don’t. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 4 The things they care about the most in terms of impact to the surrounding property and roads and so forth are the ones that are peak events with large numbers of people. There is really not reason to limit the smaller number of attendee type of events. Staff may need to separate it out a little better and only limit the larger events. Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that the request was that staff needs to shorten the list of uses and focus on those uses with the most potential for impact. He was hearing that staff needs to look at items l, m and a. Ms. Shelton asked what the cost of the zoning clearance was. Ms. McCulley replied that the current fee was $35, which was currently being reviewed and may go up to $50. Mr. Edgerton said that he likes separating out non-impacts v ersus major impact. Noise, traffic and lighting are things that could have a significant or potential impact on the public health, safety and welfare. He suggested that they concentrate on those on all agricultural activities. . Mr. Loach asked how to determine substantial impact on traffic. For example, Byrom Park was a 50 acre park and only had 50 parking spaces and the community around it complained. The County actually lowered the parking spaces to 29 because of concerns of traffic. Ms. McCulley said that the substantial impact language refers to public health, safety and welfare. For health staff would use the State Health Department as the agency to guide us on that. For safety with regards to traffic staff relies on VDOT. The welfare is where it gets really gray and very difficult. There is not a lot of guidance in the legislation about where the demarcation is. For traffic concerns under the zoning clearance VDOT would have to be consulted and if a commercial entrance approval is required, then that would be part of the approval. Mr. Cilimberg said that a presumption was that up to 200 people at one time at any particular winery is an acceptable number. There may need to be provisions to accommodate that number depending on where that winery is located, the roads that lead to it and the condition of the site regarding parking. In each case it may be different. Ms. King asked where the 200 people come in especially if they already have an approved entrance that can accommodate more. Mr. Conrad replied that the 200 people limitation was for the special events. Mr. Cilimberg said the uses in the by-right list are not subject to the 200 people. Mr. Werner questioned how to distinguish a large wedding and tasting at the same time. Ms. Shelton suggested that they use common sense in the regulations since wineries are good for the general welfare in supporting the economy. She suggested that the process not be made too onerous and time consuming. They already have reasonable guidelines and regulations and adding too much will be cumbersome. This needs to be positive and not negative. Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, pointed out that a zoning clearance was a mechanism that applied to all businesses in the county. Every business in the county has to have a zoning clearance in which all these things are being checked for every single one. The zoning clearance is a standard thing. It is not an onerous problem. Ms. McCulley noted that it was the easiest tool to process this. Staff has heard that they should address existing wineries in terms of considering grandfathering. That is something staff will take back and work on as part of this. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 5 A concern was expressed about future interpretations of gray areas regarding events. When does a promotional activity become an event and what would happen on a beautiful day if more than 200 people arrived for tasting. Mr. Cilimberg noted that as long as it was one of the by-right uses they could have 4,000 people. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff needs to provide a little more clarity about that. Ms. Porterfield suggested that the wineries send staff their normal operating hours, which would show them those areas. Mr. Cilimberg said that if staff gets the clearance list down to a few items, then it would distinguish between what needs to be 200 or less and what can be whatever number it is based on a nice weekend. The 200 people limitation is for those items that require a zoning clearance. The 200 is not the maximum number for uses not subject to a clearance. Ms. McCulley pointed out that it would be for tastings and on-site sales and things like that. Ms. Joseph noted that it talks about the selling of wine related items. She asked if there was a way to open up to sell produce, preserves and baked bread. She also wanted to make sure that this applies to distilleries and breweries. Ms. McCulley replied that she did not know the answer to that question, but thought that the State Code was very specific to the farm winery. Ms. Joseph was opposed to the third thing on the sketch plan. She was all for the Water Protection Ordinance for protecting water quality, but thought that sometimes some of the techniques they were asking people to do in the rural areas are over-the-top. She asked if there was some way to modify that. Mr. Cilimberg invited other public comments. Mr. Schoenberg asked if anyone had looked into what Orange County is doing. They are living a couple of miles from wineries and they can do a whole range of things such as having restaurants and holding all kinds of special events and things, but they can’t. Ms. Pollock noted that three wineries within a few miles in other counties have no limitations, which gives them an unfair competitive advantage of their winery. Ms. Shelton questioned why they need the 200 limit when they already have an approved egress/ingress. The 200 person limit seems to be arbitrary. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff can relook at the 200, but that there is always the question of whether it is the right number. Staff uses the 200 because it came out of the General Assembly study. The 200 only applies to those uses that apply to the zoning clearance. Staff can look at that. Mr. Conrad noted that what is considered usual and customary can change overtime. Ms. Shelton said that they want to provide some food sales with the alcohol. Jake raised a question about the sound and why amplified sound is regulated more than the current Noise Ordinance db level. Mr. Cilimberg noted that was a good point. He reiterated that the point was that there is a Noise Ordinance and it can regulate whatever the noise is produced from. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES – ZTA-2009-00003 FARM WINERIES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 6 There being no further comments or questions, Mr. Cilimberg indicated it would consider the input received and make changes to the text to bring back for Planning Commission review at a future work session. Staff will notify those attending when the Commission work session is scheduled. The request was made by winery interests that the work session not be held between late August and early October as this is a very busy period for wineries. Mr. Cilimberg acknowledged that it would be best to hold the work session before or after that time. He noted that it would probably be afterwards. Staff requested those attending to e-mail any additional comments to Mr. Cilimberg at wcilimb@albemarle.org by the end of July. No formal action was taken by the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgerton left the meeting at 5:34 p.m. Ms. Porterfield left the meeting at 5:43 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff appreciates all who attended and the comments they provided, and looks forward to working with them. Adjournment: With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. to the Tuesday, July 21, 2009 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 10, 2009 FIN AL MINUTES 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission November 10, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, November 10, 2009, at 4:30 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco and Linda Porterfield. Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman, Eric Strucko, Chairman and Bill Edgerton were absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning & Zoning Administrator, and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Cilimberg noted that an Acting Chair needed to be chosen due to the absence of the Chair and Vice Chairman. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Franco seconded to nominate Calvin Morris as Acting Chair for the meeting. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris, Acting Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and established a quorum. He announced that today was the 234th birthday of the United States Marine Corps. Work Session: ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries - Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance so that its current farm winery regulations are consistent with Virginia Code Section 15.2-2288.3, and in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s zoning regulations and meet the intent of the County’s Rural Area Plan and Rural Areas Zoning District (Wayne Cilimberg/Am elia McCulley) The purpose of the work session was to review the changes to the zoning ordinance being considered for farm wineries and obtain the Commission’s input and guidance. Mr. Cilimberg made a PowerPoint presentation. (See PowerPoint Presentat ion – Albemarle County Farm Winery Regulations Changes) “Defined in State Code farm winery - VA Code Stipulations re: Local Restriction Local restriction . . . shall take into account the economic impact on the farm winery of such restriction, the agricultural nature of such activities and events and whether such activities and events are usual and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. VA Code Definition of Farm Winery . . . an establishment (i) located on a farm . . . with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine . . . or (ii) . . . with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area or agreements for purchasing grapes or other fruits from agricultural growers within the Commonwealth, and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine . . . VA Code Limitation on Class A and Class B Farm Wineries ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 10, 2009 FIN AL MINUTES 2 Class A - at least 51 percent of the . . . agricultural products used by the owner or lessee to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on such farm and no more than 25 percent of the . . . agricultural products shall be grown or produced outside the Commonwealth. Class B - 75 percent of the . . . agricultural products used by the owner or lessee to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced in the Commonwealth and no more than 25 percent of the . . . agricultural products shall be grown or produced outside the Commonwealth. No Class B farm winery license shall be issued to any person who has not operated under an existing Virginia farm winery license for at least seven years. Opportunities for variation from the % of on-farm production and % of out-of-state products utilized under certain supply conditions through petition to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Definitions Agritourism Farm Winery Farm Winery Event Uses Permitted By-right as Primary Uses 1. The production and harvesting of fruit . . . and the manufacturing of wine. 2. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers . . . 3. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed wholesalers, and out -of- state purchasers . . . 4. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine . . . 5. Activities related to the production of the agricultural products used in the wine, including . . . growing, planting and harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities. 6. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. . . . the normal course of business of the farm winery. 7. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its agents differently from private personal gatherings by other citizens. Uses Permitted By-right as Accessory to Primary Uses 1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery. 2. Hayrides. 3. Kitchen and catering activities. 4. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery. 5. The sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 6. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard. 7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors. Uses Permitted By-right as Accessory to Primary Uses During regular business hours (9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.), each attracting not more than 50 people: 1. Farm winery events. 2. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a . . . winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 3. Weddings and wedding receptions. 4. Other uses that are agritourism or wine sales . . . determined . . . to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout Virginia. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 10, 2009 FIN AL MINUTES 3 Uses Permitted By-right With Zoning Clearance 1. Outside of regular business hours (before 9:00 a.m./after 6:00 p.m.) or each attracting between 51 and 200 people: 2. Farm winery events. 3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a . . . winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 4. Weddings and wedding receptions. 5. Other uses that are agritourism or wine sales . . . determined . . . to be usual and customary uses at farm wineries throughout Virginia. “Zoning Clearance Purpose: Identify uses generally Identify uses that may cause more than two hundred (200) persons to be in attendance at any given time Identify those uses that will have a substantial impact on the public health, safety or general welfare Requires application providing: Uses Maximum number of persons who will attend the use at any given time Frequency and duration of uses VDOT commercial entrance approval (if necessary) Sanitation facilities approval from Dep’t of Health On-site parking Location, height and lumens of outdoor lighting Location where music will be performed (if applicable) Compliance with setbacks Information requested by the county police department or department of fire rescue Accompanying Sketch Plan Substantial impact is an impact that in its nature would result from the use or activity based on facts, and that in its effect is large in extent or degree Zoning administrator may impose reasonable conditions to reduce the impacts from a use so they are not substantial Zoning clearance is a determination that the uses conducted at a farm winery are usual an d customary and do not create substantial impacts Other Uses Any other uses proposed at a farm winery which are determined by the zoning administrator to be related to agritourism or wine sales for the farm winery, but which are neither permitted by rig ht nor by right with a zoning clearance, may be permitted by special use permit. Not permitted: 1. Hot air balloons and hot air balloon rides. 2. Restaurants. 3. Helicopter rides. Major Changes - Simplified definition for farm winery and new definitions for agritourism and farm winery event Farm wineries added to the provisions allowing agricultural product signs ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 10, 2009 FIN AL MINUTES 4 Extent of review based on potential to produce substantial impact – tied to regular business hours and attendance levels Usual and customary primary and accessory uses producing no substantial impact listed as by-right without limitation as to number of events Certain usual and customary accessory uses with the potential to produce substantial impact because they operate outside of regular business hours or due to attendance levels listed as by-right with zoning clearance Other uses determined to be usual and customary, but not listed as by -right or by-right with zoning clearance, permitted by special use permit Attendance requiring special use permit increased from more than 150 to more than 200 people Uses not considered usual and customary specifically listed as not permitted” Ms. McCulley provided a mock farm winery zoning clearance, including the proposed sketch plan, to explain how such a process would work. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff from the Commission and asked if staff has a list of questions for the Commission to address. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff is here to answer the Planning Commission’s questions and asks that the Commission note any particular changes and provide further direction before the zoning text amendment goes to public hearing. Public comment was taken from the following persons: Matt Conrad, Virginia Wine Counsel, David King, King’s Vineyard, Charlotte Shelton, Albemarle Ciderworks, Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, Casey Callup, Jefferson Vineyard, Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, and Kathlyn Glenn-Mathews, Blenheim Vineyards. Based on the public input received, the Commission provided staff the following direction: - Review the agritourism definition. - Review the farm winery definition. - Review hours of operation. - The attendance limitation for certain uses that are accessory to primary uses should be based on “persons at any one time” vs. “persons per day”. - The 50 person limitation should be revisited for appropriateness and enforceability. - Address grandfathering of site plans that exist that could suffice for the zoning clearance. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission February 16, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice- Chairman; Calvin Morris, Ed Smith, and Thomas Loach, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Rob Heide, Zoning Enforcement Manager; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:56 p.m. Work Session: ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance so that its current farm winery regulations are consistent with Virginia Code Section 15.2-2288.3, and in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s zoning regulations and meet the intent of the County’s Rural Area Plan and Rural Areas Zoning District. (Wayne Cilimberg) Mr. Cilimberg made a PowerPoint presentation. (See PowerPoint Presentation – Albemarle County Farm Winery Regulations Changes) Staff hopes to conclude this tonight with an agreement to proceed to public hearing. Obviously the Commission has gone through a couple of prior work sessions with interest in the wine industry as well as the Planning Commission. Staff believes that Virginia Code language added in 2007 and, more recently, in 2009 by the General Assembly necessitates more detail be incorporated into the County’s ordinance provisions to assure full consistency with the State Code. Amendments that better define allowed uses and activities at farm wineries consistent with the Virginia Code should provide local winery and public interests a clearer understanding of what is allowed and result in fewer questions of staff and greater efficiencies in use determinations, zoning clearances and enforcement. Va. Code Stipulations re: Local Restriction Local restriction . . . shall take into account the economic impact on the farm winery of such restriction, the agricultural nature of such activities and events and whether such activities and events are usual and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth. Staff also believes the intent of both the County’s Rural Area Plan as part of the Comp Plan guides us in how we deal with this particular matter. There are several points noted in the report in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Rural Area that they feel tie in with the consideration with the changes to regulations in Farm Wineries. Comp Plan Policies for Rural Area ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 2 Protect agricultural lands as a resource base for agricultural industries Support local agricultural and forestal economies Connect local producers and consumers of rural products Encourage creative and diverse rural production Support rural land uses that provide rural landowners economic viability Also the Rural Area zoning district has also stipulated in purpose and intent the ultimate goal of helping to enable economic viability of the County’s agricultural activities such as vineyards and wineries. This is furthermore consistent with the state’s policy to preserve the economic vitality of the state’s wine industry. Zoning Ordinance Purpose and Intent for Rural Areas Purpose Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities Encourage residential development to locate in the Development Areas Related to residential development, agricultural/forestal activities shall be regulated only to protect public health and safety Intent Provide lot areas designed to insure the continued availability of active farms and best agricultural and forestal lands Enhance the economy, and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities Encourage continuation and establishment of agriculture and agriculturally-related uses Va. Code Definition of Farm Winery . . . an establishment (i) located on a farm . . . with a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine . . . or (ii) . . . wi th a producing vineyard, orchard, or similar growing area or agreements for purchasing grapes or other fruits from agricultural growers within the Commonwealth, and with facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine . . . . . . and classifies licensure for farm wineries. Va. Code Limitation on Class A and Class B Farm Wineries Class A - at least 51 percent of the . . . agricultural products used by the owner or lessee to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on such farm and no more than 25 percent of the . . . agricultural products shall be grown or produced outside the Commonwealth. Class B - 75 percent of the . . . agricultural products used by the owner or lessee to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced in the Commonwealth and no more than 25 percent of the . . . agricultural products shall be grown or produced outside the Commonwealth. No Class B farm winery license shall be issued to any person who has not operated under an existing Virginia farm winery license for at least seven years. Opportunities for variation from the % of on-farm production and % of out-of-state products utilized under certain supply conditions through petition to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As a result in the County’s proposed amendments that have gone through the evolution of an initial concept that was reviewed by the farm interest and winery interest and others back in the summer time and then came back to a November work session. Thus, the proposed zoning amendments: • Define a farm winery in a way that is simpler and easier to administer because it depends merely on licensure as a farm winery by the state. The amendments also: • Exempt farm wineries from the general rule that accessory uses and structures must be on the same lot as the primary use. • Add a definition for agritourism that is the same as the definition of “agritourism activity” in Virginia Code § 3.2-6400. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 3 • Redefine farm winery events by incorporating a number of the “usual and customary” uses delineated in HB 463 back in 2008, a bill that failed, but that the farm winery industry indicated it would rely on as a model for usual and customary uses. • Add farm wineries to the provisions allowing agricultural product signs. Definitions Accessory Use, Building or Structure Agritourism Farm Winery Farm Winery Event Agricultural Product Sign Generally, the uses in subsection (a) (1) through (6) of the proposed amendments must be allowed by - right and without regulation under Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.3(E) (1) through (5). Regarding (a) (6), Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.3(D) requires that this use must be allowed consistent with how the County regulates other private gatherings under its zoning regulations. Uses Permitted By-right as Primary Uses 1. The production and harvesting of fruit and . . . manufacturing of wine including . . . activities related to the production of the agricultural products used in wine . . . 2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal course of business of the farm winery. 3. The direct sale and shipment of wine . . . to consumers in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code and the regulations of the ABC Board. 4. The sale and shipment of wine to the ABC Board, licensed wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code, regulations of the ABC Board, and federal law. 5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code, regulations of the ABC Board, and federal law. 6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its agents differently from private personal gatherings by other citizens. Staff feels that they have reflected the State Code’s intent in these primary uses that would be permitted by right. There are also a number of uses permitted by right that are related to agritourism or wine sales. The Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.3(A) requires that local regulations consider whether allowed “activities and events are usual and customary for farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth” and then continues: “Usual and customary activities and events at farm wineries shall be permitted without local regulation unless there is a substantial impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public.” Items (b) (1) through (11), although not all have been usual and customary at farm wineries in Albemarle County, are all related to agritourism or wine sales in a way that promotes the particular farm winery or farm wineries in general. Also, traffic safety, health and sanitation, and noise impacts that could be expected from each use would not have a substantial impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the public as they are covered by existing state and/or local regulations. Because HB 463 would have limited usual and customary activities to those which were for fewer than 200 persons at any time due to potential impacts, this threshold should be used for (b) (2), (10) and (11) as attendance for these uses is event driven and has the potential to be in addition to people coming and going throughout the day associated with the other uses listed in (a) and (b). The limitation is also similar to, although somewhat larger than, the 150 person maximum for festivals at historic centers and for special events in the Rural Area. Uses Permitted By-right Provided Related to Agritourism or Wine Sales 1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 4 2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 4. Hayrides. 5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery. 6. Picnics, either self -provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery. 7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors. 8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts. 9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard. 10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 11. Other . . . agritourism uses or are wine sales related uses . . . determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses . . . which do not create a substantial impact on the health, safety or welfare . . . and at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. Attendance at uses in subsection (c) (1) through (3) is event driven and has the potential to be in addition to people coming and going throughout the day associated with the other uses listed in (a) and (b) and, thus, attendance exceeding 200 people at any time has the potential for impacts that should be evaluated through a special use permit. Uses Permitted By Special Use Permit Provided They are Related to Agritourism At which more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance for the use at any one time: 1. Farm winery events. 2. Weddings and wedding receptions. 3. Other uses that are agritourism or wine sales related . . . determined by the Zoning Administrator to be usual and customary uses . . . Staff feels that the three uses identified, which they believe are event driven, have the potential to be in addition to people coming and going throughout the day associated with the other uses of a farm winery. Subsection (d) requires specific information and a sketch plan to be submitted with an application for a special use permit so that the impacts of the use can be best evaluated. An existing site plan could be used as a sketch plan if it provides the information required in submitting a special use permit application. Typically those kinds of things would be noted in site plans. Information to be Provided for Special Use Permit 1. The proposed uses. 2. The maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time. 3. The frequency and duration of the uses 4. The provision of on-site parking. 5. The location, height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use. 6. The location of any stage, structure or other place where music will be performed. 7. A sketch plan . . . depicting: all structures that would be used for the uses. how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be provided. how potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated so they are not substantial. Other Provisions ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 5 1. Sound. Sound generated from most activities at a farm winery use shall be subject to the noise regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (which currently exempts agricultural activities); sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be subject to the general noise regulations of the County code. 2. Yards. The minimum front, side and rear yards of a farm winery shall be as provided in the Rural Areas section of the Zoning Ordinance. Minimum yard requirements shall apply to all primary and accessory structures . . . and to all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used . . . to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, and all yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. Restaurants are expressly prohibited because they are commercial in nature, not otherwise allowed in the Rural Areas zoning district, and can be viewed as contrary to the statutorily established (Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.3(A)) agricultural nature of farm wineries. To County staff’s knowledge, helicopter rides are not usual and customary activities at farm wineries and County staff is aware of a farm winery in Fauquier County that offered helicopter rides that generated significant controversy. Staff determined that the previously prohibited hot air balloon rides have negligible impacts and currently exist in the County in association with other uses. Staff notes the following in response to Planning Commission direction on November 10. Changes in Response to PC November Work Session Agritourism definition is the same as “agritourism activity” in Virginia Code. Deleted requirement that farm winery lots be contiguous; consistent with Zoning Ordinance’s definition of “farm”. The definition is otherwise unchanged and easy to administer as it depends merely on state licensure as a farm winery. Reference to hours of operation deleted; use “normal course of business” to determine compliance. References to attendance changed to “persons at any one time”. Requirements for between 51 and 200 persons in attendance have been removed. A special use permit is only proposed for certain uses where more than 200 persons attend at any one ti me; those considered to be event driven and typically in addition to people coming and going throughout the day associated with the other typical farm winery uses. A sketch plan is now only required for a special use permit application so that the potential impacts of the use can be best evaluated. An existing site plan can be used as a sketch plan if it provides the information required. Mr. Cilimberg offered to answer any questions. He requested further Commission direction on any particular items. Staff would hope the Commission would authorize proceeding to public hearing hopefully on March 16th. Mr. Morris asked if the events and activities that a winery is currently authorized to partake in would be grandfathered. Mr. Kamptner noted that if what is currently allowed by special use permit is now essentially by right and the special use permit is no longer in enforce or effect, they don’t have to comply with the conditions. They would just need to comply with the new regulations. Mr. Franco asked to be clear on the uses that are 51 to 200 the frequency criteria is gone as well. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the regulations would not address between 51 and 200, but just beyond 200 for only the three uses. Mr. Franco noted that his understanding on a lot of these farms or wineries that reuse of buildings, like barns that might be within what is now being considered the yard, if those are reused for the winery events can that be done or would they be excluded. He questioned how that would work if the structures are closer to the lines than the setback provisions. Since a barn was an accessory use to a farm it could ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 6 have been built 6’ from the property line. If that barn was converted to the winery use or used for one of these special events can that be done? Ms. McCulley replied that it can be done. The way it is structured now it would require Planning Commission modification. However, the Commission may recall a similar issue came up with farm stands. If the setback was one with respect to a side or rear property line that was affecting a neighbor and that neighbor was able to give permission to go closer, then staff is going to write in the ordinance that is an administrative approval without somebody having to come before the Commission to get that approval. If the Commission is so inclined they could do the same thing here. Mr. Franco said that personally he would be in favor of writing that in. The other answer is that the applicant can always come for a modification of that setback for an existing building to be used for an event. Ms. Porterfield asked if they were making an assumption that all of their entry and exits are able to handle the traffic for 200 at any one time for an event plus whoever is coming to use the winery. She asked if that was something the County would have to look at. Mr. Cilimberg replied they would be addressing entrance and exit at the one level if there was any kind of site plan requirements associated with the farm winery itself no matter whether or not they were having, as an example, weddings ov er 200 people in attendance. That would be a level at which that kind of matter would be addressed. Site plan requirements only kick in under certain circumstances. Certainly when the three uses identified that would exceed 200, the applicant would be providing information and staff would be advising them as to any particular needs for entrance and exit from the facility associated with that request. Ms. McCulley said that the VDOT approval is one of the state approvals that is separate and aside from the zoning and planning exemption in the State Code. Therefore, the VDOT requirements still apply. Even for the uses that under 200 trips VDOT approval of the entrance is required. This would not be the standard VDOT commercial entrance one might see in the development areas. Joel DeNunzio states in his letter that the wineries will need to have a commercial entrance. The most important item will be that they have adequate sight distance at their entrance. As far as the design of the entrance he felt that most could use a private subdivision road street design. That is a 24’ wide entrance. He thinks that this is adequate because they typically have a long driveway to the winery that serves more like a street connection than an open entrance. If VDOT commercial entrance standards apply, they will review it on an individual basis to allow for which standard is adequate that will allow us to consider the type of road they are connecting to and have the appropriate geometry and material requirements to ensure a safe entrance. She hoped that would help in the response to Ms. Porterfield’s question. Ms. Porterfield asked if she was saying that any winery will have to have VDOT approval of their entrance. Ms. McCulley replied yes. Ms. Porterfield noted that essentially comes before the wineries having any events for those types of things. Ms. McCulley replied that was correct. She would guess that many of the wineries already have VDOT standards at their entrance adequate to accommodate the trucks and so forth that go to and from the site. Mr. Loach questioned if someone could open up a farm winery without actually having a farm. He asked if there was an industry standard or percentage. The license talks about the percentage of fruits and juices, but does not talk about the quantity. He asked if there was a definition of a vineyard. Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff is referring to the State licensing procedure for what they call a farm winery, which says to be a Class A farm winery at least 51 percent of the products used by the owner/leasee to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on that farm or such farm. No more ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 7 than 25 percent of the products shall be grown or produced outside of Commonwealth. There could be a case where a non-contiguous properly is where that 51 percent is being grown. Mr. Loach asked if the 200 people at an event happening on the property are aside from the usual business going on. Mr. Cilimberg replied that is correct. Ms. Porterfield questioned if there had been any thought as to when the amplified music should end. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that amplified music would be regulated under the general Noise Ordinance, which was adopted by the Board in December. Mr. Kamptner noted that the standard that would apply for outdoor amplified music is a standard that is based on audibility by a person of normal hearing unattended by any devices. The criteria is audibility 100’ from the property line of the noise source or from within a dwelling. That is fairly consistent for all of the noise sources under our new general Noise Ordinance. Meeting with zoning staff and the police they are going to probably end up fine tuning it based on experience. There may be some classes of noise that were not included. They may find that particular noise sources were either too lenient or too restrictive. That is what the standard is right now. It may be modified over time as staff received feedback from the Police Department, which enforces that particular ordinance. There is no limit for this particular noise source. They do have some time limits for what is classified as sound sensitive types of facilities, such as hospitals, schools, etc. due to specific health effects that can impact people who are ill or small children. So there are time limits for that class. Ms. Porterfield noted that the Commission had received a letter from at least one neighbor of a winery over the last year and a half or so about this person’s perceived thing that the noise is affecting his quality of life. She wondered if they should be a little more proactive to specify a time limit by which amplified music outside of a building should cease. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that they were balancing the directive from the General Assembly that localities are to treat these activities as being agricultural in nature. It includes looking at that and the purpose and intent of the rural areas zoning district, which says that residential uses not associated with agric ultural activity are to be secondary in consideration. Promoting the agricultural activity takes precedence at least in the purpose and intent section of the rural areas district. Staff would recommend what they have right now, but would certainly fine tune as they get some experience with this new ordinance. Mr. Zobrist noted that when someone can hear the amplified music they can complain to the Police Department and get it stopped. He thought that was a great standard. Mr. Morris said that the hours of operation are controlled by the ABC Department. Mr. Kamptner deferred to someone in the industry that was familiar with the ABC laws. Mr. Morris noted that it was state regulated. Mr. Lafferty questioned if under the regulations if he could have two events at the same time with 199 people. Mr. Cilimberg replied theoretically yes. Public comment was taken from the following persons: David King, of King’s Family Vineyard in Crozet, spoke in support of the zoning text amendment. Matt Conrad, representative for the Virginia Wine Counsel representing the farm wineries across the Commonwealth of Virginia, said they were appreciative of the professionalism and hard work by staff. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 8 They believe what has been created here is likely to be a model ordinance that could be repeated and used across the state. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was a self -limiting time because of the ABC rules in the state about when wineries would have to close as far as selling alcohol. Mr. Conrad replied that was covered by administrative code. For licenses in counties that have adopted liquor by the drink it is 2:00 a.m. In other counties it is 12:00 a.m. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, echoed the sentiments with regard to the positive changes that have been made in this ordinance moving forward. The Free Enterprise Forum believes that the frequency of the events considered under the sp ecial use permit is perhaps a challenge. He was concerned with the reality of the situation in coming in for a special use permit. He questioned if a winery would come in to ask for a special use permit to have 52 events a year so they could have a wedding every weekend. He asked how the Commission would respectfully go on that. He was concerned that element was not really linked to the zoning clearance that would be addressing parking, the VDOT regulations and the other restrictions that are clearly part of the health, safety and welfare. He was challenged by the frequency of events. The Free Enterprise felt that this was about maintaining the economic viability of the rural areas in encouraging rural economic development that preserves open space and promotes tax positive tourism revenue. Mr. Cilimberg said that the direction they are going is that once the event exceeds 200 it is a special use permit and there is no assumed limit on frequency. That can be a judgment based on the circumstances when it is before the Planning Commission. Staff expects the requests to not specify limitations on the number. Mr. Franco said that the ZTA has come a long way. He liked the aspect of it being simplified for enforcement purposes and for being used. He would like to see the setbacks changed to reflect the farm setbacks as discussed in the farm stands. Other than that he felt that it was going the right direction. Mr. Morris said that the ZTA was ready to go to public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that other than the setback matter there were no other changes to be made prior to the public hearing. Ms. Monteith questioned how this ordinance would be enforced. Mr. Cilimberg replied that enforcement is generally complaint driven. It would probably be a case where someone believes that there are events happening at a farm winery that are in excess of what the ordinance calls for and they don’t have a special use permit. Then it would involve going out on the site and counting. Mr. Kamptner noted the proposed ordinance will make it easier for farm wineries to administer and staff to enforce if they receive a complaint because switching from the number of people per day as compared to at any given time. Staff recognized that made enforcement virtually impossible unless there was an inspector on site the entire day. Ms. Porterfield noted possible concerns as Mr. Lafferty had expressed with cumulative events at one time. Ms. McCulley noted that any of the events that would be over 200 people are subject to special use permit and the concurrency of other activities more than one event with over 200 people on site at the same time could be discussed with that special use permit review. But they are not assuming that there would be only one event with 199 people there and tasting. On any given day they don’t have control over how many come tasting. Mr. Cilimberg said that they were getting into a difficult area. The only way they might be able to address ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – FARM WINERY ZTA-2009-0003 9 the over 200 case would say cumulatively any of those three uses together could not have over 200. But even at that it may be very difficult. It was an area that would be hard to enforce and write into the language that works for what they were saying. He felt they have to assume a certain level of activity that is going to occur and in some cases there might be more than one of those things going on that is not reaching 200, but in combination with the normal activity of the farm winery may have several hundred people there at one time. Ms. Porterfield said that she did not think they should create an ordinance that forces the neighbors to get it enforced. She suggested that they try to close a number of the loop holes that are reasonable to close so that the neighbors or people in close proximity don’t have to make reports to the County. She had assumed that the farm winery would have one event that could be over 200 going on at the same time that they were having their usual and customary business. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Kamptner had made the point that they were trying to emphasize farm wineries as an agricultural activity in the rural areas, which really are not about residences but agricultural activities. That is their purpose for the rural area. The measure they are using is the 200 person limit and to get too far beyond that is going to be tough. He questioned what the loop hole is and what it is that they want to do to close it. Mr. Franco asked Ms. Porterfield if she was comfortable to move this forward to the public hearing and resolve this issue later. Ms. Porterfield replied yes, but she would like them to think about it a little bit. Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved and Mr. Franco seconded to authorize staff to proceed to public hearing on March 16 for ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries with an amendment to loosen the language to allow for easements. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that ZTA-2009-0003 Farm Wineries would move on to public hearing on March 16. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission March 16, 2010 ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 5.1.25, Farm winery, 10.2.1, By right and 10.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Secs. 3.1, by adding definitions of "agritourism" and "farm winery event" and amending the definitions of "accessory use, building or structure" and "farm winery"; 4.15.2, by adding signs identifying a farm winery as an "agricultural product sign"; 5.1.25, by amending the regulations applicable to farm wineries by delineating those farm winery related uses allowed by right; requiring a special use permit for a farm winery event, wedding or wedding reception, or a use not expressly allowed but determined by the zoning administrator to be a usual and customary use at a farm winery, if more than 200 persons will attend at any time; requiring identified information and a sketch plan to be submitted with an application for a special use permit; establishing regulations for sound generation and minimum yard requirements for farm wineries; and prohibiting restaurants and helicopter rides; 10.2.1, by amending the cross-reference to by-right farm winery uses; and 10.2.2, by adding certain farm winery uses as uses allowed by special use permit. 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. (Wayne Cilimberg) Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report regarding ZTA-2009- 0003 Farm Wineries, as follows. Background: 2007 - state legislation enacted limiting the extent to which localities may regulate various uses and activities associated with farm wineries This legislation and legislation more recently enacted in 2009 necessitate more detail be incorporated into the County’s ordinance provisions Amendments that better define allowed uses and activities should provide local winery and public interests a clearer understanding of what is allowed; result in fewer questions of staff and greater efficiencies in use determinations and enforcement April, 2009 - ROI July, 2009 - Roundtable with interests November, 2009 and February, 2010 – PC work sessions; PC authorized public hearing in February Definitions: Accessory Use, Building or Structure Agritourism Farm Winery Farm Winery Event Agricultural Product Sign Uses Permitted By-right as Primary Uses: 1. The production and harvesting of fruit and . . . manufacturing of wine including . . . activities related to the production of the agricultural products used in wine . . . 2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal course of business of the farm winery. 3. The direct sale and shipment of wine . . . to consumers in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code and the regulations of the ABC Board. 4. The sale and shipment of wine to the ABC Board, licensed wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code, regulations of the ABC Board, and federal law. 5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with . . . the Virginia Code, regulations of the ABC Board, and federal law. 6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, prov ided that wine is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 2 not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its agents differently from private personal gatherings by other citizens. Uses Permitted By-right Provided They are Related to Agritourism or Wine Sales: 1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery. 2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s private residence at the farm winery. 4. Hayrides. 5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery. 6. Picnics, either self -provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery. 7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors. 8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts. 9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard. 10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. 11. Other . . . agritourism uses or are wine sales related uses . . . determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses . . . which do not create a substantial impact on the health, safety or welfare . . . and at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance at any time. Uses Permitted By Special Use Permit Provided They are Related to Agritourism At which more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance for the use at any time: 1. Farm winery events. 2. Weddings and wedding receptions. 3. Other uses that are agritourism or wine sales related . . . determined by the Zoning Administrator to be usual and customary uses . . . Other Provisions: 1. Sound. Sound generated from most activities at a farm winery use shall be subject to the noise regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (which currently exempts agricultural activities); sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be subject to the general noi se regulations of the County code. 2. Yards. The minimum front, side and rear yards of a farm winery shall be as provided in the Rural Areas section of the Zoning Ordinance. Minimum yard requirements shall apply to all primary and accessory structures . . . and to all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used . . . to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, and all yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking areas. Uses Not Permitted: 1. Restaurants. 2. Helicopter rides. Changes in Response to PC February Work Session: Language added to Section 5.1.25(f.) stating that, “the zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.” Other changes: Minor clarifying language included. Recommend further amendment to Section 4.15.2 to add “farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets” to the definition of “agricultural product sign”. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 3 Recommend further amendment to add the noise standard for outdoor amplified music that is cross-referenced in section 5.1.25(e). Summary: Staff believes that all issues have been addressed. Following the required public hearing, staff recommends that the PC recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries as provided in Attachment I with additional amendments to include: the change to definition of “agricultural product sign” incorporating “farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets” the addition of the noise standard for outdoor amplified music both as presented tonight. Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. Mr. Lafferty asked if it was 200 persons in attendance at a time per winery. Mr. Cilimberg replied yes. Mr. Lafferty asked if they could have multiple parties going at the same time. Mr. Cilimberg replied yes for different wineries and different locations. Mr. Loach pointed out that it was 200 persons plus any customers. Mr. Cilimberg said that this was for more than 200 persons in association with those particular events as noted in the summary. Mr. Kamptner noted the trailing ordinance will be coming to the Commission in about three weeks regarding the farm wineries being added to the definition of agricultural product sign along with farm sales/farm stands and farmer’s market. It will also change the sign regulations as it pertains to agricultural product signs off -site that will no longer require a special use permit and the on-site agricultural product signs will not require a sign permit. The on-site sign will need to comply with the regulations in place, but they won’t need to go through the permitting process. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Chas Zakaib, General Manager with Jefferson Vineyards and Monticello Wine Trail board member, said that he worked with staff and all wineries for the past few years on these issues. Tonight the most important thing the wineries can express is gratitude for the hard work that staff has put into understanding what it takes to make these businesses run and thrive. It is not an easy business, but this will be made less challenging by virtue of the clarity that this ordinance will provide. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter bef ore the Commission. Mr. Loach noted that he had one issue to bring up regarding the use with 200 plus people, which means 100 plus cars. When the Commission brought up the opening of Byrom Park in White Hall the number of parking spaces at the park was 59. There were a lot of comments from the community about traffic to the point that the number of parking spaces was actually reduced. It seems a bit of a paradox that they have a 400 acre park with adequate parking, but they are allowing 37 parking spaces only because of traffic yet there can be a winery next to it that would allow 100 plus cars. Either there is a problem with traffic or there is not a problem. If there is not a problem with traffic, he would bring up the issue later about increasing the number of parking spaces in the park. His point is that he has no problem with wineries and thought it was a good thing. The issue of traffic came from the residents in the rural areas, which he questioned. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4 Mr. Cilimberg said that in the case of events and weddings that exceed 200 people a special use permit will be required. This is an agricultural use. Like any of the other agricultural uses at 200 or below it won’t be reviewed for parking per say. It will be subject to VDOT review and Health Department review and such for the activities they undertake. Ms. McCulley might want to speak to particulars regarding parking requirements. But, that is no longer an element of the ordinance because it was decided a while back that they would remove the zoning clearance and sketch plan requirement. That decision actually came out of a Planning Commission work session. Mr. Loach said that it was his understanding as far as parking under the 200 limit that as long as there was an adequate entrance and exit as far as VDOT was concerned, then parking would not be something that was regulated. In other words, there are no special parking requirements on the interior. Mr. Cilimberg replied that is the way it stands now. Back when they had the sketch plan aspect of this with the zoning clearance that was something that would be reviewed. The guidance and direction from the Planning Commission staff received at that time when they discussed it in work session after they had heard from the people in attendance was they were not sure that was necessary. Mr. Loach noted that he just brought it up as another point of disparity. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Zobrist seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries as recommended by staff and provided in Attachment I with the additional amendments as provided at the meeting. 1. the change to definition of “agricultural product sign” incorporating “farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets”, and 2. the addition of the noise standard for outdoor amplified music. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach suggested that they have Parks and Rec relook at the parking regulations for Byrom Park in view of what they have just done to see if the original number of parking spaces was adequate. Mr. Cilimberg noted that was part of a site plan and the decisions have already been made on that. That would actually involve them bringing the site plan back for an amendment. Mr. Loach noted that he would speak with Pat Mullaney about that because it seems that there is a double standard. Mr. Lafferty questioned if it was the event that draws the people and not the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Loach said that it seemed to be a disparity to say 200 people plus customers and have no parking regulations and then to have a County park where the parking is planned and go from 59 to 37 because of concerns of traffic. He was saying that it should be relooked at. Mr. Zobrist suggested that the problem was that the state legislature has mandated that they give these wineries an awful lot of breathe. There were huge kick backs from the area residents on King’s Family Winery when they came in for a special use permit. The state legislature has kind of ridden over them. If this turns out that they start getting specific parking issues or types of traffic problems with large events at these wineries he assumed that they have the opportunity to amend the statute at some point in time to make a parking requirement. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they would be able to address it for over 200 in a special use permit review. For under 200 associated with whatever activities if there starts to be problems, then there may need to be a zoning text amendment. They might need to revisit the idea of the zoning clearance with a sketch plan, which was the way they were going to potentially handle it before. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 5 Mr. Loach supported the ordinance and felt it was a good approach with the problems that they have had. King’s Vineyard has been a net plus for the community of Crozet in his opinion. Again, he would like the parking revisited at Byrom Park. The number of parking spaces was the exact number as they have at Mint’s Spring. Certainly that road is equal to any small County country road. So he did not see parking as a problem and would like to see the numbers when Byrom Park opens elevated. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would also say something to Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Rec, concerning the parking in Byrom Park and the opportunity that may be available for them to request additional parking. Mr. Loach noted that ZTA-2009-00003 Farm Wineries would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2009-018 Farm Stands, Farm Sales and Farmers Markets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide additional markets for the sale of local agricultural products and merchandise, while meeting basic technical requirements to assure public health and safety. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Cilimberg and Newberry, Ms. McCulley LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: This issue arose initially as a result of a zoning complaint about the unapproved off -site sale of farm products at a County location. This case highlighted the fact that while farmers can sell products at their farm, it may not be a good location from which to sell to their customers. This case further revealed the fact that the permitted off -site or off-farm locations for a farmer to sell products are relatively limited in our Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the current Ordinance provisions are not adequately meeting the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals for the sale of local produce. On December 10th, we held a public roundtable to solicit input on this ordinance amendment. The roundtable was attended by a group with diverse agricultural endeavors ranging from those growing and selling raw fruits and vegetables to those who produce value-added products and those who raise and produce beef, poultry and the like. With their valuable input, staff made significant revisions to the draft proposal. (See Roundtable Input and Revisions Resulting from Roundtable Input attachments to the January 19th Commission work session report included in Attachment II.) On January 19th, staff held a work session with the Commission to both introduce the proposal and to resolve five (5) issues. The Commission’s direction on these and several other issues is incorporated into the recommended Ordinance language. (See Attachment I) On April 6th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this ordinance. (See Attachment II) DISCUSSION: Rather than charging the regular $980 fee for a commercial use, staff recommended a reduced or subsidized fee for the farmers market special use permits (the only one of the three uses involving a special use permit). As a result of discussion in public hearing, the Commission supported the idea of utilizing a two-tiered fee structure. The lesser of the two fees, $110, would be charged for those uses that will be served by existing parking and an existing commercial entrance. This lower-tiered fee is consistent with the fee for a minor amendment to a special use permit and is based on the reduced review necessary for a minor addition to a site with existing infrastructure. This lower fee would apply for example, to the use of existing church or school sites. The higher-tiered fee is recommended at $490, or half the full commercial use fee. This reduction or subsidy is generally consistent with the fee charged for special use permits involving home occupations and small day care centers. This fee would be imposed for sites which are not already developed with adequate parking and entrance. The draft ordinance has been revised to reflect this fee structure. Comment from the public suggested that the ordinance should clarify whether the Water Protection Ordinance is applicable to these uses. In addition to this, the proposed ordinance has been revised to capture minor grammatical corrections to the text. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance found in Attachment I. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: Proposed Ordinance Attachment II: Planning Commission Public Hearing Report Packet View Planning Commission minutes: January 19 and April 6, 2010 Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I ORDINANCE NO. 10-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 4.15.5 Signs authorized by special use permit Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 12.2.1 By right Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 20A.6 By right Sec. 20B.2 By right Sec. 22.2.1 By right Sec. 23.2.1 By right Sec. 24.2.1 By right Sec. 27.2.1 By right Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 28.2.1 By right Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 35 Fees By Repealing: Sec. 5.1.19 Wayside stands Sec. 5.1.35 Farm sales Sec. 5.1.36 Farmer’s market By Adding: Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Accessory merchandise: Non-agricultural merchandise that is subordinate and customarily incidental to the agricultural products sold at a farm sales use or a farmers’ market such as pottery, baskets, canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, garden accessories, hand tools for gardening and handmade crafts. For the purposes of this definition, farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture, and other similar items are not subordinate merchandise. Agriculture: Horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries, or wayside stands farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets. (Amended 12-2-87) . . . Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the farm, with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not produced on the premises. Merchandise not produced on the premises shall be companion items intended to be used with (for planting, caring for, displaying, combining with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or horticultural produce which is produced on the farm, but shall not include farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture, or other like items. Examples: Canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer, mulch, peat moss, pruning shears, gardening gloves, Christmas tree decorations. The sale of agricultural products, value-added products and accessory merchandise on a farm, either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products and merchandise is engaged in production agriculture on the farm on which the farm sales use is located. (Added 10- 11-95) Farm Stand: The sale of local agricultural products and value-added products, either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products is engaged in production agriculture in Albemarle County, but not on the lot on which the farm stand is located. . . . Farmers' Market: An existing parking area used periodically by two (2) or more farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers' market shall not include the sale of commercially manufactured products which the farmers have not grown or produced on their farms. The sale of agricultural products, value-added products, and accessory merchandise either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure by two (2) or more vendors in the rural areas (RA) zoning district or by one or more vendors in any other zoning district where the use is allowed, where each vendor selling the products and merchandise is engaged in production agriculture in Albemarle County regardless of whether it is on or not on the lot on which the farmers’ market is located. (Added 10-11-95) . . . ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I Local agricultural products: Agricultural products grown or produced in Albemarle County or its abutting localities. . . . Value-added products: Raw agricultural products that have been altered to enhance their value through baking, bottling, canning, carving, churning, cleaning, drying, freezing, weaving, or other similar processes. . . . Wayside Stand, Roadside Stand, Wayside Market: Any structure or land used for the sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced by the owner or his family on their farm. . . . Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.15.5 Signs authorized by special use permit Except as provided in subsection (Dd), electric message signs, off-site signs, and signs in public rights-of-way may be authorized only by special use permit, as provided herein: a. Circumstances under which signs may be authorized. The signs may be authorized only under the following circumstances: 1. Off-site signs. Off-site signs may be authorized by special use permit within any zoning district. 2. Electric message signs. Electric message signs may be authorized by special use permit within any commercial or industrial zoning district, or any commercially designated areas of a planned unit development. 3. Signs in public rights-of-way. Signs in public rights-of-way; provided: (1) the subdivision or planned development to which the sign pertains abuts the public right-of-way; (2) the sign is either a subdivision sign or a sign identifying a planned development authorized by sections 19.0, 20.0, 25.0, 25A, and 29.0; (3) the freestanding sign regulations, other than setback regulations, applicable to the lot with the use to which the sign pertains shall apply; and (4) if the sign is located within an entrance corridor overlay district, a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the architectural review board. b. Authority. The authority to issue a special use permit for off-site signs and electric message signs is hereby granted to the board of zoning appeals. c. Procedure and administration. The application procedure, the findings and conditions to be applied by the board of zoning appeals when considering an application for a special use permit, and the authority to revoke such a permit, shall be as provided in section 31.2.4 31.6 of this chapter. In addition to the foregoing: 1. For an off-site sign, the board of zoning appeals shall also find that the issuance of a special use permit is necessary because an on-site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off-site because of topography or vegetation. 2. For an electric message sign, the board of zoning appeals shall also find that the sign complies with all applicable state laws for such signs. ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I 3. A permit number for each special use permit issued for an off-site sign shall be affixed to the sign in a conspicuous place. d. Exception; certain off-site signs. A special use permit shall not be required for off-site directional, political, subdivision or temporary signs, and off-site agricultural product signs, except for those advertising a farmers’ market in any zoning district other than the Rural Areas, Monticello Historic District, and the Village Residential zoning districts, provided that their number does not exceed two (2) and they do not exceed an aggregate of thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area, and further provided that any agricultural product sign advertising a farmers’ market in the Rural Areas, Monticello Historic District, or the Village Residential zoning districts is posted within that particular zoning district. (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.05; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01) State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286. Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in section 4.15.4 provided that they comply with the regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15: (1) Agricultural product sign, on-site. One or two on-site agricultural product signs that do not exceed an aggregate of thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area. (Added 3-16-05) (2) Auction sign. An auction sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area, and which is posted for a total of thirty (30) days or less in a calendar year. Such an auction sign shall be removed within seven (7) days after date of the auction. (3) Commemorative plaque. A commemorative plaque that does not to exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (4) Construction sign. A construction sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area. Such a construction sign shall be removed within seven (7) days after issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (5) Estate sign. An estate sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (6) Farm sign. A farm sign that does not include commercial identification and does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (7) Home occupation class B sign. A home occupation class B sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (8) Incidental sign. An incidental sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (9) Political sign. One or more political signs that do not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the physical type of the sign (e.g., freestanding, wall) within the applicable zoning district. (10) Private drive sign. A private drive sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area, limited to one such sign per entrance. (11) Public sign. A public sign. ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I (12) Residence sign. A residence sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (13) Residential sign. One or more residential signs that are not illuminated signs and do not exceed thirty- two (32) square feet in cumulative sign area. (14) Special decorative display. A special decorative display used for holidays or public events, and which is displayed for a total of sixty (60) days or less in a calendar year. Such a display shall be removed within seven (7) days of said event. (15) Temporary directional sign. A temporary directional sign that is erected no closer than five (5) feet from a front lot line and does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (16) Real estate sign. A real estate sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area. Such a real estate sign shall be removed from the site within seven (7) days of sale, lease or rental. (17) Warning sign. A warning sign that is erected by a private landowner and does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area. (18) Window sign. A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window signs on each window or door does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area of the window and door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure within the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor overlay street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per business and that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section 4.15.15. (Amended 3-16-05) (19) Commercial flag. A commercial flag, subject to the following: (i) not more than one (1) flag may be flown on a lot, provided that if the lot is four (4) acres or larger, then one (1) additional flag may be flown; (ii) the flag shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in size; and (iii) the flag shall be flown on a flag pole and, if two (2) flags may be flown, they may either be on the same or on separate flag poles. (Added 3-16-05) (20) Noncommercial flag. A noncommercial flag, subject to the following: (i) the flag shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in size; (ii) on commercial, institutional and industrial lots, the flag shall be displayed only on privately owned light posts and shall be installed in a manner so that it remains taut and flapping and movement is minimized; and (iii) on residential and agricultural lots, the flag shall be displayed from a mount on a dwelling unit or other permitted primary or accessory structure, a flag pole, a mast, or suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire, string or cable. (Added 3-16-05) (21) Advertising vehicle. An advertising vehicle in which none of the prohibited conditions delineated in section 4.15.7(c)(2)(ii) or (iii) exist that is: (i) used as transportation for the business; and (ii) parked in an approved parking space or parking area that serves the advertised business, or temporarily parked at another business to actively receive or provide goods or services, such as to load or unload goods, provide on-site services, receive vehicle maintenance and repair, or obtain food for the driver and passengers. (Added 3-16-05) (12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05) State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280. Sec. 5.1.19 Wayside stand ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I Each wayside stand shall be subject to the following: (Added 10-3-01) a. Structures for wayside stands, including vehicles, shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet in aggregate floor area nor be located closer than thirty-five (35) feet to any public road right-of-way; b. No wayside stand shall be established without approval of a preliminary site plan by the director of planning. In reviewing the plan, the director of planning shall give particular attention to provisions for safe and convenient access from and to the public road and adequacy of delineation of parking. No such plan shall be approved until the Virginia Department of Transportation approves the commercial access to the site. (Amended 10-3-01) (§ 5.1.19, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01) Sec. 5.1.35 Farm sales a. One (1) farm sales structure may be established per farm. In addition to displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm, it may include companion items not produced on the premises, but intended to be used with the agricultural or horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. The farm sales structure shall not be established until the agricultural or horticultural produce growing area has been established and is in production. Such growing area shall be reestablished on an annual basis. b. The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. Greenhouses shall not be counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is designated as the farm sales structure. At all times, at least fifty (50) percent of the retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural produce only. c. A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with section 32.4.1 shall be submitted along with, and become a part of, the special use permit application. The plan shall include the area of the farm sales structure, parking and entrance. The plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access from and to the public road, adequacy of delineation of parking, and general information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the submitted information, the board of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site development plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site development plan would not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. No such use shall be established without Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial access to the site. d. The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any adjoining property not under the same ownership. The farm sales structure shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary structure. The parking area shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public or private street right-of-way. e. Farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture or other like items, shall not be offered for sale. f. All farm sales structures shall meet all applicable requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. (Added 10-11-95) Sec. 5.1.36 Farmer’s market ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I a. A site development plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with section 32.2.2. b. Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) days per week, during daylight hours, between May 1 and November 30 only. Days and hours of operation shall be only those specified on the site development plan. c. The parking area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way. d. The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash and debris and general restoration of the site following an event. The zoning administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose. e. No permanent structure shall be established. (Added 10-11-95) Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets Each farm stand, farm sales and farmers’ market shall be subject to the following, as applicable: a. Zoning clearance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance issued by the zoning administrator as provided by section 31.5 before the use is established as provided herein: 1. Application. Each application for a zoning clearance shall include a letter or other evidence from the Virginia Department of Transportation establishing that it has approved the entrance from the public street to the proposed use and: (a) Farm stands and farm sales uses. For farm stands and farm sales uses, a sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a form and of a scale approved by the zoning administrator depicting: (i) all structures that would be used for the use; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this section and this chapter; and (iii) how potential adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated. (b) Farmers’ markets. For farmers’ markets, an approved site plan waiver as provided in section 32.2(b). 2. Notice. The zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an application for a zoning clearance for a farm stand, farm sales use, or by right farmers’ market has been submitted to the Virginia Department of Health and to the owner of each abutting lot under different ownership than the lot on which the proposed use would be located. The notice shall identify the proposed use and its size and location and invite the recipient to submit any comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least five (5) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section 32.4.2.5. The review by the Virginia Department of Health shall be independent of the zoning administrator’s review of the application for a zoning clearance and the approval of the zoning clearance shall not be dependent on any approval by the Virginia Department of Health. The notice requirements shall not apply to a zoning clearance required for a farmers’ market that has been approved by special use permit. b. Structure size. Structures used in conjunction with a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall comply with the following: ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I 1. Farm stands. Any permanent structure established on and after May 5, 2010 (hereinafter, “new permanent structure”) used for a farm stand shall not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area. Any permanent structure, regardless of its size, established prior to May 5, 2010 (hereinafter, “existing permanent structure”) may be used for a farm stand provided that if the structure does not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, its area may be enlarged or expanded so that its total area does not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, and further provided that if the existing structure exceeds one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, it may not be enlarged or expanded while it is used as a farm stand. 2. Farm sales. Any new permanent structure used for farm sales shall not exceed four thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area. Any existing permanent structure, regardless of its size, may be used for farm sales provided that if the structure does not exceed four thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area, its area may be enlarged or expanded so that its total area does not exceed four thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area, and further provided that if the existing structure exceeds four thousand (4000) square feet gross floor area, it may not be enlarged or expanded while it is used as a farm stand. 3. Farmers’ markets. Any new or existing permanent structure may be used for a farmers’ market without limitation to its size. c. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following minimum front, side and rear yard requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side and rear yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary structure shall be as provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the applicable zoning district, provided that the minimum front yard on an existing public road in the rural areas (RA) zoning district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction. 2. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy any minimum yard requirement under subsection 5.1.47(c)(1), the minimum yard required shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road, access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street, road, access easement or lot line than the existing structure. d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of retail area. 2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right- of-way. 3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance, the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and improvements required ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and improvements. Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be a condition of approval of the zoning clearance. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 5. Wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (reference 5.1.19). . . . 26. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47). 27. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: 53. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD: . . . 3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural products, including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products, including wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (reference 5.1.19). . . . 25. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47). 26. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD: 1. Farm sales Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.3547). . . . ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I Sec. 12.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47). 18. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 18. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 14. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-2 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 16. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-4 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 18. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-6 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 18. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-10 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 20. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 in the R-15 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 20. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit in the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter and provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition: . . . 12. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit in the PUD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter and, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition: . . . 9. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in the NMD district, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1): . . . 10. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section: A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted by right: 11. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.3647). Sec. 22.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements and limitations of these regulations of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. . . . a. The following retail sales and service establishments: . . . 28. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). b. The following services and public establishments: 25. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.36). Sec. 23.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the CO district, subject to the applicable requirements and limitations of these regulations of this chapter: . . . 15. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 24.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in the HC district, subject to the applicable requirements and limitations of these regulations of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34. . . . 47. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 27.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 20. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or existing permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the LI district: . . . 19. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted in a new permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 28.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 29. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or existing permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the HI district: . . . 18. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted in a new permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). Article IV. Procedure Sec. 35.0 Fees Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. Neither the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I required by this section if it is the applicant. Each applicant shall pay the applicable fees established below, provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant: a. For a special use permit: 1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $220.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 2. Rural area divisions - $1,240.00. 3. Commercial use - $980.00. 4. Industrial use - $1,020.00. 5. Private club/recreational facility - $1,020.00. 6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980.00. 7. Public utilities - $1,020.00. 8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870.00. 9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of nonconforming use -$110.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 10. Extending special use permits - $70.00. 11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13.00; Home Occupation-Class B - $440.00. 12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490.00. (Added 6-3-92) 13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980.00. (Added 6-3-92) 14. Farmers’ markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation or existing and adequate parking - $490.00. 15. Farmers’ markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation and existing and adequate parking - $110.00. 16. All other uses except signs - $980.00. (Amended 7-8- 92) b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $840.00. c. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,570 .00. 3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00. 5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220.00. d. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $120.00. (Amended 7-8-92) 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) - $120.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned. e. Preliminary site development plan: 1. Residential - $1,190.00, plus $13.00/unit. 2. Non-residential - $1,580.00, plus $13.00/1000 square feet. f. Final site development plan: ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I 1. Approved administratively - $410.00. 2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $1,130.00. 3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $790.00. 4. For site development plan waiver - $270.00. 5. For site development plan amendment: a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $95.00. b) Major - commission review - $270.00. 6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $200.00. 7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $240.00. 8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $190.00. 9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan: a) Rejected within ten days - $200.00. b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $65.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project. g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $180.00. h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan: 1. Road - $20.00. 2. Development - $25.00. i. Extending approval of site development plan - $45.00. j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment: 1. To a specific date - $35.00. 2. Indefinitely - $75.00. k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond estimate - $60.00. l. Zoning clearance - $35.00. m. Accessory lodging permits - $35.00. n. Official Letters: 1. Of determination - $75.00. 2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $75.00. 3. Stating number of development rights - $40.00. o. Sign Permits: 1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board - $35.00. 2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $75.00. p. Tier II personal wireless service facility - $790.00. (Added 10-13-04) q. Review of groundwater assessment information required by sections 31.2.2 or 32.5.7: 1. Tier 1 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-401 - $50.00. 2. Tier 3 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-403 - $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot. 3. Tier 4 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-404 - $1,000.00. ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT I In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” An application presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be submitted and shall not be processed. If the zoning administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review and approval to which the fee pertains is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be refunded to the applicant in full. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. Return to exec summary Go to next attachment ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission January 19, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Absent was Duane Zobrist, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Loach, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. ZTA-2009-00018 Farm/Wayside Stands Review of New Provisions for the Sale of Locally Grown Agricultural Produce and Merchandise. (Amelia McCulley) Ms. McCulley noted that J.T. Newbury distributed two handouts on the proposal showing the existing and proposed regulations. (Attachment A – Farm/Wayside Stands: Current Ordinance, Proposed Ordinance following Rountable Discussion, Overall Changes – Current to Proposed Ordinance-Revised 1-19-10) She presented a Power-Point presentation. What is the County doing and why? • In response to a recent zoning complaint about off -farm sales, the Board directed staff to re- examine the regulations pertaining to the sale of farm products • Current regulations pre-date several of the goals and strategies adopted with the Rural Areas portion of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan The fact is that in the rural areas, except for sales within a country store, farm products cannot be sold even those grown in Albemarle off the farm. Amending the current regulations… • Through a zoning text amendment process, staff will incorporate citizen input to modify the regulations to be more consistent with the goals of the Rural Areas • The outcome should better promote the preservation of rural lands and activities, while also supporting the economic viability of farming Staff suggests amending the Ordinance to provide for Farm Stands, Farm Sales and Farmer’s Markets. There are three different terms or uses that staff feels should accommodate the different types of opportunities and locations for selling agricultural products: Allow Farm Stands for selling “local” agricultural products and merchandise off -site from the producing farms. This is what does not exist now for off-site sales. Allow Farm Sales for the on-site sale of agricultural products and merchandise with subordinate sales of non-agricultural merchandise. This would often take place in a parking lot. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 2 Allow Farmer’s Markets would allow for a more intensive off -site sale of agricultural products and merchandise and would also allow for subordinate sales of non-agricultural merchandise. What are some of the differences between the current and proposed regulations? Farm Stands: Current: *On-site sales only in RA By-Right: RA, MHD, VR, PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC & HC. Proposed: *On-site sales only in RA By-Right: RA, MHD, VR, PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC & HC. Farm Sales: Current: By-Special Use Permit: RA & MHD. Proposed: By-Right: RA, MHD & VR. Farmer’s Market: Current: By-Right: PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC, HC, C-1 & DCD. Proposed: By-Right: PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC, HC, C-1, DCD, NMD, CO & LI. By-Special Use Permit: RA, MHD, VR and Residential Districts Farmer’s Market is mostly for outside sales for agricultural products instead of an open air /flea market. Therefore, the restrictions are geared towards differentiating to that end. Definitions: Farm Stands: Current: Structure for sale of ag products or merchandise produced by the owner on their farm. Proposed: Off-site sale of local ag prod. and merchandise, including value-added products (but no subordinate sales) for an owner/leasee of farmland in Albemarle County . The other change is that farm stands would allow the sale of local produce, of which the definition proposed would go beyond Albemarle County. There is often a need to find a product that is available elsewhere but not available here at the time. So there is a listing of local localities, which include all adjoining localities. Farm Sales: Current: A structure used for the sale of ag products produced on -site and subordinate sales of products not produced on the farm. Proposed: On-site sale of ag products and merchandise, including value-added products with sub. sales of non-ag merchandise. This would not be restrictive to local produce so the owner co uld supplement what they are growing in order to stay open. Farmer’s Market: Current: Existing parking area used by two or more farmers for off-site sales of ag products from their farm Proposed: Exterior sales (and/or interior within existing building) by one or more farmers for off-site sales of ag prod. and merchandise, including value-added products, with sub. sales of non-ag products. Approval Requirements: Farm Stands: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 3 Current: Preliminary site plan, VDOT approval and supplemental regulatio ns. Proposed: Administrative: Clearance with sketch, VDOT approval and supplemental regulations. Farm Sales: Current: Clearance with sketch, VDOT approval and supplemental regulations. Proposed: Administrative: Clearance with sketch, VDOT approval and supplemental regulations. Farmer’s Market: Current; Site development plan, VDOT approval and supplemental regulations. Proposed: Administrative (except for SP use): Clearance with site plan waiver, VDOT approval and supplemental regulations. Structure and Retail Sales Area Farm Stands: Current: Structure, including vehicles, shall not exceed 600 sq. ft. Proposed: No cap on retail area; new permanent structures shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. (existing structures not limited). Farm Sales: Current: Shall not exceed 1500 sq. ft. and subordinate sales not more than 50% of retail sales area. Proposed: No cap on retail area; new permanent structures shall not exceed 4,000 sq. ft. (existing structures not limited). Farmer’s Market: Current: No cap; subordinate sales not more than 15% of floor area. Proposed: No cap on retail area; no new permanent structure shall be established (existing structures not limited). Important Terms: Subordinate Sales: the retail sale of non-agricultural merchandise that is accessory and incidental to the agricultural products sold onsite. These should be companion items that are directly related to the culture, care, use of, or processing of the agricultural products for sale. Permitted accessory products include pottery, baskets, canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, and garden accessories. Local: agricultural products and merchandise grown or produced in Albemarle County or any area within its adjoining localities, including Greene, Rockingham, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Orange Counties. Value-added products: raw agricultural products that have been altered to enhance their value through cleaning, freezing, drying, processing, bottling, c anning, baking, churning, etc. "Value added" products shall not be considered apart of subordinate sales. Focus Questions: 1. Review / Approval Process: Recommend administrative process without adjacent owner notice. If there are concerns, we can do adjacent notice allowing them to request Commission review (as with Farm Worker Housing applications). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 4 2. Subordinate Items for Sale: Propose using definition (which links these items to the agricultural produce sold) with discretion in the field. Only flagr ant violations would be pursued. Does the Commission have any input on this issue? 3. Technical Requirements – Access Road and Parking Spaces: Recommend gravel or pavement ONLY when necessary to control dust or to prevent tracking, drainage or erosion problems. Because pavement generally required (unless less than 4 parking spaces), staff seeks the Commission’s input. The third one staff received information on tonight regarding technical requirements. It is staff’s duty to assure basic public health and safety is met. They also know there are state requirements they can’t supersede. That is where state requirements such as VDOT for an entrance have to happen. They can’t prevent that. Health Department requirements if bathrooms are required have to happen. But in terms of any approved surface for the parking spaces or the access road staff is suggesting that it be purely based on an engineering analysis of whether they need gravel or pavement because there is a potential erosion problem or potential dust problem. These are used generally and frequently and not a seven day per week ten hours of day kind of business and they can be served by a lesser standard than our other commercial uses. This is another requirement staff seeks Commission input on. 4. *Off-Site Signage: On-site signage available larger than other commercial signs and without a permit; however, off-site signage currently requires a special use permit (from the BZA). Staff recommends off-site agricultural product signs allowed by-right subject to a permit. The technical item that came up tonight relates to setback. In the chart staff is suggesting some setbacks from public roads and adjoining properties. That is basically to minimize the impact on others and their own private activities. The question came up what happens when somebody can’t meet that setback. The way staff envisioned it is that they could come before the Commission and seek a reduction in that setback. Apparently in a lot of these setbacks at some of these prime locations it may be smaller properties and it may be difficult to achieve that setback. What was offered is that if that neighbor with who they are supposed to have the setback (35’) would agree to reduce the setback would the County care. If they have an agreement from that neighbor saying I waive the setback completely or I agree to reduce it from X to Y would the County take that as an administrative process. Staff would suggest that they should. There is no reason to bring it to the Commission publ ic meeting for that kind of approval since that adjacent owner is the most impacted. Staff asks that the Commission consider that under the technical requirements as an amendment, which came up tonight. Next Steps: 1. Draft Ordinance; 2. Public hearing with Planning Commission (after notice); 3. Public hearing with the Board of Supervisors Mr. Loach invited questions and comments from the Commission. Ms. Porterfield noted concern with selling out of the back of a pickup truck and how the County will be sure that anything sold out of the pickup truck at least came from the adjoining county or Albemarle County. Ms. McCulley replied that would not be easy and to some extent they will have to assume that it is somewhat self enforcing. Ms. Porterfield asked how the County would enforce the items produced on some farms that are not allowed to be sold to the public. She was referring to unpasteurized products, etc. Mr. Kamptner noted that responsibility would continue with the State Department of Agriculture. On e thing that was clear at the Roundtable held in December was the local farmers are well aware of all of the state and federal requirements as far as the food and produce that is made available for sale. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 5 Mr. Lafferty asked if there were any zoning districts left out, and Ms. McCulley replied that they had left out HI. Mr. Franco asked if there was a reason for leaving HI out. Ms. McCulley said that it could work in some locations, but had not been brought up. The concern was with the traffic. Mr. Franco favored allowing it anywhere and to include the HI if it was in the right place. He questioned subordinate items for sale. He suggested that that if the definition is clear enough in terms of what items are allowed and it is subordinate, then they shoul d go with that and not worry about floor area and things like that. Mr. Loach invited public comment. Public comment was taken from the following persons : Lee McCauley, owner of Hunt Country Store on Garth Road, noted that their space was the locatio n that initiated the complaint. He allows Nathan Yoder to use the site once a week to sell produce. This location has been used for 16 to 17 years. Staff has tried to make this a simple approach and not highly regulated. He supported the proposal and asked that it not be made too complicated. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, supported the proposal. He wanted to make sure subordinate sales would be in all these categories and the definition related specifically to the agricultural product being sold. He was concerned with the third bullet relating to the traffic ways leading from the public road that there would not be any construction standards. He asked that a farm stand not be allowed to be built on top of a mountain or on steep slopes or streams. Sara Henley, of Henley Orchards in Crozet, supported the proposal and the work that has gone into this. They want to work with the other farmers in the community. There is a need for a place for the local farmers to get together to sell local produce. Regarding the health department issues, they want repeat customers. Therefore, the farmers will make sure that what they are selling is healthy. Between July and October subordinate sales would probably represent about 5 percent of their s ales. Between November and February it might represent 50 percent since they don’t have peaches and apples in February. That percentage will be dictated by the season. Corky Shackleford, owner of farm in Stony Point, said that as a commodity farmer and citizen he wanted to express his appreciation to the staff for developing this kind of proposal. He appreciates the common sense approach staff has taken and supports the proposal. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, supported the proposal since the sale of local produce supported the rural areas. Mr. Morris commended staff for coming up with a no nonsense easy item to follow. Regarding subordinate items if people within that family do in fact make necklace s and earrings, then they should be allowed to sell them. He did not see any problem with that. The Planning Commission considered the public comment, discussed the issues and provided comments and suggestions. Ms. McCulley summarized the Planning Commission’s direction, as follows: Review/Approval Process: In terms of the review and approval process the consensus was to provide for notice to neighbors to let them be informed about the application; and, once the determination of approval is made to let them chose to appeal it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 6 Subordinate Items for Sale: In terms of subordinate items for sale, to go beyond and allow jewelry sales and things like that they would have to do that separately with amending the resolution of intent, which is strictly worded to support agricultural products. Staff would like to move forward with the current recommendation to see how that goes. It could possibly be broadened in the future. Mr. Franco’s suggestion was that if the definition is clear enough in terms of what items are allowed and it is subordinate, then they should go with that and not worry about floor area and things like that. Technical requirements – Access Road and Parking Spaces: It was the consensus of the Commission that the setback reduction is allowed with adjacent owner consent. The performance based requirements are to be recommended as staff proposed. If there is an issue, then it will be addressed later. Off-Site signage: The Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation that agricultural product signs be allowed off-site and by right for Farm Stands and Farm Sales. The Commission raised the question about temporary signs, which was not addressed, that should be incorporated in staff’s future work on signs. Farmer’s Market – Add Heavy Industry as a district. Utilize recommendation from speaker that Certificate of County approval be used to indicate that it has been approved. Mr. Franco noted that he had another question. The farm stand is off -site and limited in the proposal to a new stand being 1,500 square feet. Farm sales would be limited to 4,000 square feet. He asked why there is a difference. He asked if staff envisions that if he puts up his farm sales that all of a sudden it becomes a farm stand because other people come and start using it. He questioned if the size should be the same. Ms. McCulley replied that the thinking is that with the farm sales being that which is located on the farm that they would want to allow somebody to make a larger investment. It would more than likely be a more permanent business. For example, AM Fog and some of these other businesses that are open five or six days a week as a business as opposed to the farm stand, which may be vacant property except for the stand, they would want to limit the investment to some extent and limit the size because it may be subject to people wanting to use it for other things that are not permitted for sales. Mr. Franco said that farm sales could still sell things that were made off-site. Ms. McCulley replied that they don’t have the restriction on local produce, which was heard in the comments from the Roundtable. Ms. Monteith asked on the subordinate item if they don’t want to require that product to actually be sold for some percentage of the year so that they don’t have a location that has baskets and jewelry all year round. Ms. McCulley replied that the term itself, subordinate, means that it would be incidental and it can’t be the main use. It does begin to raise some debate. But in terms of enforcement if they got a complaint today and it has to be based on a certain number of months a year that is a long term process of investigation for staff to know whether they are in compliance or not. It would be more difficult to enforce if it is a certain number of m onths a year- Mr. Kamptner requested to ask a question on the farmer’s market and the limitation on new structures. He wondered particularly in the Planned Development districts as to whether or not they would ever have a qualifying farmer’s market structure. Ms. McCulley replied yes, she could envision it particularly in what they are trying to do in the development areas to make them more of a lively downtown center. Because this will be in the supplemental regulations, the Planning Commission can modify the regulation size and whether it is allowed a new structure or not. It would not be in the definition and would be eligible for someone to come to the Planning Commission to get modified. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 19, 2010 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2009-18 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 7 Mr. Kamptner asked as they move forward are they going to have farmer’s markets in the new Neighborhood Model districts that are established. When being rezoned to Neighborhood Model they are precluded from ever having a farmer’s market because they don’t have an existing structure. He was assuming that they were developing raw land. Ms. McCulley noted that he was referring to a new structure for a farmer’s market as opposed to the parking lot. That is a good point. She suggested that it may be more important in the rural areas to limit the new structure than it would be on a property that is zoned commercially or planned development. She asked if the Planning Commission has thoughts about that. Mr. Franco agreed with what Mr. Kamptner was saying that it makes more sense in the rural area in adding a structure and adding one in the development areas did not bother him. Ms. McCulley noted that staff could make that change. In terms of next steps, staff’s goal is to get this to the Board of Supervisors for adoption on April 7. Staff is working on a Planning Commission date with farm wineries, which would be sometime in March. Staff has a mailing list and will keep the Roundtable participants informed so staff can continue hearing from them. Staff has not drafted the ordinance level and has tried to keep this on a conceptual level before getting into ordinance language. She felt that it has been helpful. Ms. Porterfield noted that it was not because she agrees with all of the Entrance Corridor regulations, etc , but she would be interested to know what the Architectural Review Board thinks of opening the Entrance Corridor to this. She had gone back and read the resolution of intent and would suppose if they narrow it down and read this as being all agriculture related products she wondered as suggested by a participant if an item was produced on the farm like quilts and potentially furniture. If a product was produced on the farm it would seem it could be put in that it would be useful. It would help them in their off seasons. Ms. McCulley asked if she was talking about farmer’s market. Ms. Porterfield replied it was about all of them if the item was produced on a farm whether it was made from wood brought in or from farm items. As long as the item was produced on the farm she felt it is a farm product. A lot of farm related activities are not just agriculture. Mr. Smith asked what the time frame is ideally or the soonest this can go into effect since the crops are growing. Ms. McCulley replied that would be on April 7. Staff is waiting for confirmation from the Clerk to the Board for that date. But staff can certainly work with several different dates for the Planning Commission that would enable them to get to the Board by that date. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 6, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Chairman; Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Absent were Linda Porterfield, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia. Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Loach, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. ZTA-2009-00018 Farm/Wayside Stands ZTA-2009-00018 Farm stands, farm sales, farmers’ markets – Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.5, Signs authorized by special use permit, 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, 11.3.1, By right uses, 11.3.2, By special use permit, 12.2.1, By right, 12.2.2, By special use permit, 13.2.2, By special use permit, 14.2.2, By special use permit, 15.2.2, By special use permit, 16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.2, By special use permit, 19.3.2, By special use permit, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20A.6, By right, 20B.2, By right, 22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit, 28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 35, Fees; repeal Secs. 5.1.19, Wayside stands, 5.1.35, Farm sales, 5.1.36, Farmer’s market; add Sec. 5.1.47, Farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would repeal the existing regulations pertaining to wayside stands (5.1.19), farm sales (5.1.35) and farmers’ markets (5.1.36) and establish new regulations for farm stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets (5.1.47) regarding the respective uses, maximum structure sizes, and minimum yard and parking requirements; would allow farm stands and farm sales by right in the RA (10.2.1), MHD (11.3.1) and VR (12.2.1) zoning districts, allow farmers’ markets by right in the N MD (20A.6), DCD (20B.2), C-1 (22.2.1), CO (23.2.1), HC (24.2.1), LI (27.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) and HI (28.2.1) (exterior or temporary or existing structures) zoning districts, and allow farmers’ markets by special use permit in the RA (10.2.2), MHD (11.3.2), VR (12.2.2), R-1 (13.2.2), R-2 (14.2.2), R-4 (15.2.2), R-6 (16.2.2), R-10 (17.2.2), R-15 (18.2.2), PRD (19.3.2), PUD (20.3.2), LI (27.2.2) (new structures) and HI (28.2.2) (new structures) zoning districts; and would amend and add definitions of various terms related to farms stands, farm sales and farmers’ markets (3.1), exempt off -site agricultural product signs from the requirement to obtain a special use permit (4.15.5), and exempt on -site agricultural product signs from the sign permit requirement (4.15.6); and, would create a new class of fees for a special use permit for farmers’ markets and establish a fee of $490.00, which is a 50% reduction in the fee that would be charged under current regulations. The proposed fee is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A) (6). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley) J.T. Newbury passed out copies of two charts for comparison of the existing and proposed regulations. (See Staff Report Attachments A and B) Ms. McCulley presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the request. • In response to a recent zoning complaint about an off -farm sale, we recognized this ZTA need: the farm is not always the best sales location and other permitted locations are limited off -farm. • Therefore, our current zoning regulations are not adequately implementing goals within the Rural Areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan. This ZTA will better connect local agricultural producers and consumers. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 2 History of ZTA process: • December 10, 2009 – public roundtable from diverse interests with valuable input; • January 19, 2010 – Planning Commission work session; • (Today) – Commission public hearing; and • May 5, 2010 – Board of Supervisors public hearing There are three different terms or uses that staff feels should accommodate the different types of opportunities and locations for selling agricultural products: Allow Farm Stands for selling “local” agricultural products and merchandise off -site from the producing farms. Allow Farm Sales for the on-site sale of agricultural products and merchandise with subordinate sales of accessory merchandise. Allow Farmer’s Markets for off-site sale by multiple farmers. Also allow subordinate sales of accessory merchandise. Farm Stands – Current: On-site sales only in RA By-Right: RA, MHD, VR, PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC & HC. On-site sales only in RA Proposed: *Off-site sales By-Right: RA, MHD & VR. Farm Sales – Current: By-Special Use Permit: RA & MHD. Proposed: By-Right: RA, MHD & VR. Farmer’s Market – Current: By-Right: PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC, HC, C-1 & DCD. Proposed: By-Right: PUD-C, PDSC, PDMC, HC, C-1, DCD, NMD, CO, LI & HI. By-Special Use Permit: RA, MHD, VR and Residential Districts & LI / HI w/ new structure At the last work session staff had proposed Light Industry. The Commission suggested that Heavy Industrial be added by special use permit. There is one proviso that if existing or temporary structures are used it will be by right in Light Industr y; whereas, if new structures are proposed for that purpose, then it would require a special use permit. The reason is to be sure that they get a closer look at those investments of new construction for non-industrial uses in industrial districts. Summary of Revisions – (Attached to Staff Report in Draft Ordinance) 1. The revisions resulted from Commission input at the work session, including how to handle the process (includes adjacent owner notice), by-right off-site signage (RA & VR) and administrative setback reduction. W ith the permission of the adjacent owner the setbacks can be reduced. Staff has figured out a form for during that because they want to be ready to implement this as soon as the Board adopts the ZTA. Also, staff added the farmer’s market use in Heavy Industry. In both LI and HI, farmers market will be by-right unless new permanent structures are proposed. Staff has worked on the adjacent owner letter, which is codified in the draft ordinance in terms of a requirement on their part to provide notice. 2. Staff also recommends fee subsidy / reduction from commercial SP (for farmers market) from $980 to $490. If the Commission is so inclined they could potentially further reduce the fee to $110. Currently there is a special use permit fee for a minor amendment to an existing special use permit ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 3 or making a non-conforming use conforming. Those are for relatively minor, lower levels of review kinds of permits. Staff envisions that the special use permits being set up for Rural Area/Residential will very often go into locations where they already have infrastructure consisting of parking and an entrance. It is a pretty straight forward review if the site already has an approved entrance and parking. In that event it may make sense to subsidize the fee even more for farmers market and drop it even below $490 to $110, which is something staff would like the Commission to think about. Staff also recommends reducing setbacks to what is required for other structures in that district. Conclusion: Staff recommends approval of the draft ordinance for farm stands, sales and farmers markets in Attachment D of the staff report. Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. Mr. Franco asked about staff’s suggestion regarding the fee reduction. Ms. McCulley replied that a special use permit was only going to apply to the Rural Areas District for a farmers market; Monticello Historic District; Village Residential and the Residential Districts; and in Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial when they are proposing a new permanent structure. Mr. Franco pointed out that personally his goal was to have the fee represent the amount of work that staff has to do. Therefore, he could see a reduction in that fee in the Rural Areas. If it was a new structure in LI or HI, then it seems that would require more effort and the half fee would make more sense there. He would support a fee reduction because this is a use we want to encourage and should not be an income generator for the County. Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Smith asked if this was a one-time fee. Ms. McCulley replied yes that it was a one-time fee. The permit runs with the land and typically is not issued just to the permit holder. Staff would want any property owner, leaser or manager of the farmer ’s market to enjoy the use of it subject to the conditions. Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco that the fee should be on a sliding scale depending on the amount of staff work. At the last meeting an issue was brought up by a member of the community a bout an identification sticker being posted so that if someone was setting up they would know if they had been through the process. He asked if any further work has been done on that. Ms. McCulley replied that staff was open to input. W ith the zoning clearance application staff was suggesting that they display that on site to indicate County approval of their market. Regarding the fee, she asked Mr. Kamptner if they could do it as a major versus minor review similar to major and minor site plan review. Major would be $490 if they were talking about new infrastructure. Mr. Kamptner replied yes if staff could identify a basis for the various fees that are going to be imposed. He assumed all the fees would be reduced below the County’s actual cost. If they could identify a reasonable basis to establish different fees for different types of applications, then that is acceptab le. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Joe Jones, resident of White Hall and current President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, reiterated what Ms. McCulley had said. Last fall there was a case they found was not in compliance with the County Ordinance. They called a meeting of stakeholders, which was very beneficial, where a lot of information and questions before the Commission surfaced. He expressed support for Ms. McCulley and all of the work staff has done on this. As a group of farmers they can support the proposal, particularly the fee reduction. Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, commended County staff and the members of the agricultural community for their hard work on this effort. They tipped their hat to the Commission and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 4 Board for looking for ways to expand opportunities for local farmers to sell their products. Doing so not only supports the County’s rural economy and our local farmers, but also provides benefits to the rest of the community which seems to be growing increasingly aware of the value of buying local produce and supporting local agriculture. The draft ordinance strikes a reasonable balance between facilitating a sale of local agriculture and protecting the public health and welfare. However, there are three issues he would like to flag for their consideration before this ordinance is finalized and sent to the Board of Supervisors. 1. Of the three activities farm sales, farm stands and farmer’s markets, it is only farm stands that require that the agricultural products being sold there are grown local. He could not find any explanation of why farm sales and farmer’s markets don’t also require that local nexus. It seems clear from the staff report and the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan that the purpose of these amendments is to promote local agriculture. He asked what the rationale is behind only having that local nexus apply to farm sales. 2. The provision requiring the next door neighbor be sent notice of a submitted application states that the notice must only be mailed o nly five days prior to the zoning clearance being acted upon. This means that the abutting landowner could end up seeing a notice only a day or two before the decision. That seems hardly enough time for a landowner to contact staff, get some grasp of the proposal and offer feedback that in all likelihood would be useful to County staff and will help diffuse potential problems before the new use is up and running as opposed to after. T hey recommend that the notice period be extended to something like two weeks or something more reasonable. 3. Most importantly would be to ensure that these uses limit their impacts on the County’s fragile natural resources. Page 4 of the staff report states that the zoning clearance approval process will require a confirmation that any earth disturbance such as one for a new structure complies with the County’s Water Protection Ordinance. However, he did not see where this is clearly reflected in any of the proposed ordinance language. He could not find any explicit reference to the Water Protection Ordinance in Section 31.5, which lays out the requirements for zoning clearance or on the clearance application form that is on the County’s website. If the ex pectation is that these uses will comply with the Water Protection Ordinance, then they believe that should definitely be the case. It needs to be more explicit in the new ordinance sections and clear to applicants in how to go about demonstrating that compliance. In sum, they applaud this effort and the great work that has gone into it and the important purposes behind it, but just b elieve that these three issues: the lack of the local nexus for agricultural products sold at farm stands and farmer ’s market, the very short notice period and ensuring compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance warrants additional consideration. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, applauded staff for quickly moving this forward and embracing what the Comprehensive Plan talks about in keeping the rural areas economically sustainable. He differs with Mr. Butler with regard to neighbor notification. In his world view and based upon the discussions with the winery action the rural areas primary purpose is agricultural. This action for the farm stands, farm sales and farmer’s market clearly support the agricultural primary uses of the rural area. He was not convinced that neighbor notification for a by-right use in the agricultural area is necessary. He understands their desire to keep the public input and did not think that two weeks is onerous, but simply d id not agree philosophically that a by-right use should have that type of notification. There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission. Mr. Zobrist suggested that they tie in that the sponsors for the farmer’s market that rent space show proof that they have a business license. Ms. McCulley replied that staff should d efinitely communicate with Business Licensing, but could not recall what their thresholds are for when the license is required for itinerant service for transient type of uses. She asked Mr. Kamptner if they need to cross reference that requirement. Mr. Kamptner replied for any commercial activity it is a given that the y need to comply with business license requirements. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 5 Mr. Zobrist clarified that he was suggesting shifting the enforcement from something that was impossible to enforce to where the person who is letting them in to pay their daily rents can require a business license or tell them that they can’t sell. Ms. McCulley noted that was a good point. Staff sends copies of all the approved zoning clearances to Business Licensing, which would put them on notice th at there is a business locating at that location, what it is and who they need to contact about it. Staff can talk further with them about the best way to do it. Mr. Morris asked staff to refresh his memory as to the Commission’s discussion about the requirement of having locally produced products on all three and why it was now just for one. Ms. McCulley replied that at the Roundtable staff had recommended local agricultural products and merchandise for both the farm stand and the farm sales. Staff h eard from owners of farm sales, who are people that have invested in buildings that are open five to six days a week as a regular on-going commercial enterprise, that they need the flexibility to fill in other products out-of-season or if they have run out of cantaloupes or whatever their situation is and they are trying to open enough hours and have reliable products. So they asked staff to drop the local requirement for farm sales. Staff heard that and agreed because it is on the farm and still serving the same purpose and would not be abused. The primary products are going to be from their farm since they can’t afford to buy out all of their products from others. Mr. Loach asked if the notification was for five business days. Mr. Kamptner replied that it was for five days because that is the requirement that is established for rezoning or individual notices required for special use permits, and subdivisions and site plans in advance of the site review committee. The neighbors get a five day notice for all of those types of applications. They have had a couple of other types of processes where there were suggestions for that period to be lengthened. He felt it was easier for everybody if they keep it uniform. He recognized that it was not a long period, but right now it is consistent and for the most part has worked fine. When they do a wholesale re- codification of the zoning ordinance they may look at extending that period. If they do extend those dates he felt that it would be across the board. Ms. McCulley pointed out that staff needs to make an effort to get the notice out early-on after receiving an application. But, there is review that the request will need to go through that can take much more than five days depending on whether it has to be sent to the Department of Health. Mr. Cilimberg noted that in actuality a lot of our notices are much further out than five days, which is the minimum. Mr. Newberry added that in conversations with different sellers they have talked about labeling locally grown produce as being a market driven requirement that they put on themselves because they have found that people who are very interested in the origin are willing to pay more once they have more information about the product. There are some people that will do those themselves even if it was not required. Mr. Smith asked if his grandson wants to sell tomatoes on the side of the road does he have to have a business license. Ms. McCulley replied that she did not think so because there were a lot of exemptions and she thought that someone would need to have $5,000 of income along with several other thresholds to meet. Her understanding is that the occasional lemonade stand does not fall into a business license. Mr. Loach asked Mr. Jones to respond to Mr. Zobrist’s point about the origin of where the produce comes from and whether it is problematic. Joe Jones said the question had come up as to what is local produce and had suggested that local be defined as Albemarle County and any adjoining county so that the produce would have to come from within that geographical area. He thought that the market will take care of itself. The good sales people will put up a sign to label the produce locally grown in Albemarle County. If there is no sign, then people should just ask where the produce came from. He did not think it needs to be put in the ordinance or codified to say where the produce came from. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 6 Mr. Franco noted that it would be hard to enforce. Mr. Jones said that it would be self regulating by the consumer. If someone bought a rotten tomato, then they won’t use that vendor any more. Mr. Loach asked staff to address Mr. Butler’s question about the protection of the natural resources and watershed. Ms. McCulley noted that it is clearly the intent unless it is explicitly exempt under State Law, for example E & S requirements, that it be regulated. The question is if it is necessary just because sometimes there is the lack of clarity used in agriculture in the Water Protection Ordinance an d should they have a reference in this. Mr. Kamptner pointed out water protection is made subject to the Water Protection Ordinance for any land disturbing activity related to the construction of farm structures including but not limited to agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling, planting, and harvesting. They can either amend this and make a direct cross reference over to that exemption or clarify it. About a year and a half ago they had an internal discussion with the applicabilit y of that provision to a farm winery and the various types of improvements. Staff can clear that up so that it is clear. Mr. Franco asked what the next step would be. Ms. McCulley replied that the next step was the public hearing with the Board of Supe rvisors on May 5. She wanted to make sure that there was consensus that they would amend the ordinance to require signs on non-locally grown produce. Mr. Zobrist noted that there are federal laws for all produce to be clearly marked and labeled that come into this country from a foreign country. He had nothing against buying it and enjoys it, but would like to know where the produce came from, which gives him some idea as to what the pricing ought to be. He was willing to pay a significant premium for fresh grown produce from our county. Mr. Loach asked how he would amend this to include that. Mr. Kamptner said that there was a limit as to the extent to which they can regulate as a zoning regulation. The one thing they could do for f acilitating and enforcement would be to require some kind of posting for farm stands because that is the category authorized and allowed to sell local agriculture products. Beyond that maybe they can consult with the state for some ideas, but he was not sure how far they can go in a zoning regulation. Mr. Zobrist suggested that the produce sold at the facility not grown in Albemarle County or adjoining counties be clearly marked non-locally grown. He supported locally grown produce and felt that would help the local producers. Mr. Smith noted it was a good idea, but asked how they would enforce it. Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Smith that it was a nice idea, but was willing to move this draft forward to the Board with that as a stated concern. He did not think they have to draft the language for it tonight. He would prefer to move the ZTA draft language forward with a flag saying that the Board of Supervisors should think about this concern. Mr. Zobrist agreed with the suggestion. Mr. Franco questioned how the Commission feels on the fee aspects. Mr. Loach agreed with the fee reduction based on a sliding scale as suggested by staff. Staff will need to look into that, which he assumed could be done prior to the Board hearing so there would be a staff recommendation. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-00018 FARM/WAYSIDE STANDS 7 Mr. Franco moved for approval of the draft ordinance with the changes to the fee structure as discussed; a note to the Board of Supervisors with respect to the locally grown product; and making sure that the Water Protection Ordinance is referenced properly. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Kamptner noted that in re-reading this today there were a couple of punctuation errors and an old reference to a farm stand, which was out of place when the ordinance was reorganized. Those types of corrections will need to be made as well. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to amend the motion to forward a recommendation of approval for the adoption of ZTA-2009-00018, Farm/Wayside Stands, as presented and edited with the following amendments. Changes to the fee structure as discussed; Note added to the Board of Supervisors with respect to the locally grown product; Include additional minor corrections; and Make sure that the Water Protection Ordinance is referenced properly. The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Porterfield and Lafferty absent) Mr. Loach noted that ZTA-2009-00018 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, Farmers Markets would go before the Board of Supervisors on May 5, 2010 with a recommendation for approval. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Economic Development Action Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board direction regarding the proposed Action Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Stimart LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: This report is presented in response to the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors at its January 6th Board meeting. (Attachment A) Specifically, the Action Plan directed staff to “work closely with the Partnership for Economic Development and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan in the first six months of 2010 to significantly increase non-personal tax revenues through economic growth.” The Plan further states that “We should update our five year strategic plan to reflect this priority and goal.” Staff will include discussion of this issue in a future review with the Board of Supervisors regarding the County Strategic Plan. Shortly after the Board adopted the Action Plan, staff met with Supervisor Boyd to receive input on proceeding with the goal. As a result, several meetings have been held over the past several months with the Chamber, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), members of the business community, Supervisor Boyd and staff to begin the process of developing a Economic Development Action Plan for Board consideration. As that process began, the Chamber forwarded a letter to the County Executive sharing its perspective on the development of priorities to address the Board’s adopted action plan. (Attachment C). This group first met in mid-February, reviewed the Board’s action plan and the Chamber’s input and shared various perspectives on the issue. Based on that input and discussion, staff worked closely with Mike Harvey of the TJPED in developing a draft plan for further consideration by the group and ultimately for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The group had a final meeting in mid-April to review the draft plan and, after minor revisions, recommended forwarding the attached plan to the Board of Supervisors. (Attachment B) STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal One: Enhance Quality of Life for all Citizens Goals Five: Fund the County’s Future Needs DISCUSSION: The Draft Economic Development Action Plan contains five key objectives: I) Improve the County’s business climate and image; II) Simplify development review and create certainty with the process, giving the applicant expectations for time and cost; III) Strategically grow and attract capital-intensive private sector employers that provide a diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident work force; IV) Remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users; and V) Promote agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. These objectives were developed to provide a comprehensive action plan focused on addressing the primary goal of growing the commercial tax base to increase tax revenues without raising tax rates. To assure these objectives are achieved, a set of strategies and actions were also developed with specific timelines for completion. Recognizing current budget constraints and the importance of partnerships, the action items place a high reliance on partnership with other organizations. Some actions items, such as the County Web site enhancement and improvements to development review processes were already underway and were easily incorporated into this plan. Other action items, such as “considering amendments to development review to facilitate small business opportunity” are new initiatives and will require staff resources to be redirected from other activities to meet the milestone. To assure that progress in achieving the primary goal of increasing commercial revenues from economic growth is monitored on a regular basis, a number of performance measures were identified. (Attachment D). First, staff will measure the split between the commercial and residential real estate. This measure is used by a large number of localities, with a common rule of thumb that targets 70% residential – 30% commercial. While Albemarle appears to be doing well with this measure when compared to other localities, increasing revenues from commercial properties will be the emphasis in monitoring success. Other important indicators or measures that will be monitored on a regular basis include: Business, Professional and Occupational License fees; Machinery and Tools tax; Bank Franchise tax, and Public Service tax, which are indicators of commercial growth, and Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy tax, Meals tax and Job Growth by sector, which are considered broader measures of economic vitality. Information on these measures and indicators will be available and monitored on a quarterly basis through the County’s Performance Management site. In considering possible tax benefits of this effort, staff believes it is important for the Board to recognize that the Economic Development Action Plan will require a long-term commitment and short-term performance may be misleading. It is doubtful the County will see this effort create a significant change in the commercial / residential split within the next three to five years. Given current market conditions and the complexity of commercial lending, it is possible the County may even see this performance measure worsen over the next couple of years. Finally, it should also be recognized there are no limitations on residential growth in the County and there is a large inventory of property ready for residential developm ent. BUDGET IMPACT: Implementation of this plan will not require additional staff, though it will require the County to reprioritize other staff efforts to implement this plan within the stated timelines. While additional funding may be required for the studies proposed under Objective III, alternatives that may offset this cost will need to be reviewed prior to considering additional funds. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Staff requests the Board identify any additional changes, information, or process desired before considering the plan for adoption 2. Once the plan is adopted, staff recommends including it in the County’s Strategic Plan as a new objective under goal five: Fund the County’s Future Needs. ATTACHMENTS A – January 6, 2010 Action Plan B - Draft Economic Development Action Plan C - January 26, 2010 Chamber of Commerce Letter to County Executive D – Performance Measures Return to regular agenda DRAFT Economic Development Action Plan PREAMBLE: Albemarle County’s commitment to a quality community involves creating an attractive, sustainable, safe, and vibrant place to live, work and raise a family. Our commitments to education and infrastructure are critical components of Albemarle’s quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. Education in our community is a successful partnership, with our public school division recognized as one of the highest performing in the Commonwealth and the U niversity of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College highly acclaimed as well respected institutions of higher learning. Programs including the County “bright stars” pre-kindergarten program and the Math- Engineering-Science Academy (MESA) magnet school along with CATEC are examples of how our range of educational opportunities, technology-rich classrooms, and top-quality instruction, as well as collaboration with key public and private sector partners, help ensure a highly educated, capable local workforce ready to embrace the challenges of the global economy. The County has a proven track record in managing growth to best utilize our infrastructure dollars in a manner that protects and preserves the area’s abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on the natural resources, which is also a critical component in our community’s desirability and quality of life. By balancing these important commitments, the County has achieved managed growth without sacrificing quality of life and our community character. The following economic development action plan builds on these existing, proven commitments. PRIMARY GOAL: Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base. o The following measures will be utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on success in achieving this goal: The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax revenues* The following commercial revenues: Machinery and Tools Tax; Business, Professional & Occupational License Fees; Bank Franchise Tax and Public Service Tax The following additional indicators: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Meals Tax and job growth by sector *Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate OBJECTIVES: I. Improve the County’s business climate and image. STRATEGIES 1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) that Albemarle County is “open for business.” o Actions Develop and implement a plan within six months to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the VEDP and others. (e.g. Economic Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor’s Opportunity Fund) Maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) programs In 2010, implement an outreach program utilizing TJPED’s prospect proposal system, which will create marketing collateral for business targets. This will include communicating economic development opportunities with target companies, VEDP, broker/consultant community, and the entrepreneur 2. INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STAFF – Enhance the visibility and priority of economic development efforts by the County. o Actions In next three months, make the current Business Development Facilitator position a part of the County Executive’s Office and provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic development on the County’s web site. 3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of business development for the economic vitality of the community. o Actions Within next three months, begin regular presentations by various business interests to staff, with a focus on how the County’s land use regulations and policies affect business decisions. This will provide opportunity for staff to better understand the customer’s issues and concerns. Beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2010, provide the business community a quarterly update of emerging and current development issues. This will focus on staff or community identified concerns rather than project specific issues. Starting immediately, as part of pre-application discussions, assign a staff member to serve as a single point of contact for addressing new issues on projects. Also, provide handouts and webpage links for information on development review (e.g. review process flow-charts, points of contact) that help applicants better understand the processes for ZTA, ZMA, Rezoning, Special Use Permit, Zoning Clearance, Sign Review, ARB review Continue routine survey of applicants as to accuracy and ease of understanding of processes, tracking of application status, staff’s assistance with the application and any other issues of concern. Survey results will be shared with the County Executive to determine effectiveness of programs and where changes should be considered. II. Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the applicant a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review. STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL – Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new businesses, eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administration decisions. o Actions In the first half of 2010, hold a work session (already scheduled for May) with the Board of Supervisors on changes to the process for a Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB review). In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors that will allow for ministerial approval of applications (e.g. site plans, subdivisions). This will include timetables for recommended changes. In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning, special use permits). (Note: This is considered a lower priority to ministerial applications as no complex applications have been submitted in the last 2 years due to the economy and few are expected for the next several years.) 2. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES TO FACILITATE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNTIES – Recognizing small businesses often lack the financial resources and management expertise to navigate the plan review process, provide for expedited administrative reviews, including waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact for approval of simple site plans. o Action As part of the proposed ordinance changes under #1, include consideration of how a simplified review process could be created for small businesses that have no experience with development review. This should include consideration of how a single point of contact for those businesses may assist in the processing of an application. III. Strategically grow and attract capital-intensive private sector employers that provide a diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident workforce. STRATEGIES 1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County’s aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses. o Actions Identify & address existing business needs. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED and the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), implement regularly scheduled local business panels and provide a larger forum to collect information, identify and address workforce and other needs of local business clusters 2. EXPAND DESIRABLE BUSINESS CLUSTERS - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County’s existing businesses and identify barriers to profitability. o Actions Determine target industries; work with a task force (including TJPED) to determine the region’s target business sectors. These business targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts. Cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED and SBDC, provide technical support seminars to support entrepreneurs in targeted business clusters 3. ATTRACT TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that attracts companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County’s business development objective. o Actions By the first half of 2011, create a plan for developing workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center, UVA and the County school system) tied to target industry or key sectors. By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions’ polices and practices in attracting targeted business and investment. Via continued support of local job fairs, continue to showcase our local workforce talent and local corporate partners. Utilize TJPED’s ExecutivePluse CRM, JobsEQ and other tools to provide an online feedback loop for policymakers. This should inclu de trend analysis, identify key issues negatively affecting local companies, and strategies designed to address key negative issues. 4. CONNECT OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESIDENTS - Develop and connect the workforce to existing and new opportunities to serve the entire employment spectrum in Albemarle County through workforce programs and other strategies. o Actions By the first half of 2011, determine demand occupations for the retraining or training of dislocated workers and low-income adults, and youth populations in those occupations. Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce with a multi-channel approach, then connecting people with opportunities through TJPED. Align targets and demand occupations with student awareness, education and participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways IV. Remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE – recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility through reliance on performance standards and lessening dependency on lists of specific uses. o Action In first half of 2010, bring proposed ordinance change to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. 2. DESIGNATE MORE DEVELOPMENT AREA LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – Consider alternatives for expanding land designated in the development areas for various industrial uses. o Action As part of future master plans and updates to the County’s Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land for industrial uses. 3. REZONE LAND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES – For those property owners interested, consider rezoning RA and R-1 parcels located within the development areas that are currently designed for industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. o Action In the second half of 2010, the County will initiate a county wide rezoning to LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the Development Areas that are designated as industrial use on the County’s Land Use Plan. Only properties where the property owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will be included in this rezoning. 4. MODIFY THE USES ALLOWED AT THE INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES – Consider allowing lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access. o Action As part of the current effort to update the County’s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board’s consideration a modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that would address this strategy. V. Promote agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. STRATEGIES 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Work with current partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses. o Action Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with the CACVB will complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agribusiness and tourism in the County. After completing the roundtables, County staff will present the roundtable findings to the Board of Supervisors along with any other data or findings that may assist the Board in setting policy direction. 2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Assure that policies, goals and objectives support current priority needs including consideration of areas such as cottage industries, heritage tourism, and agri-tourism. o Action Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include consideration of this information in updates of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan and in the agreement with the CACVB. 3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Build on existing assets and offerings to expand options for experiencing the beauty and heritage of the rural areas. o Action Based on the above Board direction, establish specific strategies and action items for promoting and supporting agribusiness and tourism in the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan. Resources: Adopted Board of Supervisors ‘2010 Albemarle County Action Plan – January 6, 2010’ Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce letter of January 26, 2010 This ‘draft’ economic development action plan builds on the 2009 adoption of the Updated Economic Development Policy, which focused on the following three short-term priorities: o Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural-support program and continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. o Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light -industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. o Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as: A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of “underemployed” and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA Employment Commission) as well as employer needs. A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary “… dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in our Greater Charlottesville communities.” cvillechamber.com PO Box 1564 • Fifth & Market Streets • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 January 26, 2010 TO : The Honorable Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Albemarle County Executive cc: W. Rod Gentry, 2010 Chairman of the Chamber Board of Directors Robert P. Hodous, Chairman Elect of the Chamber Board Valerie W. Long, Vice Chairwoman of the Board – Economic Vitality FROM : Timothy Hulbert, Chamber President RE : Albemarle County – Economic Development Ideas & Potential Measures * * * * Thank you for your invitation yesterday for our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce to meet with you and other County officials following up on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan.” On behalf of our Chamber of Commerce, we accept your invitation to meet and build upon an already excellent working relationship in a more regular, formal fashion. Since the Board of Supervisors’ enactment of the Action Plan Resolution on January 6th, we have engaged the Chamber’s Economic & Government Affairs Committee, our Board leadership, and others in developing some ideas about how Albemarle County could proceed to meet the objectives of its Board’s new direction. This memorandum represents that work to date. We have advanced many of these approaches in the past. We ask that you, your staff and the Board of Supervisors consider these ideas, in light of the approved Action Plan. Perhaps they could serve to rekindle our on-going discussion about how Albemarle County could improve its business readiness. We look forward to meeting with you soon and trust these ideas will lead to a higher level of economic vitality. Thank you. – 2 – Albemarle County – Economic Development Ideas & Potential Measures Fully embrace and enhance sustained education / workforce development efforts Our Code of Chamber Public Policies states: “Businesses support the foundation of a strong educational system needed to allow people to make the most of their jobs and life opportunities. Existing and new businesses provide the jobs and economic base from which our fellow citizens in our community can and do improve their lives. The combined power of private enterprise and education can enhance the quality of life of the greatest number of our fellow citizens, including those striving to overcome poverty. “It is essential that governments and schools work cooperatively with employers, particularly businesses, to provide programs that support workforce development and better prepare students for career-ladder employment, impart a greater understanding of basic economics and encourage good citizenship.” Like Albemarle County, our Chamber and other business and civic organizations recognize the capacity of the regional workforce as essential to economic sustainability. Recent reorganization of the region’s workforce development delivery to a Piedmont Workforce Investment Board / Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development / Piedmont Virginia Community College consortium holds great potential to improve our workforce so it is better aligned with the career-job demands of today’s and tomorrow’s employers. This effort should be given a very high priority in Albemarle County’s strategic planning and annual budgeting. Workforce development begins with quality education. Albemarle County is fortunate to have a very high quality school system . The Albemarle County school system is recognized as a “Gold Standard” economic development asset (Expansion magazine) in sustaining and attracting enterprise and jobs. The “MESA” – Math Engineering & Science Academy – is a particularly exciting workforce development innovation which enjoys direct support from a number of technology enterprises, as well as the University of Virginia School of Engineering& Applied Sciences and Piedmont Virginia Community College. The Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center’s (CATEC) expansion of customized education options should be supported. CATEC’s transition from dated courses of instruction such as cosmetology to courses in applied technology, automotive technologies and so-called “green” enterprise technologies should be encouraged. The Albemarle County Schools should be further empowered to develop and sustain these and other proven workforce development programs for K-12 as well as post-graduate adult education. Decades of study demonstrate that investments in early childhood education, including pre-Kindergarten programs and quality childcare, are critical to economic growth and vitality. These programs positively impact both today’s and tomorrow’s workforce. Family considerations are the most distracting force for working parents in the workplace. Quality child care and early education both help to alleviate today’s key workforce issues, as well as provide learning environments that allow youngsters to start elementary school on par or ahead of those missing such opportunity. Early education leads to increased rates of graduation and workforce readiness while decreasing rates of crime, job training costs, grade retention, special education costs and teen pregnancy. Albemarle County – 3 – has two stellar examples in the early childhood education arena – the “Bright Stars” program in the schools and the “Smart Beginnings” initiative with the United Way – Thomas Jefferson Area. These programs must be sustained and, as revenues are available, even expanded. Work to expand diverse career ladder employment opportunities The Albemarle – Charlottesville area is fortunate to have several anchor employers, most notably the University of Virginia and its UVA Health System. However the private enterprise sector of the area economy has not been advanced wholly. As private employers have left over the past decade, Albemarle County has not pursued an adequate number of new career-ladder private enterprise employers. Each year t he Albemarle public schools graduate approximately 1,000 new graduates who either attempt to enter the workforce and/or continue with higher education, joining the workforce upon completion. At a minimum, we must work to create and sustain career job opportunities for our own children so that they can stay in Charlottesville and raise their families here if they so desire. Another chronic workforce problem is identifying and helping to create and sustain, rewarding career-ladder job opportunities for so-called “trailing spouses” of employees who have secured rewarding career positions. This problem is cited at almost every employment function and regularly by employment professionals. Addressing this problem must be a high priority. Economic development in Albemarle County – both internally within the County administration and working with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership – should mean assisting existing career-ladder enterprise employers in their workforce needs and pursuit of new career-ladder enterprise employers so as to provide a wider range of diverse job opportunities. Re-commission and reassign the Albemarle County Business Development Facilitator Empower the Business Development Facilitator as a more active advocate for business development by renaming the position as “Special Assistant to the County Executive for Economic Development” and making the position part of the County Executive staff with access to all County functions as the County Executive deems appropriate. This Special Assistant would also serve as the professional staff support, along with legal staff as required, for the Albemarle County Economic Development Authority. Change the perception of Albemarle County being antipathetic to business Albemarle County needs to change a long-standing perception in business and economic development circles that the County is antipathetic to business. Albemarle needs to state and re-state repeatedly that it is “Open for Business” and match its regulatory approach to that tenet. Albemarle County must become more competitive and active in developing and retaining existing, and attracting new, sustainable businesses. – 4 – Given these circumstances, Albemarle County should consider “customer service” education programs for its Community Development Department staff, to help them be more welcoming and supportive of proposed business endeavors than has been experienced. Small things like looking for ways to make a project work, rather than focusing on perceived deficiencies of a project, can go a long way at the initial planning and feedback stage. Increased interaction with the Commonwealth of Virginia Albemarle County should communicate its “Open for Business” approach to economic development to the Commonwealth of Virginia, beginning with the Governor and Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Albemarle County then must establish regular interaction with all appropriate economic development agencies and officials of the Commonwealth. Target strategic enterprises for growth Albemarle County should take a strategic approach to economic development by identifying strategic growing career-ladder job sustaining enterprises – assisting those enterprises already here and pursuing those that match the target profile. The Special Assistant to the County Executive for Economic Development should be charged with meeting with senior executives of businesses already in place, co mpiling their needs for further success, developing strategic actions for business growth, and reporting to the County Executive, appropriate measures which can be taken. This could be undertaken in concert with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College. The Special Assistant should also be a key member of any and all enterprise recruitment efforts; again in concert with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College. Once the County strategically has ident ified types of desired new enterprises and those enterprises’ generic needs (site and building size, utilities, access, etc.), the County could put in place a “pre-permitting” initiative which should match business planning goals by dramatically decreasing the extensive planning/zoning/development process. Embrace Defense Enterprises Over the past decade, Greater Charlottesville, particularly Albemarle County, has witnessed the location and growth of defense enterprises. These career-ladder private employers offer a range of challenging, well-paying jobs. Many have located and grown here due to the US Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center and other Department of Defense entities – well in advance of this year’s on-coming Joint Use Analysis Facilit y of the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The Chamber has observed that these private enterprises now employ more than 500 of our neighbors and anticipate further business and job growth. Last year, the Chamber established the Chamber Defense Enterprise Round Table, which now has 18 member enterprises. The County Business Development Facilitator has been involved in this effort. Albemarle County must fully embrace this opportunity to add an expanding career-ladder employment sector in the years ahead. – 5 – Light Industrial locations Albemarle County should be far more proactive in its efforts to build on its identification of existing light industrial and industrial service zoned parcels. The County should look to add parcels in areas where businesses would prefer to locate, including sites with easy access to highways to address their transportation and employee access issues. These parcels must also be of sufficient size to be economically viable and attractive to businesses. The County’s Business Development Facilitator is very knowledgeable on these issues and has forward-thinking ideas for addressing the challenges of ensuring adequate land and other infrastructure necessary to achieve these goals. She should be empowered to pursue strategic efforts in this area. Agribusiness enterprises – wineries Our Chamber embraces a long tradition of commitment to agricultural enterprises. Over half of the region’s rural area is in privately owned forests, the balance in various forms of agribusiness. These rural businesses - mostly small, family enterprises - are estimated to produce more than $60 million in products each year, including some of the finest wines in America. Private landowners’ stewardship in Albemarle should be acclaimed. Sustainable management by private landowners has resulted in the protection of exceptional open vistas of active farms and forested mountains, which we as residents and business people - and the tourists visiting here - all enjoy. These agribusinesses must be economically sustainable if they are to continue. Albemarle County government should be more flexible and encouraging towards creative and emerging agribusiness endeavors such as agri-tourism. Viticulture and winemaking are shining examples of success in agribusiness and agri-tourism and Albemarle County should strive to sustain and further the development of the wine industry here. These steps are directly in line with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan which identifies agricultural and forestry resources as “the most critical County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area.” More fully engage businesses and other employers in transportation decisions Albemarle County’s extensive efforts to engage businesses and other employers in transportation planning decisions have made great strides in recent years. While our Chamber does not embrace the overall concept of the joint Albemarle County / Virginia Department of Transportation “Places29” project (grade-separated overpasses as central to future design), we applaud the County’s effort to include a greater number of businesses in the process. Furthermore, a number of “Places29” projects such as the “Berkmar Bypass,” (Rivanna River bridge and roadway extended included) have our Chamber’s strong support. As the County proceeds with planning projects – including public transit enhancements – businesses should be actively sought out and surveyed about their anticipated future employee and service demand, and integrated more fully and into the planning process, and their input should be given serious consideration. – 6 – Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Albemarle County, as well as the City of Charlottesville, should further enhance and embrace the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport as a key business asset. The value of this regional asset should be promoted further. Airport facilities need to be expanded – including the proposed 800 foot extension of Runway 3/21 – so the Airport can sustain and enhance its competitive air service as well as capture additional attractive private business aircraft use now and in the years ahead. Community Water Supply Comprehensive and sustained planning for, and management of, our regional water supply to provide for the citizens, businesses, civic institutions and visitors, and, timely and decisive action are essential to sustain and enhance our current and future health and economic vitality. Our Chamber supports the approved, permitted Community Water Supply Plan. Albemarle County has shown leadership in moving this needed plan forward; the County must continue to press for real action (design and construction) by mid-year 2010. Simplify the development review process Albemarle County’s development review process is far too cumbersome and can and should be simplified while preserving community and environmental standards. Such simplification will make the County more attractive to potential businesses, and will make it easier for existing business to expand and relocate as their needs require. As a starting point, during the rezoning process the County should not require such a level of detail to application plans and other development plans. The County Community Development staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors should work with landowners and applicants to strike a balance in the level of detailed required on plans so that applicants have the flexibility to respond to market demands and conditions and create viable development projects. The current level of detail required does not permit the necessary flexibility, and requires many projects that enjoyed the support of the Board of Supervisors, to work back through a lengthy and cumbersome rezoning process to incorporate even relatively minor changes. This requirement has significantl y delayed a number of desired projects that, absent such regulatory restrictions, might be open for business today – providing jobs for the citizens of our community while generating tax revenues for the County. In addition, many businesses are unwilling or unable to invest the significant funds needed just to prepare and submit a rezoning or special use permit application given the requirements for such a detailed application plan, other application materials, and a stable of professional consultants. Coupled with the significantly long review periods involved, many businesses find the rezoning process to not be worth the effort and e xpense involved, and thus choose either to not relocate, not expand, or not to ever pursue Albemarle County as a business location. Other businesses elect to pursue development plans that are not consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. This situation requires comprehensive, focused attention. – 7 – In certain instances, an engineering certification by a professional engineer could alleviate County administrative burdens without sacrificing any standard. In other cases the County could establish a rotating professional engineering “peer-review” panel for certification. This process would bring the added potential benefit of reducing on-going, under-used staff costs particularly during down economic cycles. Many businesses find the Albem arle County Architectural Review Board to have guidelines and burdensome procedures and requirements which excessively regulate development and result in difficult, non-business-friendly decisions. Albemarle County should consider a full review of these g uidelines, procedures and practices, and consider a possible restructure of the ARB to an Architectural Review Administrator reporting to the Director of Community Development. The County should review and re-establish its current Designated Development Areas, particularly in light of changing economic conditions. The County should be flexible in its consideration, notably on the boarder areas between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. For example, some well-established, home-grown businesses are located in rural areas immediately adjacent to a Development Area. As such they have little to no ability to grow existing facilities, and jobs, even incrementally. The County should take into consideration well established “customary uses” and be flex ible. In other instances, a section of Rural Area land may be bordered by Development Area land which could logically incorporate development area uses to the overall benefit of the County and its citizens. The currently designated rural area, just north of the South Fork Rivanna River, along the US29 corridor is one such example. Some development formulae need to be reviewed. For example it is understood that the Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Sewer & Water Authority take into consideration all approved projects total maximum impact, whether or not those projects have ever been built. Development proffers to cover the reasonably calculated impact of a particular development can be sensible. However, including in the proffer policy costs not directly related to a project is inappropriate, counterproductive and can cause otherwise desirable and local tax generating projects to fail. Our Chamber continues to support the “Neighborhood Model” for development as one option available to build projects that meet the County’s goals. However, County staff and the Planning Commission in practice have steered development into the Neighborhood Model as THE only option. Our Chamber encourages the County to be more flexible in this respect, allowing for projects with other development options that meet overall goals. As County officials know well, our Chamber of Commerce supports environmentally sound development, preservation of rural areas and quality constructi on consistent with the area’s distinctive heritage. Our Chamber has been an active participant in DISC, DISC II, CHART, “Places29” and remains active in numerous other County and other regional planning efforts. Our Chamber supports projects, both public and private, in the context that they must and can meet all applicable federal and state environmental, health, safety and transportation requirements. – 8 – Increased, regular dialogue with regional economic development organizations Albemarle County, our Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development have established good communications and working relationships for some time. Increasing and making regular these working relationships can only improve the County’s and region’s overall economic vitality. Our Chamber will be even more available to the County as it targets and vigorously pursues quality economic development opportunities. Our Chamber thanks you and the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity to help build a more dynamic, diverse economically vibrant community. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Monitoring the Expansion of Albemarle’s Commercial Tax Base Steven A. Allshouse Coordinator of Research & Analysis April 14, 2010 Residential vs. Commercial Tax Revenue Split in Select Virginia Counties (FY 08/09) Actual Represents Target is Multifamily Institutional R.E. Tax for New or Inc. in Included in County Target Actual or all Txs.?or Total?Comm.?Either Cat.? Chesterfield 70%/30%80%/20%R.E. Only New Yes No Loudoun 70%/30%79%/21%R.E. Only All No No Hanover 70%/30%77%/23%R.E. Only New No No Albemarle N/A 75%/25%R.E. Only N/A No No James City 70%/30%73%/27%R.E. Only New No No Henrico 70%/30%71%/29%R.E. Only All Yes No Indicators for monitoring expansion of the commercial tax base: Percentage of Real Estate Tax Revenue Coming from Commercial vs. Residential Properties Sales Tax Revenue Business, Professional, and Occupational License (BPOL) Tax Revenue Food & Beverage (Meals) Tax Revenue Transient & Occupancy (Hotel/Motel) Tax Revenue Public Service Tax Revenue Machinery & Tools Tax Revenue Bank Franchise Tax Revenue Current Quarterly Monitoring Albemarle County Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s): https://ia.albemarle.org/pm/default.aspx Albemarle County Quarterly Economic Indicators Report: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=ct yexec&relpage=12423 (includes sales tax revenue and employment data) County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: May 5, 2010 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions, Updated The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were received as follows: CHART Committee: One vacancy. Brad Sheffield Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. No applications received. Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee: One vacancy. Carol Rasmussen Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy. Deborah Rutter The following reappointments require action by the Board: Ag & Forestal District Advisory Committee: Mark Gorlinsky Nelson Shaw Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau: Naresh Naran Historic Preservation Committee: Steven Meeks 1 MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT ACE Committee Rob Farrell 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required ACE Committee James Powell 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required ACE Committee Richard Keeling 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required Ag & Forestal District Advisory Committee Nelson Shaw 4/17/2010 4/17/2014 Yes Action Required Ag & Forestal District Advisory Committee Mark Gorlinsky 4/17/2010 4/17/2014 Yes Action Required CHART Advisory Committee James Currie 4/3/2011 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd CACVB Naresh Naran 6/30/2010 6/30/2012 Yes Action Required Commission on Children and Families Ralph Chester 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required Commission on Children and Families Chelsea Henderson 6/30/2010 6/30/2011 Ineligible No Action Required, to be advertised Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Eligible No Action Required Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Morgan Butler 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible No Action Required, to be adverised Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Jamie Spence 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible No Action Required, to be adverised Historic Preservation Committee Jane Covington 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 Eligible No Action Required Historic Preservation Committee Steven Meeks 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 Yes Action Required Historic Preservation Committee Judd Bankert 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 No No Action Required, to be advertised Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Patricia Stevenson 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Michael Peoples 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required Pantops Community Advisory Council Andrew Dracopoli TBD Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Katya Spicuzza 3/5/2010 3/5/2012 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd Region Ten Community Services Board Barbara Barrett 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Ineligible No Action Required, to be adverised RSWA Citizens Advisory Committee Stephen Kirkup 12/31/2009 12/31/2011 Ineligible Advertised, 1 application recv'd Route 250 West Task Force Eric Bryerton 4/4/2010 4/4/2013 No No Action required, to be advertised Workforce Investment Board Rod Gentry 6/30/2010 6/30/2011 Eligible No action required Workforce Investment Board Barbara Kessler 6/30/2010 6/30/2011 Eligible No action required Revised 04/28/10 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Continue review of the Master Plan. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Benish, Echols, Wiegand, Catlin LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: May 5, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On January 13, 2010, the Board held a worksession on the Places29 Master Plan. This worksession is to continue the review of the Master Plan and provide additional information requested by the Board . STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Direction 2: Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources. Strategic Direction 3: Enhance th e Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens DISCUSSION: Staff has provided written responses to some of the questions asked by the Board (see Attachment A). Staff will present additional information in three parts: 1. Steve Williams, TJPDC, will present information on the traffic impacts of the proposed Expansion Area, including information on the new model the TJPDC is using. This is a revised version of the presentation that he gave to the MPO. The new model covers the period through 2035, where the model used for the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study covered a 20 -year period through 2025. 2. David Benish will present the answers to the other questions from the Board’s January 13 worksession, focusing on: 1) the capacity analysis, 2) whether the Board wants to include the Expansion Area, and 3) whether the Board has any additional direction for staff on the transportation network. 3. Lee Catlin will discuss the role of the Places29 Citizen Advisory Council(s), given the lack of funding for implementation. She will also ask for any further direction on public participation events to be held prior to the Board’s public hearing on Places29. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests direction from the Board on the Proposed expansion areas and the transportation network recommendations. Staff would also like direction on the future role of the Citizen Advisory Council(s) and the type of public participation activities, if any, the Board would like to have prior to its public hearing on the Master Plan. An opportunity for public input will be provided during this worksession. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I – Memo: Information on the Places29 Master Plan, dated April 28, 2010 Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5832 Fax (434) 972 - 4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: David Benish, Judy Wiegand SUBJ: Information on the Places29 Master Plan requested by the Board at the January 13 worksession DATE: April 28, 2010 The Board requested information regarding a number issues related to the proposed expansion areas and recommended transportation improvements in the US 29 corridor. Staff has organized the information and responses into the following list of questions: 1. Traffic information for Berkmar Drive Extended/Traffic Impact of the Proposed Expansion Area to the Road Network: A. How much traffic would Berkmar Drive Extended take off of US 29? B. The traffic impacts of the proposed Expansion Area south of Hollymead, based on the uses proposed. What would be the net gain in capacity? Asked for a map of the area showing distances between roads, the length of Berkmar Drive Extended, the parcels involved, the land use designation in the current Comp Plan, the same in Places29. What will the impact be of changing these designations? Information to answer these three questions will be provided by Steve Williams, Executive Director of the TJPDC, during a presentation at the worksession. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is attached for your reference (Attachment A). Mr. Williams can also provide information on the newer transportation model that the PDC is now using; how it is different from the one used in the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study. 2. When are traffic studies required for development proposals, how much do they cost, and who pays for them when they relate to a Comp Plan Amendment. The County and VDOT typically require traffic impact analyses (studies) with rezoning and special use permit applications and with major site plan and subdivision plats. Recent state legislation requires an analysis based on a certain threshold of activity. From the VDOT website (Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, Administrative Guidelines (July 2008)): Chapter 527, 2006 Acts of Assembly added §15.2-2222.1 to the Code of Virginia … to require localities to submit rezoning, site plan, and subdivision plat proposals along with traffic impact analysis studies to VDOT if these proposals can be expected to substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways (“state highway”). VDOT will provide the locality with advisory comments and recommendations concerning the traffic impact of the development. (Note: “substantial” impact is defined in the code as a change that would generate 5,000 vehicle trips/day on a state controlled highway) This new Code section also instructs localities to submit any new comprehensive plan or plan amendment to VDOT if it will lead to substantial impacts or changes to the existing transportation ATTACHMENT I network. The intent is to improve the coordination between local planning for future growth and planning for the improvements to the existing transportation network to serve such growth. The new Code does not require an impact analysis/study for Comprehensive Plan amendments submitted to VDOT. For rezonings, special use permits, site plans, and subdivision plats, the applicant is typically responsible for undertaking and paying for traffic studies. The cost of a study will vary significantly depending on the scope of the study, which is based on circumstances related to the type, size, and location of the development proposal and the existing transportation network. The scope of the traffic study is ultimately decided by VDOT. If a comprehensive plan amendment originated with the County, then the County would be responsible for submitting the necessary information to VDOT as deemed necessary and consistent with the Code. However, if the comprehensive plan amendment accompanies an application for a rezoning, then the applicant would be expected to submit the necessary information to VDOT, as deemed necessary. 3. What information on traffic impacts and improvements can be obtained from the Route 29 Corridor Study? What is the status of the Route 29 North Corridor Study and how might its findings impact Places29 recommendations? The Route 29 Corridor Study process relied on existing traffic studies and plans already developed by communities along the corridor. Therefore, the Route 29 Corridor Study utilized the land use and transportation network analysis undertaken by the County, VDOT, and the MPO as part of the Places29 process. That Corridor Study generally acknowledged the recommended transportation improvements in the Places29 Master Plan for this portion of US 29. The Route 29 Corridor Study consultant and VDOT initially considered an additional parallel road concept (from Leonard Sandridge Drive to Hydraulic Road) and an alternative design concept for the US29/US250 Bypass interchange improvements (different from the one identified in the 29H250 Study and Places29). However, based on public and community input, those two improvements were not recommended in the final draft of the Route 29 Corridor Study presented to VDOT. The CTB has generally accepted the corridorwide strategies recommended in the Route 29 Corridor Study but, as noted in their resolution (Attachment B), directed VDOT and its consultant to undertake additional work to review specific recommendations for improvements to the corridor, including: A prioritized list of intersections to be replaced by grade-separated intersections A plan to improve mobility and accessibility north of the Charlottesville, evaluating various alternatives, and not limited to prior proposals A plan to improve mobility and accessibility in the Gainesville, Haymarket, and Buckland region, and not limited to prior proposals A plan to limit the number of traffic control signals in the Route 29 Corridor The consultant for VDOT’s Route 29 Corridor Study is now revising the first version of the study. Completion of this work in anticipated in the late spring/summer timeframe. 4. Provide more details on the 29H250 studies—recommendations and status. The 29H250 Study was developed in two phases, both conducted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), with support from City, County, and VDOT staff, and the same consultant team that worked on the Places29 Master Plan. Phase 1, the 29H250 Intersections Study, was completed in 2003. Phase 2 expanded the Phase 1 study area northward to include the Greenbrier/US 29 intersection and westward to Barracks Road and the US 29/250 Bypass interchange. The second phase, completed in 2004, included the development of design concepts for an overpass at US 29 and Hydraulic Road, along with urban design concepts for land uses in the area between US 29, Hydraulic Road, and the 250 Bypass. The Study recommended a series of improvements for this area and those recommendations have been included in the Places29 Master Plan. The studies involved significant public participation at several workshops. An executive summary of the Phase 2 study is included in Attachment C. Key recommendations of the study and their status are noted below: Improving the US29/US250 Bypass interchange by adding a lane to the US 29 southbound lanes, by adding a lane to the onramp, and by adding an auxiliary lane on the Bypass to the Barracks Road interchange. US29 south of Hydraulic Road would consist of an eight-lane section, providing an additional south bound lane to the US29/250 Bypass interchange STATUS: Currently in the plan development stage by the City/VDOT. Currently $4.7 m illion in City and State funds (including Revenue Sharing funds), and private sector funding from the Albemarle Place proffers is allocated to this project. Additional federal earmark funding has been requested by the City with support from the County. Completion of the project is intended to coincide with the opening of Albemarle Place. Increase parallel roadway capacity by constructing Hillsdale Drive from Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road, and by extending Hillsdale further south from Hydraulic Road to Holiday Drive. STATUS: This project, almost all of it located in the City, is under design by the City and VDOT. The road is being incorporated into recent development projects (the new Whole Foods site north of Hydraulic Road). It is anticipated that a significant portion of the cost of the project (right of way) will be provided by the development community. US29/Hydraulic Road interchange. A grade separation of this interchange is necessary to meet the long-term traffic projections. An urban interchange configuration is recommended. STATUS: The developer of Albemarle Place has completed an analysis to determine the right of way necessary on the site (the northwest quadrant of the intersection) to accommodate an urban interchange. The County has now approved an official map identifying the necessary right of way in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. No other work has been undertaken to date on this project. This is considered a long-term project. Emphasis is placed on first adding additional lanes to US 29 in the City, making improvements to the 250 Bypass interchange ramps, extending Hillsdale Drive, making other interparcel connections, and making access management improvements in the immediate area. 5. Provide more information on pedestrian crossings for US 29. How the grade-separations would incorporate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit along with vehicles. The UVa student study of pedestrian crossings. The Master Plan now includes an example of a pedestrian/bicycle overpass connecting th e Fashion Square Mall with the Shopper’s World area. A photosimulation of the potential overpass is shown in Figure 4.1 (page 4-15) and a concept plan of the overpass is shown in Figure 4.2 (page 4-16). The “List of Implementation Projects” in Chapter 8 identifies US 29 pedestrian crossovers/crossings as a Transit/ Pedestrian/ Bicycle implementation project (Project Reference No. 29, page 3 of the list). The intent is to evaluate interim at-grade crossing improvements and long-term grade-separated improvements. Each of the recommended grade-separated intersections would include pedestrian paths/sidewalks and accommodate bicycles and transit. In some cases, a transit stop might be incorporated into the grade separation. More precise information about the spe cific way that each mode would be handled will be available when each grade separation is designed. Staff and VDOT both have copies of the University of Virginia student study of pedestrian crossings. The students recommended certain locations and designs for at-grade crossings. As road improvements are made, these crossings could be incorporated if VDOT determines that the location is appropriate. However, based on initial and preliminary conversations with VDOT staff, there is significant concern with establishing any at-grade crossings along US 29 due to the significant traffic volumes, speeds, and the number of turning movements along US 29. Installing pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections could cause a significant negative impact on the LOS of the intersection. 6. What are the potential the impacts of the improvements to US 29 on existing businesses? Which businesses are more likely to be affected and how will the County minimize impacts during construction? How do the benefits balance the costs/impacts? What help can we give to affected businesses during construction to make up for possible loss of/reduction in customer base that results from more difficult access? Other innovative ways to assist property owners. In the long-term, most, if not all, businesses will experience improved access as customers/clients will be able to reach the business by vehicle, transit, bicycle, and on foot. Clustering businesses in Centers will encourage customers/clients of one business to patronize other busin esses while they are in the Center. So, in the long-term, most businesses will benefit from road and other infrastructure improvements recommended in the Plan. The proposed improvements along US 29 will, for the most part, not require expansion beyond the existing right of way. This is because the current right of way for US 29 is very wide and the road’s cross section will not be widened (for the section south of the Rivanna River) beyond the current eight lanes. The interchange design concepts are also intended to minimize need for additional right of way and to allow businesses to be located adjacent to the interchanges, with access through proposed ring roads and/or parallel roads. The most significant impacts to businesses will occur during constructio n of the various improvements. Businesses located adjacent to the road segments being improved will be the most affected by construction of these improvements. Those located near proposed interchanges may be impacted the most during construction due to the potentially more complex access modifications and detours during construction and grade adjustments. However, until each improvement is designed, staff cannot say exactly which businesses will be affected and to what degree. It is the intent of both County and VDOT staff to minimize the impact of road construction on businesses throughout the area. Programs to help businesses during construction can be devised as part of each Small Area Plan, along with the development and design of each road improvement. However, the following approaches will be considered to minimize the negative impacts of construction on businesses, residents, and the traveling public: completing parallel roads and crossing streets prior to interchange construction or major road segment improvements in order to provide effective alternative access options staggering the timing of project phases night construction schedules, and enhanced signage during construction Staff did some research to see if there were any other innovative approaches used in other areas, such as financial assistance or other non-physical/non-construction related means to assist adjacent businesses during construction of projects. Staff did not find any other approaches to offer at this point in time. When funding for the of the recommended grade separations at US 29/Rio Road and at US 29/Airport Road/Timberwood Road is identified, design of the improvement can begin. At this point, County staff, working with VDOT and TJPDC staff, will prepare a Small Area Plan for each of the affected areas. These Small Area Plans will cover the areas shown within the white dashed lines on the Future Land Use Map. The planning process will involve significant public participation by all businesses, residents, and property owners in the area. The design will be worked out with input from the public. The result will be a more detailed land use map for the area and a design for the road improvements within the area. The road improvements will include any jug handle connectors or ring roads for the overpasses, as well as any other changes in the local neighborhood road network. Owners of businesses will be invited to comment on designs and to work with staff to minimize the effects on their businesses whenever possible. 7. How is the Western Bypass incorporated into the Plan? The Western Bypass is discussed briefly in Chapter 8, Implementation, on page 8-3. Nothing in the draft plan necessarily precludes the potential for the construction of a bypass at some point in the future, if needed. The recommended transportation improvements in Places29 for the US 29 corridor focus on improvements that serve both the local and regional functions of the road, of which local movements make up the vast majority of the total trips. The recommend ed improvements can be done incrementally, with each one providing some improvement to the transportation network. Expansion Area Information 8. Provide the total acreage of the potential Piney Mountain expansion area. How much of the expansion area includes acreage purchased by the Federal government. What is the long term needs for base expansion? What areas of land did the government want to purchase for the base, but could not due to limited funding? Staff should contact NGIC/DIA to find out: a) if they have expansion plans and where they might want to expand; and b) what issues and/or preferences they have for potential land uses and activities adjacent to the base. The proposed Piney Mountain Expansion Area includes approximately 60 acres, which incl udes a portion of the new DIA facility located outside the Development Areas plus approximately 30 additional acres. The Federal government now owns two parcels in Piney Mountain totaling 75 acres (TM 32, Parcels 5C1 and 5C4). Of these two parcels, one is completely inside the Piney Mountain Development Area. The other parcel contains roughly 30 acres outside the boundary (in the Rural Areas). Staff has contacted NGIC/DIA several times since January to find about potential expansion plans and whether NGIC/DIA are comfortable with the land uses shown on the Future Land Use Map and in the potential expansion area adjacent to the base. NGIC/DIA staff have not yet responded to staff’s request for information. As soon as NGIC responds, staff will provide their comments to the Board. 9. Land Inventory & Absorption--Provide the number of available/approved residential units and retail square footage (approved, but not yet built), and information on market absorption/need for residential and retail land. Residential: The total number of dwelling units that have been approved as part of recent rezonings, special use permits and major subdivision plats and site plans is approximately 8000 units (8,069). This total does not include the units approved as part of the Biscuit Run development. Please note that this total is just for approved developments and does not include the development potential of other undeveloped/underdeveloped residentially zoned or designated lands within the Development Areas. Based on the additional residential growth projected by the Virginia Employment Commission for the next 20 years (to 2030) and the average household size for Albemarle (2.12 persons/household, according the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey), the approved 8000 units can accommodate just over 70 percent of the total growth expected over the next 20 years (or 12 to 15 years worth of growth). Some of the major approved residential projects with remaining capacity in the Places29 area are: Belvedere (750 units) North Pointe (893) Hollymead Town Center (areas A, B, D) (1,718) Albemarle Place (650) Arden Place (212) Briarwood (Phase 1A&B, 5 port.) (173) Oakleigh Farm (101) Treesdale (90) TOTAL 4,587 Based on the economic analysis prepared at the beginning of the Places29 planning process in 2005-06: The Places29 area has the potential to capture between 1,770 and 2600 new residential units based growth trends/capture rates for the area and the county from 1990 to 2005. Single-family homes will still be the housing type demanded by the majority of the market (55%), but multi-family housing will become will become a more attractive housing type due to its affordability and its ability to satisfy the increasing one- and two-person household market. Further information from the market analysis about residential activity in the County is presented in the Master Plan in Chapter 3, Existing Conditions and Future Trends (p. 3-15 through p. 3- 16). The information in this chapter i s a summary of the more lengthy analysis presented in the Assets, Needs, and Opportunities Report that was completed early in the planning process and that served as the basis for the land use planning. The Demographic and Economic Trends section on page 3-13 of the Master Plan was accurate as of January 1, 2007; the market analysis predates the economic downturn that began in 2008. Retail: A total of just over 4,000,000 square feet of commercial development has been approved as part of recent rezonings, special use permits, and major site plans throughout the County. This total does not include the approximately 120,000 square feet of commercial approved as part of the Biscuit Run development. Like the residential information above, this total is just for approved developments; it does not include the development potential of other undeveloped/underdeveloped commercially zoned or designated lands within the Development Areas. Some of the major approved commercial/retail projects with remaining capacity in the Places29 area are: Albemarle Place* (616,000 sq. ft. of comm./retail) North Pointe* (582,600) HTC* (Area A1, A2, C) (803,500) HTC* (Area C) (68,000) Northtown Center (199,800) Total 2,269,900 Other major projects in County: Fifth Street-Avon Center (440,000) Rivanna Village* (125,000) *These are totals for retail areas. Each project contains additional square footage approved for office, service uses, and other non-residential uses. Due to limited staff resources and other work priorities, staff was unable to update a previous retail demand/absorption analysis conducted by the Fiscal Impact Planner in 2003. The Chamber of Commerce and TJPED were contacted at the beginning of the Places29 planning process and invited to share any information about number of commercial retail buildings, vacancy rates, and industrial users. At that time, both organizations indicated that they did not collect and maintain this type of information. So, staff proceeded with information prepared by our land use/economic consultants. Since the Board’s request for information at the January worksession, staff has contacted the Chamber, TJPED, and CAAR and invited them to provide information, both at this worksession and as an attachment to this memo. Based on the economic analysis prepared at the beginning of the Places29 planning process in 2005-06: “It is projected that between 1.0 and 1.4 million square feet of retail is supportable in the County between 2005 and 2015.” If the above projects i n the Places29 area are built over the next ten years, “these approved projects will provide more retail space than the 1.0 to 1.4 million square feet that is supportable throughout the entire County between 2005 and 2015.” Additional data and mapping will be provided with the staff presentation at the worksession. Other Information 10. What will the impacts of Places29 be on residential areas/neighborhoods? At the beginning of the Places29 planning process, the Board requested that existing residential neighborhoods be recognized as developed places, and the existing character of those place be protected. The Master Plan provides a statement indicating this and the framework generally does not proposed to locate any Centers or road improvements within these neighborhoods. This direction has been incorporated into the Master Plan as part of the Vision and Guiding Principles, specifically in Guiding Principle 6 (page 2-2). New neighborhoods are expected to be developed in a more compact, mixed use form that would provide additional opportunities for mixed uses, walkability, and transit. 11. What improvements are achievable in a reasonable amount of time? The County’s Master Plans are used in at least two different ways. First, the Plan gives guidance on many aspects of land use and development based on the text and the Future Land Use Map. This guidance will be useful beginning immediately after the Plan is adopted and will continue throughout the life of the Plan. The second purpose of the Master Plan is to i dentify and set priorities for those projects that will be necessary to meet the needs of the area during the life of the Plan. Places29 includes a list of implementation projects at the end of Chapter 8. For the implementation projects that will require funding from the County or other sources, having the projects shown on the Future Land Use Map and/or described in the text of the Plan will demonstrate to potential funding sources that the project is supported by the County. These projects will be identified for consideration should funding become available and needs identified in the Plan should guide decisions on funds decisions. For those projects where designs can be prepared, the County may be in an advantageous position to obtain funding for projects that need to be “shovel-ready.” For those projects that developers are expected to construct as part of a development, including them on the Future Land Use Map ensures that the County can require provision of them as part of a rezoning or special use permit approval. Given limited available funds currently at the State and local level, the achievable improvements are those where federal sources, grants, and private development can assist in funding the design and development of the projects: Grant sources are available to support sidewalk, bike, and transit (operational and capital related) improvements. Examples of available grants include Enhancement Grants, the Safe Routes to School Program, and the Pedestrian Safety Program. Potential federal funds may be available to assist in the construction of US 29 and 250 Bypass improvements in the City, and potentially allow some of the existing funds on the latter project to be transferred to other priority improvements. Grant sources (e.g., Enhancement Grants, Revenue Sharing funds, stimulus funding) and existing and future proffer funds could be used to support design and development of segments of Berkmar Drive. Portions of the road could be developed as part of future development proposals. Staff notes ongoing projects in the area: Construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway Design and funding for construction of US 29 and 250 Bypass Interchange improvements City and County planning efforts to establish a regional transit “authority” or similar structure. Pursuit of grant funds for sidewalk and crosswalk improvements in the County’s northern urban areas, specifically around the AHS/school complex, Rio Road east, and Hollymead (and also for the Pantops area). Implement the recommended access management/traffic management improvements in the US 29 corridor as part of the development review process and through strategic use of VDOT funds for minor improvements. A $190,000 Safe Routes to School Grant and a $125,000 Enhancement Grant were awarded this year for sidewalk, streetscape, and road improvements. Staff will continue to pursue these and other services to implement priority County projects. 12. When will new US Census information to be available? The US Census website (“Key Dates”) now indicates that the Census Bureau will deliver redistricting data to the states in March 2011. All other information usually released by the Census will be available after March 2011. Additional information from the County’s GDS division indicates that the first demographic profile, with summarized population and housing characteristics, will be available in May 2011. The first data summary file, with additional population counts for 63 race categories and Hispanic or Latino residents, along with selected population and housing characteristics, will be available June – August 2011. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Berkmar Dr. Extension Study PowerPoint Presentation Attachment B – CTB Resolution on the Route 29 Corridor Study, dated December 17, 2009 Attachment C – 29H250 Phase 2 DRAFT Executive Summary Return to exec summary Berkmar Dr. Extension Study Albemarle County Board of Supervisors May 05, 2010 Outline Introduction Existing Conditions Future Conditions Alternatives Travel Demand Modeling Analysis Additional Issues Findings 2 Introduction Study Area Focused on area impacted by proposed Berkmar Dr Extension within Places29 area. North limit: Lewis and Clark Dr South limit: Rio Rd Berkmar Dr. Extension A 4-lane minor arterial proposed by US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study 1)Proposed as 2 through travel lanes between Timberwood Blvd and Towncenter Dr. 2)The existing Berkmar Dr. segment from Hilton Heights Rd to Rio Rd is 1.1 miles with 2 lanes. The existing Berkmar Dr is proposed to be widen to 4 lanes when the extension is developed. Segment From To US 29 N Berkmar Dr Miles Lanes Miles Lanes 1 Lewis and Clark Dr Airport Rd 1.3 4 1.0 4 Proposed2Airport Rd Hollymead Dr 1.0 4 1.0 4(1) 3 Hollymead Dr Ashwood Blvd 0.6 4 0.6 4 4 Ashwood Blvd Rio Mills Rd 0.8 4 0.8 4 5 Rio Mills Rd Rio Rd 1.6 8 1.6(2)2(2)Existing Total 5.4 5.0 4 Existing Conditions –Traffic Conditions US 29 North (1) Lewis and Clark Dr to Airport Rd: LOS E Airport Rd to Rio Mills Rd: LOS F Rio Mills Rd to Rio Rd: LOS D Berkmar Dr. (2)LOS A Parallel Roads (1) Dickerson Rd: LOS C, D Earlysville Rd: LOS D Connecting Roads (1) Lewis and Clark Dr:LOS A Airport Rd (west of US 29): LOS A Hilton Heights Rd:LOS A Rio Rd (west of US 29):LOS A Source (1): VDOT 2007 SPS Lite Database Source (2): Traffic Impact Analysis Berkmar Business Park 5 Future Conditions –Land Use & Development Future Plan & Development –already in 2035 Model Potential South Hollymead Expansion –not in 2035 Model, represents about 1/3 of buildout Neighborhood Service Center -Office 120,000 ft2 -Neighborhood scale retail 12,500 ft2 Urban Mixed Use -Large format retail 120,000 ft2 -100 new DU for 20-year planning period Neighborhood Density Residential -150 new DU for 20-year planning period South Hollymead Expansion area will: -be a mixed residential & commercial area -generate 580 population, 593 employment -Generate 6,041 total trips in 2035 6 Future Conditions –Potential Improvements US 29 Widening 6 lanes from Rio Mills Rd to US 33 Berkmar Dr. Extend to Lewis and Clark Dr. 4-lane(1)minor arterial New bridge across the Rivanna River Connecting Roads Places29 Plan New Road A new 2-lane road parallel with Airport Rd, connecting US 29 and Earlysville Rd Intersections on US 29 N Grade-separation: Rio Rd, Hilton Heights Rd, Ashwood Blvd, Timberwood Blvd, Airport Rd New traffic signal: Northside Dr. (1)Proposed as 2 through travel lanes between Timberwood Blvd and Towncenter Dr. Airport Rd Timberwood Blvd Ashwood Blvd Hilton Heights Rd Rio Rd 7 2035 Alternatives 2035 –Horizon Year (Horizon year for Places29 was 2025) (1)Berkmar Dr is extended from Rio Mills Rd to Lewis and Clark Dr. No bridge is built across Rivanna River. (2)Berkmar Dr is extended from Hilton Heights Rd to Lewis and Clark Dr, with a new bridge across Rivanna River. 2035 Alternative 2035 Network Potential Improvements South Hollymead ExpansionUS 29 6-Lane Widening Berkmar Dr Extension – w/o Bridge (1) Berkmar Dr Extension – w/ Bridge (2) Places29 New Road No Build √ Build 1 √√ Build 2 √√√√ Build 3 √√√√ Build 4 √√√√√ Build 5 √√√√√ 8 Level of Service (LOS): Level of Service uses letter grades (A to F) to describe the motorists experience of traffic conditions –LOS A –Completely free flow, speeds at or above the posted limit –LOS B –Free flow with some limitations caused by other traffic; speeds at the posted limit –LOS C –Free flow but traffic limits ability to pass or turn; speeds at posted limit –LOS D –Motorists are hemmed in by surrounding traffic; speeds begin to fall below posted limit, roadway is near capacity –LOS E –Unstable traffic flow, flow is irregular and speed varies rapidly –LOS F –Forced traffic flow, vehicles move in lock step well below posted speeds, LOS F is generally described as a “traffic jam” Average Daily Traffic (ADT): The average traffic volume on the roadway during a 24 hour weekday period Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C): Volume divided by capacity; a roadway with a V/C of 1.00 is at capacity Delay: Average travel time on a roadway measured in minutes Standard Measurements of Traffic 9 Corridor-Level Analysis 2035 No Build Cutline total volume: 117,467 Cutline total volume: 117,480 2035 Build 1 (US 29 6-lane Widening) Cutline total volume: 117,960 2035 Build 2 (US 6-lane Widening, Berkmar Extension w/ Bridge, Places29 New Road) 10 Corridor-Level Analysis Cutline total volume: 119,690 Cutline total volume: 120,062 2035 Build 4 (US 29 6-lane Widening, Berkmar Extension w/o Bridge, Places29 New Road, South Hollymead Expansion) 2035 Build 5 (US 29 6-lane Widening, Berkmar Extension w/ Bridge, Places29 New Road, South Hollymead Expansion) 2035 Build 3 (Berkmar Extension w/ Bridge, Places29 New Road, South Hollymead Expansion) Cutline total volume: 119,707 11 Corridor-Level Analysis US 29 North Berkmar Dr. Note: Green –improved LOS in Build alternatives; Red –degraded LOS in Build alternative. (1) In No Build, Build 1 & 4, this segment is from Hilton Height Rd to Rio Rd,1.1 mile, 2 lanes. (1)4 lanes in Build 3. From To Mile Lanes No Build Build 1 US 29 6-lane Widening Build 2 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road Build 3 Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 4 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/o Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 5 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min) Lewis and Clark Dr Airport Rd 1.3 6 (1)48,951 1.07 F 1.8 57,567 0.84 D 1.4 59,469 0.87 E 1.4 48,249 1.06 F 1.8 59,539 0.87 E 1.4 59,255 0.87 E 1.4 Airport Rd Hollymead Dr 1.0 6 (1)64,916 1.42 F 3.4 77,578 1.13 F 1.6 71,390 1.04 F 1.4 54,367 1.19 F 1.8 71,083 1.04 F 1.3 71,228 1.04 F 1.3 Hollymead Dr Ashwood Blvd 0.6 6 (1)65,407 1.43 F 2.2 79,686 1.17 F 1.1 69,065 1.01 F 0.8 51,330 1.13 F 1.0 68,821 1.01 F 0.8 68,812 1.01 F 0.8 Ashwood Blvd Rio Mills Rd 0.8 6 (1)72,892 1.60 F 4.9 88,046 1.29 F 1.9 72,982 1.07 F 1.2 57,049 1.25 F 1.7 76,776 1.12 F 1.3 73,061 1.07 F 1.2 Rio Mills Rd Rio Rd 1.6 8 78,059 0.86 E 2.3 91,091 1.00 E 2.6 78,364 0.86 E 2.3 75,725 0.83 D 2.2 94,847 1.04 F 2.8 78,634 0.86 E 2.3 Total Mileage:5.4 Total Travel Time:14.5 Total Travel Time:8.6 Total Travel Time:7.0 Total Travel Time:8.5 Total Travel Time:7.6 Total Travel Time: 7.0 From To Mile Lanes No Build Build 1 US 29 6-lane Widening Build 2 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road Build 3 Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 4 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/o Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 5 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min) Lewis and Clark Dr Airport Rd 1.0 4 n/a n/a 7,784 0.22 A 1.3 13,082 0.37 B 1.3 7,217 0.20 A 1.3 8,040 0.23 A 1.3 Airport Rd Hollymead Dr 1.0 4 7,761 0.27 A 1.4 22,718 0.79 D 1.8 7,126 0.25 A 1.4 8,299 0.29 A 1.4 Hollymead Dr Ashwood Blvd 0.6 4 15,310 0.43 B 0.8 31,862 0.89 E 1.0 14,850 0.42 B 0.8 16,962 0.48 B 0.8 Ashwood Blvd Rio Mills Rd 0.8 4 20,198 0.57 C 1.1 35,324 0.99 E 1.4 15,660 0.44 B 1.1 21,962 0.62 C 1.1 Rio Mills Rd Rio Rd 1.6 (1)4 (1)1,900 0.11 A 2.0 3,162 0.19 A 2.0 20,984 0.59 C 2.1 22,749 0.64 C 2.1 3,900 0.23 A 2.0 22,422 0.63 C 2.1 Total Mileage:5.0 Total Travel Time:2.0 Total Travel Time: 2.0 Total Travel Time:6.7 Total Travel Time:7.6 Total Travel Time:6.6 Total Travel Time:6.712 Earlysville Rd (parallel route) Corridor-Level Analysis Dickerson Rd (parallel route) Note: Green –improved LOS in Build alternatives; Red –degraded LOS in Build alternative. Note:Green –improved LOS in Build alternatives; Red –degraded LOS in Build alternative. From To Mile Lanes No Build Build 1 US 29 6-lane Widening Build 2 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road Build 3 Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 4 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/o Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 5 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min) Lewis and Clark Dr Airport Rd 0.8 2 15,936 1.00 E 1.0 8,313 0.52 B 0.8 7,847 0.49 B 0.8 13,685 0.86 E 0.9 8,381 0.52 B 0.8 7,842 0.49 B 0.8 Airport Rd Earlysville Rd 0.8 2 28,400 1.78 F 4.6 20,895 1.31 F 1.6 18,470 1.15 F 1.2 20,047 1.25 F 1.4 19,417 1.21 F 1.3 18,438 1.15 F 1.2 Total Mileage:1.6 Total Travel Time:5.6 Total Travel Time:2.4 Total Travel Time:2.0 Total Travel Time:2.3 Total Travel Time:2.1 Total Travel Time:2.0 From To Mile Lanes No Build Build 1 US 29 6-lane Widening Build 2 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road Build 3 Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 4 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/o Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 5 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min) Dickerson Rd Woodlands Rd 3.2 2 18,775 1.17 F 6.6 14,981 0.94 E 4.8 12,133 0.76 D 4.3 13,883 0.87 E 4.6 13,928 0.87 E 4.6 12,286 0.77 D 4.3 Woodlands Rd W Rio Rd 0.7 2 22,644 1.33 F 2.1 16,787 0.99 E 1.1 13,251 0.78 D 0.9 14,871 0.87 E 1.0 15,019 0.88 E 1.0 13,301 0.78 D 0.9 Total Mileage:3.8 Total Travel Time:8.7 Total Travel Time:5.9 Total Travel Time:5.2 Total Travel Time:5.5 Total Travel Time:5.6 Total Travel Time:5.2 13 Corridor-Level Analysis Connecting Roads (between US 29 and Berkmar) Note: Green –improved LOS in Build alternatives; Red –degraded LOS in Build alternative. Road Segment Mile Lanes No Build Build 1 US 29 6-lane Widening Build 2 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road Build 3 Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 4 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/o Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion Build 5 US 29 6-lane Widening Berkmar Ext. w/ Bridge Places29 New Road S. Hollymead Expansion ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min)ADT V/C LOS Time (min) Lewis and Clark Dr 1.0 4 10,541 0.33 A 1.8 10,899 0.34 A 1.8 7,691 0.24 A 1.8 7,589 0.24 A 1.8 7,692 0.24 A 1.8 7,674 0.24 A 1.8 Airport Rd: Dickerson Rd -> Berkmar Dr 0.7 2 15,802 0.93 E 1.4 16,590 0.98 E 1.5 8,725 0.51 B 0.9 4,591 0.27 A 0.9 9,393 0.55 C 0.9 8,698 0.51 B 0.9 Airport Rd: Berkmar Dr -> US 29 0.2 2 15,881 0.93 E 0.2 18,533 1.09 F 0.3 15,743 0.93 E 0.2 15,601 0.92 E 0.2 Timberwoood Blvd 0.2 4 n/a n/a 741 0.02 A 0.3 9,778 0.29 A 0.3 723 0.02 A 0.3 736 0.02 A 0.3 Towncenter Dr 0.2 4 257 0.01 A 0.4 335 0.01 A 0.4 249 0.01 A 0.4 251 0.01 A 0.4 N Hollymead Dr 0.1 2 6,727 0.42 B 0.2 6,490 0.41 B 0.2 7,946 0.50 B 0.2 7,597 0.47 B 0.2 Ashwood Blvd 0.1 4 8,366 0.25 A 0.2 9,273 0.27 A 0.2 7,924 0.23 A 0.2 9,062 0.27 A 0.2 Rio Mills Rd 0.1 2 914 0.06 A 0.2 13,323 0.83 D 0.3 16,433 1.03 F 0.3 1,129 0.07 A 0.2 Hilton Heights Rd 0.2 4 2,102 0.06 A 0.3 2,227 0.07 A 0.3 1,821 0.05 A 0.3 1,994 0.06 A 0.3 3,074 0.09 A 0.3 1,829 0.05 A 0.3 Woodbrook Rd 0.2 4 7,658 0.17 A 0.2 6,104 0.13 A 0.2 5,608 0.12 A 0.2 8,551 0.19 A 0.2 6,465 0.14 A 0.2 6,373 0.14 A 0.2 Rio Rd 0.2 4 -5 4,222 0.12 A 0.4 3,829 0.11 A 0.4 4,339 0.12 A 0.4 4,936 0.14 A 0.4 3,891 0.11 A 0.4 4,424 0.12 A 0.4 14 Additional Issues –Dickerson Rd Currently 2 lanes, no improvement plan From Airport Rd to Earlysville Rd 2035 No Build: 28,400 ADT, LOS F All Build alternatives: >18,000 ADT, LOS F Widen to 4 lanes ? 2035 Build 5 + Dickerson Rd 4-lane Widening 19,840 ADT, LOS C 15 Findings 2035 Future Traffic Conditions (No Build): 1.In 2007, on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Road the total volume of traffic is 52,430 average daily trips (ADT) with an average total travel time on US 29 between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr of 7.1 minutes. 2.In 2035, due to growth in the region, if no improvement are made to US 29, total volume of traffic on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Road will increase to 72,892 (+39%) and average travel time on US 29 between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr. will be 14.5 minutes. 3.In 2035, if no improvements are made to US 29 the roadway will be heavily congested with a traffic volume to capacity ratio between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd of 1.60, a v/c ratio of 1.43 between Ashwood Blvd and Hollymead Dr and a v/c ratio of 1.42 between Hollymead Dr and Airport Rd. This will result in continuous stop and go traffic every day. 4.The heavy congestion on US 29 will result in high volumes of traffic diverting to avoid US 29. This will lead to heavy traffic and congestion on Dickerson Road and Earlysville Road and to a lesser extent on Rae’s Ford Rd and Proffit Rd. 16 Findings 2035 Roadway Improvement Scenarios: 1.Widen US 29 to 6 lanes (Build 1) –Widening US 29 to 6 lanes will allow additional traffic to use US 29. Traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd will be 88,046 ADT. Travel time between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr will average 8.6 minutes, about 1.5 minutes higher than 2007 but about 6 minutes less than travel time without any improvement on US 29. This will eliminate diversion traffic onto Rae’s Ford Rd and Proffit Rd. However, Dickerson Rd and Earlysville Rd will continue to experience diverted traffic and will still have traffic in excess of capacity and high levels of congestion. 2.Widen US 29 to 6 lanes and extend Berkmar Drive (Build 2) –This scenario completely mitigates the impact of new growth in the MPO area and results in travel time on US 29 between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr of 7.0 minutes, slightly less than the 2007 travel time. In this scenario traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd will be 72,982 ADT. On Berkmar Dr extended between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd traffic volume will be 20,198 ADT. On Berkmar Drive extended the motorist will experience LOS C between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd, LOS B between Hollymead Dr and Ashwood Blvd, and LOS A between Airport Rd and Hollymead Dr. The motorist will experience LOS D on Earlysville Rd with traffic volumes of 12,000 to 13,000 ADT. Dickerson Rd between Airport Rd and Earlysville Rd will remain at LOS F.17 Findings Impact of South Hollymead Expansion Area: 1.The South Hollymead Expansion Area will result in 6,041 additional trips in 2035. 2.Berkmar Dr Extension and 4 lane US 29 with Expansion Area (Build 3) –If the expansion area is added with the Berkmar Dr extension and 4 lane US 29, there will be several impacts. Traffic on US 29 will be somewhat worse than 2007 conditions with traffic volume on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd of 57,049 ADT and travel time between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr of 8.5 minutes. Traffic on Berkmar Dr south of Hollymead Dr will be at LOS E with 35,324 ADT between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd, and 31,862 between Hollymead Dr and Ashwood Blvd. In this scenario, traffic on Dickerson Rd will be a LOS E/F and Earlysville Rd will be at LOS E. 3.Berkmar Dr Extension without bridge over S. Rivanna River and 6 lane US 29 with Expansion Area (Build 4) –In this scenario Berkmar Drive extension provides access to new land uses, but since there is no bridge across the S. Rivanna River, it does not serve through traffic and US 29 functions similarly to the scenario in which US 29 was widened to 6 lanes without Berkmar Dr extension. Travel time on US 29 between Rio Rd and Lewis & Clark Dr is 7.6 minutes and traffic on US 29 between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd is 76,776. Berkmar Drive extension provides LOS A/B with a peak volume of 15,660 ADT between Ashwood Blvd and Rio Mills Rd.18 Findings Impact of South Hollymead Expansion Area: 4.Berkmar Dr Extension with 6 lane US 29 and the South Hollymead Expansion Area (Build 5) –This alternative provides almost identical levels of service on both US 29 and also Berkmar Drive as the Build 2 scenario. In this scenario, US 29 provides the same level of service and travel time as the motorist experiences today. Berkmar Drive functions at acceptable level of service (LOS A, B or C) for its entire length. Other Issues: 1.In all future scenarios Dickerson Rd is at LOS F between Airport Rd and Earlysville Rd and may require future study. 19 Findings 5)The additional land use of South Hollymead expansion will slightly increase traffic volumes on Berkmar Dr Extension, Earlysville Rd, and US 29 (south of Ashwood Blvd), without changing LOS. 6)The proposed Berkmar Dr Extension may increase turning movements switched from/to US 29 N through connecting roads, which may result in operational issues at intersections. 7)Dickerson Rd between Airport Rd and Earlysville Rd has a LOS F in all 2035 alternatives. Consideration should be given to widening this segment to four lanes. 20 Questions … ? Stephen Williams, Executive Director swilliams@tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 x110 Yang Han, Senior Transportation Planner yhan@tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 x260 21