Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-8-04Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E August 4, 2010 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Recognitions: a. Barbara Barrett, Region Ten Community Services Board. b. 2010 Digital Government Award. 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). 8. 9:35 a.m. – VDoT Report, Karen Kilby, Programming/Investment Management Director. 9:45 a.m. – Action Items: 9. Appeal of Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Determination of Route 29 LLC’s ZMA2007-001 Proffer Violation regarding the Willow Glen Connection Right-of-Way Dedication. 10. Amendment of the Local Government Support Agreement between the City of Charlottesville, the County or Albemarle, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. 11. 2011 Legislative Priorities. 12. Economic Vitality Action Plan (deferred from July 14, 2010). 13. Reconsideration of Zoning Ordinance Fees (ZTA-2009-017), Mark Graham. 14. Closed Meeting. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. 16. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. 2:00 p.m. - Public Hearings: 17. PROJECT: SP-2009-00030. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital (Sign #25). PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand the space in the existing building on the site. No residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and primarily HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and hospital uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail).TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100804/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 1:30:41 PM] Tentative MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 18. PROJECT: ZMA-2008-000003. Albemarle Place (Sign #58,65&67). PROPOSAL: Rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers; and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) retail sales and service uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) with the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: in the northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03- 00-02300, 061W0-03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 20. Adjourn to August 11, 2010, 4:00 p.m., Room 241. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: April 24(A), May 5, May 10(A), and June 30(A), 2010. 7.2 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 7.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 7.4 Resolution of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, Seeking Action By the General Assembly and Governor to Prohibit all Predatory, Usurious Lending Practices in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 7.5 Resolution of the County of Albemarle Relating to the Support of the Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission. 7.6 Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2010 Strategic Plan Strategy Session Report. FOR INFORMATION: 7.7 FY 2010 Fourth Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report. 7.8 Update of the County’s Land Use Revalidation Program. 7.9 EMS Cost Recovery Program Update. 7.10 2010 Sales Tax Update. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100804/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 1:30:41 PM] Tentative 7.11 Copy of letter dated July 14, 2010, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Mr. Lester J. Clements, Laird & Company, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD BOUNDARY -- Tax Map 99, Parcel 37(“A”) (Property of Laird & Company) Samuel Miller Magisterial District. 7.12 Copy of letter dated July 14, 2010, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to J. D. Catlett, Sr., re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 136, Parcel 27C (Property of J. D. Catlett, et al) Scottsville Magisterial District. 7.13 Copy of letter dated July 14, 2010, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Alan B. Howard, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 50, Parcels 41A, 41Q, 42A & 43 (Property of Alan B. Howard) Rivanna Magisterial District. 7.14 VDOT, Culpeper District Monthly Report, for Albemarle County. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100804/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 1:30:41 PM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2010095, #2010096, and #2010097 for various school and local government programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 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 $95,196.94. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of three (3) FY 2010 appropriations as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2010095) totaling $12,061.56 for the Circuit Court Clerk to reimburse document imaging back-filing costs; Two (2) appropriations (#2010096 and #2010097) totaling $83,135.38 for various education programs. A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $95,196.94 and the approval of Appropriations #2010095, #2010096, and #2010097. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2010095 $12,061.56 Revenue Source: State Revenue: $ 12,061.56 The Circuit Court Clerk’s Office received reimbursement from the Compensation Board’s Clerks Technology Trust Fund for document imaging back-filing of records. The total budget is now $89,508.00. Appropriation #2010096 $1,801.13 Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations): $ 1,801.13 Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $676.13 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 May at Henley Middle School. Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received various cash donations totaling $1,000.00. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $35,001.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $41,867.88. The high schools need to raise $32 5,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring AHS to raise an additional $283,132.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. The following donations totaling $125.00 were made to specific options: $25.00 for the School Division Capital Improvements $100.00 for Brownsville Elementary School Appropriation #2010097 $81,334.25 Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations): $ 2,681.92 Federal Revenue: $ 74,963.53 Fund Balance: $ 3,688.80 Henley Middle School received two donations totaling $2,681.92 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that $2,580.00 be used to help fund t he At-Risk program and $101.92 to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of June at Henley Middle School. The mission of the Technology Challenge Grant is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Technology Challenge Grant funds the following major programs and/or services: Teacher Training and Technology Curriculum Development. There is a fund balance retained by the state in the amount of $13,654.17 from FY 08/09 which may be reappropriated for FY 09/10. In addition, there is a local fund balance in the amount of $3,688.80, which may be reappropriated for FY 09/10. The funds will be used for professional development. The mission of the Title II Grant is to prepare, train and recruit highly qualified teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals by offering professional development in best practices in curriculum, assessment, and instruction in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Title II Grant funds the following major programs and/or services: Professional Development reimbursement, Elementary Math/LA Best Practices Coaching; and, UVA Coursework. There is a fund balance retained by the state in the amount of $61,309.36 from FY 08/09 which may be reappropriated for FY 09/10. The funds will be used for professional services at UVA. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2011010, #2011011, #2011012, #2011013, #2011014, #2011015, #2011016, #2011017, #2011018 #2011019, #2011020, and #2011021 for various school and local government programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 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 2011 appropriations, itemized below, is $1,612,242.59. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of twelve (12) FY 2011 appropriations as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2011010) totaling $132,499.48 reappropriating the Crozet Meadows Rehabilitation project funds; One (1) appropriation (#2011011) totaling $5,500.00 for the sale of surplus items by the Sheriff’s Office; One (1) appropriation (#2011012) totaling $ 5,613.18 for other revenue sources (reimbursement) in the General Fund and reducing the use of General fund balance by the same amount; One (1) appropriation (#2011013) totaling $105,100.00 for various Commission on Children and Families grants; Two (2) appropriations (#2011014 and #2010018) totaling $97,685.00 for various education programs; One (1) appropriation (#2011015) totaling $66,802.00 for various Police Department Grants; One (1) appropriation (#2011016) totaling $250,000.00 for a supplemental Virginia Department of Transportation TEA grant received for the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project; One (1) appropriation (#2011017) totaling $383,523.11 to reappropriate the Federal Energy Grant; One (1) appropriation (#2011019) totaling $74,947.00 for a DCJS grant to OAR/JACC; and One (1) appropriation (#2011020) totaling $91,186 for the one-time donation to WARS for the re-chassis of an ambulance; and One (1) appropriation (#2011021) totaling $405,000 for the replacement purchase of the totaled East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Tanker 26. A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $1,612,242.59 and the approval of Appropriations #2011010, #2011011, #2011012, #2011013, #2011014, #2011015, #2011016, #2011017, #2011018, #2011019, #2011020, and #2011021. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2011010 $ 132,499.48 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 87,940.05 Crozet Crossings Fund: $ 44,559.43 This request reappropriates the funds needed for the Crozet Meadows Rehabilitation project that was uncompleted as of June 30, 2010. Appropriation #2011011 $5,500.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 5,500.00 The Sheriff's Office sold Automatic External Defibrillators (AED's) to Dixie Medical, Inc. for $5,550.00. These funds will be used to off-set the cost of vests for the Sheriff's Reserve members. Appropriation #2011012 $5,613.18 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 5,613.18 Albemarle County partnered with several other organizations to have a land cover map developed by a private consultant; the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District acted as the fiscal agent for the group. In 2008, the County paid to the District its estimated share of the project cost. The final project cost was less than estimated, and the County is being refunded the remaining project fund balance of$5,613.18 from the District. Appropriation #2011013 $105,100.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 96,250.00 Local Revenue: $ 8,850.00 This appropriation consists of three grants: Grant # 11-E5194JJ09: The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Commission on Children and Families a grant in the amount of $25,000. This grant will provide training and the continued services of the Family Functional Therapy program. This will include staff training, manuals, and treatment services for the participants. There is no local match. Grant # 11-A2141AD08: The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded a grant to the Commission on Children and Families in partnership with the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, Piedmont Family YMCA, Albemarle County Public Schools and the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church to open and operate an after-school program for students at Stony Point Elementary. The grant includes $71,250 in Federal Funds and $3,750 in Matching Funds from the YMCA for a total award of $75,000. There is no local match. The 2010 Summer FUNd Grant from the Bama Works Fund of the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation in the amount of $5,100.00 was awarded to Children Youth and Family Services to provide scholarships for children from low-income families in Albemarle County to participate in enrichment activities such as summer camps, fine arts programs and organized sports. There is no local match. Appropriation #2011014 $785.00 Revenue Source: Donations/Fund Balance: $ 785.00 The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. These donations were received during FY 09/10 and are requested to be re -appropriated into FY 10/11. The following donations totaling $785.00 were made to specific options: $100.00 for Sutherland Middle School $585.00 for School Division Instructional Support $100.00 for Western Albemarle High School Appropriation #2011015 $66,802.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $63,462.00 Fund Balance: $ 3,340.00 Grant # 11-A2149AD08: The Department of Criminal Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $63,462 with a local match of $3,340 for a total grant award of $66,802. This grant is to Attachment A upgrade forensic techniques and related technology for improved crime scene investigation, evidence collection, and criminal case development. Specific items to be covered by this grant include: fingerprint discover and collection capabilities, evidence collection cameras, and an evidence management system. Appropriation #2011016 $250,000.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 250,000.00 The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) awarded supplemental TEA Grant funding ($250,000) to the County of Albemarle for the Crozet Streetscape Project Phase 2, specifically for the construction of Crozet Avenue Streetscape Improvements. Upon VDOT’s approval, the Office of Facilities Development plans to advertise the Crozet Avenue related work this fall. A 20% match is required ($50,000), which is identified in the current Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project budget. Appropriation #2011017 $383,523.11 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 383,523.11 The County is a formula recipient of $406,000.00 from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program. The purpose of the EECBG program is to support the investment of resources into energy efficiency, renewable energy and climate protection. The DOE has approved the County's EECBG Strategy that the Albemarle County Grants Committee finalized in Fall 2009. The County’s EECBG Strategy is aligned with the County's Environmental Management Policy, Energy Management Policy and Comprehensive and Strategic Plans. The grant will help the County to realize its goals of 1) reducing energy usage in County facilities by 30% by 2012, and 2) reducing greenhouse gas emiss ions Countywide by 80% by 2050. There was $383,523.11 remaining in this grant at the end of FY 09/10 that needs to be carried forward into FY 10/11. Appropriation #2011018 $96,900.00 Revenue Source: School Fund Balance: $ 96,900.00 Albemarle County Public Schools is committed to max imizing student achievement and fostering collaboration among professional learning communities and stakeholders. Through web -enabled applications, collaboration environments, user profiles, and Intranet and Extranet functionality, the Division will leverage current efforts by utilizing supported web technologies and structures. A platform supporting current and emerging technologies will allow for deep implementation of division initiatives as well as provide for the future enhancement of systems and services. The $91,900.00 received from Utopian will be used to acquire specialized contracted services needed to migrate the current ACPS Intranet to a new, functionally enhanced platform that will also serve as the foundation for future development. This found ation will serve as an optimized environment that will allow for increased collaboration and communication. Future development will involve deployment of a security gateway, single sign - on platform, collaboration environments, social networking and user profiles. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Mandell Family in March of 2010. The donation was deposited during FY 09/10. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help supplement classroom instructional supplies at Broadus Wood Elementary School in the FY 10/11 school year. This is to reappropriate the donation to FY 10/11. Appropriation #2011019 $74,947.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 71,200.00 Local Revenue $ 3,747.00 The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the OAR/J ACC a grant in the amount of $71,200.00 with a local match of $3,747.00 for a total award of $74,947.00. This grant will assist in creating a statewide data evaluation tool to support the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program. The CIT program provides training and education to police officers to improve their interactions with citizens having a mental illness, including understanding signs and symptoms of mental illness. Albemarle County will serve as the fiscal agent for this grant. Local match monies will be provided by the Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB). Attachment A Appropriation #2011020 $91,186.00 Revenue Source: Capital Fund Balance: $ 91,186.00 This appropriates the County's one-time cash donation to Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS) in the amount of $91,186 as approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 7, 2010 to re-chassis an existing ambulance unit, remove and replace radio systems, and recondition a monitor/defibrillator. The rehabilitated ambulance must be co-titled prior to the release of the cash donation. Appropriation #2011021 $405,000.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 319,000.00 Loan Proceeds: $ 86,000.00 As approved by the Board July 7, 2010 , this appropriation is to fund the immediate replacement of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Tanker 26, which was totaled in an accident earlier this year. As agreed upon, the purchase will be made using insurance proceeds and borrowed funds, and planned funding for this replacement vehicle in the out-years of the CIP is eliminated. Return to exec summary RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA SEEKING ACTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND GOVERNOR TO PROHIBIT ALL PREDATORY, USURIOUS LENDING PRACTICES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, represents the citizens of the County of Albemarle, Virginia; WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, believes the citizens of the County of Albemarle remain concerned over what are perceived to be predatory, usurious lending practices in the County of Albemarle and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, including practices that can exploit dedicated, brave women and men called to serve in the United States armed services; WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle of Charlottesville, Virginia, shares these continuing concerns and intends through this Resolution to express the collective sentiments and will of Staunton citizens that the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia need to take action to prohibit all predatory, usurious lending practices; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the General Assembly and the Governor of Virginia address this matter as a high priority at the next legislative session, leading to enactment of laws strictly prohibit ing and deterring all predatory, usurious lending practices in the Commonwealth of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle of Charlottesville, Virginia that, at the next legislative session, the General Assembly and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia are hereby requested to enact laws strictly prohibiting and deterring all predatory, usurious lending practices, including but not limited to provisions that would: 1. Impose an interest rate cap of thirty-six percent (36%), calculated as an effective annual percentage rate including all fees or charges of any kind, for any consumer credit extended in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 2. Prohibit a creditor’s use of a personal check or other device as a means, directly or indirectly, to gain access to a consumer’s bank account; and 3. Incorporate into the Virginia Code the protections regarding consumer credit to military personnel as reflected in the Military Lending Act, 10 United States Code Section 987. View attachment Return to consent agenda 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 RECITALS: A. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle (“the County”) is dedicated to the furtherance of economic development and tourism in Albemarle County; B. 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; C. The Commission has requested that each locality form a sesquicentennial committee to aid in planning for the commemoration period. WHEREAS, Albemarle County will join other localities in Virginia to form a local sesquicentennial committee; 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: 1. The 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. 2. 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 planning for the commemoration period. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2010 Strategic Plan Strategy Session Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This report provides a summary of the outcomes from the Board of Supervisors’ Strategic Planning Session and the resulting Strategic Action Plan Goals for FY10/11 – FY11/12 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Ms. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. The County’s FY07– FY10 Strategic Plan, in which the Board directed staff to focus on enhancing the County’s quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing growth, developing infrastructure, and creating a long -range, comprehensive funding strateg y formally ended on June 30, 2010. The on-going work towards these County’s goals and objectives will not end, however, and will be incorporated into the County’s regular operations. For example, s taff efforts regarding the transportation, master planning, and public safety objectives for which the completion time periods were previously extended past June 30, 2010 will continue as part of the County’s regular on -going services and programs. The County made adjustments to its strategic planning processes and time schedule to be more agile and to best position the County to address the unique and more immediate challenges it faces during these difficult economic times. Instead of holding its strategic planning session in the fall as it had in the previous eight years, the Board held a strategic planning session earlier in the year, on June 30, to initiate the development of a more succinct two -year strategic action plan that would focus staff and Board’s efforts on the County’s most immediate and critical needs. The Board also made adjustments to its upcoming budgeting processes. DISCUSSION: At its June 30th strategy session, the Board discussed staff and Board relations and initiated the development of a 2-Year Strategic Action Plan to position the County to be most effective in the new and evolving economy. The Board also came to an agreement on changes to the upcoming budget process. Attachment A includes the Strategy Session notes and outcomes. Attachment B is the resulting Strategic Action Plan Goals for FY 10/11 to FY 11/12 developed from the Board’s priority list. Staff members will be assigned to each goal and action plans will be developed and implemented. The Economic Vitality Goal’s Action Plan , which will be incorporated into this Strategic Plan, is scheduled as a separate Board action item on August 4. Efforts to move the Strategic Action Plan’s other goals will begin immediately. In addition, Attachment C displays the budget schedule approved by the Board at its Strategic Plan Strategy Session. To maximize staff resources and to time the development of the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan to take into account the results of the 2010 census, the County will begin the development of the more comprehensive plan during FY 11/12 in coordination with Community Development Department staff as they embark on the update to the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In this way, staff efforts to obtain citizen input and to analyze data and emerging trends will be efficiently coordinated to inform both of these important County planning efforts. BUDGET IMPACT: The FY 10/11 – FY 11/12 Strategic Action Plan will provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and annual budget processes. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Board approves the 5 Strategic Goals included in Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2010 Strategy Session Draft Minutes Attachment B: FY 10/11 – FY 11/12 Strategic Action Plan Goals Attachment C: Budget Development Schedule Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda June 30, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 30, 2010, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at the Virginia Department of Forestry Building, Fontaine Research Park, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia, for purposes of holding a Strategic Planning Session. The meeting was adjourned from June 9, 2010. PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane Snow and Mr. Rodney Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Bryan Elliott, Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance, Lori Allshouse, Community Relations Director, Lee Catlin, Clerk, Ella Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy. Additional members of the County’s Leadership Council and staff from the Finance Department were also in attendance. _______________ The following minutes are a summary of the Board’s Strategic Planning Session. Ms. Mallek called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. and provided opening remarks. She thanked the State’s Forestry Department for continuing to allow us to use their facilities at no cost to the County. She provided a historical context for the meeting and stated that the County’s current strategic plan officially ends on this day. She recognized that the County made a lot of progress, and that the County still faces significant challenges in the years ahead. She stated that today’s meeting is to set direction for a new two year Strategic Action Plan that will best position the County given the new and evolving economy. This new Plan will be more tactical and focused. She said that in addition to priority setting work today, the Board will discuss ways to most effectively work together to serve the County in this new era. Also, the Board will reflect on the budget process just completed and come to an agreement on changes to the process in the upcoming year. Mr. Tucker welcomed the Board’s active and engaged participation in the session and provided an overview of the meeting. He echoed Ms. Mallek’s comments about the benefits of this annual session and the importance of tightening the County’s strategic focus over the next two years. He stated that the session will begin with the Board reviewing how Board members and staff operate as a team. Then, t here will be a brief overview of the new economic realities facing the community. Next the Board will discuss major strategic issues and will identify and prioritize items that will form the basis of our strategic plan for the next two years that builds upon information shared with staff during individual interviews and material developed by the County’s Leadership Council. Finally, the Board will review and discuss proposed changes to the budget process and come to an agreement on a revised budget process for the coming year. He concluded that the session would end with a summary of our day’s activities and outline the next steps. As the first agenda item, Ms. Catlin facilitated the Board discussion regarding ways the Board and Staff can work together to be most effective. Following is a summary of the Board comments and suggestions during this discussion regarding Board/staff working relationships: What Board members value from each other in working together: o Knowledge o Honesty o Diversity o Geographical knowledge o Perspective o Congenial attitude o Preparation o No hidden agendas o Appreciation of staff role What Board members identify as staff’s appropriate role: o Provision of informed options o Legal advice o Timely and accurate information that is understandable and presented without an agenda o Quick feedback/responsiveness o Making the Board aware of unanticipated consequences What Board members identify as their appropriate role: o Clear/Informed direction o Effective use of staff time o Prioritized directions o Clear communication June 30, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Suggested Improvements: o Have frequent dialogue with staff so that everyone has a clear understanding about expectations – what is required to do the task at hand o Do a better job of communicating the Board’s decisions and intentions to the public o Provide an opportunity for staff to respond back and clarify/incorporate expectations into the action letter o Use understandable English o Staff should say when more people need to be in discussions about particular situations Next, Mr. Foley led the Board in a discussion regarding the new economic realities facing the County, state and nation. He shared historical data and financial trends for the County’s reassessments, property tax revenue, sales tax revenue, and state general fund revenue. He then provided economic information from the Gallop Poll and John Silvia, Ph.D., Chief Economist, Wells Fargo Securities Economics Group. The information indicated a shift in the nation’s economy which will include more restrained consumer economic activity, weak job growth, and high unemployment. Mr. Foley also provided information from the “Center on Budget and Policy” which indicated that states will continue to struggle to find resources to support critical public services and that this situation is anticipated to continue for a number of years. Mr. Foley concluded by sharing information from the International County/City Management Association and the “Financial Times” which indicates that the financial crisis has redefined local government. Local governments will have less money to deliver services and many have established “new normal’s” that will remain in place after the US economy rebounds. Note: The Board took a brief recess at 10:24 a.m., and came back to order at 10:43 a.m. Following the break, the Board of Supervisors, working from charts which included topics previously identified by individual Board members as well as the County’s Leadership Council, discussed major strategic issues facing the County and identified, and prioritized the top five strategic action items that the County should include in the FY 10/11 – FY 11/12 Strategic Action Plan. Following are notes and outcomes from this discussion: Overall Theme – Redefining/Sustaining County Government in the new Economic Reality. Priority –CIP Funding Directional Statement/Outcome –The Board will select desired option(s) for increasing funding in the CIP. Related issues raised by the Board: Options for how to put money back into CIP – target amount? Committee structure? Are maintenance standards appropriate? (are there reallocation possibilities?) Take advantage of outside funds/use county funds to leverage other funding Determine which projects are pressing enough for funding Review inventory of County properties Initial Action Step(s): Staff to plan a preliminary discussion of viable options for the Board’s consideration Priority –Working/budgeting relationship with the School Division Directional Statement /Outcome - The Board of Supervisors will improve communication, trust a nd budget information sharing with the County School Board. Related issues raised by the Board: More regular discussion about issues Improve Communication and trust Better budget data/information Increase understanding of future picture Consider standardized budget reporting Initial Action Step(s): Board approved a revised budget process for the upcoming Five Year Financial Plan and annual budget which includes additional meetings with the School Board – it will be implemented immediately Priority –Economic Vitality Directional Statement –The County will have an adopted plan to increase focus on economic development/ vitality. Related issues raised by the Board: job creation ability to be responsive to changing conditions Initial Action Step(s): Continue progress of the Economic Development Action Plan currently under consideration by the Board with public hearing on July 14 Priority – Library System Structure Directional Statement –The Board will determine the most desirable future library system structure for the County given current fiscal realities June 30, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Related issues raised by the Board: staff should conduct an independent analysis prior to the Board having any conversations with Library representatives Initial Action Step(s): Staff to determine and conduct an appropriate analysis process and bring those results to the Board of Supervisors Priority - Solid Waste Disposal Directional Statement – The Board will provide direction on a preferred solid waste disposal option within a six-month period. Related issues raised by the Board: Initial Action Step(s): Staff will determine a process for presenting and evaluating realistic options for solid waste disposal in a timeframe that allows the Board to act within the six month timeframe Other strategic issues discussed that were not selected as the top 5 priorities by the Board: Historic Preservation (Lewis and Clark, Old Jail, Hatton Ferry) Transportation planning/funding (this will be part of CIP and other financial discussions) Land preservation efforts Alternative approaches for regional agencies: o SPCA o ACSA/RWSA/water supply (these discussions are already underway) o Fire rescue (these discussions are already underway) Sustainable level of funding for community agencies (this will be part of upcoming financial discussions) Other Topics identified for Future Discussion: More information to be brought to the Board about the Inmate work release program (Sheriff Harding’s work program) Should the County increase the Contingency fund in the budget? Provide the Board with an update on the One Stop Work Force Center Provide information to help Board members understand changes in mandates and outside funding sources The Board reviewed and approved proposed changes to the budget process that were presented by Lori Allshouse, that included additional meetings with the School Division to improve communication and understanding of the School Division’s base budget and long-term funding needs. Other changes to the budget process were also approved to provide an opportunity for the Board to learn more details about two local government departments’ operations including how they construct their budgets from the bottom up. Finally, Mr. Elliott provided a summary of the meeting results and outcomes. Staff will use this information to develop the County’s FY 10/11 – FY 11/12 Strategic Action Plan. _______________ Adjourn With no further business, Ms. Mallek adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals FY 10/11- FY 11/12 Redefining County Government for the new Economic Reality Goal 1: By June 30, 2012, the County will explore options and identify ways to address unfunded current and future capital needs. Goal 2: By June 30, 2012, communication and budget information sharing will be increased between the General Government and School Division. Goal 3: By June 30, 2012, the County and its partners will complete the first two year’s activities identified in the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan. Goal 4: By June 30, 2012, the County will explore options and identify the most desirable library system structure for the future. Goal 5: By December, 2010, the Board of Supervisors will provide direction on a preferred solid waste disposal option for the County. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary 1 PROPOSED FY 11/12 BOS BUDGET CALENDAR Meetings with School Board in Red Additional BOS meetings in Green August 2010 11 NEW - BOS - Budget Policies/Practices Work Session 17 NEW - BOS and School Board Joint Retreat October 2010 TBD MODIFIED - BOS and School Board - Joint compensation discussion, overview of School Division’s base budget, and long-range funding needs TBD NEW – BOS - Local Government department’s base budgets and review of long-range funding needs November 2010 3 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan 11 BOS Work Session - Five-Year Financial Plan 9 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #1 16 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #2 23 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #3 (if needed) December 2010 1 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan TBD BOS and School Board - Joint CIP meeting 8 Final BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan March 2011* 2 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget 7 BOS Work Session 9 BOS Work Session – School Division 14 BOS Work Session – CIP 16 BOS Work Session (if needed) 20 Advertise Tax Rate - Daily Progress 30 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget 30 Public Hearing on the 2011 calendar year tax rate April 2011 6 BOS sets the 2011 calendar year tax rate 6 BOS adopts FY 11/112budget *NOTE: If assessments are greater than 1%, the January to March schedule would be adjusted to meet state requirements for the advertisement of the tax rate public hearin g. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY2010 4th Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on non-cash proffers and cash proffer revenue and expenditures for the 4th Quarter of FY 2010 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Higgins; and Ms. McCulley and Ms. Baldwin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: 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 changes include 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 April through June of 2010. During the next fiscal year, the Board can expect to see additions to the Proffer Summary (Attachment A), to include past funds expended and notes for future fund allocations. DISCUSSION: Cash Proffers April – June 2010 (4th Quarter) A. Proffered: No rezoning were approved in this quarter with cash proffers. B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rezonings containing cash proffers were approved during the 4th quarter, the total obligated cash proffers remains the same; at $38,851,330. C. Revenue: The County received a total of $33,950 in cash proffers during this quarter. The contributions are from Belvedere ($6,000 for affordable housing), Hollymead Town Center Area C ($9,524 for Capital Improvement Projects), Old Trail ($12,000, of which $6,000 is for schools and $6,000 is for parks), Wickham Pond ($3,226 for Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet) and Liberty Hall ($3,200 for Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet. D. Total Interest Earnings: The interest earned during this quarter from collected cash proffers is $203 for a total of $316,780. E. Expenditures: Cash proffer funds were appropriated from Liberty Hall ($16,098), Westhall ($64,625), and Wickham Pond ($73,765) to the Crozet Streetscapes Phase II construction projects. Additionally, funds received from Hollymead Town Center A1 ($28,507) were appropriated to the Route 29 Corridor Study, and interest remaining from Stillfried Lane ($55) and Avon Park ($42.5) were appropriated to the Ivy and Avon Sidewalk projects respectively. F. Current Available Funds: As of July 19, 2010, the available cash proffer fund balance is $1,126,967. 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: ZMA 2009-04 National College Relocation was the only rezoning approved during this quarter. The proffer is limited to a statement that the property be developed in general accord with the rezoning plan. B. Roads and Other Transportation Improvements: ZMA1999-16 Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership Resubdivision proffered to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 250 East and the entrance to the Glenmore Subdivision at the developer’s expense once VDOT warrants were met, and the County collected and held $150,000 in escrow to ensure funding would be available. The traffic signal was installed in June, and the County disbursed the $150,000 in escrow funds accordingly. 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 FY 2010 4th Quarter Proffer Summary Attachment A FUND #PROFFER NAME ZMA #'S TOTAL ANTICIPATED PROFFER 2008 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED TOTAL INTEREST EARNINGS ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO CIP/OTHER CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS 8530 ALBEMARLE PLACE 2001-07 2,610,000.00 2,610,000.00 100,000.00 3,666.41 (103,666.41)0.00 8526 AVEMORE 2000-10 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 1,286.43 (51,286.43)0.00 AVINITY*2006-05 1,249,500.00 1,249,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8534 AVON PARK 2004-03 59,000.00 59,000.00 59,000.00 5,609.66 0.00 64,609.66 AVON PARK II*2007-05 408,100.00 414,221.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8536 BELVEDERE STATION 2004-07 400,250.00 400,250.00 52,750.00 732.16 0.00 53,482.16 BLUE RIDGE CO- HOUSING*2007-12 286,200.00 290,493.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CASCADIA 2002-04 405,000.00 405,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8531 ECKERD PHARMACY 2003-03 6,000.00 6,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FONTANA PHASE 4C*2004-18 690,500.00 700,857.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8520 GLENMORE 1999-16 893,000.00 893,000.00 752,000.00 129,917.06 (875,364.10)6,552.96 8521 GLENMORE**1999-16 569,000.00 569,000.00 328,700.00 56,311.05 (375,000.00)10,011.05 8523 GRAYROCK 1997-12 62,500.00 62,500.00 62,500.00 13,159.78 0.00 75,659.78 8539 GREENBRIER 2000-06 9,334.00 9,334.00 9,334.00 81.72 (9,415.72)0.00 HADEN PLACE 2005-07 82,500.00 82,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8532 HOLLYMEAD AREA B 2001-19 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 1,521.85 (51,521.85)0.00 8527 HOLLYMEAD AREA C 2001-20 210,000.00 210,000.00 157,619.00 5,090.18 (112,442.36)50,266.82 8528 HOLLYMEAD AREA D 2002-02 481,000.00 481,000.00 480,999.68 23,807.97 (473,712.00)31,095.65 8545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1*2005-15 609,000.00 609,000.00 109,000.00 $429.97 (28,507.00)80,922.97 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2*2007-01 14,971,800.00 15,196,377.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEAKE*2006-16 2,149,620.00 2,176,993.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LIVENGOOD*2006-15 867,095.00 880,101.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE 2001-15 346,250.00 367,717.50 358,617.50 9,730.64 0.00 368,348.14 NGIC EXPANSION*2007-03 1,264,800.00 1,264,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8538 NORTH POINTE 2000-09 460,000.00 460,000.00 400,000.00 28,810.93 (400,000.00)28,810.93 PATTERSON SUBDIVISION*2007-11 128,800.00 130,732.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAKLEIGH FARM*2007-04 1,494,550.00 1,516,968.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE 2004-24 2,328,000.00 2,328,000.00 55,000.00 1,839.20 (50,000.00)6,839.20 8546 POPLAR GLEN II 2005-14 38,900.00 17.72 0.00 38,917.72 RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE 2001-08 1,047,000.00 1,062,705.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8524 SPRINGRIDGE 1998-13 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 2,214.97 (102,214.97)0.00 8522 STILL MEADOWS 1997-01 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 17,220.78 (152,220.78)0.00 8533 STILLFRIED LANE 2003-12 78,000.00 78,000.00 78,000.00 6,203.78 0.00 84,203.78 8525 UVA RESEARCH PARK 1995-04 78,718.00 78,718.00 78,718.00 899.55 (79,500.00)117.55 8535 WESTERN RIDGE 2001-02 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,159.12 848.62 0.00 6,007.74 WICKHAM POND II 2005-18 405,000.00 405,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8540 WICKHAM POND 2004-17 345,161.67 345,161.67 132,258.21 3,908.18 (59,161.00)77,005.39 WILLOW GLEN*2006-19 2,907,800.00 2,907,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8541 WESTHALL (1.1)2006-01 123,000.00 123,000.00 51,000.00 2,739.87 0.00 53,739.87 8542 WESTHALL (1.2)2006-01 17,000.00 898.56 (7,000.00)10,898.56 8543 WESTHALL (3.3)2006-01 3,000.00 161.16 0.00 3,161.16 8544 LIBERTY HALL 05-5 & 07-14 137,600.00 137,600.00 19,200.00 101.45 0.00 19,301.45 TOTAL 38,504,078.67 38,851,330.35 3,683,755.51 317,209.65 (2,931,012.62)1,069,952.54 *Proffer Includes Inflation **Includes $70,000 for Proffer#7C Land: Proffer Name Tax Map/Parcel Acreage Designated Use PROFFER FUNDS FY 2010 4th Quarter Proffer Summary Attachment A NORTH POINTE 03200-00-00-02000 52,500sq Land for library NORTH POINTE 03200-00-00-02000 12.85 acres FOREST LAKES 04600-00-00-026E0 5 acres For public use facilities as County selects RIVANNA VILLAGE 93A10-00-00-00100 18 acres For Parks & Recreation-Community Park Elementary school site or parks and recreation-County decides COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Land Use Revalidation Program Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update of the County’s Land Use Revalidation Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, and Willingham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors adopted an Ordinance on October 1, 2008, requiring the revalidation of land use assessment applications on a two-year cycle beginning January 2009. Revalidation applications and information were mailed to each of the 4,927 properties in land use assessment in the s pring of 2009 with a filing deadline of September 1, 2009 and a late filing deadline of December 5, 2009. Three community meetings were conducted to assist property owners and answer questions about the new revalidation process. In addition, the Assessor’s Office offered extended hours to serve the public. Approximately 98% of the applications were returned by the December 5, 2009 deadline. DISCUSSION: To date, 177 parcels have been removed from the Land Use program due to failure to revalidate their application and reviews for non-qualifying uses, resulting in the collection of $955,000 in Roll-Back taxes. These same parcels were assessed at fair market value for the 2010 assessment year resulting in an increase in taxable value of $46,254,500 and real estate revenue of $343,208. The total acreage in Land Use assessment decreased by 7,203 acres. The Real Estate Division is currently in the field review process to insure that the parcels revalidating for Land Use meet qualifying standards. A frozen position in the Division was reclassified and filled with the primary responsibility to conduct field reviews. The goal is to review the remaining 4,800 parcels over the next two years. Field reviews began in June 2010. Preliminary findings indicate approximately 33% of the reviews need additional follow up to verify a qualifying use. Each property owner will be given ample opportunity to provide documentation of a qualifying use before the property is removed from the Land Use assessment program and the owner is billed for Roll-Back taxes. RECOMMENDATIONS: This Executive Summary is for informational purposes only. No action is requested. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: EMS Cost Recovery Program Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FY10 Update of the EMS Cost Recovery Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Eggleston; and Ms. Kim LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance authorizing the County to charge fees for emergency medical service (EMS) vehicle transports provided by the Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was issued a permit to charge fees. Fees were not to be charged until after policies and procedures were established, the Board adopted a resolution establishing the amount of the fees and a comprehensive information plan was initiated. The Board directed staff to establish a billing system to be operable by February 1, 2010. Soon after the Board’s September 9, 2009 meeting, the County procured the services of Diversified Ambulance Billing (DAB) to act as the billing agent for the County and Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (“SVRS”), the only volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was issued a permit to charge fees. The Board adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS transports on December 2, 2009. Staff and members of SVRS worked together to develop and implement an extensive public information plan to inform the public about the EMS Cost Recovery program. Staff and members of SVRS presented information at several community meetings throughout the County and delivered public service announcements through various media outlets. Staff and members of SVRS worked with DAB to establish billing protocols, including a policy that addresses financial hardship cases. Volunteer and career EMS providers involved in the billing process attended mandatory training on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and were briefed on the billing policies and procedures. On February 1, 2 010 ambulances stationed at Monticello, Hollymead, and SVRS began billing for EMS transports. At the Board’s request, staff is providing an update on the EMS Cost Recovery program for FY10. Staff’s report will address citizen feedback, administrative workload for SVRS and staff, FY10 revenue, and FY11 revenue projections. DISCUSSION: Customer Service and Citizen Inquires During the development of the EMS Cost Recovery program, great attention was paid to providing excellent customer service both during the transport and in the billing process. During the period of February 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010, Fire and Rescue and SRVS received and addressed four direct citizen inquiries, which were resolved by either providing information or putting the person in contact with DAB. In addition, Fire and Rescue’s Privacy Officer reported that there were two requests for copies of patient care reports. Administrative workload SRVS reports that the EMS Cost Recovery process is operating smoothly from its perspective and requires a small amount of additional time to administer. Volunteer EMS providers report that they spend about five additional minutes at the hospital per transport to gather insurance information and a minimal amount of time on a weekly basis to verify information on the patient care report. Fire and Rescue staff are spending approximately four to five hours per week administering the billing process, including collecting the patient care reports from the stations, separating out those that are not billable (because they were transported in a CARS ambulance), scanning the call reports for transmitting to DAB and uploading the information to the secure DAB site. BUDGET IMPACT: There were a total of 753 EMS transports for the period of February 1 – June 30, 2010. Approximately 20 percent of the billed transports are handled by SVRS. AGENDA TITLE: EMS Cost Recovery Program Update August 4, 2010 Page 2 Revenue and expenses for the period February 1, 2010 – June 30, 2010 are as follows: Revenue $80,307 Expenses DAB fee (6.5% of deposits) $2,837 Advertising, printing, training, translation, pharmaceutical drug box replacements, etc… $5,743 Total Expenses $8,580 Net Income $71,727 Additional transactions remain in FY10 accounts receivable. Once all FY10 transactions are posted, it is expected that the FY10 actual net income will exceed the FY10 budgeted net income estimated of $75,000. FY11 Projections Based on the FY2010 activities, staff estimates that the FY2011 net revenue will be approximately $430,000. Staff is developing a plan to transition to an electronic patient care reporting process. This process may reduce DAB’s 6.5% fee, which would increase the County’s share of the revenue. However, the project is in the preliminary phase and must be further vetted before final cost/benefit figures are determined. RECOMMENDATIONS: This update is presented for the Board’s information only, no action is required. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 2010 Sales Tax Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of Sales Tax Collection Information STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, and Walters LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Sales tax is a tax on the sale at retail or use of tangible personal property and certain taxable services. Virginia has 9 different sales and use taxes: 1. Aircraft Sales and Use Tax 2. Communications Sales and Use Taxes 3. Consumer‟s Use Tax 4. Digital Media Fee 5. Motor Vehicle Wholesale Fuel Sales Tax 6. Retail Sales Tax 7. Use Tax 8. Vending Machine Sales Tax, and 9. Watercraft Sales and Use Tax. This report primarily focuses on Retail Sales Tax and Use Tax. Sales tax is a tax imposed on gross receipts from retail sales of tangible personal property. Retail sales are defined as sales to a consumer or to any person for any purpose other than for resale. The tax also applies to the furnishing of transient accommodations and the lease or rental of tangible personal property as part of an established business. Use tax applies to tangible personal property used, consumed, or stored in Virginia but purchased outside the state that would have been subject to sales tax if purchased in the state. The use tax also applies to purchases, leases, or rentals made in Virginia if the sales tax was not paid at the time of purchase, lease, or rental. Sales Tax revenues received by the County of Albemarle have varied significantly over the last several years relative to statewide and other locality specific data. This update explains several of the reasons for the fluctuations. DISCUSSION: Fluctuations in state and local sales tax revenues derive from many issues; a few of which are: I. Out of State Sales: The collection of sales tax from out of state sales is particularly difficult. The inability to collect out-of-state tax impacts public policy by disadvantaging local businesses, undermining state and local governments by reducing tax revenue, and makes a regressive tax more regressive because only those with internet access, a credit card, and/or a home or workplace to accept daytime deliveries are able to take advantage of the tax exemption. Since 1999 there has been a moratorium on the imposition of Internet access taxes. Taken together with the prohibition on taxation of inter-state sales, absent „nexus‟ in the taxing state on the part of the seller, the result has been a rapidly increasing loss of revenue for the states as Internet sales have grown. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in “Quill”, nexus is a requirement of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution that a business must have outlets, sales, representatives, or significant property in a state before AGENDA TITLE: 2010 Sales Tax Update August 4, 2010 Page 2 that state can tax the business. Congress, for its part, has refused to lift the inter-state taxation ban or correct the nexus problem until the states get together in terms of simplification of sales taxes. This has led to the Streamlined Sales Tax Program in which 44 states, including Virginia, joined together to simplify and unify state and local sales taxes to encourage Congress to overturn “Quill”. Although progress is being made, there is no estimate when Congress will change the law to allow out-of-state vendors, without a physical presence in a state, to register and collect that state‟s tax. II. Economic Conditions: The attached taxable sales table and chart displays annual taxable sales information for Virginia as a whole and Albemarle and Charlottesville as separate localities from 1996 through 2009. Since 2000, both Albemarle and Charlottesville collections mirrored the state trend. During this period of time, the national economy underwent the following business cycles: Expansion – April 1991 through March 2001 Contraction – April 2001 through November 2001 Expansion – December 2001 through December 2007 Contraction – January 2008 through current The annual taxable sales data follows the national cycle fairly close ly. There were a few significant changes: 2004 – Sales tax increase to 5% effective 9/1/04 2005 – Sales tax on food reduced to 2.5% effective 7/1/05 2006 – Accelerated sales tax collections for state budget adjustments , state tax amnesty program 2007 – Reversal of accelerated state sales tax collections Virginia sales tax revenues are 20.5% of state general fund revenues and Albemarle sales tax revenues are 5.3% of local general fund revenues. These revenues are significant to state and local financial operations. III. Proper allocation of revenues to the correct locality with nexus: The Resource Utilization Study recognized that significant revenues were being diverted to other localities due to incorrect situs reporting. The study recommended that the frozen auditor position be filled to review sales tax allocations to ensure that Albemarle receives its correct share. That position was filled earlier this year. Since April, $384,944 has been identified and approved to be transferred to Albemarle over a six month period and an additional estimated $171,137 is in process. Additionally, annual receipts should increase $228,781 based on the adjustments. It is expected that significant amounts of additional revenues will be identified in the near future. IV. Other: Adjacent localities are experiencing significant retail development. As a result, taxpayers that would have normally shopped or dined in Albemarle now have the convenience of staying closer to home and spending their tax dollars in their own localities. The amount of sales tax revenue lost to other localities can be significant. An estimated amount cannot be disclosed due to privacy regulations. BUDGET IMPACT: The information presented in this report is being used to update sales tax projections and prepare the FY12 - FY16 Five Year Financial Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required. ATTACHMENTS A - Annual Taxable Sales data table and chart Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Calendar Year Virginia Total Albemarle Ch'ville Business Cycle Virginia Total Albemarle Ch'ville $$$%%% 1996 53,923,259,963 720,813,040 536,558,111 E N/A N/A N/A 1997 57,047,801,015 759,741,573 570,476,223 E 5.79%5.40%6.32% 1998 60,113,811,363 773,533,118 637,801,787 E 5.37%1.82%11.80% 1999 64,068,575,397 871,288,229 646,848,139 E 6.58%12.64%1.42% 2000 68,661,581,258 924,186,726 696,083,743 E 7.17%6.07%7.61% 2001 68,725,289,188 919,852,967 709,893,383 C 0.09%-0.47%1.98% 2002 70,645,312,671 965,334,541 706,597,332 C 2.79%4.94%-0.46% 2003 74,973,561,726 1,034,056,891 726,123,472 E 6.13%7.12%2.76% 2004 81,291,117,472 1,105,901,493 775,826,711 E 8.43%6.95%6.85% 2005 77,290,441,767 1,097,505,296 721,660,039 E -4.92%-0.76%-6.98% 2006 89,478,625,283 1,234,252,107 854,623,369 E 15.77%12.46%18.42% 2007 92,043,248,947 1,255,468,142 895,966,828 E 2.87%1.72%4.84% 2008 90,106,122,080 1,193,402,063 867,331,000 C -2.10%-4.94%-3.20% 2009 85,869,132,300 1,108,475,225 820,895,379 C -4.70%-7.12%-5.35% 3 Months YTD: 2009 21,201,642,666 275,218,617 208,067,486 C --- 2010 20,377,185,652 258,869,515 196,538,964 C -3.89%-5.94%-5.54% Per National Bureau of Economic Research: C = Contraction; E = Expansion Sales Percentage Change Annual Taxable Sales -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Annual Taxable Sales Percent Change Virginia Albemarle Ch'ville Source: Weldon Cooper Center Virginia Taxable Sales 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 14, 2010 Mr. Lester J. Clements for Laird & Company c/o 3638 Laird Lane, P. O. Box 7 North Garden, VA 22959 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD BOUNDARY -- Tax Map 99, Parcel 37(“A”) (Property of Laird & Company) Samuel Miller Magisterial District Dear Mr. Clements: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 99, Parcel (“A”) is part of the main Laird & Company parcel of record (Tax Map 99, Parcel 37). The basis for this determination follows. Our records indicate Tax Map 99, Parcel (“A”), as shown on the proposed boundary line adjustment plat by Old Dominion Map Company, dated December 28, 2009, contains .226 acres and no dwellings. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 250, page 383. This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 252, page 521 that is dated February 27, 1941. The deed contains a description of the property that was conveyed to Laird & Company from Eleanor H. Wayland & E. M. Wayland, her husband, that includes approximately 46 feet of the 186.19 foot boundary line between TMP 99-37 & TMP 99A-2. This deed establishes the 46 foot portion of the boundary as being the same as shown on the proposed boundary line adjustment plat by Old Dominion Map Company, dated December 28, 2009. The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adopti on of the Zoning Ordinance December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 250, page 383, and is dated May 1, 1941. The deed conveyed 2.458 acres, more or less, from Southern Railway Company to Laird & Company. This deed contains a metes & bounds description and a plat showing the rest of the boundary between TMP 99 -37 & TMP 99A-2 consisting of approximately 140.6 feet. This deed establishes the remaining 140.6 foot portion of the boundary as being the same as shown on the proposed boundary line adjustment plat by Old Dominion Map Company, dated December 28, 2009. 2 If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifie s the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald L. Higgins, ICP Chief of Zoning Copy: Real Estate Supervisor Ella Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 6, 2010 Mr. J. D. Catlett, Sr. P. O. Box 385 Scottsville, VA 24390 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 136, Parcel 27C (Property of J. D. Catlett, et al) Scottsville Magisterial District Dear Mr. Catlett: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above -noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 136, Parcel 27C is four (4) parcels of record which have the theoretical development rights as outlined in the table below. The basis for this determination follows the table. Tax Map-Parcel-Lot Acreage Development Rights 136-27C-Lot 2 2.950 acres 1 136-27C-Lot 3 2.736 acres 1 136-27C-Lot 4 2.000 acres 1 136-27C-Lot 5 2.000 acres 1 136-27C-Lot A 13.171acres 5* TOTAL 22.857acres 9 *This number of theoretical development rights was added to Lots 4 & 5 in Deed Book 999, page 240, but not apportioned by the grantees. Therefore it is not known how the seven (7) total rights for lots 4 & 5 are divided. Our records indicate Tax Map136, Parcel 27C contains 22.857 acres and one dwelling. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 999, page 242. This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 541, page 563 that is dated November 30, 1973. This deed conveys the “Valmont” estate, containing 503.53 acres, more or less, and another 25.54 acres, more or less, from Forrest E. & Lillian M. Paulett, husband and wife, to Leonard Land and Livestock, LTD. and Chester F. Baker. Deed Book 553, page 576, dated February 27, 1974, is a recorded “Statement of Subdivision-Phase One-Valmont Estates” which shows seven lots out of “Valmont” on a 2 plat by Robert L. Lum, C.L.S., of the same date. The plat of this land references Deed Book 541, page 563 as the source of the property. This deed establishes Lot 2-5, among others, as parcels of record, each having one (1) theoretical development right. Deed Book 675, page 547, dated July 11, 1979, conveyed the same Lots 2-5, and a tract of land to the south of these, from Leonard Land and Livestock, Ltd. and Chester F. & Frances H. Baker, husband and wife to Charlie W. & Ida C. Patterson, husband and wife. The property is described as being the same as was conveyed by Deed Book 553, page 576 (Lots 2-5) and as described by metes and bounds to be a portion of the property in Deed Book 541, page 563. This transaction had no effect on the parcels. The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 678, page 746, and is dated August 20, 1979. The deed conveyed “Lot B”, consisting of 13.171 acres, that was a portion of the additional tract of land described by metes and bounds in deed Book 675, page 547, from Charlie W. & Ida C. Patterson, husband and wife to R. Hilton Patterson . The residue of this tract, “Lot A”, also consisting of 13.171 acres, was indicated to be added to “Lots 2 through 5 as also shown” on the July 11, 1979 plat. Based on this deed, Tax Map 136, Parcel 27C is determined to be an additional part of the four parcels of record (Lots 2-5) with land for five (5) theoretical development rights “to be added to and become a part of Lots 2 through 5”. Deed Book 999, page 239, dated June 23, 1988, conveyed Lots 4 and 5, each containing 2 acres, and “Lot A” containing 13.171 acres from Charlie W. & Ida C. Patterson, husband and wife, to J. D. & Nancy T. Catlett, husband and wife. The property is described as being the same as was conveyed by Deed Book 675, page 547. This deed contains the statement that “It is hereby expressly agreed and understood that said Lot A is hereby made a part of each of said Lot 4 and Lot 5 in such proportion and the Grantees my chose…” This transaction had no effect on the parcels. Deed Book 999, page 242, dated June 23, 1988, conveyed Lot 2 and Lot 3 of 2.950 acres and 2.736 acres, respectively, from Charlie W. & Ida C. Patterson, husband and wife, to James David Catlett, Jr. The property is described as being the same as was conveyed by Deed Book 675, page 547. This transaction had no effect on the parcels. The parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcel with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the 3 appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald L. Higgins, AICP Chief of Zoning Copy: Real Estate Supervisor Ella Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 6, 2010 Mr. Alan B. Howard 2176 Lindsay Road Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 50, Parcels 41A, 41Q, 42A & 43 (Property of Alan B. Howard) Rivanna Magisterial District Dear Mr. Howard: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above -noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 50, Parcels 41A, 41Q, 42A & 43 are four parcels of record and have theoretical development rights as outlined in the following table. The basis for this determination follows the table. Tax Map-Parcel Acreage Development Rights Tax Map 50 – Parcel 41A 61.86 Acres 5 Tax Map 50 – Parcel 41Q 33.16 Acres 5 Tax Map 50 – Parcel 42A 96.00 Acres 5 Tax Map 50 – Parcel 43 1.332 Acres 1 TOTAL 16 Our records indicate Tax Map 50, Parcel 41A contains 61.86 acres and no dwellings. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1146, page 295. Our records indicate Tax Map 50, Parcel 41Q contains 33.16 acres and no dwellings. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 579, page 247. Our records indicate Tax Map 50, Parcel 42A contains 96.00 acres and two dwellings. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 519, page 603. Our records indicate Tax Map 50, Parcel 43 contains 1.332 acres and one dwelling. The property is not within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The most recent recorded instrument for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1717, page 635. 2 This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 519, page 603 that is dated December 4, 1972. The deed conveys 96 acres from Fannie L. O’Leary Carr & John Douglas Carr, husband and wife, to Alan B. & Alice G. Howard, husband and wife. This deed includes a plat of the 96 acres noted as Tax Map 50, Parcel 42A. This is also the most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 1980. Based on this deed, Tax Map 50, Parcel 42A is determined to be a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights. Deed Book 579, page 247, dated August 1, 1975, conveyed 33.16 acres from W. W. Whitlock & Eula D. Whitlock, husband and wife and Whitlock Agency, Inc. to Alan B. & Alice G. Howard, husband and wife. The deed contains a legal description and includes a plat, dated July 22, 1975, of the 33.16 acres of land. This is the most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 1980. Based on this deed, Tax Map 50, Parcel 41Q is determined to be a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights. Deed Book 1146, page 295, dated March 26, 1991, conveyed 61.86 acres from W. W. & Eula D. Whitlock, husband and wife and W. W. Whitlock Agency, Inc. to Alan B. Howard. The property is described as being Tax Map 50, Parcel 41A as shown on the plat attached to the deed by James H. Bell, Jr., P.C. and dated March 8, 1991 . It is also described as being the same as shown on a certain plat of Hart and Bell , CLS recorded December 29, 1967 in Deed Book 443, page 326-7. Based on the plat and deed of December 29, 1967 referenced in this deed, Tax Map 50, Parcel 41A is determined to be a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights. Deed Book 1717, page 635, dated April 9, 1998, conveyed 1.332 acres from Charlie Frank Kingrea to Alan B. Howard. The property is described as being the same as shown on a plat by Robert L. Lum, CLS, dated December 8, 1980 and recorded in Deed Book 717, page 391 as it was conveyed to Charlie Frank Kingrea. Based on the plat of December 8, 1980 and recorded in Deed book 717, page 391, Tax Map 50, Parcel 43 is determined to be a parcel of record with one (1) development right. The parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within the bounds of the original parcel with which they are associated. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, the parcel may create as many smaller parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres as it has land to make. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2 -2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determinatio n shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed alon g with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. 3 If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ronald L. Higgins, AICP Chief of Zoning Copy: Real Estate Supervisor Ella Jordan, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Karen P. Kilby Virginia Department of Transportation Programming/Investment Management Director 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, VA 22701 CULPEPER DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT Albemarle County August 2010 Preliminary Engineering Route 691, Jarmin’s Gap Road – Right of Way is complete. Project scheduled for Advertisement in January, 2011. Route 656, Georgetown Road – All appraisals are complete. 13 of 20 offers have been made and 3 have been accepted. McIntire Road – Award is still on hold. Route 708, Dry Bridge Road – Location Survey is complete and design is progressing on schedule. Design Public Hearing planned for early 2011. Route 677 and Route 616, Bridge Replacements - Aerial photography is complete and field survey is underway. Maintenance Activities June 24th Storm Clean-up – Work to remove fallen trees and debris as a result of the June 24th microburst in the Charlottesville area is approximately 90% complete. Glenmore Signal Concerns - Traffic Engineering is investigating sight distance and pavement marking concerns as requested by the Glenmore Homeowner’s Association. A speed study will be conducted if requested by the Board of Supervisors. Pounding Creek Road, Route 689 - Routine maintenance to address potholes was performed on this roadway, Monday July 19th. Bridge on Black Cat Road, Route 616 – Buckingham Branch will be closing the one lane structure on this route to replace the wooden deck during the week of August 16th. Construction Activities Route 631 – Meadowcreek Parkway - Construction is progressing on schedule. Installation of the sanitary sewer relocation is continuing per the agreement between VDOT and RWSA. Route I-64 at 5th Street – Construction is expected to be completed by the end of August, 2010. Route I-64 at Shadwell – Contractor plans to perform grade work, storm drain installation and preliminary signal installation work during the month of August. Countywide Plant Mix - has been rescheduled to begin in August Countywide Surface Treatment - scheduled to begin in late August. I-64 Bridge Deck Repairs and Epoxy Overlay - has begun and should be completed by September 24, 2010. Traffic Engineering ROUTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS 643 (Rio Mills Road Entire Route Truck Restrictions Data collection underway 663 (Buck Mtn Road) Earlysville Speed Study Ongoing 743 (Hydraulic Road Intersection of Georgetown Road Installation of right on red arrow Under Review by Traffic Engineering Staff Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Route 29 LLC Appeal of Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Determination of Proffer Violation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appeal of Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Determination of Route 29 LLC’s ZMA2007-001 Proffer Violation regarding the Willow Glen Connection Right-of-Way Dedication STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Higgins; and Ms. McCulley. LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2010, the Deputy Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Official Determination of Violation (NOV) to Route 29 LLC, the owner of the A-2 portion of the Hollymead Town Center (HTC-A2). (Attachment A). This NOV was issued to require compliance with Proffer #12 of the HTC-A2 rezoning, ZMA 2007-001, which was approved by the Board on September 12, 2007. That proffer requires dedication of the right-of-way upon request of the County, necessary for an interconnection to adjacent property known as Willow Glen. The request for dedication was made January 26, 2010 (Attachment B). The property owner did not comply with the request as required and the NOV was issued to enforce compliance with the proffer. Route 29 LLC filed a letter and application of appeal of the determination in May of 2010 (Attachments C & D). While it is customary for appeals of a Zoning Administrator’s determination to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, this appeal is before the Board of Supervisors as provided by Virginia Code § 15.2-2301. DISCUSSION: Proffer #12 states in relevant part: “Upon the request of the County, the Owner shall dedicate for public use a public right-of-way determined to be appropriate by VDOT and the County Engineer, extending from Town Center Drive to the Property’s boundary with the proposed Willow Glen development, as shown on the General Development Plan and within Block C6 as shown on the Block Plan (the “Willow Glen Connection”).” The full text of Proffer #12 is included in Attachment A. This proffer was part of a proffer statement submitted by the owner and accepted by the Board in conjunction with the rezoning of HTC-A2. Proffer #12 was part of a broader effort by the County, VDOT and the owners of Hollymead Town Center to insure connectivity within and throughout the superblock in which Hollymead Town Center sits. This superblock stretches south from Airport Road and runs between Route 29N and Dickerson Road. Proffers for such public road dedications are common in planned development projects as are dedications for roads in subdivisions. Although proffers typically require the owner to construct a proffered road and dedicate it to public use, Proffer #12 requires the owner only to dedicate the right-of-way to the public. A proffer for the adjoining Willow Glen rezoning requires that the Willow Glen owner construct the Willow Glen Connection to VDOT standards for acceptance into the public street system. Route 29 LLC raises two grounds for its appeal. First, the appellant claims that Proffer #12 is a condition that was “…forced upon the prior owner…” and is “…for the sole benefit of an adjoining property owner…” The proffer statement signed by the owner states that the proffers were “voluntarily offered” and that the conditions (proffers) are “reasonable”. Second, Route 29 LLC claims that it is not in violation of the proffer because it did not approve the proffer.” The HTC-A2 proffers became part of the zoning of HTC-A2 when it was rezoned and the proffers, like the other applicable zoning regulations, run with the land. Route 29 LLC has failed to demonstrate that the Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Notice of Official Determination of Violation was erroneous. Route 29 LLC, in reality, does not provide any basis to contest the interpretation of the proffer, but objects to the substance of Proffer #12 itself, and it has applied for a minor amendment to change Proffer #12. The rezoning amendment process can address the provisions of the proffer itself if the Board determines that any change to the proffer is appropriate. AGENDA TITLE: Route 29 LLC Appeal of Deputy Zoning Administrator’s Determination of Proffer Violation August 4, 2010 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT: Proffers are intended, among other things, to provide mitigation of impacts and public benefits without increasing the financial burden on the locality. This proffer is designed to meet the public purposes of interconnectivity and safe and convenient access which is made necessary by the development. The satisfaction of this proffer would save the County and VDOT the cost of providing such improvements as well as the cost of making needed impro vements to alternative routes of travel. In addition, because the road is proposed on land that is privately owned, there is no way to measure the budget impact of VDOT or the County first acquiring the property. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board affirm the Notice of Official Determination of Violation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Notice of Violation – April 19, 2010 Attachment B – Letter requesting the R-O-W Dedication – January 26, 2010 Attachment C – Appellant’s letter of Appeal – May 17, 2010 Attachment D – Application for Appeal with Addendum Attachment E – Block Plan for HTC-A2 Attachment F – Application Plan for Willow Glen Attachment G – HTC-A2 Appeal Location Map Attachment H – Chronology of Events Attachment I – Virginia Code Section 15.2-2301 Return to regular agenda GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Scottsville Boundary Charlottesville Boundary Albemarle Boundary Other Streams Major Streams Ponds Lakes and Reservoirs Parcels Driveways Buildings - City Buildings Railroads Roads - City Roads Road Centerlines - City Road Centerlines Railroad Bridges Road Bridges Overview Roads - City Overview Roads Primary Roads Secondary Roads Tax Map Grid Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources July 19, 2010  Attachment G Attachment H The relevant chronology of events regarding this appeal is as follows: September 12, 2007–ZMA2007-001(HTC-A2) is rezoned, with proffers, including “Willow Glen Connection”- requiring right-of-way dedication. October 10, 2007--ZMA2006-019(Willow Glen) is rezoned with proffers, requiring construction of connection. August 24, 2009--Letter from Sarah Baldwin, Sr. Planner, to Octagon Partners, the prior owner of HTC-A2, requesting right-of-way dedication as per Proffer #12 of ZMA2007-001. January 26, 2010--Letter from Sarah Baldwin, Sr. Planner, to Route 29 LLC requesting right-of- way per Proffer #12 of ZMA2007-001 by February 29, 2010. April 19, 2010--Notice of Violation of Proffer #12 issued to owners, Route 29 LLC. May 18, 2010--Letter from Route 29 LLC received appealing the Notice of Violation determination. May 20, 2010--Complete Application for Appeal received with fee and addendum. Attachment I § 15.2-2301. Same; petition for review of decision. Any zoning applicant or any other person who is aggrieved by a decision of the zoning administrator made pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2299 may petition the governing body for review of the decision of the zoning administrator. All petitions for review shall be filed with the zoning administrator and with the clerk of the governing body within thirty days from the date of the decision for which review is sought and shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. (1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.5; 1988, c. 856; 1997, c. 587.) § 15.2-2299. Same; enforcement and guarantees. The zoning administrator is vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the locality to administer and enforce conditions attached to a rezoning or amendment to a zoning map, including (i) the ordering in writing of the remedy of any noncompliance with the conditions; (ii) the bringing of legal action to insure compliance with the conditions, including injunction, abatement, or other appropriate action or proceeding; and (iii) requiring a guarantee, satisfactory to the governing body, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the construction of any physical improvements required by the conditions, or a contract for the construction of the improvements and the contractor's guarantee, in like amount and so conditioned, which guarantee shall be reduced or released by the governing body, or agent thereof, upon the submission of satisfactory evidence that construction of the improvements has been completed in whole or in part. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of any of the required use, occupancy, or building permits, as may be appropriate. (1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.3; 1983, c. 221; 1997, c. 587.) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: RSWA – Local Government Support Agreement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amendment of the Local Government Support Agreement between the City of Charlottesville, the County or Albemarle, and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 2007, the City of Charlottesville (“City”), the County of Albemarle (“County”), and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (“RSWA”) entered into the Local Government Support Agreement (Attachment A) that provided a means to fund ongoing operational deficits that RSWA was experiencing. The basis of the Agreement was that the operational deficits would be split between the City and the County based on population and certain true-up provisions. As noted in paragraph 8 of this Agreement, it was anticipated that RSWA would complete and implement a strategic plan by June 30, 2010, allowing RSWA to become self-sufficient and eliminating the need for continuing City and County contributions. The RSW A strategic plan has not been completed and RSWA has not become self-sufficient. An amendment has been proposed to find a mutually acceptable means for the City and County to continue their contributions under this Agreement until December 31, 2010 with the intent that RSWA can develop a plan for self- sufficiency during this period. DISCUSSION: The First Amendment to Local Government Support Agreement is provided as Attachment B. There are three provisions to this amendment which provide for City and County sharing of the deficit between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. 1. The amendment provides for a distribution of RSWA administrative expenses among its costs centers. The proposed distribution is 20% to recycling operations, 30% to environmental remediation efforts (which are funded through a separate Memorandum of Understanding), and the remaining 50% to be applied to all other operations. This distribution of administrative expense represents the best judgment of the RSWA Executiv e Director on how time is spent. Both City and County staff concur with this distribution. 2. The amendment provides for a distribution of the recycling services deficit, with 33% of that deficit funded by the City and 67% funded by the County. That distribution is based on a survey of users at the McIntire Recycling Center during the week of June 8-13, 2010. City and County staff concur this methodology fairly allocates the cost if it is based on each locality’s use of the recycling services. 3. The amendment provides for a distribution of the deficit of all other services, with 15% of that deficit funded by the City and 85% funded by the County. That distribution is based on RSWA records for origin of materials as documented by the Ivy Material Origin Usage Data. City and County staff concur this fairly allocates the cost if it is based on each locality’s use of the Ivy Facility. Applying this split to the RSWA adopted FY 11 budget, the projected County’s share of the deficit for all of FY11 would be $295,896 and the projected City’s share of the deficit would be $88,849. However, those amounts assume funding for the entire fiscal year, while the Agreement for funding is proposed to end at mid-year. For the half-year period ending December 31, 2010, the County’s share would be $147,948 and the City’s share would be $44,425. Under the terms of the current Agreement, using the population distribution formula, the County’s share is estimated to be $220,609 and the City’s share is estimated to be $164,136 for the entire fiscal year. It is noted that the existing Agreement, as well as the proposed amended Agreement, are a voluntary funding arrangement, per paragraph 10 of the Agreement. It is also noted that paragraph 11 of the Agreement contains a non-appropriation clause. Recognizing the Agreement must serve the needs of all parties to assure funding, staff is prepared to support the amended Agreement, despite the fact that it requires additional County funding. AGENDA TITLE: RSWA – Local Government Support Agreement August 4, 2010 Page 2 Finally, staff notes that the December 31, 2010 end date of this amended Agreement provides an aggressive deadline for the County and the City to agree on future services to be provided by RSWA , the City, and the County. Staff plans to present solid waste options to the Board of Supervisors in September/October and seek direction on services desired for the County’s citizens. On July 19, 2010, City Council approved the proposed amended Agreement. As part of its action, City Council added the last sentence to Paragraph 5, specifically stating: “Nothing in this Amendment or the 2007 Local Government Support Agreement shall be construed as obligating the City of Charlottesville to make an y further payments to RSWA for any period after December 31, 2010.” Staff recommends that this last sentence clarify that the County is likewise not obligated, and the reference to Albemarle County has been added to that sentence in the amended Agreement that is recommended for the Board’s consideration. BUDGET IMPACT: Applying the provisions of the amended Agreement to the adopted FY 11 RSWA budget, the County would be responsible to provide a contribution of $147,948 towards the RSWA operational deficit through December 31, 2010. The County has budgeted $350,000 for an RSWA contribution in FY11 and no additional funding would be required to address the amended Agreement. Staff notes two potential circumstances that could require additional funding: 1. RSWA’s operations deficit increases between now and December 31, 2010. Per the agreement, the City and County would fund this additional deficit. 2. Solid waste services provided for January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011 require additional funding. The Agreement does not cover this period, but it is anticipated that the County may need to fund services in this period. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached First Amendment to the Local Government Support Agreement (Attachment B) and authorize the County Executive to sign that Agreement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Local Government Support Agreement Attachment B – Proposed Amendment to the Local Government Support Agreement Return to regular agenda LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY This ocal Government Support Agreement this Agreement is made this7dayofcll1N2007byandamongtheCityofCharlottesvilleVirginiatheCitytheCountyofAlbemarleVirginiatheCountyandtheRivannaSolid Waste Authority the Authority together referred to as the Parties WHEREAS on November 20 1990 the City and the County entered into a certain Solid Waste Organizational Agreement for the purpose of forming the Authority to operate the Ivy Landfill the Landfill and provide other waste management services for the City and County WHEREAS the Landfill operated continuously from 1968 until the closure of Ce112 in 2001 however the Authority continues to provide waste management services to the City and County and has continuing obligations with respect to the closure remediation and monitoring of the Landfill WHEREAS the Authority owns a transfer station at the Landfill site the Ivy Transfer Station currently operated by the Authority with transportation and disposal of the compacted waste provided by Waste Management Inc formerly Atlantic Waste Disposal Inc pursuant to a contract with the Authority the Waste Management Contract WHEREAS Allied Waste Industries Inc formerly BFI constructed owns and operates a transfer station at Zion Crossroads the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station available for use by the citizens of the City and County pursuant to a contract with the Authority the Allied Waste Contract WHEREAS a component of the standard tipping fees set by the Authority for its customers at the Ivy Transfer Station and the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station is a service contribution fee for providing waste management services to the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle community over and above the transportation and disposal fees charged by Waste Management Inc and Allied Waste Inc to the Authority pursuant to the Waste Management Contract and the Allied Waste Contract respectively WHEREAS pursuant to the Allied Waste Contract all residential waste contracted for collection by the City is considered waste controlled by the Authority and billed by the Authority at the standard tipping fee which includes the service contribution fee when taken to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station irrespective of the hauler WHEREAS direct customers of Allied Waste Inc are not subject to the service contribution fee charged by the Authority to the Authorityscustomers WHEREAS since 2001 the City has withheld from the Authority payment of the service contribution fee component of the standard tipping fee on waste taken to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station by the Citys contracted collector until such time as an equitable cost sharing agreement could be negotiated WHEREAS the City the County the Authority and the University of Virginia entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 10 2005 with respect to the sharing of costs related to the closure remediation and monitoring of the Landfill the Environmental Expenses MOU WHEREAS since 2001 the City has through direct subsidy payments contributed 75000000 and the County has through direct subsidy payments contributed 1000000 to the ongoing operational costs of the Authority and WHEREAS the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to provide for local government contributions to the Authority by the City and the County to fund their proportional share of the Authoritys administration and operating expenses over and above the costs covered by the Environmental revenues received by the Authority revenues received under and the Expenses MOU and the other NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows City Payment of Retained Service Contribution Fees The City agrees to pay to the Authority all remaining service contribution fees incurred by the City prior to July 1 2007 The Authority acknowledges receipt of 400000 on June 25 2007 as partial payment of these service contribution fees The balance of these service contribution fees shall be paid to the Authority within thirty 30 days of the execution of this Agreement by each of the parties In view of the necessarily imprecise nature of allocation of actual costs based upon population the Authority agrees that it shall not impose any penalty or interest on such service contribution fees if paid by the City in accordance with this paragraph The City agrees that there shall be no restriction on the use of 2 such funds and that the Authority may use such funds for operating expenses reserves environmental costs even though otherwise covered by the Environmental Expenses MOU or any other expense The Authority agrees to repay to the County the 250000 that the County paid to the Authority in July 2005 within thirty 30 days of the execution of this Agreement 2 Rates and Charges for City Collected Solid Waste during and after FY 2008 For the Authoritysfiscal year 2008 beginning July 1 2007 and thereafter except as specifically provided in paragraph 3 below the City agrees to pay the Authority the standard tipping fee including the service contribution fee component of such fee of 62 per ton on all solid waste collected or contracted for collection by the City and taken to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station and the standard tipping fee then in effect on all solid waste collected or contracted for collection by the City and taken to the Ivy Transfer Station The Authority agrees not to increase such fees for the City for the balance of FY08 On and after July 1 2008 any increases to the standard tipping fee imposed by the Authority and charged to the City shall not exceed 62 per ton at the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station and the amount of the standard tipping fee in effect as of June 30 2008 at the Ivy Transfer Station in each case adjusted for inflation using the the Consumer Price Index published by the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics All Urban Consumers CPIU US City Average All Items 198284 100 3 Rates and Charges for City Residential Curbside Collected Solid Waste The City may award a new residential curbside solid waste collection contract effective July 1 2008 the New City Curbside Contract The Authority agrees that if a New City Curbside Contract is awarded to Allied Waste Inc and the solid waste is taken to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station it shall diligently pursue an amendment to the Allied Waste Contract to exclude such waste effective upon the latter of July 1 2008 or the effective date of the New City Curbside Contract with Allied Waste Inc from the definition of Rivanna Service Area MSW and coverage under Section 35 of the Allied Waste Contract pursuant to which the Authority currently imposes the service contribution fee The Authority agrees that if a New City Curbside Contract is awarded to Waste Management Inc the Authority shall waive effective upon the latter of July 1 2008 or the effective date of the New City Curbside Contract with Waste Management Inc the restriction imposed upon Waste Management Inc in the Waste Management Contract obligating Waste Management Inc to deliver such waste to the Ivy Transfer Station In view of the existing limit on the average daily tonnage under the Authorityspermit for the Ivy Transfer Station the City agrees to include a requirement in any New City Curbside Contract that such collected waste will not be delivered to the Ivy Transfer Station The Authority further agrees that effective upon the latter of July 1 2008 or the effective date of the New City Curbside Contract the Authority shall not impose the service contribution fee on any residential curbside solid waste collected or contracted for collection by the City and delivered to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station In the event that the City does not award a New City Curbside Contract in 2008 and continues under its current contract with Waste Management Inc the parties agree that effective July 1 2008 i the City will continue to require that solid waste collected under the existing contract be taken to the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station and ii the Authority shall not impose the service contribution fee on any such waste In lieu of payment of the service contribution fees as provided in this paragraph 3 the City agrees to make certain payments to the Authority pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 below In addition the City and County agree not to oppose any exercise by the Authority of options to extend the terms of the Allied Waste Contract or the Waste Management Contract 4 Citys and Countys Proportional Funding of Authoritys Service Contribution Fee Revenues Beginning in fiscal year 2008 and continuing during each fiscal year that this paragraph 4 is in effect the Authority shall determine the total amount of service contribution fees billed for solid waste taken to the Ivy Transfer Station and the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station and the percentage of the total that is attributable to waste generated within the City and the County and provide the City and the County with such information The parties acknowledge that there is no means to guarantee the accuracy of those determinations asthey will be based on the declarations of individual trash haulers as well as records maintained by the operator of the Zion Crossroads Transfer Station If the percentage of service contribution fees billed for solid waste generated within either the City or the County is less than its proportionate share of the service areas population as calculated pursuant to paragraph 5belowit shall contribute to the Authority or to the other jurisdiction on the date of the next quarterly deficit payment asprovided in paragraph 6 below an amount which will cause its percentage share of the service contribution fee to equal its proportionate percentage of the service area population Alternatively the Authority at its election may refund to the other jurisdiction the amount which is in excess of its share or give such jurisdiction a credit in such amount against any future obligation it may have to the Authority pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Agreement The provisions of this paragraph 4 shall terminate upon the first to occur of i full implementation of the Authoritys strategic plan referenced in paragraph 8 below or ii June 30 2010 The calculations to be made by the Authority and payments refunds or credits to be made or received by the City and County shall be done in a manner consistent with the hypothetical example set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto 5 Citys and Countys Proportional Funding of Authoritys Projected Annual Operating Deficit If the Authority determines that despite any payment by either the City or the County pursuant to paragraph 4 above and all reasonable efforts to fund the operating expenses of the Authority that an operating deficit will exist it shall prepare and adopt a budget including reasonable reserves balanced by using 4 revenue to be contributed by the City and the County The amount of revenue to be contributed by the City and the County shall be determined on the basis of population at the time the budget is adopted by the Authority as reported for the most recent year by the University of Virginias Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service rounded to the nearest tenth 110 of a percerit The percentage of each of the Citys and Countys portion of the revenue to be contributed will be calculated by dividing its population by the combined population of the City and County For purposes of the budget for the Authoritysfiscal year beginning July 1 2007 the percentage of the Citys portion of the revenue to be contributed shall be thirty percent 30 and the Countys portion of the revenue to be contributed shall be seventy percent 70 An example of the calculations required by pazagraph 4 above and this pazagraph 5 is set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and such calculations shall be made by the Authority in a manner consistent with the example in Exhibit 1 6 Quarterly Deficit Payments If the Authoritysproposed annual budget shows an operating deficit the Citys and Countys payment to the Authority pursuant to paragraph 5 above shall be made quarterly on the first day of July October Januazy and April of such fiscal year ofthe Authority subject to the provisions ofpazagraphs 9 and 10 below 7 Increase or Decrease in the AuthoritysOperating Deficit Payments by the City and the County to the Authority for any particulaz fiscal quarter shall be increased or decreased as appropriate to take into account any extraordinazy increases or reductions in expenses andor reductions or increases in revenue not anticipated by the adopted budget for such yearupon the Authoritys submission of an amended budget approved by the AuthoritysBoazd of Directors to the City and the County at least 30 days prior to the due date of the next payment Upon completion of the audited financial statements of the Authority for the prior fiscal yeaz the Citys and Countys payments to the Authority shall be increased or decreased as appropriate to take into account increases or decreases in actual expenses andor reductions or increases in actual revenues of the Authority from those anticipated by the adopted budget as shown by such financial statement and such adjustments shall be determined by using the Citys and Countyspercentages as set forth in paragraph 5 above as may be adjusted as provided in such paragraph for such audited fiscal year as an adjustment to the next payments due from the City and County to the Authority provided however that any such increase or decrease shall take into account any increase or decrease in payments for such year pursuant to the most recently adopted amended budget of the Authority for such year if any In the event the amount of service contribution fees and local government support payments exceed the percentage of revenues needed by the Authority including reasonable reserves pursuant to paragraph 5 above the Authority shall either remit such excess to the City and County or carry such excess over to the next fiscal year giving the City and County credit during such year for such excess Development of an Authority Strategic Plan 9 10 The Authority agrees to promptly commence and complete the development of a strategic plan involving the examination of types and levels of services needed and desired by the community including a conceptual development of options by which the Authority may obtain a level of revenue necessary to fully fund the costs of such services so that the Authority will be financially selfsufficient as originally contemplated by the Solid Waste Organizational Agreement It is the expectation of the parties to this Agreement that the Authority will complete and implement the strategic plan by no later than June 30 2010 Solid Waste Organizational Agreement The parties enter this Agreement notwithstanding any provisions in the Solid Waste Organizational Agreement conflicting with this Agreement and agree that in the event of any such conflicting provisions this Agreement shall control Voluntary City and County Funding Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating a claim cause of action or right of recovery against either the City or the County by the Authority or by any creditor or claimant of the Authority The Authority acknowledges that neither the City nor the County is under any legal or equitable obligation to provide funding to the Authority but that each has voluntarily chosen to do so for the sole reason of insuring the continuation of a certain level of solid waste disposal and recyclingservices being provided by the Authority and the City and County each acknowledges that iri the event such funding is not made available to the Authority the Authority will necessarily have to curtail those services 11 NonAppropriation This Agreement is subject to the approval ratification and annual appropriations by the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors of the necessary money to fund this Agreement for this and any succeeding fiscal years Should the City or the County fail to appropriate the necessary funding it shall give prompt written notice to the Authority and the other party of such nonappropriation and this Agreement shall automatically terminate without further notice by or to any Party 12 Amendment Any amendment to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the Parties 13 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia 14 Notices Any notice invoice statement instructions or direction required or permitted by this Agreement shall be addressed as follows a To the City Office of the City Manager PO Box 911 Charlottesville VA 22902 b To the County Office of the County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902 c To the Authority Office of the Executive Director Rivanna Solid Waste Authority PO Box 979 Charlottesville Virginia 229020979 or to such other address or addresses as shall at any time or from time to time be specified by any Party by written notice to the other Parties 15 Integration Clause This Agreement and any amendment or modification that may hereafter be agreed to in accordance with the provisions herein constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed and supersedes any and all prior understandings and agreements oral or written relating hereto except for the Environmental Expenses MOU 16 Execution This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument WHEREAS these terms are agreeable to the City of Charlottesville the County of Albemarle and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and each Party offers its signature as of the date below 1 ate THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE o c Date mas L Brick Jr Date Executive ector 8 THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE RIVA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Page 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY This First Amendment to Local Government Support Agreement (this “First Amendment”) is made this ___day of June, 2010 by and among the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”), the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (the “Authority”), together referred to as the “Parties,” parties to the Local Government Support Agreement dated December 17, 2007 (the “Agreement”). WHEREAS, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement required the City to make certain payments to the Authority and required the Authority to make a reimbursement of a payment to the County, which payments and reimbursements have been made; WHEREAS, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Agreement required the Authority to no longer impose the service contribution fee on solid waste delivered by the City on and after July 1, 2008; WHEREAS, Paragraph 4 of the Agreement required the City and the County to proportionally fund or the Authority to make a proportional reimbursement to the City and the County based upon actual service fees collected by the Authority compared to the population of the City and the County until the first to occur of (i) full implementation of a strategic plan or (ii) June 30, 2010; WHEREAS, Paragraph 5 of the Agreement required the City and the County to proportionally fund operating deficits of the Authority based upon the population of the City and the County after June 30, 2010 in the event a strategic plan was not fully implemented; and, WHEREAS, a strategic plan for the Authority has not been implemented, however, the City and the County are willing to continue to fund operating deficits of the Authority for a limited period of time, but based upon usage of Authority facilities and services by City and County residents as opposed to population; NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: Page 2 1. Amendment of Paragraph 5 of the Agreement Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows: 5. City’s and County’ Proportional Funding of Authority’s Projected Annual Operating Deficit If the Authority determines that despite any payment by either the City or the County pursuant to paragraph 4 above and all reasonable efforts to fund the operating expenses of the Authority that an operating deficit will exist, it shall prepare and adopt a budget, including reasonable reserves, balanced by using revenue to be contributed by the City and the County. For periods prior to and including the Authority’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, the amount of revenue to be contributed by the City and the County shall be determined on the basis of population at the time the budget is adopted by the Authority as reported for the most recent year by the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, rounded to the nearest tenth (1/10) of a percent. The percentage of each of the City’s and County’s portion of the revenue to be contributed will be calculated by dividing its population by the combined population of the City and County. For purposes of the budget for the Authority’s fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007, the percentage of the City’s portion of the revenue to be contributed shall be thirty percent (30%) and the County’s portion of the revenue to be contributed shall be seventy percent (70%). For the period beginning July 1, 2010 and continuing through December 31, 2010, the Authority shall allocate the cost of its operations, including administrative overhead, but excluding costs covered by the Environmental Expenses MOU, between (i) recycling operations and programs offered at the McIntire Recycling Center, including the paper sort facility, and (ii) all other operations. Administrative expenses of the Authority shall be allocated as follows: 20% to recycling operations, 50% to all other operations and 30% to remediation activities covered by the Environmental Expenses MOU. The amount of revenue to be contributed by the City and the County for any operating deficits related to recycling operations shall be thirty-three percent (33%) for the City and sixty-seven percent (67%) for the County based on the usage of the recycling facilities and services by the residents of the City and the County as determined by the Authority in its June, 2010 Windshield Survey of vehicles entering the McIntire Recycling Center. The amount of revenue to be contributed by the City and the County for any operating deficits related to all other operations shall be fifteen percent (15%) for the City and eighty-five percent (85%) for the County based upon the Authority’s accounting report of “Ivy Material Origin Usage Data” for the period beginning July 1, 2009 and ending April 30, 2010. Nothing in this Amendment or the 2007 Local Government Support Agreement shall be construed as obligating the City of Charlottesville or the County of Albemarle to make any further payments to RSWA for any period after December 31, 2010. 2. Defined Terms Capitalized terms used in this First Amendment not otherwise expressly defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Page 3 2. Integration Clause The Agreement, as modified by this First Amendment, and any amendment or modification that may hereafter be agreed to in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the matters addressed, and supersedes any and all prior understandings and agreements, oral or written, relating hereto, except for the Environmental Expenses MOU. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with it terms. 16. Execution This First Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. WHEREAS these terms are agreeable to the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, and each Party offers its signature as of the date below. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: Maurice Jones Date Acting City Manager THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: ______________________________ __________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Date County Executive RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY: Thomas L. Frederick, Jr. Date Executive Director \11802275.1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Legislative Priorities SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consideration and Approval of the 2011 Legislative Priorities STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Blount, and Ms. Lyttle LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Each year the Board considers and approves its legislative priorities and submits them to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML). Generally, the TJPDC’s legislative program incorporates the County’s legislative priorities. Other initiatives are sometimes added prior to the General Assembly session. This executive summary will provide a review of the Board’s 2010 Legislative Priorities and request the Board to review and approve the 2011 Legislative Priorities. DISCUSSION: A review of the County’s 2010 Legislative Priorities is provided in the attached “2010 Legislative Priorities Report” (Attachment B). The report details previous action taken on the priorities, an assessment of what priorities should be continued in the future and links to the final legislative reports of the TJPDC, VACo and VML. Many of the proposed 2011 Legislative Priorities are continuations of the 2010 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A). Two new priorities have been identified for the 2011 Legislative Priorities: Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation Amend Virginia Code § 15.2-4307 to streamline the public notice requirements for additions to agricultural and forestal districts. Local Government Administration and Finance Oppose any legislation which would change the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the assessor when a taxpayer appeals the assessment of real property to the board of equalization or to a circuit court. In the 2010 General Assembly, HB 570 proposed such a change and though it did not pass, it had strong support in the House. If such legislation is introduced again, and passes, the impact on local governments could be significant and could require local governments to hire additional assessors and attorneys as such a change in the burden of proof is likely to lead to a proliferation of appeals and litigation. After the Board’s input and approval, staff will submit the Board’s 2011 Legislative Priorities to the TJPDC, the VACo and the VML for consideration into their respective legislative programs. The 2011 TJPDC Legislative Program will return to the Board in the fall for additional input and approval. BUDGET IMPACT: The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure the state adequately funds its mandated responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary. There are no specific, identifiable budget impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed 2011 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A), and any additions it feels are appropriate, for submission to the TJPDC, VACo and VML. ATTACHMENTS A—Proposed 2011 Legislative Priorities B—2010 Legislative Priorities Report Return to regular agenda Attachment A 1 Albemarle County 2011 Legislative Priorities Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation Agricultural and Forestal Districts—Request the legislature to amend Virginia Code § 15.2- 4307 to streamline and simplify the public notice requirements for agricultural and forestal districts. Local Authority—Request that the legislature 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize adequate public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to regulate land use. Impact Fee Authority—Request that the legislature support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs representing a “pro -rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility costs related to transportation, schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries, stormwater management, open space and parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable administrative requirements; 4) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish the existing proffer system. Conservation Easements—Request the legislature support and augment local efforts in natural resource protection through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2) continuing to provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of Development Rights programs through the Office of Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism; and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements. Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay dist rict. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or state make land use decisions in designated areas. Transportation Funding—Request the legislature 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3) coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local Comprehensive and regional Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems within a locality; and 4) not shift transportation responsibilities, including maintenance, to localities. Health and Human Services Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state pool for CSA with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for Attachment A 2 serving a child through CSA; 2) enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in CSA; 3) establishing state contacts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation. Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request the legislature provide additional funds to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to become self-sufficient. Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request the legislature increase funds for LDSS to match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state mandated services and workloads. Local Government Administration and Finance Full Funding of State Mandates—Request the state provide full funding for its mandates in all areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions. Local Control of Local Revenues—Request the legislature take no action to restrict or limit the existing local control of local revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services. Tax Assessments—Oppose any legislation which would change the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the assessor when a taxpayer appeals the assessment of real property to the board of equalization or to a circuit court. Drug Court Funding—Request the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which provides effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of several Virginia localities. Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County, request the legislature include Albemarle Count y Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” so that the County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment B 1 Albemarle County 2010 Legislative Priorities Report This report summarizes action taken regarding Albemarle’s 2010 Legislative Priorities. This report will often cite information from the final legislative reports of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), Virginia Municipal League (VML), and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo). For complete reports from these organizations that provide a thorough overview of local government impacts beyond Albemarle’s priorities, please see the links below. TJPDC: http://www.tjpdc.org/pdf/Liaison/2010ReportFINAL.pdf VACo: http://www.vaco.org/LegislativeNews/LegSummary/LongLegSummary10.pdf VML: http://www.vml.org/LEG/10LegRpt/10VMLLegislativeRpt_Final.pdf Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation Priority: Local Authority—Request that the legislature 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize adequate public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to regulate land use. Summary: There were numerous bills introduced and passed by the 2010 General Assembly which impacted local government land use authority. The following is a brief summary of such bills: HB51 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; grants authority to local gov’t to prepare & submit to public hearing: Grants authority to a governing body to prepare an amendment to the comprehensive plan rather than directing the planning commission to do so. If a planning commission fails to make a recommendation on a proposed amendment within the designated time frame, the local governing body may proceed to submit the proposal to a public hearing. HB197 Secondary Highway System; requirements for taking new streets into system: Provides that any street or segment of a street within a network addition that meets one or more of the public service requirements addressed in the regulations can be accepted into the secondary system, provided that the network addition satisfies all other requirements adopted pursuant to this section. In cases where a majority of the lots along the street or street segment remain undeveloped and construction traffic is expected to utilize that street or street segment after acceptance, the bonding requirement for such street or street segment may be required by VDOT to be extended for up to one year beyond that required in the secondary street acceptance requirements. This bill is viewed as favorable to Albemarle County as it allows VDOT to continue to hold developers responsible for repairs needed to such streets during construction, rather than require VDOT to divert funds from other road priorities to funds such repairs. HB515 Wetlands and Stream Mitigation; prohibits localities from regulating location of projects: Prohibits localities from regulating the location of wetlands and stream mitigation projects that are subject to a Virginia Water Protection Permit or a Corps of Engineer § 404 permit. However, a locality may continue to determine the allowed uses within its zoning classifications. HB552 Vested Rights; including right to replace existing on-site sewage system: Includes the right to replace failed septic systems under vested rights protection. Also, if the local government has issued a permit, other than a building permit, that authorized construction Attachment B 2 of an improvement to real property and the improvement was thereafter constructed in accordance with such permit, the ordinance may provide that the improvements are nonconforming, but not illegal. HB553 Signs; provides local government authority to regulate: Allows county employees and volunteers who are acting as agents of the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner to remove and confiscate signs from the public right-of-way. If a sign is confiscated by an employee or volunteer, the sign owner shall have the right to reclaim the sign within five business days of the date of such confiscation. Finally, the legislation clarifies that a sign installed (on private property) that does not require use of tools or equipment does not trigger the requirement to call Miss Utility before installing the sign. This bill is identical to SB 64 Albemarle County’s existing agreement with VDOT is preserved, and the only additional requirement this bill creates is that sign owners are to be allowed to reclaim removed signs within 10 business days. County staff currently retains signs indefinitely, thus this bill does not require any changes in our current practice or agreement with VDOT. HB967 Assisted Living Facility and Group Home; no more than 8 aged, infirm, etc., persons shall reside: Expands certain provisions that currently apply to the Counties of Arlington and York statewide. The existing provisions declare that zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight aged, infirmed, or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons as residential occupancy by a single family. This bill is identical to SB 338. HB1071 Urban Development; sets certain densities in areas according to population of locality: Sets certain densities in urban development areas according to the population of the locality that designated the urban development area. The bill also requires that, to the extent possible, certain federal funding and state water and sewer facility and public infrastructure funding be directed to urban development areas or other designated growth areas. The bill mandates that the Commission on Local Government report on localities' compliance with the statute requiring the designation of urban development areas. This bill is identical to SB 420. This bill does not have an immediate impact on Albemarle County, as Albemarle is grandfathered until we amend our land use plan in the next five (5) year cycle. It is anticipated that in fiscal year 2012 Albemarle will need to designate at a minimum one urban development area to meet this density requirement. HB 1307 Temporary family healthcare structures: This bill adds Virginia Code § 15.2-2292.1 to provide that under certain circumstances “temporary family healthcare structures” of no more than 300 gross square feet are permitted accessory uses in any single family detached zoning district and are not required to obtain a special use permit. These structures are for use by a caregiver in providing care for a mentally or physically impaired person and may be located only on property owned or occupied by the caregiver as his residence. The affect on local authority is that it encroaches on a localities ability to control density, as these structures are allowed anywhere regardless of density. SB 81 Agricultural, forestal, or agricultural and forestal districts; use value assessment: Provides that certain noncontiguous real property may be included as part of an agricultural, forestal, or agricultural and forestal district. Any noncontiguous real property included as part of an agricultural, forestal, or agricultural and forestal district would be deemed to be contiguous to any other real property located in such district for purposes of use value Attachment B 3 assessment. This bill affects only local agricultural and forestall districts, and makes more land eligible to come under a local agricultural and forestal district. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Impact Fee Authority—Request that the legislature support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs representing a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility costs related to transportation, schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries, stormwater management, open space and parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable administrative requirements; 4) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish the existing proffer system. Summary: There was no legislation introduced in the 2010 General Assembly regarding the use or support of impact fees. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ************************************************************************** Priority: Conservation Easements—Request the legislature support and augment local efforts in natural resource protection through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2) continuing to provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of Development Rights programs through the Office of Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism; and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements. Summary: The FY2010 budget reduced funding to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation by $97,376 and also removed $300,000 in general funds each year that was directed to matching grants to localities with purchase of development rights programs. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. **************************************************************************** Priority: Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or state make land use decisions in designated areas. Summary: No bills were introduced to the 2010 General Assembly on this matter. Attachment B 4 Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ************************************************************************* Priority: Transportation Funding—Request the legislature 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3) coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local Comprehensive and regional Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems within a locality; and 4) not shift transportation responsibilities, including maintenance, to localities. Summary: In the current economic climate, the 2010 General Assembly was not able to establish stable and consistent revenue for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs. One particular bill concerning mass transit funding may be of particular interest: HB421 Allocation by CTB of funds for transit projects: Provides that, prior to the annual adoption of the Six-Year Improvement Program, the Commonwealth Transportation Board may allocate up to 20 percent of the funds in the Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund designated for capital purposes to transit operating assistance if operating funds for the next fiscal year are estimated to be less than the current fiscal year's allocation, to attempt to maintain transit operations at approximately the same level as the previous fiscal year. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Unpaved Road Program—Request the legislature to amend Virginia Code § 33.1-23.1:1 (C) to allow for the allocation of unpaved secondary road funds for other secondary road transportation projects without penalizing the locality by reducing the amount of unpaved secondary road funds in future years. Summary: SB 285 was introduced by Senator Creigh Deeds and failed. Proposal: Staff recommends that adequate funding for secondary road transportation projects remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ***************************************************************************** Health and Human Services Priority: Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state pool for CSA with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2) enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in CSA; 3) establishing state contacts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation. Attachment B 5 Summary: State funding for CSA has been reduced b y more than $70 million dollars, and a provision which begins July 1, 2011 that the local match rate for Medicaid residential services for each locality be 25% above fiscal year 2007 base, which saves the state $4 million dollars. The budget also removes the $200,000 hold harmless for local governments before the greater match rate for non-Medicaid services takes effect. Budget language directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to examine options and incentives for worklo ad simplification and efficiencies in the local human services delivery system. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request the legislature provide additional funds to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to become self-sufficient. Summary: The budget reduced funding in FY11 from the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request the legislature increase funds for LDSS to match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state mandated services and workloads. Summary: Budget language directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to examine options and incentives for workload simplification and efficiencies in the local human services delivery system. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. **************************************************************************** Local Government Administration and Finance Priority: Full Funding of State Mandates—request the state provide full funding for its mandates in all areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions. Summary: The budget uses nearly $170 million to restore funding for local constitutional offices. This includes $92.5 million to restore funding for sheriffs and regional jails including staffing of law enforcement deputies at 1: 1,500 of local population. However, the budget also includes a 20% reduction in compensation for local electoral boards and local registrars. Unfunded and under-funded mandates are an ongoing issue and given the State’s past actions Attachment B 6 and historical trends, it is unlikely existing unfunded and under-funded mandates will be funded by the State. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Local Control of Local Revenues—Request the legislature take no action to restrict or limit the existing local control of local revenues so that local government l eaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services. Summary: No bills were approved in the 2010 session that restrict or limit existing local control of local revenues. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Land Use Taxation—Request the legislature to amend Virginia Code § 58.1- 3237 to provide for a locality to have a local option to increase the roll-back taxes assessed against property under land use taxation to an amount equal to the sum of the deferred tax for up to ten of the most recent complete tax years. Currently the roll-back tax applies only to the deferred taxes relating to the five most recent tax years. Summary: HB437 was introduced by Delegate Toscano and failed. Proposal: Staff has not included this item in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Drug Court Funding—Request the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which provides effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of several Virginia localities. Summary: The budget continues to fully fund the Drug Court Program. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Priority: Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County, request the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” so that the County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce. Summary: No budget language or amendments were introduced for this priority. Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the proposed 2011 priorities. ****************************************************************************** Attachment B 7 Priority: Donations to Non-Profit Organizations—Request the legislature to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-953 to authorize localities to make donations to nonprofit organizations, associations, or agencies which are engaged in providing energy efficiency services or promoting energy efficiency within or without the boundaries of the locality. Summary: HB436 introduced by Delegate Toscano and SB291 introduced by Senator Creigh Deeds authorize donations by localities to non-profit entities that promote energy efficiency or that provide energy efficiency services. HB436 and SB291 passed and became law effective July 1, 2010. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adoption of Revised Economic Vitality Action Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Graham; and Ms. Catlin, and Ms. Stimart LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The draft Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) was originally presented to the Board at its May 5, 2010 meeting. The Plan was created in response to the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan approved by the Board on January 6, 2010, which included direction to 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.” At the May 5 meeting, the Board heard an overview of the draft Plan and scheduled a work session for June 2. At the June 2 work session, the Board received public input on the Plan and Board members provided suggested revisions. The Board also directed staff to conduct two roundtable sessions to allow members of the public to comment on the draft Plan and scheduled a public hearing on July 14. Following that public hearing, Board members were asked to forward any final comments to staff within a week so that a revised Plan could be presented at the August 4 meeting for a vote by the Board. As was mentioned in previous executive summaries, in considering possible tax benefits of this effort, staff believes it is important for the Board to recognize that the Economic Vitality Action Plan will require a long-term commitment and that short-term performance may be misleading. It is doubtful the County will see this effort create a significant change in the commercial/residential split of the tax base 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 restrictions on the rate of residential growth for properties already zoned residential in the County and there is a large inventory of property ready for residential development. STRATEGIC PLAN: Economic vitality was identified as one of the goals for the County’s Strategic Action Plan FY 10/11- FY 11/12 at the Board’s recent Strategic Planning Discussion. DISCUSSION: Staff is providing a revised draft Economic Vitality Action Plan (Attachment A) in response to the Board’s comments provided to staff after the July 14 public hearing. Any suggestions made by at least two Board members have been incorporated into the revised draft Plan. Because some Board members provided different suggestions for the same sections of the Plan, the revisions attempt to achieve a balance between the ideas expressed. There are several substantive issues outlined below that staff wanted to bring to the Board’s attention as part of its review of the revised document: 1. Expanded Measures/Benchmarks There were comments from the roundtables and from Board members that the measures included in the Primary Goal section need to be re-examined in light of changes to the goal and objectives since the original measures were identified. Several suggestions have been made, most notably related to rural economy and job metrics that should be considered along with other measures that may be appropriate. Staff recommends that specific measures be determined and appropriate benchmarks established once the final goal and objectives are approved by the Board as an early step of the Plan and that these measures and benchmarks be presented to the Board during its first quarterly progress review of the Plan for review and final approval. AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan August 4, 2010 Page 2 It will be important to include some short and intermediate term measures that will indicate that the Plan is on track due to the period of time it will likely take to see significant changes in some of the measures, such as the percentage mix of commercial vs. residential real estate tax revenues. This recommendation is reflected in the revised Plan by adding language to the Primary Goal section. 2. Reporting Mechanism It is important to establish a tracking and reporting mechanism that is shared with the Board and the public on a regular basis. Once the Plan is approved, staff recommends development of a quarterly progress report to be presented to the Board on activities related to the Plan, recognizing that some measures will be more appropriate for longer vs. shorter term reporting. This recommendation is reflected in the revised Plan by adding language to the Primary Goal section. 3. Development Area Boundaries There were comments in the roundtable sessions and from Board members regarding Objective IV r elating to development areas, with some comments seeking language to limit those areas to what currently exists and some comments seeking language to allow for expansion. As was stressed during roundtable sessions and in earlier Board discussions, this Plan is intended to be consistent with and work within the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. There is a defined public Comprehensive Plan Amendment process through which decisions about potential adjustments to the boundaries of the designated development areas are made after considering very thorough criteria and providing for significant public input. It is staff’s recommendation that this Plan not attempt to supercede the Comprehensive Plan by either promoting or denying the possibility of future development area boundary adjustments but, rather, that it clearly follow the guidance of the Land Use Plan and the established, legally defined Comprehensive Plan Amendment process on this issue. This recommendation is reflected in the revised Plan by rewording Objective IV, Strategy 2. 4. Date Adjustments Staff has adjusted the dates in several locations to reflect that three months have passed since the Plan was originally drafted. These adjustments impact the timeline on several of the action items. Next Steps: Following adoption of the Plan, staff will shift items into a work plan with specific tasks, sequencing and timelines and will begin addressing the most immediate strategies. A quarterly reporting mechanism for the Board and public will be instituted, with the first progress report to be due three months after the Plan is adopted. The Board will be made aware of any significant activities that occur between quarterly progress reports. BUDGET IMPACT: Implementation of the Plan will not require additional staff, though it will require the County to reprioritize other staff efforts to meet Plan objectives 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 the appropriation of additional funds. RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a discussion, staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Economic Vitality Action Plan (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Revised Economic Vitality Action Plan Return to regular agenda DRAFT Economic Development Vitality Action Plan PREAMBLE: The Economic Development Policy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan has a stated purpose to “provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.” The policy notes that economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human, economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. The policy also states clearly that Albemarle’s commitment to economic development should be accomplished within the framework of our growth management objectives. This Action Plan is intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy into concrete and measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to already established growth management objectives and natural resource protections. While this is a short-term plan that is focused on accomplishing specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term commitment to economic vitality. This plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long term health of our local economy. Broad-based community input is critical to the success of the Action Plan and is a key feature of many of the specific strategies and actions. The County’s commitments to education, infrastructure and natural resource protection form the cornerstone of Albemarle’s quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. In partnership with the University of Virginia and the Piedmont Virginia Community College, Albemarle County Public School’s education programming – ranging from the County “bright stars” kindergarten program to the Math- Engineering-Science Academy (MESA) magnet school – help ensure a very highly educated, capable local workforce. The County strives to manage growth in a manner that best uses its infrastructure dollars and protects and preserves the area’s abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on those natural resources. With these commitments, the community strives to manage growth without sacrificing the quality of life. This Action Plan builds on these existing commitments. All objectives, strategies and action items in this plan are intended to achieve outcomes that are consistent with the goals of the Economic Development Policy section and all other sections of the County’s Comprehensive Plan as outlined below. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Action Plan is intended to work within the guidelines and stated goals and objectives of all relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including those listed below. While it is redundant to repeat all related sections of these chapters within this Action Plan, it is important to note the objectives and strategies of this plan will adhere to the important protections provided in these chapters: Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Rural Area Plan Land Use Plan PRIMARY GOAL: Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, o f current local residents and existing local businesses. 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* *Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate 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 Agricultural/rural economy metrics other metrics that reflect job data, number of businesses,etc. Benchmark levels will be determined to enable measurement of the short term and long term effectiveness of the specific objectives and strategies of this Plan. A timetable will be developed for reporting back to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. OBJECTIVES: I. Improve the County’s business climate and image. (Supports Objective I of the Economic Development Policy – “Recognize the County’s place in the regional economy”) STRATEGIES 1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and other leadership of the Commonwealth that Albemarle County is committed to working with businesses to promote the Commonwealth’s and the County’s economic vitality. o Actions  Work with appropriate entities to develop and implement a plan within six months to raise awareness and to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the VEDP that is compatible with the county’s growth management strategies(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, continue 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  Within the next three months, make the Business Development Facilitator a part of the County Executive’s Office while still maintaining close coordination with the Community Development Department, and provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts. Formatted: No bullets or numbering  Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic development on the County’s web site (underway). 3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of balancing overall quality of life, education and business development in contributing to the economic vitality of the community. o Actions  Within the next three months, begin regular presentations by various business interests and economic experts to staff and the public, with a focus on how the County’s land use regulations and policies affect business decisions. This will provide opportunity for staff and others to better understand the business community’s issues and concerns and for the business community to hear other perspectives.  Beginning in the 3rd 4rd 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.  As part of pre-application discussions, continue assigning 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 and the Board of Supervisors to determine effectiveness of programs and where changes should be considered.  Establish a more standard notification process regarding proposed changes to ordinances including the process for receiving input on proposed changes. 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 when applicants are adhering to the regulations appropriately. (Supports Objective V of the Economic Development Policy – “Increase local business development opportunities”) STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL – Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new enterprises, eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administrative decisions without compromising environmental safeguards or other community values as defined by county policies. 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). (completed)  In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for ministerial applications (e.g. site plans, subdivisions). This will include timetables for recommended changes. (completed)  In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning, special use permits). 2. ASSIST SMALL ENTERPRISES IN REACHING COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – Recognizing that small enterprises often lack the experience and knowledge to efficiently address County requirements, provide assistance during development reviews, including waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact. o Action  As part of the proposed ordinance changes under strategy #1, include consideration of how staff assistance can be provided 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. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, s trategically work with UVA, UVA Real Estate Foundation and grow and nurture private and non-profit sector employers that are 1) capital-intensive, 2) knowledge-based or 3)others that provide or will provide a diverse array of quality career ladder employment opportunities to for our resident workforce, with a particular focus on supporting existing local enterprises while not excluding new entrepreneurs and enterprises .(Supports Objective VI of the Economic Development Policy – “Increase work force development opportunities, to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages”) STRATEGIES 1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County’s aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses, including partnership with the University of Virginia’s entrepreneurial community and other entrepreneurial organizations such as Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC). o Actions  In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, UVA, the Small Business Development Center, the workforce network, the Albemarle County School Division and other representatives from the education community, and other interested stakeholders, identify & address existing business needs and 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. PROMOTE TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that supports companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County’s business development objectives. o Actions  Determine target enterprises; work with a broad-based task force to determine the region’s target enterprise sectors. These enterprise targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts.- The selection criteria should include consideration of fiscal and ecological impacts on the County (including whether the industry can help the County satisfy its infrastructure needs), transportation impacts and the likelihood that a prospective enterprise will remain in this area. Strongly cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED ,SBDC, the CBIC and others, provide technical support seminars to support entrepreneurs in targeted business clusters.  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 enterprises or key sectors.  By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions’ policies 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 include trend analysis, identify key issues negatively affecting local companies, and strategies designed to address key negative issues. 3. 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  Working with the Workforce Center, PVCC, and the county school division 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  Align targeted enterprises and demand occupations with student awareness, education and participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways IV. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. (Supports Objective II of the Economic Development Policy – “Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth”) STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE – recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility, clarity and certainty 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. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR INCREASING INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY WITHIN ALREADY AREAS DESIGNATED AS DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN– o Action  As part of future master plans and updates to the County’s Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land within existing development areas for industrial uses. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. Continue pursuing strategies to stop the conversion of properties zoned light industry (LI) to commercial, office and other uses that are not “core” industrial uses.  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.  As part of the current effort to update the County’s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board’s consideration a proposed modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that might allow lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. V. Work with stakeholders to promote agriculture, the local agricultural industry (at a scale compatible with the county’s rural areas) and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. (Supports Objective 1 of the Rural Areas Land Use Policy- “To support agricultural land uses and to create additional markets for agricultural products through creative economic and land use strategies.”, and Objectives I and V of the Economic Development Policy – “Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County ”and “Increase local business development opportunities”) STRATEGIES 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM – Continue working with partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses. o Action  Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals will complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agriculture, local agriculture Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 3 + Aligned at: 1.5" + Indent at: 1.75" Formatted: Font: Calibri industry and tourism in the County. These roundtables will also consider innovative, sustainable rural businesses such as wetland banking and voluntary carbon banking. 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 AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 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 AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 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 agriculture, local agricultural industry 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 gather ing 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.  Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Fees (ZTA2009-017) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session to consider additional information on proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance fees STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Graham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work session is to consider additional information regarding the cost of services related to fees in the Zoning Ordinance, determine if there is Board interest in adopting new fees at this time, and provide guidance to staff on any fees that should be changed from the previously submitted proposed amendment. The following is a brief summary of the recent history related to proposed Zoning Ordinance fees: On August 5, 2009, staff presented a recommendation for fee changes to the Board. By consensus, the Board directed staff to proceed as proposed. (Attachment A, Agenda Item 22) On November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-1) of the ordinance amendment for the staff recommended fees with 3 changes. (Attachment B) On December 5, 2009, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider the fees as recommended by the Planning Commission. After hearing public comment, the Board unanimously agreed to defer this item until February 3, 2010 so the newly elected Board members could participate in the decision. (Attachment C) On February 3, 2010, the Board again received public comment on this ordinance amendment. After receiving public comment, a motion was made to adopt the proposed fees, but failed (2-4). The Board then agreed to defer this item until staff provided additional information, but did not specify what information staff was to provide. (Attachment D) Staff has included the December 5, 2009 Executive Summary, with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment that incorporates the Planning Commission recommendation for the Board’s reference. (Attachment E) DISCUSSION: While the Board was not specific in what information staff was to provide, a review of the minutes (including public comments), discussions with several Board members, and past efforts at process improvements all suggest that the Board’s primary focus was to understand the costs associated with legislative applications, such as rezoning and special use permits. Staff did not note a similar concern with any other fees. Staff believes that the Board’s interest was to understand the time typically spent on each part of the application process by each staff member involved with the project. This type of detailed historical data does not exist, and is the reason a consultant was contracted to conduct the 2007 Community Development Fee Study. Using its experience with other local governments, the consultant balanced staff’s time estimates against the departmental costs, then compared this with fees of other local governments to def ine an appropriate fee. It is noted that one of the consultant’s recommendations was that the County improve data collection with reviews. Staff is currently testing a computer application for project timekeeping, but it will be several years before this is refined and several more years before there is enough data to provide a reliable data set. Staff also notes that based on polling of other local governments in Virginia, no other localities are collecting this type of detailed data. Instead, all appear to rely on the same type of analysis as was used by the County’s consultant in the 2007 study. Recognizing this limitation, staff approached this question from a different perspective. Recognizing that fees need to be based on reasonable costs, instead of asking what the real cost of a rezoning application is, staff asked what the cost of an ideal rezoning application would be. Staff’s estimate is provided in Attachments F and G. Recognizing that there have been presumptions that staff review costs are driving the application fee, it is noted that Attachment F shows that staff review accounts for approximately 39% of the application cost. Furthermore, even if the staff review were cut in half, the cost would drop by only 20% and the remaining cost is still much higher than the proposed zoning fee for this application. This analysis also illustrates that there is little flexibility with much of the remaining costs. For example, a high quality staff report is required to clearly communicate the issue to the Board and the public, the County is required to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board, advertisements for those AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Fees (ZTA2009-017) August 4, 2010 Page 2 public hearings are a legal requirement, there is an expectation that staff will take the time to respond to public and applicant questions, and accurate records of the process are a legal requirement. The costs of those requirements remain, in addition to staff review. Once staff had determined the cost of an ideal application, this was compared to the historical performance of rezonings to understand how the real cost of applications were different than the ideal. Attachment H illustrates the total time rezoning applications take from submission to Board approval in the last five years. Staff’s analysis noted the following. First, there is a trend toward shorter review times, suggesting that either rezonings are becoming simpler or that the process is improving, or both. Second, within the last several years, there are a significant number of applications that were approved close to the ideal application time, showing that it is possible for an applicant to receive a quick approval, and that it is already possible for an applicant and the County to keep their costs close to the ideal in many instances. The fact that it is possible for rezonings to be approved close to the ideal time led staff to research why some applications require more time. In looking at several of the lengthier applications, staff observed that an increase in time and costs are usually related to deferrals of an application going to the Planning Commission or to the Board. Deferrals give applicants time to revise their applications rather than risk a denial. The revised application necessitates additional staff reviews, reports and advertisement. Generally, the time and costs of a deferral are outside of staff’s control. An applicant must request a deferral and the Planning Commission or Board must approve the request for a deferral. Staff’s role at that point is to react to the direction of the Planning Commission or Board in responding to changes requested of the applicant. The North Pointe ZMA is often used to illustrate the time and cost of a rezoning, and a chart for that project is provided. (Attachment I) In reviewing the timeline, it was noted the initial staff report was completed within 35 days of submission, consistent with the time shown for an ideal application. The applicant then deferred for 2 years to work through the transportation study issues. After two years of deferral, the Planning Commission acted within 90 days, recommending denial. From that point, there were 22 worksessions or public hearings,10 months of a Board subcommittee working with the applicant, and an additional 14 month gap where the applicant decided what it wanted to do. With the exception of applicant deferrals, there was a recommendation before the Board within 90 days of submission and the remaining delays resulted from changes sought by the Board or Planning Commission. It is also noted the County recovered none of its costs for providing this additional process to the applicant. With this analysis, staff believes the following are questions the Board may wish to consider at this worksession: 1. What part of the cost of an ideal application should be the responsibility of the County versus the applicant? 2. What part of the cost related to an applicant requested deferral should be the responsibility of the County versus the applicant? BUDGET IMPACT: Staff believes the budget impact of the proposed fees remains the same as was presented at the December 2, 2009 and February 3, 2010 Board meetings. Should the Board provide new direction to staff, additional time spent on that effort would be considered an opportunity cost, as it will require redirection of staff rather than a new budget expense. This work would need to be prioritized against the current list of Board initiatives and a decision made as to what efforts should be postponed. RECOMMENDATIONS: This worksession is intended to address the Board’s request for information on application costs. If additional information is desired, staff requests the Board provide direction to staff. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – August 5, 2010 Board Action Letter Attachment B – Planning Commission Recommendation to Board Attachment C- December 2, 2009 Board Minutes Attachment D – February 3, 2010 Board Minutes Attachment E – Zoning Ordinance Fee Recommendation as presented to Board Attachment F – Idealized Rezoning Application Costs Attachment G – Idealized Rezoning Time and Costs Chart Attachment H – Rezonings, Total Time in Chronologic Order Attachment I – North Pointe Rezoning Time and Cost Chart Attachment J – October 7, 2009 Board Executive Summary Return to regular agenda 6 21. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP 2008-0025. Earlysville Service Center. • APPROVED SP-2008-0025, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the conditions as recommended and amended at the Board meeting. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 11) 22. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance Fee Amendments. • HELD. • CONSENSUS that staff prepare a resolution of intent for the Board to consider on September 2, 2009 to initiate the process to amend the Zoning Ordinance fees as recommended by staff. 23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. • ADOPTED, by a vote of 6:0, the attached resolution regarding the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board proposed amendment to regulations associated with the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. Sally Thomas: • Will be traveling to the County’s Sister City in Italy in September. She added that she will be paying her own expenses. Clerk: Forward copy of adopted resolution to the Secretary Bryant, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, Larry Land, High Growth Coalition, SELC, David Blount and Greg Harper. (Attachment 12) 24. Adjourn. • At 5:20 p.m., the Board meeting was adjourned. ewj/mrh Attachment 1 – Resolution - VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 09-10 Attachment 2 – Resolution - Health Department Lease Amendment & Charlottesville Free Clinic License Attachment 3 – Resolution of Intent - ZTA 2009-13 Home Occupations Attachment 4 – Resolution of Intent - and ZTA 2009-12 Churches Attachment 5 – Resolution of Endorsement For New Amtrak Passenger Rail Service through the Region Attachment 6 – Ordinance - ZTA-2008-004. Beauty/Barber Shops in CO District Attachment 7 – Ordinance - ZTA-2009-008. Body Shops and Towing Services in HI Heavy Industrial District Attachment 8 – Ordinance - ZTA-2009-011. Definitions, including Home Occupations Attachment 9 – Ordinance - WPTA-2009-0002. Water Protection Ordinance Attachment 10 - Ordinance - Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Albemarle County Code Attachment 11 – Conditions of Approval – SP-2008-0025. Earlysville Service Center. Attachment 12 - Resolution - Virginia Stormwater Management Program County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Board of Supervisors From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development Date: 20 November 2009 Subject: Zoning Fees, ZTA 2009-017 On November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-1) of ZTA 2009-017, Zoning Fees, with a recommendation to the Board for a fee schedule supported by the Board at its August 5, 2009 worksession. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended the following specific changes to the zoning text amendment: 1. The Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation, Class B, should be moved to the lower special use permit fee category, thereby reducing the fees for this application from $2,000 for the initial application fee and first resubmission, and $1,000 for each subsequent resubmission, to $1,000 and $500, respectively. 2. No fee should be charged for temporary fund raising events, such as Boy Scout Christmas tree sales, high school group car washes and similar activities. Staff estimates that this exemption would make a relatively small difference in the collected fees, probably in the range of $1,000 - $2,000 per year. 3. Postpone the effective date for the imposition of the new fee schedule until July 1, 2010. Staff suggested the earliest it felt it could be prepared for the new fee schedule would be February 1, 2010, assuming the Board adopted the zoning text amendment in December. As noted in the staff report, a July 1st effective date is estimated to result in approximately $100,000 less in County revenue in the current fiscal year. Finally, while not part of the Planning Commission’s motion, there was discussion as to what should constitute a resubmission that requires a fee. Staff noted that a revised plan was only considered a resubmission requiring a fee where an issue noted with the first review had not been addressed with the first resubmission or where a new issue arose as a result of revisions the applicant made to the plan other than in response to review comments. It is noted that no fee is required for the first resubmission. Additionally, staff noted a revised plan would not be considered a resubmission requiring a fee if the plan was addressing later comments raised by staff, the Planning Commission, or the Board. This answer satisfied the Planning Commission’s questions on when a resubmission fee was expected. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance dated November 11, 2009 consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation including the changes noted above. Attachments: A - Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance B - October 7, 2009 Board Executive Summary with attachments Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment C Page 1 Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-017, Fees. Amend and renumber Sec. 35.0 (to 35.1) , Fees; amend, renumber and rename Sec. 35.1 (to 35.2), Fee reduction: and, add Sec. 35.3, Fee refunds, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend and reorganize the Zoning Ordinance‟s fee regulations and increase existing fees , impose new fees and change, but not necessarily increase other fees for listed applications, permits, reviews, approvals, inspections and other services provided by the County in the administration of Chapter 18. Sec. 35.0 would be renumbered Sec. 35.1, Fees, and would be amended as follows: Application – Current Fee Application – Proposed Fee Not to Exceed Zoning text amendments: $840 Zoning text amendments: $1000 Zoning map amendments 1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1020 2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1570 3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1020 4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1570 5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220 6. Deferral of action to a specific date - $35 7. Deferral of action indefinitely - $75 Zoning map amendments 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant‟s request: $180 Special use permits: 1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" - $220 2. Rural area divisions - $1240 3. Commercial use - $980 4. Industrial use - $1020 5. Private club/recreational facility - $1020 6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980 7. Public utilities - $1020 8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870 9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$110 10. Extending special use permits - $70 11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13 Home Occupation-Class B - $440 12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490 13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980 14. All other uses except signs - $980 15. Deferral of action to a specific date - $35 16. Deferral of action indefinitely - $75 Special use permits: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2, public utilities, day care center, home occupation class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission: $1000 2. Additional lots under section 10.5.2, public utilities, day care center, home occupation class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit; each additional resubmission: $500 3. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission: $2000 4. All other special use permits; each additional resubmission: $1000 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant‟s request: $180 6. Signs reviewed by the board of zoning appeals: See subsection 35.1(f) Site plans a. Preliminary site development plan: 1. Residential - $1,190, plus $13.00/unit. 2. Non-residential - $1,580, plus $13.00/1000 square feet. Final site development plan: 1. Approved administratively - $410 2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $1,130 3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $790 4. For site development plan waiver - $270 5. For site development plan amendment: a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $95 b) Major - commission review - $270 6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $200 7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $240 8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $190 9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan: a) Rejected within ten days - $200 b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $65 fee shall be required to reinstate project. Other 1. Extension of approval of site plan - $45 2. Deferral of action to a specific date - $35 3. Deferral of action indefinitely - $75 4. Bond inspection for site plan, each inspection after the first bond estimate - $60 Site plans 1. Preliminary site plans; administrative review: $1200 plus $15 per dwelling unit and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure 2. Preliminary site plans; planning commission review: $1800 plus $15 per dwelling unit and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure 3. Final site plans; administrative review: $1500 4. Final site plans; planning commission review: $2000 5. Waiver of drawing of site plan under section 32.2: $1500 6. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.8 ¶2 (minor): $500 7. All other site plan amendments (major): $1500 8. Appeals to the board of supervisors under section 32.4.2.7: $240 9. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.1: $240 10.Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.4: $80 11.Extension of period of validity: $475 12.Inspections pertaining to secured site plan improvements; per inspection: $280 13.Deferral of scheduled public meeting at applicant‟s request: $180 Matters considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals 1. Variances: $120 2. Appeals: $120 3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $120 Matters considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals 1. Variances: $500 2. Appeals: $240 3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $500 Matters considered by the Architectural Review Board Matters considered by the Architectural Review Board Attachment C Page 2 None 1. For a site plan; per review by the ARB: $1000 (new) 2. For a building permit; per review by the ARB: $590 (new) 3. Amendment to approved certificate of appropriateness: $225 (new) Matters considered by the zoning administrator or others 1. Official determinations regarding compliance - $75 2. Official determinations regarding development rights - $40 3. All other official determinations - $75 4. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging - $35 5. Zoning clearance for home occupation, class A: none 6. All other zoning clearances - $35 7. Sign permits; no ARB review required - $35 8. Sign permits; ARB review required - $75 Matters considered by the zoning administrator or others 1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185 2. Official determinations regarding development rights: $100 3. All other official determinations: $100 4. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100 5. Zoning clearance for home occupation, class A: $25 (new) 6. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activities: No fee 6. All other zoning clearances: $50 7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25 8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120 Groundwater assessments 1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401 - $50 2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403 - $400 plus $25 per lot 3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404 - $1000 Groundwater assessments 1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50 2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510 3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1100 Miscellaneous 1. Change in name of development - $25 2. Change in name of road - $20 3. Relief from condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $180 4. Tier II personal wireless service facilities - $790 Miscellaneous 1. Change in name of development or change in name of street: $80 2. Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements: $425 3. Tier II personal wireless service facilities: $1820 Notice The actual costs of any notice, to the extent that the cost exceeds the applicable fee Notice 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200 plus the actual cost of first class postage (new) 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1 plus the actual cost of first class postage (new) 3. Published notice: actual cost (new) Sec. 35.1 would be renumbered Sec. 35.2 and its heading would be changed from “Fee reduction” to “Calculation of fees in special circumstances” and current regulations for calculating fees where applications for multiple related approvals are required for a project would be restated and clarified. Sec. 35.3 would be added to include what is currently in Sec. 35.1(c) to provide that an application fee shall be refunded if, after the fee is received, it is determined that the application for which the fee was received is not required. The proposed fees and fee increases are authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2 -2241(9) and 15.2- 2286(A)(6). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 16 and November 23, 2009) Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, made the presentation. He said a fee study was done by Community Development in 2007. The Board reviewed that study in December, 2007 and three objectives were set for fees: 1) the fees should be comparable to tho se in other localities, 2) the fees should attempt to recover a significant portion of the cost of services, and, 3) a policy should be established to regularly update the fees. With respect to Zoning Ordinance fees, in August, 2009 the Board had a work session and directed staff to bring the proposed fees before the Planning Commission for consideration. In November, 2009 the Commission held a public hearing and recommended zoning fees as presented by staff with three changes: 1) include the Class B-Home Occupation permit in the lower special use permit fee category; 2) no fee should be charged for temporary fundraising events; and, 3) the effective date of the fee change should be delayed until July 1, 2010. Mr. Graham said in the way of a summary about the zoning fees, staff looked at reducing the fee categories for special use permits and zoning map amendments into two categories. They set the fee to recover the costs associated with the numerous resubmissions of those applications so as not to pu nish those applicants who quickly resolve their issues; to recover the cost of required notification and legal notices - similar to what was done with the notices related to the Subdivision Ordinance; it was recognized that appeals need a different perspective on the recovery of costs and that there was a due process issue involved so and there should not be the same perspective on the recovery of costs for appeals; the fees recommended in the Fee Study were used when they were comparable to other localities or the fee change was relatively small; consideration of future ordinance amendments should include a cost of service so fees are current with whatever service changes made; and, the ordinance should provide for a biennial review of fees. Attachment C Page 3 Mr. Graham said he would explain the Planning Commission‟s recommendations. The first had to do with Home Occupations. There are two classes of these permits. The first is a Class A – it is an administrative permit. The overwhelming number of applications in 2008 was for this permit – there 258 such applications. The current fee is $13 and the proposed fee is $25 which would provide for full cost recovery. It is a totally administrative permit – most can be issued “on the spot.” Mr. Graham said the Home Occupation-Class B is a use by special use permit so it requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board. The current fee was $444 and the fee study recommendation came back at $5,300. Initially, the staff‟s recommendation was $2,000 with $1,000 for resubmissions. That was in the higher of the two zoning fee classifications for special use permits. The Commission revised that to $1,000 for the initial submission and $500 for each resubmission. Mr. Graham noted that temporary fundraising events are now in the ordinance under Sec. G, No. 5, Zoning Clearances for Temporary Fundraising Activity. There is no fee associated with them; staff had no concern with that change. The final change by the Planning Commission was the effective dat e. They recommended July 1, 2010, as the effective date of the ordinance. Staff needs a minimum of 45 days from adoption to modify forms, notify the public, and make sure the process goes smoothly. The earliest date staff could recommend would be February 1, 2010. He said staff supports the Commission‟s delayed implementation believing it is a reasonable accommodation. However, it needs to be understood that the estimated revenue difference for the February to July timeframe would be $75,000. Mr. Graham said he would like to focus on efficiency for a moment. There have been some recent editorials saying staff should focus on efficiency first. He said that has been done through two processes – first was the Development Review Task Force which was charged in March, 2006 making its priority recommendations in May, 2007. Staff reviewed those recommendations with the Board in February, 2008 as part of its annual work program. At that time it was noted that nine of the 12 priorities had been implemented, two were partially completed and one had not started (looking at expanding the notice area, which would actually increase costs). Mr. Graham said the County completed a Resource Utilization Study; it started in July, 2008 with recommendations presented to the Board in February, 2009. In the November, 2009 Quarterly Report of the Community Development Department, it is indicated that seven of the nine recommendations related to the Community Development Department have been completed. One is ongoing and the other is in process – that has to do with the project management for Crozet Master Plan update and keeping timesheets. That will be reported to the Board as that master plan review is completed. He thinks the Department has done what the Board expected it to do to insure that an efficient operation is maintained. Mr. Graham said he recommends that the Board adopt ZTA-2009-017 as recommended by the Planning Commission with its effective date being July 1, 2010, and that the Zoning Ordinance be subject to a biennial review using the County‟s merit increase as a basis for adjustment – which is the same as what was done previously with fees in other ordinances. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Boyd asked if as part of the review process, they looked at ways of reducing the cost of processing applications. He knows the idea was to recover 50 percent of the cost, but why is the cost to process so high? Mr. Graham said they looked at it in terms of having gone through the DRTF and the Resource Utilization Study. It is his opinion that if costs are to be lowered the requirements in the applications need to be revised too. It is not about efficiency anymore – it is about what the County is looking for with a completed application. Mr. Boyd said the DRTF didn‟t really look at cost, only the review process. He thinks that is pertinent now given the current economic situation. Mr. Rooker said the development review process was to focus on increased public participation. That was the charge brought forward and recommended by Mr. Boyd. There are few ways public participation can be increased without increasing cost also. Having an additional hearing to allow more Attachment C Page 4 people to weigh in on a topic will increase the cost of the staff time, e tc. associated with preparation for that meeting, with the notices, and with public advertisements where it‟s appropriate. These were things the DRTF made recommendations on that would not lower costs, but would increase costs. Mr. Boyd said that is the way it turned out, but that was not the charge to the group. The makeup of the committee and its discussion changed, that is the way it turned out. That was not his intent, but because of the public participation in the process it led the DRTF in a diff erent direction. Mr. Rooker encouraged Mr. Boyd to re-read the minutes on this, because the whole idea of doing it was his. He thought it was a good idea, but he can assure Mr. Boyd that in the initial minutes when he brought this up, he brought up improved public participation as a part of it. That was in the initial discussion that Mr. Boyd brought forward to the Board. He had two things: one, making the process more efficient; and second, improving and increasing public participation – and a part of that came about as a result of all the things that were going on at Glenmore at the time. He thinks what the committee recommended is good, and staff took charges and made a recommendation about the fees and the Board supported going forward with their recommendations. Mr. Boyd said the committee recommendations were changed by the Planning Commission in its review. He would like to “dust off” that report and bring back the original thoughts – he also needs to look at the minutes. He suggested not voting on this until the Board had looked at two things – the cost of doing business and readdressing some of those issues. He was surprised to read that seven of the nine recommendations had already been implemented. He knows that other things were disc ussed that never made it forward as a recommendation. Ms. Mallek said there were a lot of things in the matrix the Board saw which did not make it to the top tier, they were left at the committee level rather than bringing 39 things forward which would not have had as much acceptance from the Board at that time. She thinks a thorough study was made of the fees and the recommendations are far lower in a recovery percentage than many citizens in her district want. They‟re really tired of paying all the costs for somebody else to do development. She said staff had been “pitching this” more at the 50 percent level. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Tucker responded that the Board has historically approved 50 percent being borne by the applicant and the other 50 percent by the citizens because of Comprehensive Plan amendments and other planning work by staff. Ms. Mallek said there is a public benefit from getting a good product rather than “just sitting back” and letting everybody do what they want. Mr. Dorrier said the complaint he has heard most is that the process is extremely slow. If the fees charged are going to be increased, the process must be efficient. Mr. Tucker agreed, but emphasized that staff is moving through the process as fast as they can given existing ordinances and regulations. They can‟t just bypass regulations that this Board has adopted. If the Board wants to make the process more efficient, those ordinances and regulations must be looked at and perhaps some of them elimi nated. That would be a Board decision. Staff is not “dragging their feet” – there are a lot of regulations and checklists they must go through. Mr. Dorrier said it takes about nine months to get a special use permit through the process. Ms. Mallek said she maintains that some of that time is when the work is in the hands of the applicant. There are very rigid timeframes that staff has to adhere to when they have an application in hand. When it goes back to the applicant for the next round, the applicant can “sit on it” for years if he so desires. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board members take time to come in and sit down with a staff member and go through a site plan review using the checklist staff has to adhere to – this checklist is taken directly from sections of the Subdivision and Zoning ordinances. Then the Board members might be able to identify why particular things are being done. Ms. Thomas said when staff went through the cost comparison against other communities and it showed that Albemarle‟s costs might be a little higher because of public participation. She thinks this fee Attachment C Page 5 issue is fascinating for someone sitting and watching the governmental process – it gets at basic questions of how much is a public responsibility and how much is a private responsibility. This is a legitimate look at where public and private interests lay. The other issue is the amount of public participation wanted in the process. The Board has erred on the side of having a lot of public participation opportunities. She thinks that if the amount of public participation were reduced it would be at the peril of the County. This is a community that cares about how things get developed, cares about that Class B- Home Occupation‟s impact on the neighborhood and would want to have the ability to comment on that request. The process says they have that ability, therefore it costs more. She said a dictatorship is always cheaper, but she does not think that‟s the direction this community wants to go in. Mr. Boyd said the Board has not gone through a case-by-case review to say that $5,000 is the appropriate cost to get a Class B-Home Occupation special use permit approved. Should the cost be split 50/50 or should it be 80/20? He does not understand what staff would do for $5,000 to approve a Class B-Home Occupation (unless there are a lot of notices to be mailed, a lot of meetings with neighborhoods, a lot of Planning Commission meetings). It certainly shouldn‟t take a planner that long to look at the impacts - that‟s the process the Board has not been through. The DRTF did not do that. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Boyd had just identified the litany of public goods that are built into the process to protect the community. Planning Commission meetings require a lot of staff preparation time, and there are advertising and notice elements, which Mr. Boyd has supported, is required to engage the community so that when the Board approves a permit for a home office in a rural area or a neighborhood that would be impacted, the public knows about it. That is good public purpose. The time the planner takes to review that application is just a small portion of staff time. Mr. Slutzky said the Board has been looking at this cost analysis for over two years, and that information has been presented to it. He knows Mr. Boyd is currently engaged in other good purposes, so it might be harder for him to spend the time needed to dig into the Board packet than it has been in the past. He said the Board has had the opportunity numerous times for the staff to articulate the process steps and the approximate allocation of the costs. He thinks there is a general understanding about that, and he does not believe Mr. Boyd doubts that is what it costs. Mr. Slutzky said the bigger question is how the Board wants to allocate that cost burden. Does it want to a) reduce the level of community participations; b) reduce the stringency of requirements which may have the undesirable outcome of having “lousy” developments occur; or, c) keep the standards tough and decide to allocate that cost burden one of two ways? Does the Board want to a) put it on the applicant in which case there will be a chilling effect on people doing home occupations, or b) allocate those costs on the taxpayers and acknowledge that it is a public good that drives the more stringent standards the County has chosen to adopt? In that case there is the public benefit, so the public should pay for it, in which case Community Development staff would be funded through taxpayer dollars instead of burdening the home applicant. Those are the kinds of trade-offs the Board must decide. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Boyd, over the past couple of years, has been exposed to the approximate allocations. He is not sure that studying th at more would change the deliberation the Board has had which is how to allocate this public good. Does the Board want to have a chilling effect or raise taxes to do it, or raise fees to do it? That is what is in front of the Board today. Mr. Boyd said he has looked at the material in the packet, and he recalls the discussions the Board has had over the past two years. It has come to his attention recently that the Board never looked at the cost side. He thinks it was assumed that it cost $5,000 so is 50 percent charged to the general public and 50 percent to the developer, or does the developer pay 100 percent? What do other people charge? He does not believe the cost has ever been looked at. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Graham presented the results of the analysis that gave rise to the recommendations to the Board. He asked if that was correct. Attachment C Page 6 Ms. Mallek said there was an outside report. Mr. Graham said an outside consultant presented the fee study. They looked at the cost of every application processed. Using the home occupation as an example, there are definitions for both a Class “A” and a Class “B”. A request for a Class A permit is an administrative procedure – it is a simple checklist and staff can review that application for $25 and get full cost recovery and process the permit. For a Class B application, which is a special use permit, request, the public notification is dramatically increased and that impacts the planner‟s time. It is easy to review a plan to see if it meets certain criteria, but it is balancing issues with the public that takes the time. Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had discussed whether there is still a need for all those extra steps for a Class B permit just because there would be two employees instead of one. Mr. Graham said that going back to the Department‟s 2009 work program, one of the items in that program was to look at the Class B-Home Occupation permit to see if some of those permits should actually be changed to a Class A-Home Occupation subject to supplemental regulations so they could be handled administratively; that work was pushed “to the back burner” along with work on wayside stand provisions and other things. It is still on the work plan as an item to be worked on when possible. Mr. Rooker noted that the information shown on the screen shows that in 2008 there were 258 applications under Class A at a cost of $13; under Class B there were three applications. He said that “what we‟ve got here is a mountain and a molehill situation.” Mr. Boyd said he thinks a lot of those 258 were actually Class B requests which were brought in under a different mechanism. Mr. Rooker said that 90 percent of the applications have been Class A applications where the fee was $13. Proposed for the Class B permit is a fee of $1,000 and that is not full recovery. He said comparisons were made with other localities; Albemarle‟s fees are comparable with those being charged by others. ATTA came before the Board during budget sessions and urged that the County get recovery levels from development activity so the burden would not be placed on taxpayers. It can‟t be both ways. At one point, the Resource Utilization Study recommended that higher recovery levels be implemented for development activities. That recommendation is not being done with this proposed ordinance change. Implementation of that recommendation would help to maintain a lower tax base in the County. He thinks this is absolutely a minimal step to implement some kind of fair allocation of the costs of development between the community – which falls on taxes – and the developer. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Boyd raised one legitimate question. Why does it cost so much to do certain things? She noted a chart (Attachment B to an earlier report, a copy of which is with the Board‟s materials for this meeting) which notes what it costs to do certain activities. For anything that appeared to be too expensive (such as Home Occupation-Class B), the Board had actually asked staff to determine if there were a different way of doing it. That process has not been finished, partly because the department is low on staff. She thinks that is a legitimate thing for the Board to look at and say “if it costs $3,700 to do a certain thing, is there something that should be c hanged in the County‟s regulations?” She does not think today is the day to say “we are not going to do this fee recovery.” Those are the sorts of things staff can be asked to look at if anything seems to be unreasonable. She thinks it is reasonable to question why certain activities are so expensive. Mr. Boyd said he appreciates Ms. Thomas pointing this out, but it does not tell him why a particular thing costs the fee that is recommended. At one time the Board discussed whether the County would accept an engineer‟s certification of a plan as opposed to doing quality assurance and using the County Engineer and the process the County goes through. Ms. Thomas said that is a good example because the County tried that. Mr. Graham said it was tried and it failed. Mr. Boyd asked if the problem was that nobody wanted to submit plans that way. Mr. Graham said there is a very detailed checklist which must be adhered to, but staff found that a couple of Attachment C Page 7 developers started using it, but then stopped and tried submitting their plans without completing all of the items on the checklist. That idea had to be abandoned. Mr. Rooker said a lot of time is spent by County staff going back and forth with applicants who don‟t properly complete an application. The Board had talked about those applicants basically using County Engineering staff to complete their application for them. That is going on now. Mr. Boyd said he realizes that, and that is the type of stuff he would like to see stopped. The application should simply be turned back to the applicant until it is done right. The County has taken on doing that quality assurance for them –the expense was not reduced because staff let them dictate that it was something the County had to do. He would support not assuming that cost. Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Boyd was saying to not accept the application until it was right. Mr. Rooker said the reality is that the County has the ultimate responsibility for making certain an application is properly filed, the site plan is property filed, and that requirements are met. Staff has to obtain the assurance of a certified professional that it is done right because if it fails, it ultimately comes back on the County. In cases where they have to keep going back and forth, no staff time is saved because they keep having to check the work that is sometimes not properly done and return it and receive it again and check it again. Mr. Boyd said he does not know how to simply say that certain things have to be done and certified before submitting the application; if there is not a certification that all things have been done the County will not accept the application. Mr. Slutzky said the County cannot just reject an application; it has to say where it is defective. At this time, staff time is used to determine the defect and to articulate what it was, so it is back to putting a bind on staff time. The challenge is that Albemarle County has chosen to have a fairly tough standard for approving development activities. It is largely driven by a desire to have quality urban development versus haphazard urban development. Mr. Boyd said Mr. Slutzky can‟t use haphazard urban development as what he is talking about. Mr. Slutzky said he is not suggesting that is what Mr. Boyd is advocating. His point is that the Board, including Mr. Boyd, chose to have quality standards for development activity in the County. For that intention to be expressed and processed, it requires a longer checklist with more particularity. There is a cost associated with carrying out the County‟s good public purpose. The issue before the Board now should be, and is, how should that cost be allocated? Does the Board want to recognize that some percent of that cost is a benefit to the public and should be paid for by taxpayers? How much of that cost does it want to allocate to the public because they get some benefit from it also? Mr. Slutzky said he will say that because the County has a tougher standard, it is more tilted toward the public good than it is toward the developer community. He is comfortable with having the taxpayer pick up some of the cost of good quality development. There are a lot “of us” who don‟t seem to want to have sufficient tax revenues to fund the staffin g needed to fulfill that mission. One of the solutions the Board came up with was to push some of that burden back on the applicant community, but it can‟t be both ways. The Board, as a body, has to decide how to allocate the cost burden of its decision to have quality development. Mr. Slutzky said it could be argued that a Board member might not “be on board” with having this quality development and would rather look for opportunities to soften the standards of development. That is a separate issue and may be something the Board would chose to do in the future. Right now, the Board has agreed on these standards and what is in front of it today is how to allocate those costs. Staff‟s recommendation is to split the difference. It is arbitrary in som e ways, but seems to staff and several Board members to be a reasonable choice, and he thinks that is what the Board should consider. Attachment C Page 8 Mr. Rooker said the advertised fees are lower than what was recommended by the experts who came in and looked at this question. They recommended that more of the costs be allocated to the activities that generate those costs. He said Hollymead Town Center is a good example. What was the cost of the County having implemented more stringent stormwater requirements elsewh ere in the County as a result of the mistakes that were made there? What kinds of certifications, or inspections, are needed to assure that does not occur again? He will suggest that most of the time when there are complaints by large numbers of people, it has to do with standards that are not high enough or standards put in place but not enforced. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Boyd has advocated wisely on behalf of active participation by the public in some of these issues. He thinks he is right to make that case, but there is a cost, so the Board still has to decide how to allocate that cost. Mr. Boyd said Mr. Slutzky keeps bringing the conversation back to the “allocation of costs” thing, so Mr. Slutzky is missing the point he has been trying to talk about for the last six months or so. He is interested in reducing the cost of everything the government does. That is all he is looking at. He is not sure the Board has taken a hard look at that. He said Mr. Slutzky is saying that services will have to be given up in order to reduce costs. That has been the mantra of the majority of the Board members all along – if the Board reduces the tax rate or does not raise the tax, it has to give up some services, and he is not convinced of that yet. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Boyd suggests he would like to reduce the costs and there are ways to do that. The standards can be loosened up – there can be less scrutiny, less vigilance and/or less public participation in the process of development. As far as he can tell those are the only ways to reduce the costs. Mr. Boyd said he is not convinced those are the only ways to reduce costs. Mr. Slutzky asked for other suggestions. Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to take time to analyze these individual numbers – why does it cost $5,000 to do a Class B thing? If $4,000 of that is in notices that must be sent to the public, then he might say that is an expense the Board wants to do because there is no way around that. Mr. Rooker said the DRTF had a broad charge, and there was nothing that prevented it from looking into specific line items they thought cost too much internally and should be changed somehow. There‟s nothing that prevents the DRTF from going there now if it wants to go there. There‟s nothing that prevents any individual Board member from sitting down with Mr. Graham and saying “I‟d like to understand better exactly what needs to be done for a site plan, what the steps are, and why it costs $2,800, or whatever the cost is, to process a site plan.” He said Mr. Boyd is not stopped from doing that. Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is a waste of his time if he‟s the only one person doing it. It wastes staff time and his time. Ms. Mallek responded that somebody has to take the lead and dig around. Mr. Rooker reiterated that the DRTF made specific recommendations and Mr. Boyd saw the status of those recommendations. If Mr. Boyd thinks the cost of processing a site plan is too high, he has no problem with Mr. Boyd meeting with staff and reporting back to the Board. He sat down with staff at one time and where there were 16 steps involved in a process and he thought three of those steps could be eliminated, he told staff what he thought the result would be. He said Mr. Boyd can make that inquiry, and report back to the Board. He said the DRTF had a broad charge and could look into specific line items if it wanted to. There was also the Resource Utilization Study which every member of this Board supported. He has always been in favor of having third parties come in and look at what the County is doing to see whether or not there are ways to do things more efficiently and more cost effective. He thinks the County should continue to do that. Attachment C Page 9 Mr. Rooker said one reason to compare Albemarle County to other localities is that it highlights whether it is out-of-line in some areas. He said that has been done, and it did not show that Albemarle was out-of-line with other counties. The DRTF made recommendations which were adopted, the Resource Utilization Study said more costs should be allocated to applicants, and this matter has been ongoing for two years. In that interim period substantial revenues have been lost through fees which have not been increased for 20 years. His suggestion is that the Board g oes forward with these amended fees. Mr. Boyd said that is going to happen anyway. Mr. Slutzky said whether it should happen is a separate question. If it is Mr. Boyd‟s opinion that it should not happen because he has not had the time to study it and identify any suggested improvements. It is not like in the last two years he has not had that opportunity. It is not fair for Mr. Boyd to suggest that there is “fat” in the County‟s operation that he can be cut out of reduce the cost of, but he does not have any particular items to present for Board consideration. Mr. Boyd said there were a lot of ideas in the DRTF work sessions that were killed by that Task Force which could have cut costs. Mr. Rooker said it was Mr. Boyd‟s Task Force. Mr. Boyd said he did not have the only vote. Mr. Rooker said there were people from the Darden School on that Task Force. Mr. Boyd said that person was the facilitator. Ms. Mallek said there planners as members. Mr. Rooker said there were also builders on the Task Force. Mr. Tucker said the recommendation of the Planning Commission is not to make this effective until July 1, 2010, so there would be an additional opportunity to take some of these areas and study them further before the ordinance went into effect. He said the Board might also extend the time period before the effective date. That would give those Board members who think a couple of these areas should be focused on to determine if they are unreasonable. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis if the Board could bring back some of these issues for discussion if the Board votes on this ordinance today. Mr. Davis said it would require that a resolution of intent be adopted sending it back to the Planning Commission and then back to the Board for a public hearing for those things that might be changed. Mr. Boyd asked if there were a timeframe on that. Mr. Davis said “no.” If this ordinance is adopted today and then in January the Board wanted to reexamine certain fees, the Board could adopt a resolution of intent at that time. That would sent it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and then to the Board for a public hearing. At that time, the Board could amend anything that had been amended by this ordinance. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Boyd if he was asking about just extending the effective date. Mr. Boyd said he was not asking about extending the effective date. He would not propose that. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board was going to hold the public hearing on this ordinance amendment. He said the meeting is running far behind schedule; the Board is supposed to be meeting with the School Board in just ten minutes. Attachment C Page 10 Mr. Slutzky said he will open the public hearing at this time. Mr. Jay Willard of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders‟ Association addressed the Board. He thinks this has been a fascinating discussion of all the issues involved in this amendment. He said the fees the Board is about to decide on reflect only 50 percent of what is considered as the cost. They apprecia te the 50:50 split in how the fees are allocated, but when you see something that says a particular task costs $3,500 in this ordinance that really means it costs $7,000. A lot of the cost is driven by the staff time required to go through all of the reviews. Mr. Willard said he will give two examples of how to think about a different metric in terms of the actual number of staff hours required. One item listed at $3,500 is review of 50 acres or greater for a Zoning Map Amendment, which means the assumption is that it costs $7,000. He does not know the fully burdened FTE cost of a County staff person, but if it were ($70,000 a year), that cost suggests that one - tenth of a whole year‟s worth of work gets allocated to this task. It is not one tenth of one person‟s time, but one-tenth of an FTE is 160 to 200 hours of time. He asked if that sounds like a reasonable amount of collective, scattered around staff time to do this review. If that seems reasonable, then the Board would approve this as a reasonable fee. If it raises questions as to why it takes 200 hours of somebody‟s time to review a zoning map amendment, that might suggest there are changes needed in the ordinance or changes in procedures that could streamline the process. Mr. Willard said there is another example; waiver of the drawing of a site plan is $1,500. That is $3,000 of costs and is the equivalent of 75 hours of staff time. Is that a reasonable responsibility? He does not think those things suggest lowering the public protecti on in the process or lowering the standards, it simply asked if there are ways to look at the ordinances, the procedures, and how these things are done to make the best use of staff time and then to deliver the best product to the community. Mr. Jack Marshall said he was present to speak on behalf of ASAP (Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population). He said they urge the Board to adopt a fee schedule that in most cases provides for closer to 100 percent, not 50 percent, of cost recovery paid by th ose who stand to profit from the applications. They suggest two exceptions – 50 percent or less of cost recovery for applications for family subdivisions and the same for applications for affordable housing units. Like other localities, Albemarle has traditionally allowed developers and builders to avoid paying for many of the real costs of new residential units. This has been done by hoisting some of the actual expenses onto taxpayers, or dismissing the costs altogether as in the case of the ecological impacts of growth. Mr. Marshall said the most obvious instance of dodging the real costs of development is the necessity to expand the community‟s infrastructure to meet the needs of people who will fill these new houses built for private profit. Modest proffers don‟t go far to construct new schools, or to expand police or firefighting services. When ordinary taxpayers subsidize this growth, the delusion can be maintained that growth pays for itself, but this simply is not true, and countless studies around the country have demonstrated this fact. The issue of zoning fees is another instance where developers and builders are passing onto other the real costs of their business. Over the years, the community has evolved thoughtful standards for proposing the construction of new housing. A competent staff has been established to insure that the application process is followed and the regulations enforced, but “this isn‟t a free lunch.” Mr. Marshall said if applicants are not required to pick up virtually all the costs of the application process, either or both of two things occur – ordinary taxpayers will get “stuck with some of the tab.” Those who live here now will be taxed to subsidize these application fees, effectively padding the profits of those who seek the applications in the first place. It would be unconscionable if today‟s scarce tax revenues were used to subsidize developers, even as schools are put on short rations and other essential County services curtailed. The risk of not requiring all or nearly all of 100 percent cost recovery from those who benefit from the application process is that there may be pressure to reduce the cost of zoning fees by simplifying the application process and even trimming staff in Planning and Development . This decline in oversight would result in a de facto deregulation leading to the lowering of quality assurance standards. It‟s fair and reasonable to ask those entrepreneurs who stand to profit from zoning Attachment C Page 11 applications to pay nearly full costs of the staff services they request. Don‟t ask the taxpayers to subsidize them. Mr. Rodney Thomas requested that the Board defer this item until the new Board is in office in the next year so they can take “a better look at it.” He would like to have the opportunity to sit with staff to see if the 106 steps in the process review can be reduced. He thinks doing that could help a lot. When he was a member of the Planning Commission, some items were sent back to staff to be approved administratively. He would like to see some smaller items be approved administratively. He asked that the Board defer adoption of this ordinance until after the first of the year. Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum said the Forum supports the 50:50 split. He does not believe this Board has ever taken an action that is not congruent in rezoning with the Comprehensive Plan that supports the community. The idea that anything is solely for profit when a developer is moving forward with the community‟s vision is “difficult to swallow.” He said it is interesting that the resolution of intent adopted by the Board regarding the EMS Recovery Program included a provision for regular review of its fees. He said there are volunteers involved in that program and not merit pay increases to tack onto it. He said the ordinance before the Board today has an automatic escalator for these fees – nowhere in the ordinance does it suggest that there will ever be a review for a potential reduction of fees. Best management practices suggest that most fees would likely go up, but there should be some streamlining somewhere that will cause fees to go down. He was concerned by the timeline Mr. Graham showed on the screen with regard to implementation of the DRTF recommendations and the efficiency study (Resource Utilization Study) and the impact of those changes. He said that timeline predates the fee study done which suggested that the fees aren‟t reflective of the efficiencies already implemented or of future efficiencies. He is concerned with the rate study. The data Mr. Willard presented is most interesting. He would suggest that it be considered as the Board deliberates this, and in addition, he appreciates the idea that a deferred implementation of the ordinance until July 1 makes a lot of sense. It provides for some predictability for those people who are working through the process. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board for further discussion. Ms. Thomas said she will point out that for the item Mr. Willard picked, zoning map amendment for planned developments of less than 50 acres, the proposed fee would cover eight percent of that cost. Reducing that cost by a lot would not be in the interest of anyone in the applicant pool, and if they had to pay a higher percentage of that cost, they might have an interest in reducing the cost of the review. She is saying that “with tongue in cheek.” Also, the biennial review is not an administrative review, so any questions raised would be brought up every two years by this proposal. Mr. Dorrier said the two items mentioned by Mr. Willard raised questions in his mind and he thinks that Mr. Rodney Thomas made a good point. He does not see any pressing need to adopt this ordinance today. He thinks the Board could work on those issues and have the ordinance brought back in January or February. Mr. Rooker said he will take the example that was brought up - $3,500 for a zoning map amendment of 50 acres or greater. He asked the cost of the North Pointe application in staff time. Ms. Mallek said it was basically five years of Elaine Echols‟ time. Mr. Rooker said that petition went on for years and years. There were charrettes held on that property before the rezoning request was filed. There were community meetings discussing what activities should go on that property. What was the cost of the Biscuit Run zoning map amendment to the County? What was the cost of the Hollymead Town Center to the County? This $3,500 is what the new fee would be, not what it has been. It is such a miniscule recovery of the total cost of a rezoning like that, that it‟s almost ridiculous. He said about 99 percent of those costs were picked up by the taxpayer , which is exactly what the Resource Utilization Study recommended that the County look at and try to reverse. Attachment C Page 12 During budget hearings last year, ATTA said it should be dealt with - they did not want to see the cost of development that should be borne by developers pushed over to the taxpayers. Mr. Rooker said this discussion started at one time with a 75 percent cost recovery proposal. This Board, listening to Mr. Willard and others, reduced the recommendation down to 50 percent which they thanked the Board for. Now that “that bite of the apple has been taken” there is another one coming. He said this has been going on for two years; the current board has an obligation to put into place something that changes fees that have been static for almost 20 years. In the current economic circumstances the Board would be derelict in its duty not to act on this after it has been before the Board for two years. Ms. Mallek said the process exists with a high standard to get a product that fits the communit y, which maintains the value of the community for the current homeowners and on which continues to attract other people and businesses to come here. She has lived in other places, and when she asked friends who had international or small companies how the y decided to locate, the answer always was “where I want my children to grow up.” She thinks everybody wants to protect the community and what is valuable about it. A process has been undergone to make sure the County does not put in fees that are not responsible – but this question has not been looked at by outside people who look at management time, and who can make a better evaluation of the process than she can – she is not a planner or an engineer and needs help figuring out “those sheets she gets every month.” Staff is relied on to “be the canary in the coal mine” to help the public understand the impacts of a proposed development. Ms. Mallek said there were folks on the DRTF who in the beginning of the process were not in favor of citizen involvement. She was able to share some stories with them about different experiences some local developers had over the years in Earlysville. She said Mr. Steve Runkle was ahead of his time in understanding the value of getting the citizens involved even befor e he came to the County with a proposal. One such proposal had to do with the Walnut Hill development which he said would make a drastic change in the neighborhood. A meeting of citizens in Earlysville brought forth wonderful suggestions. A citizen who lived directly across the street from that proposed development came to the meeting because he was concerned about headlights shining into his living room. Mr. Runkle was able to make small changes in his plan before it got to the expensive stage to help with that situation. Ms. Mallek said the DRTF talked about the value of public interaction. Some people were reluctant to begin it, but realized that it is advantageous in the end. She said citizens will find out eventually about a proposal, and will be angrier because they did not find out early in the process. She said this amendment may not be perfect, but she does not think the Board should “throw out the baby with the bath water” and just not do anything with it today. Mr. Boyd said he has talked enough so he will just make two comments. He is not opposed to the allocation of costs. He thinks that is appropriate. He is not interested in taking away meaningful input from the public and all the processes that are done. He cannot support this ordinance amendment because it is a matter of timing. He thinks the County‟s internal costs need to be considered first; not the cost of providing adequate information to the public. Ms. Thomas said she has the same thoughts she had before about whether she should even vote on this, but it is something the Board has worked on for several years, and she thinks it would be irresponsible of the Board not to take this step today and put it off. She would welcome anybody looking at any of these categories and their costs and delving into why it costs so much. That is a legitimate role for a citizen or an elected official to take and could be useful. Mr. Slutzky said he is going to explain why he will vote against adopting this ordinance today. It is not out of deference to the future board, but because he has thought a lot about this subject and struggled with it. People have talked about the cost of development being borne by the developer. The cost of development is the paver, the brick, but the idea of imposing standards of quality and good design on a project are not a cost of development but the cost of having a high quality of life in the community. They are the benefit that inures predominantly to the community as opposed to the development itself. Attachment C Page 13 Mr. Slutzky said he trembles when folks come to the Board‟s budget hearings and suggest that taxpayers should not have to pay for all of those people who have all those kids who need an education. He hears the arguments about how the County should make the developers pay for development and it sounds about the same to him. The Board is talking about charging fees for the services provided by the County for the benefit of the community as a whole to ensure there is a quality of development in th e community that all can be comfortable living with and enjoying. To him, that means the cost burden should be sitting squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayers as a group and not be funneled into a project as a means of escaping the political reality of having to pay for it. Mr. Slutzky said he was inclined to support these amended fees when it was coming “through the pipeline”, because he kept thinking someway had to be found to cut costs, and yet maintain staff‟s review of these projects to a high standard, so the only way to get at that is to charge fees. The real way to fund the public good associated with the kind of development standards imposed in Albemarle County is by funding it through taxes. It is for that reason that he will vote against adopting this change of fees now. He said when the next board takes this issue up, which it will probably have an opportunity to do now, he hopes it does not fall in the trap of softening up the quality standards for development in the community. That is not the way to solve this problem. One of the true benefits of living in Albemarle County is having tough standards that new developments are held to. If efficiencies can be obtained, it is appropriate to look and find ways to do so, but he is skeptical that many will be found. Staff is probably doing its job exactly as the Board would like them to do it. He thinks it is a matter that “we need to pay for.” Mr. Rooker said the Board has spent a lot of time in this process and he has never heard Mr. Slutzky say this before. He said the fees being looked at haven‟t been increased in 20 years. If a normal cost-of-living increase were made to those fees he would suggest they would be higher than those looked at today. He said Mr. Slutzky‟s suggestion would mean that fees, much as the gas tax problem, should remain the same forever; it should never have any kind of adjustment. When talking about staff time, he would suggest that there is probably $50,000 of staff time involved in getting this ordinanc e to where it is today because internal studies were done on the cost of each of the scores of activities “listed on these sheets.” The County went through a long process of internally studying each application to determine its internal cost and that was checked against other communities. Many questions were asked about individual items throughout the process, and a huge amount of time, effort and money were spent to get to today. It represents a proposed fee schedule that is less than the one originally recommended, substantially less because somewhere in the process the Board went from 75 percent recovery down to 50 percent. Ms. Thomas said she does not think Mr. Rooker objected to that change in recovery. Mr. Rooker said he thinks what Mr. Slutzky is doing is a significant disservice to the County, to the people of the County, and to the people who will ultimately have to bear the costs. Mr. Slutzky said the fact that it has taken two years and a lot of staff time to get to this point isn‟t a reason to vote for it. It has taken that long for him to come to appreciate that this isn‟t about revenue recovery; it‟s about allocating burdens in the community. As he learned more about the process of review of development, he became increasingly skeptical that the bigger burden should be shouldered by the applicant community; his understanding of that has evolved through this process. That is why as a deliberate body, the Board does not have a suggestion of this complexity brought before it very often and just act on it. That is why the Board takes the time to study, to peel it apart, to examine its parts and to think about it. Mr. Slutzky said this process has enlightened him and made him realize this development process is all about a social good. It is a social good that he values highly, and he thinks the taxpayers should be paying for it. He would be sad to see the next Board soften the standards of development review. As to how that cost burden is allocated, he has evolved in his thin king and that is where it is now. The comment about the gas tax is not the same because in that case he does not get a lot of benefit from somebody else driving more vehicle miles. In this case he gets a benefit as a citizen by a development Attachment C Page 14 being subjected to a high level of scrutiny. He does not consider those to be at all parallel issues. He understands Mr. Rooker‟s disappointment, but that is where he is on it at this time. Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Slutzky feels it is inappropriate that the developer of North Pointe should have paid a $3,500 fee for that application to be processed over the number of years it was processed, or Biscuit Run. Does he think that is an unfair burden to put on the applicant? They were paying $1,700 before and would now have to pay $3,500 to file an application of that magnitude. Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the benefit inures to him and not to the developer per se that the County has the level of scrutiny those projects are subjected to. He thinks the public as a wh ole should fund that expense. Ms. Thomas disagreed. She said the Board has talked for years about having an attractive development area. That attractive development area involves a lot of actions being taken by the Board and staff; that attractive development area means the developer will get more for each acre of land because of that than he would have received from a haphazard, straggled type of development. A benefit does accrue to the applicant and if it did not, the County should not have been d oing this all along. She said the County wants that attractive development area, but it is the developers within it that receive the immediate benefit of it being an attractive area. Mr. Slutzky said if the property becomes worth more to the developer, it means the County collects more in taxes. Ms. Thomas said the anger in her voice is because staff didn‟t present this to the Board “out of the blue.” Staff presented it step-by-step and the Board made decisions that staff should be able to depend on. For Mr. Slutzky to change his mind now, after going through that process and leading staff onward, is really irresponsible. Mr. Slutzky said he takes issue with Ms. Thomas‟ characterization of him being irresponsible. It is exactly his job to go through the process for as long as it takes, and get it right in the end. He did not commit at the beginning of this exercise any more than Ms. Thomas or Mr. Boyd or Mr. Dorrier did to vote in favor of this outcome. The Board asked staff to bring forth the information necessary for it to make an informed decision. He has assessed that information and made what he considers to be an informed decision. He is sorry that Ms. Thomas feels that is irresponsible of him. He thought that is what his job was. Ms. Mallek said she would like to raise a different issue. On Attachment “D” (in the staffs‟ report) she found it compelling that the proposed fee of $3,500 for a 270-acre development would cost someone in Fluvanna $7,200, in Greene $29,000, in James City County $15,000, and in Stafford County $19,000. It seems like Albemarle is getting a lot accomplished for that fee. The same thing applies to the 830-acre development which would cost $3,500 plus each time there was an extra review there would be an extra fee - Greene County‟s fees for that is $84,800. She does not know what they do in Greene County that costs that much more considering that they have few staff members. Maybe they hire a consultant to deal with a development like that. She thinks the developer in Albemarle is getting a good deal in comparison if these comparable communities are being used to any effect. Mr. Dorrier said the Board thinks this just affects the development community, but he thinks it affects the whole County and everybody in it. His mother put a garage onto her house and although he does not know how much the fee was, it took nine months to get approval. He said the fees end up being passed on to everyone in the County. He does not think it is just a development issue, but it is an issue dealing with the entire County and appropriate costs. Taking an extra month or two to study the matter is responsible, not irresponsible. Mr. Slutzky said if there were no further discussion at this time, he would invite a motion. Attachment C Page 15 Mr. Rooker moved to defer action on ZTA-2009-017 until the Board‟s first meeting in February since there are not sufficient votes to deal with the issue today. He said Albemarle could spend another two years and maybe get close to the fees of Fluvanna, Greene, or Orange counties, or any other counties that seem to be willing to deal with the issue. Ms. Mallek said the big businesses which have located in Greene County are paying what she considers to be astronomical fees to do that, so she just doesn‟t understand the problem. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Ms. Mallek asked if this has to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis said it does not have to be reconsidered by them. This is just a deferral of the ordinance. Mr. Rooker said if anybody has any ideas about how any of these particular things can be done more efficiently “Let‟s get at „em.” He thinks Board member want staff to operate as efficiently as possible, and it does not want to adopt regulations that do not accomplish anything. Mr. Slutzky said he agrees, and is not of the mind that staff is either inefficient or unduly burdensome. He would like to see the level of burden continued, but he would like to see a different allocation than that proposed in this ordinance. He asked that the roll be called. Roll was called at this time, and the motion to defer passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky. NAYS: None. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment D Page 1 Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-2009-017, Fees. Amend and renumber Sec. 35.0 (to 35.1) , Fees; amend, renumber and rename Sec. 35.1 (to 35.2), Fee reduction, and add Sec. 35.3, Fee refunds, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend and reorganize the Zoning Ordinance’s fee regulations and increase existing fees, impose new fees, and change but not necessarily increase other fees, for listed applications, permits, reviews, approvals, inspections and other services provided by the County in the administration of Chapter 18. (This agenda item was deferred from December 2, 2009.) Ms. Mallek said several people have contacted her over the past several weeks to ask if they could speak today. She will allow some brief comments at the end of staff’s presentation. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said action on this ordinance amendment was deferred from the December 2, 2009, public hearing. He said the Board did not ask staff to do any further work on the amendment, but he will review how this question got to this point. In 2007 there was a fee study done by a consultant. The Board held a work session and three fee objectives were identified: fees should be comparable to those of other localities; fees should recover a significant part of the cost of services; and, since it had been almost two decades since a comprehensive review had been done of fees, a procedure should be adopted for regularly updating those fees. Mr. Graham indicated that in August, 2009 the Board had a work session on the staff- recommended zoning fees based on those objectives, and staff was then directed to take them to the Planning Commission, who recommended in November, 2009 modified zoning fees with three changes: change Class B-Home Occupation to the lower Special Use Permit fee category; eliminate the fee for temporary fundraising events; and, delay the effective date of the amendment to July 1, 2010. The Board then held a public hearing on the fees in December and deferred taking any action at that time. Mr. Graham reviewed the intent of the proposal: to reduce fee categories for special use permits and zoning map amendments as there was disparity in those categories; recapture the costs of applications that have numerous resubmissions and associated expenses with notifications and legal advertisements – those are a State requirement and in some cases have exceeded the current permit fee; acknowledge that appeals have a different perspective on the recovery of fees and t he fee should be related more to the simple administrative cost of that application. Staff tried to use the fee study recommendations when they were comparable to other localities. They also felt that when there are future ordinance changes, there should always be consideration of how the cost of services is altered as a result of the change in the ordinance. Staff agreed there should be a biennial review of the fees, using the County’s merit increase as a basis for adjusted fees. Mr. Graham said in reading the Board’s minutes there seemed to be some confusion – people referred to a 50 percent cost recovery. That is how the County ended up with the subdivision fees, but that is not the approach used for zoning fees. He said there is a wide variety in the costs of service. Some are simple administrative matters, so the fee can be lower than other localities and still recover 100 percent of the costs. Others are very complex, and it was found that only about 10 percent of the costs in some cases was recovered. Generally, they found that the percentage drops as the complexity of the process increases. Mr. Graham noted that a Home Occupation-Class A permit requires a simple administrative procedure with the permit is issued “on the spot.” This proposal is for $25.00 which provides 100 percent cost recovery (cost presently if $13.00). However, a Home Occupation-Class B is a use by Special Use Permit which requires a complex process, and in that case only 25 percent of the costs are being recovered. In 2008 there were 258 applications for Home Occupation-Class A and in 2009 there were 250 applications. The Class B permit is more complicated and in 2008 there were only three applications and there have been none in 2009. Mr. Graham said the issue of fundraising events became an issue with things like Boy Scouts selling Christmas trees. He said the Planning Commission asked that those fees be exempted and that was done in Section 32.1.G.5. The Commission recommended delaying the effective date of the Attachment D Page 2 ordinance amendment to July 1, 2010. He said staff needs 45 days from adoption to be sure the forms are modified and ready and to get the public notified. The earliest recommended adoption date now is April 1, 2010. He said the FY ’10 revenue projections were based on adoption of this amendment, but with the deferral, staff took out the anticipated increase for this fiscal year. FY ’11 still shows about $170,000 in revenue projections from the amended fees, so if that changes, that revenue will ne ed to be changed as well. Mr. Graham concluded by stating that the staff recommendation is to adopt ZTA-2009-017 as recommended by the Planning Commission with an effective date of July 1, 2010. He added that they also recommend a biennial review of the fees using the County’s merit increase as a basis for the adjustment. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Thomas said he had received the following questions in an e-mail: do the procedures take longer than necessary because they are too complex; are staff reviews more time consuming than necessary because their guidelines are confusing or contradictory; are authorities clouded by too many layers of review or lack of clear direction; and, is there a culture of leadership that encourages staff to diligently resolve conflicts and find solutions. He said that some additional questions were: what are the County’s obligations to provide the most efficient services possible; have they been adequately met; what portion of the County’s review process is for the benefit of the community at large and not just for the internal issues of the project itself; what benefits and value accrue to the County and its residents from the rezoned conditions; does the increased density relieve growth and infrastructu re pressure elsewhere; is this a more valuable use of the land than the original zoning had in mind; are the County requirements and costs fair to the project itself as not every application is a North Pointe or a Biscuit Run; is the County as aggressive about cost recovery from recipients of other County services as it is on the building community. Mr. Rooker said the Board could spend the rest of the day answering those questions, although there are some good questions. He emphasized that a number of those things have been looked at – including staff’s own internal review of its operations under the Baldridge standards that are in place in the County. They are required to periodically look at how they are doing from an efficiency standpoint. A couple of years ago changes were made primarily in the Community Development Department that resulted in about $500,000 a year in recurring savings, everything from putting applications on the Internet and things that allow people in the field to follow their applications using a Blackberry. Mr. Rooker said this subject has been discussed for the last two or more years. The Board started in 2007 and set three criteria; the fees should attempt to recover a significant part of the cost of review, the fees should be comparable to those in other localities, and, the fees should regularly be updated in the future. To assure the first two of those steps, an outside consultant was hired to review all fee areas. The result of that review is contained in the materials before the Board in the way of past staff reports. Recommendations were given for 100 percent cost recovery, or 50 percent cost recovery. The fees of other localities were studied. He noted “Attachment D” in the materials – there are comparisons of Albemarle’s fees and those of other localities. It shows that what is in place now is below that of other localities and the proposed new fees would still be at the low end in most cases. He said if the Biscuit Run zoning map application had been in Greene County the applicant’s cost would have been $84,000. Mr. Thomas asked how much money it cost in Albemarle. Mr. Rooker replied that it cost $1,570. Mr. Thomas asked how much the County spent to review the Biscuit Run application. Mr. Rooker responded that it was about $200,000. Under the proposed fees, that cost would only be $3,500. In Fluvanna County, the fee would have been $21,200, in Greene County it would have been $84,800, In James City County it would have been $15,000, and in Stafford Cou nty $33,800. Mr. Snow asked what proffers would have been required in Greene County. Attachment D Page 3 Mr. Rooker said Greene County has cash proffer requirements. Mr. Snow asked if that is for each house. Mr. Rooker said Greene had a cash proffer system set up before Albemarle had one. They have a process in place for determining under the statutes a reasonable cash amount; other counties have substantially higher proffer amounts than Albemarle requires. Mr. Rooker said the Board has gone through all these processes. When the Board talked about efficiency it had a Development Review Task Force which spent several years before making some recommendations. The Board has received a report on those recommendations and nine of eleven have been adopted and the other two are underway. He said that committee included two members of the Board - Mr. Boyd and Mr. David Wyant (now Ms. Mallek) - and then the Board had an efficiency study done by the Public Policy Institute at VCU. The Schools also had an efficiency study done by VCU. That study actually recommended, among other things, that these fees be increased because the County is not recovering nearly as much as it should. Mr. Rooker said he received three e-mails just today from people saying a reasonable percentage of the cost of these things needs to be borne by the people making the applications. He said the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Association came to the Board at the beginning of this process and said the fees should be increased so as not to put the burden entirely on taxpayers. He said it is ironic that the Board talks about studying the issue more because most people who are interested in efficiency in government want to get something done at some point – this has been going on for over two years. Originally, the Board talked about a 75 percent cost recovery, but it has gone down substantially from that. There was an issue raised about the Home Occupation-Class B and that was cut from $3,500 to $1,000. Adjustments have been made along the way based upon public comments, and the Board needs to go ahead and get this done. Mr. Snow said he thinks the County is in a partnership with the builders and the people who work in the community to give it nice developments. It is not the County dictating what has to be done, but “we should work together.” He agrees there is a need to increase some fees but not to go up “1000 percent” at one time or to institute new fees that have not existed previously. In these economic times “we need to work together” and come up with something more reasonable. Then, over a couple of years, step it up again, or review it. Mr. Rooker said a lot of computation was just done. For example, the average cost, counting all the ZMA fees and the ZTAs and site plan fees, etc., added to a new dwelling (over a 20-year period) would be $87. He said Mr. Werner did the math on this; the median cost increase per unit is $39. Mr. Snow said adding that to the cost of proffers when talking about affordable housing - every time money is added to the proffers it adds to the overall cost of the house which makes it less affordable. Mr. Rooker said part of the question is whether to put some reasonable share of the cost of development on the developer, or make the widow who lives across the street pay it in her taxes. There’s no free lunch, just as Mr. Lowry said earlier. Somebody pays the cost. He said Albemarle is charging less than many other communities – Albemarle spent a fortune studying and doing all the background work this Board asked for. The original fee recommendation was supported by the builders. “Now that they feel they can get a second bite at the apple, they’re in here again.” When Mr. Snow says the County needs to be in partnership with the builders, he thinks it has to be in partnership with the community as a whole. These costs will not disappear, but be borne by the taxpayers at large. This is only a partial cost allocation Mr. Dorrier said the Architectural Review Board is required to review a lot of projects. He asked who determines if a project is sent to them. Mr. Davis responded that it’s an ordinance requirement of Albemarle County. Within the Zoning Ordinance an ARB was created and criteria set out for which Attachment D Page 4 projects are required to get a certificate of appropriateness. It is not a State law requirement, but it is enabled by State law. Mr. Dorrier said he is just wondering if all of those projects should be required to go to the ARB. Ms. Mallek said that only projects in the Entrance Corridors are subject to review, as they are the properties that effect what the County looks like. Mr. Tucker said it is a local ordinance, so the Board could change what is required. Mr. Dorrier asked the last time the ARB was reviewed. Mr. Davis said there was a work session with the ARB last year, and a number of changes are being made in the ordinance at this time; those will be presented to the Board in the next couple of months. Mr. Dorrier said he has been talking to some developers and they wonder why they have to go before the ARB. It costs more money and time to do it. Mr. Snow said he had served on the ARB, and it provides a great service in keeping the community looking the way it does. They traveled to other areas, and there are HV AC units on the tops of buildings and there is no control over the way things are planted, or on setbacks. He said the overall affects and the looks of the property are a lot better in Albemarle. He likes the ARB and he thinks it provides a great function. His only disagreement with the ARB is that they will spend lots of time debating “the color of white” or something that is immaterial and causes the contractor a lot of extra expense for something that is purely subjective. He thinks it has a function, but he thinks that sometimes they go a little too far. Mr. Dorrier asked if it’s something that needs to be reviewed or is it something that will take care of itself. Ms. Mallek said staff is in the process of reviewing it, and the Board will have another joint meeting with the ARB. There have been changes in the last two years in the operation of the ARB. She said it is well valued in many parts of the community for the high standards it brings to the process, but changes to those processes should be a separate issue from the fees charged. Mr. Rooker said ARB review is only of commercial projects, not residential. Mr. Boyd said he understands what Mr. Rooker is saying because the Board has been talking about this subject for a long time, but he is afraid a certain aspect has not been looked at. He went back to the consultant’s report and picked five different applications to determine the time and money needed to review those applications. Since the information was not broken down as to the a mount of time spent by staff, the Planning Commission, Board meetings, he wasn’t able to reconcile it to the consultant’s report. He said that in his business if they are not making enough money to cover expenses, they first look at their expenses, not raising prices. He asked if the County needs to do this in order to provide the quality of service wanted. His sheet shows that it takes about 67 hours of staff time to approve a Home Occupation-Class B permit, and that includes 30 hours of engineering tim e which is mainly devoted to traffic modeling. He said that for ZMAs of 50 or more acres it take 1,478 hours of legal time. He can understand that for a development the size of Biscuit Run. He is not saying this is wrong. Mr. Rooker asked if there are 1,000 hours of legal time involved, the cost recovery on that time is miniscule. Mr. Boyd said he is not disputing that there should be recovery, but he thinks some percentage of community good needs to be factored in. He said the Board went throug h all of that - the Development Review Task Force was looking at how to do things better, but it did not talk about doing things efficiently. He is not sure that part has been addressed in this process. To do a sign permit it takes 10 hours of a Designer Planner’s time. He asked if staff has reviewed the consultant’s report and decided how many hours should be assigned to that task. Attachment D Page 5 Ms. Mallek said when all of the visiting managers were here for the Resource Utilization Study, were Community Development processes addressed. Mr. Graham replied that staff was interviewed extensively about their processes, how they reviewed things and the steps used. Those reviewers felt the processes were similar to those in other localities. Mr. Boyd said the Board establishes the process. That isn’t in question, but the question is whether it takes that long to get through the process. Should it take 15 hours of an engineer’s time to do a traffic study for a home occupation, a two-person business? Mr. Thomas said he did the math for a ZMA of 50 or more acres for the Principle Planner, and it takes 150 days. He also did it on the attorney, and came up with 185 days. He asked if it takes that long to process an application. Mr. Graham pointed out that the costs shown in the report are annual costs, not costs per application. Mr. Davis said when numbers were provided to the consultant, they were based on actual applications. He said that North Pointe had taken 4.5 years to process. That was a ZMA of greater than 50 acres where there was an extreme amount of staff costs included. Hollymead is another example of another application that took a number of years to process. He said some of these numbers may look extreme, but costs are spread out over the review process for some of these unusual projects. Mr. Boyd said he does not dispute the amount of time it took. The figures he gave are per project. In the chart, it shows five reviews of a particular type of application and he divided that into total hours. He asked if as part of this process staff sat down and asked if “x” number of hours in legal fees should have been spent on a the Biscuit Run application, or could it have been done more efficiently; could it have been reviewed in a different way? He wonders whether staff went through that process. Mr. Rooker said staff periodically goes through that procedure. The Board has had report after report from staff on recommendations for improving their own efficiency, some of which the Board adopted, and some which were not adopted. He does not blame that on staff. He said staff could recommend that there be administrative approval of a broad number of things without public hearings and without notices being sent to a broad number of people. By law, the County is only required to send notices to the people adjacent to the property. The Board has chosen to provide broader notification which generates much larger turnouts at public hearings. He cited an example in the Daily Progress where an article says “Conflict growing over Crozet gas station plans. Proposed gas station on U.S. 250 in Crozet is coming under increased scrutiny by the public and the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board.” Then it quotes: “It is less worse than it was in the beginning, yet it is still not good Board member Paul Wright said. I think it is too big and its scale is significant, and I think the site plan makes it currently unacceptable with the ARB guidelines.” Later the article says they initially submitted their application to the ARB in February, 2009. He said they have been with the ARB for about a year. Why is that? He said the ARB could just vote and turn them down because they don’t meet the guidelines but in most cases the applicant keeps coming back and getting a little closer each time until the request is approved. One way to shorten the process is that when someone comes in and they don’t have a good application, it is just turned down. That will shorten a lot of staff’s time, but that is generally not the way staff has worked with applicants. They go through a process where the needs of the community are dealt with and the applicant gets the project approved ultimately if it is in the public good. It does not just immediately shut down because the applicant does not meet all of the technical requirements on their first application. He said the project mentioned in the newspaper has gone back and forth several times – whose fault is that? Ms. Mallek said a lot of that time was when the applicant was actually working on it; it was not on the desk of the ARB for that length of time. Mr. Thomas said the ARB also asked them to create the entire parcel because they mentioned that they might enlarge it with another building. Then on Monday when he was at the meeting, they didn’t need that addition so they have to go back and do something else. Attachment D Page 6 Mr. Tucker pointed out that these hours are not a planner or a staff person that is just sitting there and docking the hours while reviewing plans. There is a negotiating discussion between the staff and the applicant throughout the whole process. That is how these hours came about; it does take a lot of time. He said there is probably room for improvement, but staff would have to study it to see what c an be done during that review. He said that often the applicant defers their request for a good amount of time before coming back to the staff and Planning Commission and that add up in terms of the hours and the amount of time spent. Mr. Boyd said he has mentioned to Mr. Graham before that if the idea is to have cost recovery, and because there is such a variance in applications, he wonders if just a “time and materials” cost should be considered as opposed to specific fees. He knows the accounting s ystem would need to be changed to do that, but the legal profession does that. Mr. Rooker reminded Mr. Boyd that the Board had looked at that idea. Back in the beginning of this discussion that was one of the possibilities looked at, and this Board de termined that was not the best way to do it for a number of policy reasons. He referred to the list which was handed to the Board earlier, and said it shows an average of ZMAs for 50 or more acres of $111,000. It is interesting to ask if that could have been done for less, maybe $60,000. He said the fee being talked about for that application is $3,500. Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is interesting – outside organizations have been brought in to look at efficiency. He had information put together three or more years ago on efficiency measures staff had taken that had saved about $500,00 a year on a cumulative basis over the past five or six years. The County should continue “to shoot for that.” It needs to be as efficient as possible. This shows t hat Albemarle is far below cost recovery. After 20 years, the Board needs to move fees to what is recommended, which is again lower than what the Board originally looked at. Mr. Thomas said he was at the ARB meeting Monday and then he meet with ARB staff on ZTAs. This person has a flowchart showing how fast and inexpensively an application can go through if an application is proposed properly. He said there are a lot of savings and efficiencies noted in that chart. Ms. Mallek said all of those directions are written down – staff has made a lot of progress in the past two years by writing down the processes and information needed. Mr. Thomas said in checking on the expenses of certain things he found that at times the applicants are the cause of the extra cost. He also discovered that a lot of their engineering is paid for by the County and he thinks that cost needs to go back to the applicant. Mr. Rooker said that would raise fees even more. One thing looked at was the expedited process where someone had their plans certified by an engineer and if it met all requirements of a site plan, that was then accepted. The Board spent about six months on that change. Ms. Mallek said that was one of the major recommendations of the Development Review Task Force. Mr. Rooker said that was something the applicants wanted to do. Mr. Boyd said he actually talked with an engineer and confronted him with that idea. He said the County greatly extended the number of steps an applicant had to do if they used that process. A lot of subjective things were involved and different engineers did not agree it was the best way to do something. It was overburdening to them and costing their clients more. The reason they did not go along with the idea was that they were not put into the same system as if they were on the slow track. Mr. Rooker said the Board discussed that process beforehand, but now staff ends up doing a lot of the engineering work for applicants. He is sure it would cost the applicant more if he had to do all his own engineering work. Attachment D Page 7 Mr. Boyd said he hears a lot of anecdotal stories and he hates to base things on them, but every time staff says the applicant created a problem, he hears that when they submitted things three or four times, there was something new added each time. Mr. Snow said he is not able to support the rate of increase. He thinks increases are necessary to recapture some of the money being lost, but not to go up 1000 percent. Ms. Mallek asked which fees are increasing 1000 percent – fees have not been changed since 1987. Mr. Rooker asked if that is from $1.00 to $10.00. He said in a prior meeting the Board pulled out the fees that anyone felt were unfair. He said this 1000 percent has been mentioned before, but the total increase in these fees is projected to bring in only $175,000; that it is a 35 to 40 percent increase after 20 years. He said initial feedback from the building community was that the allocations were too great and adjustments were made based on that. Ms. Mallek reiterated that the consultants hired by the County to look at the fee structure recommended a far higher fee than what was originally proposed. Mr. Boyd said he was trying to answer the question about the 1000 percent and needed to look at the attachments to the staff’s report. Mr. Graham referred Mr. Boyd to the draft minutes that were sent out with the materials for this meeting. It contains a sheet with a side-by-side view of current and proposed fees. At this time, Mr. Rooker moved approval of ZTA 2009-017 as recommended by the Planning Commission with an effective date of July 1, 2010, which includes the Home Occupation special use permit at a lower fee, and no fee for temporary fundraising activities. Mr. Davis said before that motion is seconded there is one clerical error on Page 5 of the Ordinance. The word “be” was dropped out of a sentence in Section J where it should read “should not be deemed to be submitted.” He asked that the clerical error be included in the motion. Mr. Dorrier asked if this proposed fee schedule represents 50 percent of the total cost or 75 percent. Mr. Graham said it is closer to 30 percent on the average – it varies from application to application. Mr. Rooker said the development community originally wanted it to be about 50 percent; the Planning Commission subsequently recommended a 75 percent recovery. The Board is now down to what would be about a 30 percent recovery. He said every outside group brought in to look at this has recommended higher fees. The County’s fees are low compared to the City of Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Greene, James City and Stafford counties. Ms. Mallek said that at the beginning of this meeting she indicated that she would allow those present in the audience today to make brief comments. She asked if the motion should be finished, or would Mr. Rooker withdraw the motion for a while to hear public comments. Mr. Rooker withdrew his motion to allow for public comments. Mr. Jack Marshall said he was representing Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP). He said in the past month or so he has spoken with some Board members individually. He was told that they wanted to keep property taxes as low as possible; those recent ly elected said the same thing in their campaigns. This is a good chance to put their vote where their promises were. Over the years the County has evolved high but realistic requirements for the kind of development wanted in the community. There is constant pressure by special interests to relax the criteria for development and rezoning activities. The County’s high standards and their conscientious enforcement have served well in Attachment D Page 8 most cases; they are one of the reasons “we’re the best place to live” i n the United States. These standards are weakened at our peril. Mr. Marshall said staff time for review of applications isn’t free. Recent recalculations of the cost of the services indicated they are considerably higher than thought. Someone has to pay for these real costs of staff reviews. The percentage of the cost that should be picked up by the applicant and the percentage to be passed to the taxpayers is the question that needs to be answered now. He said ASAP hopes the application fees will be set at 100 percent of cost recovery to be paid entirely by the applicants, with several exceptions. Fifty percent or lower of cost recovery is appropriate to family subdivisions and for a subdivision which provides affordable housing. Temporary fundra ising activities may also be lower. New residential housing does not help everyone in the community. The main beneficiaries are the ultimate homeowners, the developers, and others who make profits in building and furnishing new houses. The original staff recommendation came with the claim that “much of the cost is related to providing opportunities for public participation rather than technical review.” He said ASAP disagrees with the premise. The incentive for public participation is not the same as when citizens are at a public hearing for something like building a public library or commenting on the County’s tax rates. Those are endeavors in the public interest initiated by local government, and the cost should be borne by all taxpayers. Mr. Marshall said a request for a subdivision is a special interest initiative proposed by an entity hoping for a private benefit. The need for community oversight is created by the developer’s actions and the cost should be their responsibility, not the taxpayers. He said anything other than setting fees at 100 percent of cost recovery will pass the burden onto current residents and will be reflected in higher taxes; this is unfair, don’t ask us to pay the developer’s fee. Mr. Neil Williamson said he is with the Free Enterprise Forum. He asked what you would call an entity that puts a great deal of capital at risk to implement the community’s vision for the growth area. He calls that entity a developer and development is a risky activity and it is for profit. He then handed to the Board members sheets showing data points – the CPI has increased 57 percent since 1991 which was the last comprehensive review of these fees. He compared dollar increases between 1991 and FY 2011 and came up with a proposed increase and then subtracted the CPI to talk about the cost of complexity. The cost of complexity is what the Board has adopted and what it takes to get the job done according to these fees. He also showed market merit increases as labor is an integral part of these reviews. The market merit increases in Albemarle are 75 percent while the CPI increased 57 percent since 1991. Mr. Williamson said Mr. Graham mentioned that some of these things were not 100 percent, but there is an item shown as “deferral of a scheduled public hearing at the applicant’s request” and he hopes that is 100 percent; the applicant should be paying 100 percent of that cost. Under site plans there is administrative review and Planning Commission review. When a site plan is called up to the Commission it increases the cost to the applicant without benefit to the applicant, the benefit is to the community. He suggests there should be only one fee for that action. In addition, under matters considered by the ARB it shows a building permit that has a $590 fee. He said if the ARB can’t solve what the site plan requires, it is for the benefit of the ARB and the community and that fee should be dropped. Mr. Jay Willar said he would like to address a point made by Mr. Rooker as to whether there is a way to lower the cost of these processes. In those cases where the fee for recovery is only 10 percent of the actual cost, if that cost can be reduced the applicant benefits from 10 percent of that actual reduction and the taxpayers who are bearing the other 90 percent see a huge benefit by lowering those costs. In those cases where the balance may “be out of whack” the taxpayers are benefiting by every effort made to lower the total costs of reviewing a project. He noted words on the scre en which say: “Zoning Ordinance fees should have bi-annual review using the County’s merit increase as a basis for adjustment.” He said that to him that is saying the only thing that would be reviewed would be how much the County’s costs had increased. There is nothing in that statement that says a bi-annual review would lower costs. There being no further public comments, the matter was placed back before the Board. Attachment D Page 9 Mr. Rooker said that after following a long winding road, and after many adjustmen ts, including having outside expertise brought in to look at these fees, and having met the three criteria the Board established two years ago that the fees attempt to recover a significant part of the costs of review, and according to staff that these fees are down to about 30 percent recovery, the fees should be comparable to other localities and they are actually lower than most localities, the fees should be regularly updated in the future and there is a proposal to do that, so he will move to approve the second bullet point on the screen, i.e., approve ZTA 2009-017 as recommended by the Planning Commission with an effective date of July 1, 2010, which includes the home occupation special use permit at a lower fee, and no fee for temporary fundraising activities. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. She said due diligence has been done. It does not mean it’s over, but many of the issues have been addressed. She said there will be continual and ongoing analysis and improvements. Specifically, things need to be addressed rather than sweeping away statements. If there are particular areas that need to be addressed about the time invested and processes, that needs to be done on a separate basis from the fees. She thinks staff and the outside consultants made a good faith effort to take a good next step. The fact that it has been so many years since changes were made provides “sticker shock” to some. Overall, she thinks it will turn out well. It has been said that the value of projects always accrues to the County, and she is always grateful when good work is done, but there are also burdens when things go awry. If the County is not careful with its processes, then very expensive things go awry and that does burden the citizens. She said all but one of the comments she received have been to encourage the Board to take this step to address the fee situation. Mr. Thomas said it is his goal to make the process more efficient – that is to cut down on the 107 steps involved. He is not going to support this ordinance amendment as presented. Whatever the Board does, he thinks all the costs should be consistent. It does not matter if it is a home occupancy permit or a subdivision, it should stay consistent all the way through. He does not want to see it var y. He has heard both sides – those wanting to keep the fees as they are now, and a lot the other way. It is about 50/50. Ms. Mallek asked him to clarify what he means by keeping all the fees consistent. Mr. Thomas said a speaker suggested that the cost for a subdivision be less, but he would rather have everything stay the same. Mr. Rooker said this would allow for continual small increases in fees as opposed to waiting for 20 years and trying to do what the Board is doing today. He said a vo te not to put this in place is a vote to leave fees where they were 20 years ago. Mr. Snow said there’s no in between, and that’s the part he disagrees with. He does not think the County needs to take the whole chunk at one time if there is a chance to go back and reevaluate some of the points made. He thinks the Board should be able to do it at a half rate until somebody can go back and verify some points made. To proceed with 100 percent without evaluating some things forces him to vote against it. Mr. Rooker said it is not being done at 100 percent. This is 30 percent. Mr. Snow asked “this is 30 percent of what?” Mr. Rooker said that probably $50,000 has been spent at the Board’s request studying how to best do these fees. It is an art, it is not a science. There have been two sets of outside people come in to look at the existing fee schedule and make recommendations; their recommendations were for substantially higher fees than what is being put forward today. The Board has adjusted th e fees way down from where the recommendations were. He said a vote against this is to say that in Albemarle County the fees should be less than what they are in comparable communities around the state. The Board has done what Mr. Snow just said, and that’s how it got where it is. The Planning Commission recommended a 75 percent across-the-board cost recovery system; the Board did not do that. Attachment D Page 10 Mr. Snow said he thinks there are steps and inefficiencies built into the system that could be addressed. Mr. Rooker said that is a never-ending process. A company was brought in to do an efficiency study and that included the Community Development Department. They made recommendations and those recommendations are in the process of being adopted. The Board created a committee to do just what Mr. Snow said and that committee made recommendations and that report is included in the Board’s materials today. That does not mean that fees should never be adjusted. Even ATTA came in and spoke a year and a half ago saying the County should go to a higher cost recovery than being considered today because the cost is falling on taxpayers. Ms. Mallek said many people have said to her that the County should be more on a fee for service basis. That is what the Board is trying to achieve here. Mr. Davis said there is one issue that hasn’t been talked about today that relates to what Mr. Thomas brought up earlier, and to Mr. Snow’s comments, that drives efficiency in these fees - in this system there is the base fee. Then there is a fee for re-submittals and deferrals. From his experience it is those two items that add inefficiency to the process, extends the time of the reviews, and makes them more costly. This fee system, by design, is trying to get people to b e responsive to the ordinance, and for staff to be responsive to the ordinance as well early in the process so that there are not multiple re - submittals and deferrals. This fee system recognizes the need for efficiencies and requires people to pay for inefficiencies, which he thinks will make people more attentive to the system and to the requirements. Whether it will work he does not know, but that was a piece of this that may have gotten lost in the discussion. Mr. Snow said he agrees. He thinks it would provide an incentive for a developer or a builder. However, what is the incentive for staff? Mr. Boyd said many people have told him the re-submittals are caused by the inefficiencies of County staff not identifying all the things required the first time it was submitted. Ms. Mallek said the second layer of questions relate to the changes applicants make. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are time limits set on the reviews. It costs developers more when it goes on and on. They have interest payments to make and that is a cost of development. Ms. Mallek asked that Mr. Graham explain the calendar – she asked if 90 days is statutory. Mr. Graham said there are statutory calendars. One of the department’s key performance indicators (which the Board saw in the budget process last year), concerns the percentage of applications which meet the internal deadline for getting comments. For example, for a rezoning special use permit, from date of application the department gets comments back in 45 days. In the last year and a half that has been at 100 percent. He said that most requests for a Home Occupation-Class A are same-day reviews. For most signs, other than ARB signs, it is a simple, quick review. All of this has been looked at, but staff is willing to look at it again. It was found that staff did a pretty good job on most of these things. He said for legislative matters (rezonings and special permits), it is a question of how many times the request will be looked at by the Planning Commission and/or the Board. It is not the cost of the staff review in the initial application. When it gets into the discretionary decision by the bodies that is where the time and the cost are involved. Ms. Mallek said every time the evaluation goes back to the applicant, the clock stops while they have time to do their homework. Even though the original application may have been made weeks, months or years ago, if economic reasons cause it to stop, people will still say “I applied in February of 2005 and I am still not approved.” That is probably because it has been out of the process. She said statutory limits would not have allowed that to happen. She said there is much more to the issue of timeframes than is quickly related. Attachment D Page 11 Mr. Dorrier said if this Board causes a developer to keep coming back, he is paying interest on the money he has tied up in his development. Ms. Mallek said projects are not denied when they do not meet application requirements. If they were denied they would have to pay another $1,250 when they came back with a whole new plan. She said for the past ten years staff has tried to be accommodating, and the Board allows a lot of revisits to do a favor for the applicant. Perhaps the more harsh way would be to require that they m eet the rules or just say “no” and start all over again. That would really bring the attention of the applicant to the importance of meeting the requirements. She thinks people now think they can come in and negotiate and they will not have to do the high performance job required by County regulations. That is the answer on the calendar. At this time, Mr. Boyd called the question. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker. NAYS: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Boyd. __________ Mr. Davis asked if it is the intent of the Board that this matter is now ended. This is a denial of the Zoning Text Amendment and in order for it to be brought back to the Board, if the Board wants additional work, it would require a new resolution of intent, a new public hearing by the Planning Commission, and a new public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rooker said he is opposed to that simply because the Board has spent a fortune g etting to where it is today. The Board has decided today that these costs should be borne by the taxpayers rather than the applicants. That is fine, but he will not support spending another $25,000. When the Board talks about inefficient processes, this has been an inefficient process because the Board has picked at it, and picked at it, and picked at it, and changed the process in mid-term, etc. “Now we are where we are today and staff meets the criterion that was set out by the Board, and we voted it down.” He said to just leave it alone, and not go back and spend another $25,000 of staff time to get to something that the Board is not going to approve. Mr. Snow said he understands this is required of developers all the time by telling them their plans won’t work, so go back and get it right. He does agree with that. He does not agree with Mr. Rooker saying the Board is screwing up by not adopting this ordinance. He, personally, does not think the ordinance amendment is right, so should not be adopted. Mr. Rooker asked why Mr. Snow did not make some specific recommendations for changes he thought should be made in this ordinance before today. Mr. Snow said he was not a member of the Board then – he wasn’t here. Mr. Rooker said this has been in front of the Board for two months, and Mr. Snow was present at the Board’s public hearing in December when the Board decided to defer action on the ordinance. He has had two months to look at it. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis if there is a way for this issue to be revisited without having to go through the entire process again. He thinks there is a settlement that can be reached by the Board, but it just cannot be done today. Ms. Mallek said she has asked for years that when people have complaints they have specific things to address. The only way progress can be made is with specific items to address. Attachment D Page 12 Mr. Thomas said specifically he has problems with efficiencies and he has talked directly to staff about them. He does know that the previous Board went through the efficiency report thoroughly. He would like to look at the efficiencies in the 107-step application process. Ms. Mallek said that is not 107 steps, it is a list of questions an applicant needs to get the information for - it is a checklist. Mr. Rooker said most of those things are done by staff. If you read through those 107 questions, they are not applicant questions, but staff questions. He said Mr. Thomas keeps bringing that up, but they are staff questions. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to see Mr. Neil Williamson’s comments addressed regarding the final site plan and the Planning Commission review. Mr. Boyd said he would like to take exception to Mr. Rooker’s point. His vote was not that the taxpayers should bear the burden of the cost, but he is not happy with the numbers that have been put before the Board and that is all it is about. Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd has had all of this information for over two years. What specific recommendations has he made that didn’t get incorporated? Mr. Boyd said his question is taking a hard look at the cost of doing business. It has been recommended that the County raise its development fees and he is not convinced the cost of doing business has been looked at efficiently. That is why he asked Mr. Davis if there is a way to do this without having to go back to the beginning. Mr. Rooker asked what specific efficiencies Mr. Boyd recommends to study further. He said the Development Review Task Force was created for that purpose, and Mr. Boyd was a member. An outside efficiency expert company was brought in to look at this. A company which knows about fees of this sort was brought in to make recommendations. What further step does he recommend? “Efficiency” is a generalization unless it gets down to specifics. What additional specific does Mr. Boyd recommend? Mr. Boyd said that in all of the studies Mr. Rooker mentioned cost was looked at and then whether or not the cost was being recovered. The efficiency of the work involved was not studied. He was on the Task Force and they did not look at that question. He said Mr. Graham said earlier that the consultants said the Department’s work was comparable to what other jurisdictions do so they did not question the steps and processes staff uses. He cannot say that any other government agency or government authority does a better or worse job than Albemarle. He is more concerned about what Albemarle does and why. Mr. Rooker again asked Mr. Boyd what he would recommend to accomplish what he wants. Mr. Boyd said he would like to have a report indicating why it takes 67 hours to do a Home Occupation-Class B, and why it is necessary. He wants an analysis of the costs. He would like to see that same thing done for each fee. That information has not been in any report presented to the Board so far. He has only seen information showing the amount of time used, and the cost of that, and that 50 percent of the cost should be recovered. He has not seen a report saying it cos ts “x” because of “x”. If the answer is that the Board of Supervisors’ regulations require it, or regulatory requirements and policies require it, that is okay, but he has not seen that in written form. If he had seen such a report, he could go along with this. So, he is back to his original question to Mr. Davis. Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that later today the Board will be talking about the Community Development Department’s Work Program. He said if the Board gets to the point that it decides it wants to evaluate processes and ordinances and make changes in how staff does reviews, it certainly will have an impact on the analysis that Mr. Boyd requested. It might be useful to review some ordinances which would then change expectations on hours required for review, and so forth. Depending Attachment D Page 13 on where the Board wants to proceed with development review processes, there are things such as putting a notice out to notify all of the neighborhood as opposed to just the adjoining property owners and that drives the cost and time spent on an application. Those things could have a big impact on the analysis Mr. Boyd is asking for. Mr. Boyd said he did not mean that staff should go through every item on the list and justify the cost involved. Staff might pick three or more different categories and explain the work process (including things such as regulatory requirements, Board policies, or required transportation studies, etc.), and the work results of that thought process. Mr. Foley said the vast majority of the process is responding to adopted ordinances. Those may be subject to change, so that would affect the whole analysis. Ms. Mallek suggested postponing this whole discussion until later today when the Board discusses that work program. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Foley is just suggesting that may be the time to address it. The Board may need to move some agenda items to allow time for that discussion. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis again if there is a way around this. Mr. Davis said t hat normally when a motion to approve a zoning text amendment fails, that is the end of consideration of that amendment without some further action by the Board. If it is the intent of the Board to have further consideration of the ZTA, he would suggest that a motion be made to defer consideration of it to a future time for additional information and further consideration so it is clear that this matter is not ended. Ms. Mallek asked if the Board needs to rescind its previous vote. Mr. Rooker said the Board does not need to rescind its vote, because a vote not to adopt the ordinance is not a vote to deny it. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Mr. Rooker said action can be deferred on this ordinance. If it is brought back he doesn’t want to spend another year on it. He is upset because the Board has been involved with this for over two years. They have taken every recommendation received along the way and tried to incorporate it into the information being brought forth. He does not object to doing that because he thinks the County should be as efficient as possible. He does not want to throw good money after bad because a lot of time, effort and money were spent on this ordinance amendment. He wants to know there is a plan to get whatever additional information those voting against it need. Mr. Boyd, Mr. Snow, and Mr. Thomas all agreed with Mr. Rooker’s statement. At this point, Mr. Boyd then moved to defer action on this ordinance change until staff brings back additional information. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Rooker said he hopes the Board can get reasonably concrete with staff about what the Board expects of them. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd. NAYS: None. _______________ Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Draft: 11/11/09 1 ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, 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 IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending and Renumbering: Sec. 35.01 Fees By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming: Sec. 35.12 Fee reduction Calculation of fees in special circumstances By Adding: Sec. 35.3 Fee refunds Chapter 18. Zoning Article IV. Procedure Sec. 35.01 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 required by this section 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 a non-conforming 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. 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: Draft: 11/11/09 2 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: 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. Draft: 11/11/09 3 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. 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. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant: a. Zoning text amendments: $1000.00 b. Zoning map amendments: 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500.00 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250.00 Draft: 11/11/09 4 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500.00 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750.00 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00 c. Special use permits: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation Class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission: $1000.00 2. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit; each additional resubmission: $500.00 3. Signs reviewed by the board of zoning appeals: See subsection 35.1(f) 4. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission: $2000.00 5. All other special use permits; each additional resubmission: $1000.00 6. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00 d. Site plans: 1. Preliminary site plans; administrative review: $1200.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure 2. Preliminary site plans; planning commission review: $1800.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit and $0.015 per square foot of nonresidential structure 3. Final site plans; administrative review: $1500.00 4. Final site plans; planning commission review: $2000.00 5. Waiver of drawing of site plan under section 32.2: $1500.00 6. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.8 ¶2 (minor): $500.00 7. All other site plan amendments (major): $1500.00 8. Appeals to the board of supervisors under section 32.4.2.7: $240.00 9. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.1: $240.00 10. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.4: $80.00 11. Extension of period of validity: $475.00 12. Inspections pertaining to secured site plan improvements; per inspection: $280.00 13. Deferral of scheduled public meeting at applicant’s request: $180.00 e. Certificates of appropriateness considered by the architectural review board (“ARB”): 1. For a site plan; per review by the ARB: $1000.00 2. For a building permit; per review by the ARB: $590.00 3. Amendment to approved certificate of appropriateness: $225.00 f. Matters considered by the board of zoning appeals: 1. Variances: $500.00 2. Appeals: $240.00 3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $500.00 g Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials: 1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00 2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00 3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00 4. Zoning clearance for home occupation, class A: $25.00 5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee 6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00 7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00 8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00 h. Groundwater assessments: Draft: 11/11/09 5 1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00 2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510.00 3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1100.00 i. Miscellaneous: 1. Change in name of development or change in name of street: $80.00 2. Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements: $425.00 3. Tier II personal wireless service facilities: $1820.00 j. Required notice: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage. 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage. 3. Published notice: actual cost 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 submitted and shall not be processed. (Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92) Sec. 35.12 Fee reduction Calculation of fees in special circumstances (Added effective 1-1-94) The provisions of 35.01 notwithstanding, fees shall be reduced under the following circumstances the required fee shall be calculated in the special circumstances below as follows: a. In such case in which a preliminary site development plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat is filed as supportive of and to be reviewed simultaneously with an application for zoning map amendment and/or special use permit, no fee shall be applied for review of such preliminary site development plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat. If a preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat is supportive of and will be reviewed simultaneously with an application for a zoning map amendment or a special use permit, the applicant shall pay the fee for the zoning map amendment or the special use permit, but not the fee for the preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat. b. In such case in which multiple special use permits are required by operation of this ordinance to establish an individual use, the largest single fee shall be applied to the review of all such special use permit applications. If multiple special use permits are required to establish a single use, the applicant shall pay only the largest single fee for a special use permit for the review of all of the special use permit applications. c. In such case in which determination is made subsequent to filing any application under 35.0 that such application is not required to allow establishment of the use, such application fee shall be refunded in full. (Added effective 1-1-94) (§ 35.0, 12-10-80; 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; * to be effective 1-1- 94; Ord. 02-18(4), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-18(3), 10-13-04; Ord. 04-18(4), adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 35.3 Fee refunds If the zoning administrator determines after a fee required by section 35.1 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. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2010. Draft: 11/11/09 6 I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Slutzky ____ ____ Ms. Thomas ____ ____ Idealized Rezoning ApplicationAttachment FItem Cumulative Item 50% Reduction Cumulative % TotalAdmin Planner Engineer Director Attorney Legal AdDateDaysDaysCostStaff ReviewCostCostHoursRateSubtotalHoursRateSubtotalHoursRateSubtotalHoursRateSubtotalHoursRateSubtotalApplication Submitted5-Jan-1001. Application Processed8-Jan-10 3 4 $100 $100 $100 2% 2 $25 $50 1 $50 $502. Staff Review 29-Jan-10 21 25 $1,730 $865 $1,830 39% 0 $25 $0 24 $50 $1,200 8 $55 $440 1 $90 $90 0 $90 $03. Staff Report 9-Feb-10 11 36 $490 $490 $2,320 11% 0 $25 $0 8 $50 $400 0 $55 $0 1 $90 $90 0 $90 $04. PC Public Hearing16-Feb-10 7 43 $1,045 $1,045 $3,365 24% 1 $25 $25 4 $50 $200 2 $55$110 1 $90 $90 3 $90 $270 $3505. Board Public Hearing9-Mar-102164$1,060$1,060$4,42524%2$25$502$50$1002$55$1101$90$904$90$360$350$4,425 $3,560$125 $1,950 $660 $360 $630 $7003%44%15%8%14%16%Ideal Application AssumptionsSalary Rate Example, Planner1. Application processed - verify completed application, signatures, set up files and assign 52 weeks/ year x 40 hours /week =2080 hours / year2. Staff review completed - Complete review, but no significant issues identifiedLess Vacation, Sick, Holidays=1840 (3 weeks vacation, 5 days sick, 10 holidays)3. Staff Report - report drafted, QC'd, no additional issues identifiedNet Work Hours 1660( administrative, training, etc. estimated @ 10% of office hours)4. PC Public Hearing - Legal Advertisement, answer questions, attend meeting5. Board Public Hearing - Legal Advertisement, answer questions, proffer issues, attend meetingEmployees Salary$56,000 (Average planner salary rate)Cost w/ Benefits$75,600 (Health Ins, Retirement, FICA, etc)This type of application assumes an applicant who does what is needed and there are noTotal Cost w/ Overhead$83,160 (@ 10% of Employee Cost)issues with any aspect of this application (e.g. transportation, drainage, neighbors)Hourly Rate = Total Cost / Work Hours = $66,400 /1,660 hrs = $50 / hour$4,000$4,500Rezoning Application Costs5. Board Public Hearing$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500Ideal Application Ideal Application with Reduced Staff ReviewRezoning Application Costs5. Board Public Hearing4. PC Public Hearing3. Staff Report 2. Staff Review 1. Application ProcessedApplication Submitted Attachment G3040506070$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500$5,000Cumulative Days from SubmissionCumulative CostIdeal Rezoning Time and CostsCumulative CostCumulative Days01020$0$500$1,000$1,500Application Submitted1. Application Processed2. Staff Review 3. Staff Report 4. PC Public Hearing5. Board Public HearingCumulative Days from Submission 1.52.02.53.0Years, Original Submission to Approval DateZMAs Approved Jan2005-March2010Arranged by Original Submittal DateF Recommendations ApprovedTrendline, Best Fit Curve0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0North PointRivanna VillageCascadiaWoodbrook StationFontaine Ave TownhomesMonticello HistoricBelvedereJefferson HeightsCharlottesville Power EquipLuxor CommercialMountain Valley FarmBriarwoodGlenwood StationWickham PondFontana 4CFlood HazardDelta KappaTreesdaleOld TrailNorthern Fire-RescueUniv Foundation-North ForkAirport Impact OverlayLiberty HallClevester LoganHaden PlacePantops ParkBriarwoodWachovia, Rio RdSandridgeInn at MonticelloPoplar Glen, Phase 2Hollymead Town, A1ARB-East Rio RdBiscuit RunWickham Pond, 2Westhall, Phase VACSA -CrozetAvinityHollymead Town, BAvon / South 5th CHO -Pleasant GroveWhittington PRDUniv Foundation-Adv ResearchProf Office Bldg-HydraulicLivengoodLeakeBuck Mtn PRDForest RidgeWillow GlenAvemore CommercialHollymead Town, A2Timberwood CommonsNGIC ExpansionOakleighAvon Park IIThre Notch'd CenterPattersonBlue Ridge CoHousingLiberty HallDTG-Dickerson RdWatkins, CrozetInnovative ConstMontaltoWavertree HallNGIC ExpansionOld Trail, Block 2ATNA BuildingNorth HillYears, Original Submission to Approval DateZMAs Approved Jan2005-March2010Arranged by Original Submittal DateDRPTF Recommendations ApprovedTrendline, Best Fit Curve0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0North PointRivanna VillageCascadiaWoodbrook StationFontaine Ave TownhomesMonticello HistoricBelvedereJefferson HeightsCharlottesville Power EquipLuxor CommercialMountain Valley FarmBriarwoodGlenwood StationWickham PondFontana 4CFlood HazardDelta KappaTreesdaleOld TrailNorthern Fire-RescueUniv Foundation-North ForkAirport Impact OverlayLiberty HallClevester LoganHaden PlacePantops ParkBriarwoodWachovia, Rio RdSandridgeInn at MonticelloPoplar Glen, Phase 2Hollymead Town, A1ARB-East Rio RdBiscuit RunWickham Pond, 2Westhall, Phase VACSA -CrozetAvinityHollymead Town, BAvon / South 5th CHO -Pleasant GroveWhittington PRDUniv Foundation-Adv ResearchProf Office Bldg-HydraulicLivengoodLeakeBuck Mtn PRDForest RidgeWillow GlenAvemore CommercialHollymead Town, A2Timberwood CommonsNGIC ExpansionOakleighAvon Park IIThre Notch'd CenterPattersonBlue Ridge CoHousingLiberty HallDTG-Dickerson RdWatkins, CrozetInnovative ConstMontaltoWavertree HallNGIC ExpansionOld Trail, Block 2ATNA BuildingNorth HillYears, Original Submission to Approval DateProject, Arranged by Original Date of SubmissionZMAs Approved Jan2005-March2010Arranged by Original Submittal DateDRPTF Recommendations ApprovedTrendline, Best Fit Curve North Pointe5001000150020002500$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000Cumulative DaysCumulative CostsCumulative CostsCumulative DaysApplicantDeferralPCApplicant DeferralBoardPlanning CommissionBoardBoard05001000150020002500$0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000Cumulative DaysCumulative CostsCumulative CostsCumulative DaysApplicantDeferralPCApplicant DeferralBoardPlanning CommissionStaffBoardBoard COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Fees – ZTA 2009-017 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission Worksession to review Board Direction on Zoning Ordinance Fees STAFF CONTACT(S): Mark Graham AGENDA DATE: October 7, 2009 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work session is to review the County Board of Supervisor’s (Board) direction on staff recommended changes to Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) fees prior to a Planning Commission public hearing. Proposed changes to fees in the Zoning Ordinance were discussed with the Board at an August 5th worksession and a Resolution of Intent to amend these fees was adopted by the Board on September 2nd. The August 5th report to the Board and Resolution of Intent are attached. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Fund the County’s Future Needs. DISCUSSION: At the August 5th Board worksession, staff provided several attachments to help understand the issues with the fees. Those include: Attachment B provides a comparison of the current fees and County costs associated with each item. As noted, many of the fees represent a very small percentage of the costs. Attachment C provides a comparison of staff’s proposed fees and the Fee Study’s recommendation. This also includes new fees recommended by the Fee Study or as a result of staff’s analysis. Attachment D provides a comparison of current fees, staff’s proposed fees, and fees imposed by several other localities for certain services. For consistency, staff has used the same localities as previously used when Subdivision Ordinance fees were considered. Attachment E provides an estimate of revenues generated from current fees. Attachment F provides an estimate of revenues generated from staff’s proposed fees. As noted at the August 5th worksession, there were several fees considerations where the proposed fees differed from those initially recommended in the fee study. Those included: 1. Special Use Permits (SPs) - In considering SPs, staff determined it was appropriate to simplify the fee structure into two groups. Minor SPs, which are those uses listed under a.1. and Major SPs, which are all other special permit uses listed under a.2. In addition, staff determined it was appropriate to recognize that many SPs do not require numerous reviews. As such, staff recommends a base fee, which includes the submission and resubmission to address comments, then a separate fee for those complex applications that require multiple resubmissions. Attachment D shows these fees would be lower in some circumstances and higher in others. Overall, staff believes they are comparable. 2. Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs) – Staff used a similar approach for ZMAs to that for SPs, recognizing that both larger and more complex applications will involve a higher cost to the County. Attachment D shows the very wide range of fees for these applications. In considering these fees, staff determined that it would be more appropriate to charge on a per review basis rather than trying to estimate the average number of reviews and charging everyone the same. Applicants who view a submittal as a negotiation point can still make a number of submittals, but the County will recover the costs of the additional reviews necessitated by this approach. 3. Appeals – Under the Board of Zoning Appeals and Final Site Plan fees, staff has listed fees associated with appeals. Staff is recommending a much lower fee recovery than proposed in the Fee Study. After consulting with the County Attorney, staff believes there may be due process issues associated with these fees and those fees should reflect the administrative cost of processing the application, but not any of the costs associated with reviewing or preparing staff reports for those applications. Costs associated with required advertising would be handled separately as a new fee. 4. Notices and Advertisements – Staff has included new fees for both required notifications and advertisements. The recommended fee for notifications is identical to that recently adopted in the Subdivision Ordinance. For required legal advertisements, staff is recommending the County recover the actual cost of advertising the application. While those advertisement costs can vary a little, they appear to average around $200-$250 each time the advertisement runs in the newspaper. As such, if an application requires two notices for the Planning Commission public hearing and two for the Board of Supervisors public hearing, the cost of advertising is in the range of $800 to $1,000. If an applicant chooses to request deferral after an advertisement has run, the applicant would be responsible for the additional advertising cost. 5. Architectural Review Board - These are also new fees proposed by staff. With respect to revisions to a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Appropriateness required for a building permit, staff concurs with the Fees Study’s recommended fee. With respect to Site Plan reviews, staff has simplified the fee structure to include only reviews requested by an applicant or required for a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff’s recommended fee is a compilation of several fees in the Fee Study, but lower than the Study’s recommendation. The staff-recommended fee reflects staff’s assessment of costs for these reviews and recently proposed changes that staff believes will lower review costs. BUDGET IMPACTS: Budget impacts were discussed in the August 5th Executive Summary. No changes or additional information are included at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: The purpose of this worksession is to review the Board’s direction in advance of a proposed November 10, 2009 public hearing. ATTACHMENTS August 5, 2009 Board Executive Summary, with attachments September 2, 2009 Resolution of Intent to amend Zoning Ordinance Fees Return to exec summary County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: August 4, 2010 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were received as follows: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy. Application deadline is August 18, 2010. Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: Two vacancies. Application deadline is August 18, 2010. Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy. John Donohue Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. John Chavan Region Ten Community Services Board: Application deadline is August 18, 2010. Route 250 West Task Force: One vacancy. Frank Calhoun James Sofka The following reappointments require action by the Board: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: Rob Farrell Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: Terry Rephann Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: Michael Peoples 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 Yes 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 No Advertised ACE Committee Richard Keeling 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Yes Action Required Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Morgan Butler 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible Advertised Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Jamie Spence 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible Advertised Historic Preservation Committee Judd Bankert 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 No No Action Required, to be advertised Jail Authority Donald Beyers 7/11/2010 7/11/2013 Eligible No Action Required Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Patricia Stevenson 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 No Advertised, 1 Recv'd Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Michael Peoples 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Yes Action Required Pantops Community Advisory Council Andrew Dracopoli TBD Resigned Advertised, 1 Recv'd Region Ten Community Services Board Barbara Barrett 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Ineligible Advertised, no applications recv'd Route 250 West Task Force Eric Bryerton 4/4/2010 4/4/2013 No No Action required, 2 Recv'd Revised 07/29/10 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 7, 2010 Chris Kabbash PO Box 496 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: SP200900030 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5 Dear Mr. Kabbash: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 22, 2010, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no outside exercise area. 2. No animals are to be confined outside. 3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday – Thursday: 5:30 P.M. - 9:00 A.M.; 5:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 A.M. Monday; The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M. Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialty Veterinary Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. 5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall accept animals only on an emergency basis; 6. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation as specified above in Condition number 4. 7. Industrial Waste Survey Form to be submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority and approved prior to commencement of veterinary activities. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 4, 2010. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division Cc: Tripp Stewart 843 Locust Ave. Charlottesville, Va 22902 Greenbrier Drive LLC 416 East Main St Suite 301b Charlottesville Va 22902 File POLICY SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline. If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy. Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing. This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Proposal: SP 2009 -030 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 22, 2010 Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined. Owners: Greenbrier Drive, LLC Applicant: Tripp Stewart/Tripp VMD, LLC represented by Chris Kabbash Acreage: Approximately 1.98 acres Special Use Permit for: Veterinary office and hospital in HC Highway Commercial district TMP: TM: 61W, Section 1, Block A, P: 5 Location: 370 Greenbrier Drive. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail) (Attachments A & B) By-right use: Commercial establishments oriented to highway locations. The existing special use permit allows for a veterinary hospital use. Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes EC: Yes Proposal: To amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand space within the existing building on the site. Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0 DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1 Comp. Plan Designation: Community Service – community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) Character of Property: The property is developed with office, warehouse space and related parking located on it. Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding properties are primarily commercial uses, including restaurants, convenience store and a church. Factors Favorable: 1. The special use permit is consistent with the Land Use Plan. 2. The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the expansion of veterinary services in the Development Area. Factors Unfavorable: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-030 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital with revisions to the originally approved conditions. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 2 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: June 22, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined SP2009-030: Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital Petition: PROJECT: SP200900030/Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand the space in the existing building on the site. No residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and primarily HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and hospital uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio Character of the Area and Adjoining properties: The subject property lies at 370 Greenbrier Dr., approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail). The property has split zoning of C-1 and HC, commercial. In both districts, veterinary clinics are allowed by special use permit only. Two buildings are located on the property, which include uses that provide building supply and paint. Other uses located on the property include an Internet café/store, a laundry mat, Girl Scouts office, roofing company and Jiffy Lube. See Attachment A for the Zoning Map, including the location of the existing veterinary clinic and Attachment B for the Location Map. The surrounding area consists of commercial development. Specifics of Proposal: The applicant is requesting to extend the currently allowed overnight business hours of the existing animal hospital to also include daytime business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. The animal hospital currently provides an overnight emergency clinic. The applicant wishes to also provide a daytime specialty veterinary clinic that would be unique to the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and increase the options for pet care in the area. In order to be able to provide this service, the applicant proposes to use an additional 2,625 square feet of vacant adjacent warehouse space. (See Attachment C) The possible specialty services could include acupuncture, ophthalmology, neurology or other therapeutic veterinary techniques. Applicant’s Justification for the Request: The applicant currently operates the existing emergency animal clinic. The applicant states that specialty services for animals are not located in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and that residents often travel to the Richmond area for services such as acupuncture, ophthalmology and neurology. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 3 Planning and Zoning History: January 13, 1984 – Planning Commission approved Pargo’s Restaurant and Office Condominium site plan. SDP 1983-045 – Pargo’s Restaurant site plan – indefinitely deferred. February 14, 1985 – Planning Commission recommended denial of ZMA 84-32, which was a rezoning request from C-1 to HC with proffers, stating that scope and possibilities of uses was too broad. February 20, 1985 – Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 84-32. This action rezoned the property from C-1 to HC with proffers. June 11, 1985 – Planning Commission approved Greenbrier Park site plan. SDP 1985-030 – Greenbrier Park site plan July 30, 1985 – Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA 85-18 which amended the previous rezoning to allow Motels, and approved Super 8 Motel site plan. SDP 1985-033 – Super 8 Motel site plan August 7, 1985 – Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 85-18. This added hotels, motels, and inns as an allowed use for a portion of the site (Proffered). March 21, 1990 – Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 90-01 which added Fast Food Restaurant to the list of allowed uses (Proffered). November 7, 1990 – Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 90-15 which permitted churches. October 1, 1991 – The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA 91-06, a request to rezone the property to C-1, Commercial (Proffered) and HC, Highway Commercial (Proffered). November 20, 1991 – The Board of Supervisors approved SP 91-52 a request for an emergency veterinary office. SDP 2003-003 – Greenbrier Square Minor Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Community Service in Neighborhood One (1). The Comprehensive Plan supports community scale business uses, such as veterinary office/hospital in areas designated Community Service. The site will not be used for residential purposes. An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this project since it is an existing development and does not propose re-development. It is an expansion of an existing use at the site. Staff Comment: Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? There is no record of impacts to adjacent property from the animal hospital that has operated at this location for a number of years. No detriment to adjoining properties is anticipated from the requested expanded use because all veterinarian activities will continue to be inside the building. Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 4 Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the district has not been changed by the existing animal hospital and it is not anticipated that the character will change with the expansion of hours and space of the existing use. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The HC zoning district is intended for commercial uses oriented to the highway. Veterinary offices/hospitals are allowed by special use permit in this district. The veterinary office/hospital is viewed as a use supportive to Albemarle County residents who will predominantly arrive by vehicle. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Section 24.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Highway Commercial, HC, allows a variety of commercial uses by-right as well as those that are permitted by special use permit. Veterinary office and hospital are permitted by special use permit in HC districts. The existing animal hospital has operated in harmony with by-right uses at this location for a number of years. The proposed new hours of business will be by appointment only and will have the same staffing requirements as the current overnight clinic. The existing assigned parking spaces will be adequate for the additional operating hours so traffic and parking associated with this expanded use should not detrimentally affect by-right uses. The proposed expansion of the veterinary office/hospital use continues to be compatible with the other permitted uses in this district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? Section 5.1.11 is applicable to the proposed animal hospital use and each regulation is addressed below: a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89) Animals will be confined to the soundproofed, air-conditioned building. b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00) There are no residential lot lines located closer than two hundred (200) feet and noise at the nearest residential lot line is not expected to exceed fifty-five (55) decibels due to the distance and sound proofed confinement. c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00) The applicant has indicated that this requirement will be met and that there will be no outdoor activity for these animals during these hours or any other business hours. d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89) Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 5 -Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts ;( Added 11-15-89) -Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means. (Added 11-15-89) The animal hospital currently has its’ own separate building entrance and is located in an end unit of the building with over 40 feet in any direction to the next occupied space. This entrance will continue to be used for the expanded adjacent space. There will be no outside exercise area because the specialty service will be by appointment only and the veterinary hospital is an emergency based service that returns animals to their primary care provider by the next business day. Animals will not be kenneled or stay for prolonged service at this facility. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community will be protected through the special use permit conditions that specifically address this use at this location. There is no safety concern with the proposed veterinary services clinic use. Summary: Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request: 1. The special use permit is consistent with the Land Use Plan. 2. The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the expansion of veterinary services in the Development Area. Staff finds no factor(s) unfavorable to this request. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital with the following revisions to the originally approved conditions. 1. There shall be no outside exercise area. 2. No animals are to be confined outside. 3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to: Monday – Thursday: 5:30 P.M. - 9:00 A.M.; 5:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 A.M. Monday; The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M. Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialty Veterinary Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. 5. There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall accept animals only on an emergency basis; 6. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation as specified above in Condition number 4. 7. Industrial Waste Survey Form to be submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority and approved prior to commencement of veterinary activities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Zoning Map Attachment B – Vicinity Map Attachment C – Survey by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, L.L.C. Attachment D – SP 91-52 Greenbrier Limited Partnership Staff Report Attachment E – Planning Commission minutes, dated October 15, 1991 Return to actions letter Albemarle County Planning Commission June 22, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, June 22, 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, Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Chairman; Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Linda Porterfield was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Mark Graham, Director of Community 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. Public Hearing Items SP-2009-00030 Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital (Sign # 25) PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand the space in the existing building on the site. No residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and primarily HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: Sections 22.2.2.5 and 24.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary office and hospital uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 370 Greenbrier Dr. Approximately 675 feet west of the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 (Seminole Trail) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The applicant requests to amend SP-91-52 to extend veterinary services clinic hours and expand space within the existing building on the site. The property is zoned Highway Commercial. There is currently an existing animal hospital located on this site, which operates from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. The applicant wishes to extend business hours to the day time hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in order to provide specialty veterinary care. The applicant is proposing to use an additional 2,625 square feet of vacant adjacent warehouse space. Favorable factors: • The special use permit is consistent with the Land Use Plan. • The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the expansion of veterinary services in the Development Area. Staff finds no factors unfavorable. Recommendation: • Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital subject to the revised conditions in the staff report. The primary changes to the conditions relate to the hours of operation for each of the businesses. Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant invited to address the Planning Commission. Tripp Stewart and Chris Kabbash, of Trip VMD, LLC, represented the request. Mr. Stewart pointed out the idea is to possibly expand their veterinary services to spec ialty services, which are not currently offered in Albemarle County or Charlottesville. They currently operate only on nights and weekends. The idea is to potentially operate during the day. Mr. Loach asked if it would be for a 24-hour period at times. Mr. Stewart replied that it will be open for 24 hours, but not necessarily in the same hospital. The animals will strictly be seen on an appointment basis during the day for a specialty service, but at night they will continue to operate as an emergenc y service. The idea is not to have the two connected. Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for action. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion for approval of SP-2009-00030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 1. There shall be no outside exercise area. 2. No animals are to be confined outside. 3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive. 4. The hours of operation for the Emergency Clinic shall be between 5:30 P.M. each Monday through Thursday and 9:00 A.M. the following day; between 5:30 P.M. Friday and 9:00 A.M. Monday; and all day each federal holiday. The days and hours of operation for the Specialt y Veterinarian Clinic shall be between 9:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. 5. Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation as specified above in Condition number 4. The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00030, Greenbrier Emergency Animal Hospital, would go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. Return to PC actions letter ZMA 2008-003 BOS August 4, 2010 Executive Summary Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2008-03 Albemarle Place SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district to Neighborhood Model (NMD) and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers and Code of Development. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: August 4, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Albemarle Place rezoning request. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA-2008-0003 provided that the outstanding issues regarding the proffers and Code of Development (See Exhibit A - Staff Report, dated June 22, 2010, (Attachment III)) are clarified and that requests by the City are addressed before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. Also, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage based upon the findings in the staff report, dated June 22, 2010. (See Action Letter) DISCUSSION: During the Planning Commission public hearing, the City made the following requests: regarding Proffer 14, the City requested the initial deadline be extended from 36 months to 60 months for completion of improvements. Proffer 14 has been revised to keep the 36 month deadline but to allow the deadline to be extended upon agreement between the City and County. The City also requested that Proffer 5 be renamed and that the funds for a Jitney Service as described in Proffer 5 be revised to be used to partially cover annual operating and maintenance costs of the existing transit service to Albemarle Place. The Jitney Service still remains in the proffer because the applicant does not want to preclude the potential for this service. However, this proffer has been revised to provide a $7,000.00 annual contribution to Charlottesville Area Transit for a period not to exceed 5 years should a Jitney Service not be placed into operation by the date of issuance of the first occupancy permit for a commercial building in Albemarle Place. The key amendments to the proposed proffers are as follows: (1) Proffer 1 would be amended to provide for the development of Albemarle Place in two phases, would specify which blocks and corresponding infrastructure within the project would be installed with each phase, and would require the completion of the two segments of Albemarle Place Boulevard and associated improvements before specific construction thresholds were surpassed; (2) Proffer 5 currently requires the Owner to contribute $20,000 per year for 5 years if jitney service along Route 29 is started by the latter of January 1, 2007 or the first certificate of occupancy, whichever is later, but no contribution is required if the jitney service is not timely commenced; Proffer 5 would be amended to continue the cash contribution for jitney service if it starts before the first certificate of occupancy is issued, but it would also provide that if jitney service was not timely started, the Owner would contribute $7,000 per year for 5 years to CAT for costs associated with operating existing CAT bus routes providing service to Albemarle Place; (3) Proffer 8(A), which pertains to the acquisition of the 7-11 site at the corner of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road for transportation improvements, would be significantly revised because the Owner has acquired that site; (4) Proffers 9 and 10, which pertain to the reservation and dedication of right-of-way along Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, would be amended to specify the lands to be dedicated, referencing a new map and the Official Map adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 2, 2009, specify the timing of the dedication, and delete the sunset clauses in each proffer; (5) Proffer 11 would be revised to clarify the location of traffic signalization improvements to be installed by the Owner and specify the timing for those improvements; (6) Proffer 14 would be added to allow the Owner at its discretion to make a cash contribution of $1,000,000 (less any credit for planning and design work on the Proffer 8(B) improvements) to the City of Charlottesville in lieu of planning and constructing the off-site transportation improvements required by Proffer 8(B) within the City on the east side of Route 29 between Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive; the cash contribution would be applied to the Route 29/250 Bypass ZMA 2008-003 BOS August 4, 2010 Executive Summary Page 2 Interchange Improvement Project (VDOT and City Project No. 0029-104-248); Proffer 14 would also provide that if the Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvement Project is terminated or not completed within 36 months after the Owner’s contribution (or longer period as agreed to by the City and the County), the Owner would contribute $500,000 to the County for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection; and (7) other proffers would be amended to update references to documents, identify the status of certain proffers which have been satisfied, and to clarify the timing of performance or the completion of obligations. The applicant has revised the proffers as necessary and the proffers are technically and legally acceptable. (Exhibit B) Also, the Table of Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block (Appendix A to the Albemarle Place Code of Development) has been revised as recommended by the Planning Commission and is acceptable. (Exhibit C) RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends approval of ZMA 2008-0003 with the attached proffers (Exhibit B) and the attached Table of Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block (Appendix A to the Albemarle Place Code of Development (Exhibit C)), and recommends approval of the modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage based upon the findings in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planning Commission staff report, dated June 22, 2010 Exhibit B: Revised proffers, dated July 23, 2010 Exhibit C: Table of Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block (Appendix A to the Albemarle Place Code of Development), dated July 8, 2010 View PC actions letter View PC minutes Return to regular agenda Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 08-03 Albemarle Place Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 22, 2010 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be Determined Owners: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC c/o Tom Gallagher Applicant: Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC c/o Tom Gallagher and represented by Valerie Long Acreage: 64.694 and 0.3404 acres Rezone from: NMD, Neighborhood Model (64.694 acres) and C-1 Commercial (0.3404 acres) to NMD TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500 (See Attachments A and B) By-right use: Residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and retail sales and service uses. Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers: Yes Proposal: Rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district to Neighborhood Model (NMD) and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers and Code of Development. Requested # of Dwelling Units: 700 - 800 DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1 Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Service Character of Property: Primarily vacant and undeveloped, the property is located in the northwest corner of the Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road intersection. Use of Surrounding Properties: The surrounding properties provide a variety of uses, including post office, residential, shopping centers, and industrial. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposal makes administration of regulations, such as uses, easier to follow. 2. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proffers need to be technically accurate. 2. There are a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved regarding Appendix A in the Code of Development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided that the proffers (See Attachment C) are revised to be technically and legally acceptable prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing and that the outstanding issues in the Code of Development are revised. Staff also recommends approval of three modifications of the requirements of Section 4.15, Sign Regulations in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 2 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: June 22, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined ZMA 2008- 003 Albemarle Place PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 2008-003, Albemarle Place PROPOSAL: Rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers; and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) retail sales and service uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) with the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: In the northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00- 02400, 061W0-03-00-02500 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett CHARACTER OF THE AREA While most of the subject site is vacant and undeveloped, it is surrounded by a developed community. The site fronts on Route 29, a major arterial road. There are several commercial establishments located in the vicinity as well as residential neighborhoods. Two small intermittent streams flow across the site. The site is heavily wooded and has some hilly terrain. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to make several modifications to the originally approved proffers in order to make the project more feasible to develop. See the proffer section later in this report for a detailed analysis. The applicant also recently purchased the adjacent site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. The 7-11 convenience store is currently located on the site. As described in the proffers, this (7-11) site will be primarily used for road improvements at the intersection. The 7 -11 property is currently zoned C-1, commercial district and the applicant would like to rezone the parcel to NMD, neighborhood model, so it will be consistently zoned with the rest of the Albemarle Place project. The applicant requested this site be included in the proffers and rezoning request. A modification of Appendix A – Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block located in the Code of Development is also being requested. Several changes have occurred to the Zoning Ordinance since the original rezoning was approved. Changes to the use table are being requested in order to update the allowed/prohibited uses in this development. This will be critical as the owners pursue tenants for the site. Details of this are located in the Code of Development analysis section found later in this staff report. Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 3 The applicant is also requesting a modification of Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance, which refers to sign regulations in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant feels this will assist them as they pursue leases for the site. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The current applicant/owner of this site was not the original owner of the subject property. Upon purchasing the property, the owner found the approved proffers difficult to execute and is requesting modifications to the proffers in order to make the project more feasible and easier to move forward. As the owner continues to work towards future site plans, leases with clients, and ultimately ground breaking of this project, they realize that not only do they need modifications to the proffers, but also needed are modifications to the sign regulations and to the permitted use table located in the Code of Development. The requested modifications will assist the applicant in being able to execute the installation of the Albemarle Place project more quickly and efficiently. Although additional modifications may be needed in the future, amending the proffers is the most critical item in order for the applicant to move forward. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Several Comprehensive Plan Amendments have been proposed for the subject properties. The first was the Sperry Corners proposal (CPA 1997-006). In this proposal, the applicant, the Faison Corporation, sought to have the land use designation changed from Industrial Service to Regional Service. Their proposal was to allow for a large, retail destination store on the site. This proposal did not have a mixed –use component. The applicant withdrew the proposal prior to any Planning Commission action. In 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the Hydraulic Super Block Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001-04 (CPA). The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 2001-007, Albemarle Place, with proffers, amended exhibits, Code of Development, and application plan on October 22, 2003. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Land Use Plan shows this area as Regional Service. The purpose and intent of the Regional Service designation is to provide a large area designated for regional-scale commercial, regional malls, mixed-use developments, hotel/motel/conference facilities, and a variety of uses providing retail, business and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region. The proposed Places 29 Master Plan designates this area as a Destination Center and further describes this area as commercial mixed use and urban mixed use. These designations allow a range of retail, housing, commercial, employment, and office uses that are located along major roadways that provide pedestrian and bicycle access. The request is in accord with both the existing and proposed comprehensive plan designations. A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with approved ZMA2001-07. The physical aspects of this project are unchanged and remain the same as they were when the project was originally approved. Therefore the original Neighborhood Model Analysis still applies to this project. (See Attachment H) Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 4 Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use development with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the intent of the NMD district as the mix of uses within this development will provide appropriate services on a neighborhood, community and regional scale for public use within Albemarle County. The proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model District. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Impacts on public facilities and services were reviewed with approved ZMA 2001-07. Staff does not anticipate that the request to modify proffers, the permitted/prohibited use table in the Code of Development or sign regulations will add additional impacts to public facilities and services. Specifically, staff does not expect this proposal to add any additional new impacts to streets, schools, fire, rescue, and police that was not already addressed with the original rezoning request (ZMA2001-07). In fact, staff believes that some of the changes to the proffers will help further mitigate street and traffic concerns. Utilities – There have been concerns regarding sewer capacity in the Meadow Creek Interceptor for this development. However, an upgrade of the interceptor is currently underway. With the Meadow Creek Interceptor under construction, capacity to serve this development will be available. Stormwater Management – Staff has received a stormwater management application that is currently awaiting re-submittal from the applicant. The applicant is now purposing underground detention. This will be addressed as part of the site plan review. Transportation – See Attachment G for VDOT comments Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources Staff is not aware of any changes to the cultural and historic resources of the area or County. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The anticipated impacts on nearby and surrounding properties have not changed from the originally approved rezoning request. Traffic continues to be an impact. However, staff believes that the existing proffers along with the proposed modifications to the proffers will help to mitigate some of the traffic concerns anticipated. Public need and justification for the change This rezoning request will provide a mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses on a regional scale in Albemarle County. Office and commercial uses will not only provide services, but also employment opportunities for residents in close proximity to where they live which can serve to mitigate transportation impacts. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS The primary Entrance Corridor issue in the revised proffers is the timing of landscaping. The current draft of the proffers states that landscape improvements shall be reviewed at final site plan review for each block. The block-by-block approach continues to be an improvement over the building-by-building Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 5 concept presented earlier, but the applicant is reminded of the following points, which have been discussed on a number of previous occasions: 1. Landscape plans are required with ARB plan submittals. 2. Submittal of a preliminary landscape plan with a preliminary site development plan is recommended. Prior review of the Albemarle Place project revealed conflicts between landscaping and utilities. The applicant is encouraged to work now to ensure that these conflicts no longer exist. Waiting for final site plan submittal to deal with the landscape issues could result in redesign and prolonged review. Lack of utility-free planting area is likely to limit the applicant’s ability to acquire ARB approval. PROFFERS See Attachment C for the revised proffers. Attachment D is a comparison of the original approved proffers with the revised proffers. The attached comparison table will show which proffers have changed and may help clarify what the changes in the proffers are. Below is an analysis of the two proffers that describes what is different. Analysis of Amended Proffers Original Proffer Requested Amendment 1. This proffer states that the first phase of development shall include street, utility and landscape improvements to serve building improvements within Blocks A, B, C and D. Also included in this phase are the design and construction of the following streets: New Main Street, South New Main Street, North New Main Street, Swanson Road, Inglewood Drive, and Albemarle Place Boulevard (also referred to as “4th Street/Cedar Hill Road”). Improvements on these streets are to include all supporting utility, infrastructure and landscaping. (See Attachment D for Exhibits C and D, which show the locations of blocks and streets) 1. The revised proffer refers to a phasing plan that is separated into two phases. (See Attachment C, for Exhibit A-1) The first phase includes street and utility improvements that will serve the planned building improvements within Blocks A, B, C and D. This phase also includes the design and construction of Albemarle Place Boulevard (also known as Fourth Street/Cedar Hill Road) from Hydraulic Road to the point where Albemarle Place Boulevard connects with the new planned western entrance to the Sperry Marine facility, as shown on Exhibit A-1. Improvements in this phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard will include all supporting utility infrastructure on this street and shall be completed prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for any building within Blocks A, B, C and D. This proffer is more detailed in terms of completion being subject to plans approved by VDOT. A restriction stating that no more than 370,000 square feet of commercial space and no more than 170 dwelling units may be constructed within this project until the remainder of Albemarle Place Boulevard is constructed to the new planned intersection with U.S. Route 29 is also included to address traffic impacts. Phase 2 of this proffer includes street and utility improvements to serve the planned building improvements within Blocks E, F and G. This second phase would complete the design and construction of Albemarle Place Boulevard from the point where it connects Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 6 with the western entrance to the Sperry Marine facility north and east through Blocks E, F and G to the new planned intersection with U.S. Route 29. This second phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard would also include all supporting utility infrastructure on the street and be completed prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for any buildings within Blocks E, F and G. This would also be subject to plans approved by VDOOT as mentioned above regarding phase 1. Landscape and associated streetscape improvements to serve the planned building improvements in each block will be reviewed at the time of final site plan review for each block. The streetscape along Route 29 and Hydraulic Road will be consistently designed and planted. 2. 2. Same proffer; typographical error corrected. 6. 6. Same proffer; typographical error. 7. The owner will design, bond and construct travel lane improvements to be dedicated for public use on its Hydraulic Road and Route 29 frontage. 7. The proffer is the same as originally stated with the addition that these improvements will be considered complete when they are constructed in conformance with the approved VDOT plans and open to public use. This was added in by the applicant. 11. The owner will engineer, bond and construct traffic signal improvements at the following intersections: “4th Street (also known as “Albemarle Place Boulevard”) and Route 29, and “Cedar Hill Road Extended” and Hydraulic Road at the County and VDOT’s request. 11. This proffer is now described in two parts to follow the phasing plan per proffer #1 and Exhibit A-1. Proffer 11A. refers to the Albemarle Place Boulevard and Hydraulic Road intersection. These improvements will now be constructed when the County or VDOT request the traffic signal installation. This could happen prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Blocks A, B, C or D as long as the signal is warranted by the traffic volumes or is otherwise approved by VDOT. Proffer 11B. relates to the Albemarle Place Boulevard and U.S. Route 29 intersection. This proffer is similar to proffer 11A. but instead refers to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for buildings in Blocks E, F or G and also ties the signal installation to warrants. 12. The owner will reserve land, engineer, bond and construct on-site improvements for a street connection at the northwest corner of the subject property to Commonwealth Drive. 12. This proffer is revised to add a bit more specificity and provide more time for the County to make the request. At the County’s request, but not sooner than the issuance of a Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 7 This connection will be a two lane facility with a sidewalk constructed on the south side of the street. At the County’s request, the owner will engineer, bond and construct the off-site portion of the connection to Commonwealth Drive on the “Comdial Property”. The County will request this off-site connection prior to October 15, 2013. building permit for any building within Block F, the Owner will reserve right-of-way along the northern edge of the parking lot in Block F of the Property for a future street connection, which will be a two lane facility to Commonwealth Drive through the Comdial property. At the County’s request the owner will engineer, bond and construct the on-site and off-site portions of the connection to Commonwealth Drive on the “Comdial Property”. The County will request this off-site connection prior to October 15, 2020. 14. Original proffer 8 B. describes the owner providing off-site improvements in the City at the Northeast Quadrant of the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection. There are various restrictions and deadlines associated with this proffer. A rough cost estimate of approximately $500,000 was given for the necessary improvements referred to in proffer (8) (B). The City felt that certain transportation improvements in the City, known as the “Rte. 29/250 Bypass Interchange Improvement Project” would better serve the community and help resolve some traffic concerns related to the Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange. Thus proffer 14 was created to address these transportation concerns. Proffer 14 is a new proffer, included to be a substitute to proffer 8B. The Owners agreed that the importance of the improvements described in proffer 14 had a greater value to the Albemarle Place project than proffer (8) (B) because these improvements would help alleviate the back up of traffic on Route 29. As described in proffer 14, the Owners agreed to pay $1,000,000 in cash to the City for the improvements to the Route 29/250 Bypass Interchange because of the greater importance of this improvement. There are a variety of terms, conditions and deadlines associated with proffer 14. If proffer 14 is terminated or has not been completed within 36 months after the City receives the contribution, the owner will forward $500,000 (the rough cost estimate for improvements described in proffer (8) (B)) to the County for transportation improvements in the vicinity of the U.S. Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection. If these funds have not been used by the County within 10 years the unused funds will be refunded to the Owner. Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 8 Generally, the revised proffers also reflect the new ownership of the property and the addition of the 7- 11 property. The revised proffers are more detailed regarding timelines, and execution. The new phasing plan provides a visual detail that not only describes the two phases, but also adds more specificity to the development of Albemarle Place Boulevard. The two traffic signals at either end of Albemarle Place Boulevard will need to be warranted prior to installation and a new proffer was added to provide options regarding road improvements in the City. Substantively, the proffers appropriately address impacts staff has identified. Staff still has outstanding technical issues in need of resolution before this request goes to the Board of Supervisors. These outstanding issues are as follows: There are several typographical errors in the proffers that need to be corrected. Within the proffers consistent terminology is needed. The proffers reference several deadlines that have passed (for example: proffers 4, 5, 9 & 10). Have these proffers been satisfied or are they still outstanding? "Satisfied" needs to be added to all the proffers which are no longer active and have been finalized. If Proffer 4 is not satisfied, the date of the deadline needs to be changed. Proffers 1.A. and 1. B. need to be clarified as explained on page two, in the first bullet under the Zoning section in the applicant’s letter to Claudette Grant, dated May 3, 2010. (See Attachment E) Although the proposed language in Proffer 14, Substituted Transportation Improvements, is not exactly what the County Attorney had suggested, the intent is similar. The revised proffer describes modifications that relate to City deadlines, which the City needs to be in agreement with. When the agreement described in proffer 14.B (3) is reached with the City, the County requests from the Owner, a fully executed agreement with the City. This will allow the County to monitor compliance with Proffer 14. The proffers need to be updated to reflect any revised exhibits, including the code, and their dates. For further clarification and to avoid confusion, Proffer 8A, last paragraph and 8B first paragraph should state the "first final site plan," instead of "initial site plan." To avoid confusion, consider combining Proffer 14 with Proffer 8B. It is difficult to understand the connection between the two proffers. Provide either a date of dedication or other such trigger point for the dedication of land in Proffers 9 and 10. The following is some suggested language for the proffers: When various road improvements are deemed to be complete The Albemarle Place proffers continue the language in 2003 proffers, but after 2003 the following revised language was developed that clarified when secondary road improvements are deemed complete: For the purposes of this Proffer ___, construction of [identify road] shall be deemed to be complete when it is ready to be recommended by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for acceptance into the state-maintained system and the Owner has obtained from the County Engineer a written determination that [identify road] is safe and convenient for traffic. However, Albemarle Place is unique in that some of the road improvements will be along Route 29 and the Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection, which is in the primary system, so either the current language (e.g., the intro paragraph to Proffer 8) can remain or be revised to be more specific; Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 9 The dedication of right of way After the Albemarle Place proffers were accepted in 2003, language was developed that clarified the responsibilities of the parties when dedicating proffered rights-of-way: Prior to or in conjunction with the [e.g., first final subdivision plat for the Project], the Owner shall dedicate as public right-of-way and convey in fee simple to Albemarle County [describe ROW] in the locations shown on Sheet ___ of the Application Plan, together with the dedication and conveyance of all necessary drainage easements and the conveyance of necessary constructions easements for the improvements. If the right-of-way is not dedicated and conveyed as part of a subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay all costs of surveying and preparing legal documents in a form acceptable to the County Attorney necessary to dedicate and convey the right-of-way. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX A – PERMITTED/PROHIBITED USES BY BLOCK See attachment F for the revised Code of Development Appendix A – Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block. Staff suggested that the applicant consider updating the use table located in the Code of Development. Some of the uses listed in the table were no longer applicable and some new uses are now allowed due to modifications in the Zoning Ordinance that could work well in a development such as Albemarle Place. In general, staff supports the requested amendment to Appendix A of the code. The following minor outstanding issues need to be clarified: “Farm stand” should be considered as a use allowed in the Code of Development Wholesale Distribution is shown as allowed by special use permit. However, the last bullet on page three in the letter to Claudette Grant, dated May 3, 2010 describes Wholesale Distribution being deleted from the permitted uses. (See Attachment E) The intent needs to be clarified. MODIFICATION OF SECTION 4.15 OF ZONING ORDINANCE In accordance with Section 8.2 (b), the applicant requests three modifications of the requirements of Section 4.15, Sign Regulations in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Staff has reviewed and recommends approval of all three (3) modifications. The applicants’ submittal addresses all the required findings of Section 8.3 (b) (3) necessary for granting a modification. A full description of the requests and analysis follows. 1. Applicable District Sign Regulations: The applicant request that instead of applying the Section 4.15.11 Neighborhood Model District sign regulations, the Section 4.15.13 Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development Shopping Center (PDSC) and Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PDMC) sign regulations be allowed to apply to Albemarle Place. The applicant notes that because this project is located on U.S. Route 29, the major commercial thoroughfare in Albemarle, it should have the same sign regulations apply to it that apply to other projects zoned HC, PDSC or PDMC and are similar in scale and uses. Staff recommends approval of this sign modification. If granted, this modification will allow the following: a. Freestanding signs at 32 square feet rather than 24 square feet; b. Wall signs based on 1.5 square feet per 1 linear foot of structure frontage up to 200 square feet rather than 1 square foot per 1 linear foot up to 100 square feet of wall sign area. 2. Off-Site Signs: The applicant requests that instead of requiring a special use permit for any off- site sign per Section 4.15.5 (a) (1), that off-site signs within the NMD be allowed by-right. This Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 10 current ordinance requirement is the cause of repeated special use permits before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The current ordinance provision did not anticipate the situation with planned developments in which they are comprised of numerous separate parcels, but function as a cohesive development in terms of signage. Staff is currently in the process of gathering information for a sign ordinance amendment and will be recommending an amendment so as to not require a special use permit for off-site signs within Planned Developments. If it were not allowed, individual special use permits would be required for each case in which a sign includes text relating to a business that is not located on the property on which the sign is located. For example, a sign which names the development and lists a hotel within the development but off- site from the sign will require a special use permit. These types of signs are important for way- finding and for making turning decisions. Allowing these signs by-right within the NMD will not increase the number or size of signs allowed. In addition, it will satisfy the purposes of the sign ordinance without causing saturation and confusion in the field of vision. Staff recommends approval of this sign modification. 3. Wall Sign Height: The applicant requests an increase in the maximum height of wall signage from 30 feet (per Section 4.15.11) to 58 feet, subject to conditions. The applicant notes that the Code of Development for Albemarle Place permits buildings up to 90 feet in height; therefore, a sign at a 30 foot height will be aesthetically inappropriate relative to the height of the building. In addition, the applicant is concerned that wall signs on buildings that are located toward the rear of the project (further back from Route 29 and Hydraulic Road) may not be visible if they are only 30 feet high. This sign regulation is also under review with the current sign ordinance amendment process. The Design Planner suggests that the increased height can be acceptable, provided that the placement on the building and the sign illumination are appropriate. Staff recommends approval of this modification subject to the following condition: Wall signs may be allowed up to 58 feet in height; however, any sign over 30 feet shall be subject to the approval of the ARB or the Design Planner, as to placement and illumination. It is possible that a proposed wall sign over 30 feet may not be allowed to be illuminated at the proposed height or that it may have to be reduced in height to provide a more appropriate placement on the building. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal makes administration of regulations, such as uses, easier to follow. 2. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proffers need to be technically accurate. 2. There are a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved regarding Appendix A in the Code of Development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided that the outstanding technical issues with the proffers (Attachment C) noted in the staff report are resolved and that the outstanding issues in the Code of Development are clarified prior to the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing. Staff also recommends approval of the modification of Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I – Zoning Map ATTACHMENT II – Vicinity Map Albemarle Place PC Public Hearing 6/22/10 11 ATTACHMENT III – Proffers dated May 3, 2010, including Exhibit A-1 ATTACHMENT IV – Proffer Comparison, including all Exhibits ATTACHMENT V – Letter to Claudette Grant, dated may 3, 2010 ATTACHMENT VI – Revised Code of Development Appendix A – Permitted/Prohibited Uses by Block, dated October 15, 2003 (revised ____, 2010) ATTACHMENT VII – Electronic mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated June 9, 2010 ATTACHMENT VIII – Planning Commission staff report, dated September 2, 2003 ATTACHMENT IX – Planning Commission Draft Action Minutes, dated September 2, 2003 ATTACHMENT X – Action Letter to Frank Cox, dated November 18, 2003 Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 July 7, 2010 Williams Mullen - Valerie Long 321 E Main Street Suite 400 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA200800003 Albemarle Place TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0- 03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500 Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 22, 2010, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2008-00003, Albemarle Place, provided that the outstanding issues on the proffers (see Staff Report Attachment C) and the Code of Development are clarified between staff, the applicant, and the City before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage based upon the findings in the staff report. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 4, 2010. Return to exec summary If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division Cc: Edens & Avant - Tom Gallagher 7200 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 400 Bethesda MD 20814 Eden & Avant Albemarle Place EAAP LLC 1901 Main Street Suite 900 Columbia Sc 29201 File ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 1 ZMA-2008-00003 Albemarle Place (Signs # 58, 65, 67) PROPOSAL: Rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers; and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) retail sales and service uses to Neighborhood Model (NMD) with the proffers. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: In the northwest corner of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in Neighborhood 1. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00- 02400, 061W0-03-00-02500 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The applicant requests to rezone 64.694 acres from Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district to Neighborhood Model (NMD) and rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1) to Neighborhood Model (NMD) to amend the original proffers and Code of Development. The applicant recently purchased the adjacent site where the 7/11 Convenience Store is currently located. This site will primarily be used for road improvements. It is zoned commercial. In order to have consistent zoning the applicant is requesting this site be rezoned to Neighborhood Model. Several modifications to the original approved proffers are being requested in order to make the project more feasible to build. The following focus on the highlights of these modifications: Proffer 1 is a revision to the phasing plan that provides the visual detail as shown in the presentation that not only describes the two phases, but also shows the detail phasing as it relates to the development of Albemarle Place Boulevard. Proffer 11 relates to the two traffic signals at either end of Albemarle Place Boulevard and will need to be warranted prior to installation. Basically it will be a traffic signal at one end of Albemarle Place Boulevard and then another traffic signal on Route 29. Proffer 12 relates to the Commonwealth Drive connection installation and is more detailed and provides the County more time to make this request. The connection is in the upper northwest corner of the site. Proffer 14 is a new proffer added to be a substitute to proffer 8B. The intent of proffer 8B was to provide off-site improvements in the city at the northeast quadrant of the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection near the Kmart Store. U ltimately the city and the applicant decided that certain transportation improvements in the city known as the Route 29/250 By-Pass Interchange Improvement Project would better serve the community and help resolve some traffic concerns related to the Route 29/250 By-Pass Interchange. Proffer 14 was created to provide an alternative for transportation improvements. As stated in the staff report the revised proffers are more detailed regarding timelines and execution. The proffers appropriately address impacts. Some outstanding technical issues need to be resolved before this request goes to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant is also making some revisions to Appendix A, the permitted/prohibited use table that will update both uses allowed and not allowed within this development. For example, originally cellular communication was permitted by special use permit in all bloc ks. With the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance now Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 relate to wireless service facilities. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are now allowed in all blocks and Tier 3 is allowed in all blocks by special use permit. As detailed in the staff report, the applicant is also requesting three modifications of the requirement of Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance that relate to sign regulations. This request will assist the applicant as they move forward with the plans and leases. These modifications include a request to use Section 4.15.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for Highway Commercial (HC), Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC), and Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) sign regulations instead of the Neighborhood Model District’s sign regulations for Albemarle Place. This modification ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 2 would allow freestanding signs at 32 square feet rather than 24 square feet and larger wall signs would be allowed. The applicant requests that instead of requiring a special use permit for any off - site signs that off-site signs with the Neighborhood Model District will be allowed by right. The last item being requested related to signs is an increase in the maximum height of wall signage from 30 feet to 58 feet, which would also be subject to conditions. Factors Favorable: • The proposal makes administration of regulations, such as uses, easier to follow. • The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Factors Unfavorable • The proffers need to be technically accurate. • There are a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved regarding Appendix A in the Code of Development. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided that the proffers are revised to be technically and legally acceptable prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing and that the outstanding issues in the Code of Development are revised. Staff also recommends approval of three modifications of the requirements of Section 4.15, Sign Regulations in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission. Under unfavorable factors it says that there are a few outstanding issues that need to be resolved in Appendix A and the Code of Development. He asked what the scope is of these changes and if the changes are just minor and technical. Ms. Grant replied yes, the changes for the Code of Development primarily deal with the use table, which was approved in 2003. Some of the uses that were allowed or not allowed then are no longer in the zoning ordinance or various changes have occurred. The changes are primarily to bring the Code of Development up to date with our zoning ordinance in terms of the use table. Mr. Loach asked if all of the changes would be done prior to the final vote, and Ms. Grant replied yes. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the changes would be finished before it is advertised for the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Loach noted that the staff report indicates that staff is in the process of gathering information for a sign ordinance amendment. If there is another process going on he asked where we are in that process Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff is in the very early stages of that work. A meeting has been scheduled with the ARB to discuss signage in a work session. Later in the summer there will be a work session with the Commission to discuss some of these changes. A group has been identified to work with this. Round Tables with the community will be held. It will be some months out before there are actual amendments that will be going to public hearing. Mr. Loach asked to clarify that this plan is still consistent with the updates to Places29, and Ms. Grant replied yes that the plan was still consistent with the updates. Mr. Morris asked if one of the things the applicant is going to be requested to put in is another stop light on 29, and Ms. Echols replied yes. Mr. Morris asked if that stop light was awfully close to two other existing stop lights. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the close proximity of signals was actually a matter discussed during the first rezoning. Through the proffers if and when there is connection provided to Albemarle Place available through the existing signal at Sperry, then this cross over and signal will be removed establishing for their initial entrance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 3 Mr. Lafferty acknowledged that this was a complex subject and a lot of material, but he could not find some of the attachments that were referenced. He had a hard time following it, but that was because he had not been on the Commission the whole time. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff had made an effort to provide sufficient background due to the fact that the current Commissioners were not present at the original hearing many years ago. It was difficult and confusing because there were attachments within attachments. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Valerie Long, representative for the applicant, Edens and Avant, noted that also present was Tom Gallagher, Vice President for Development for Edens and Avant, who has been involved with the project for many years. She recognized in preparing that none of the Commissioners were on the Planning Commission at the time this was approved. Mr. Zobrist was probably the most familiar with it from his prior tenure. She presented a PowerPoint presentation and made the following comments. Albemarle Place was rezoned in 2003. There was an approved application plan with a set of proffers and Code of Development. Any projects that are zoned Neighborhood Model District are required to have a Code of Development prepared as part of the project. The applicant usually writes or drafts it with the staff’s review and input. It serves as a mini zoning ordinance applicable to that project. It provides a great deal of flexibility for Neighborhood Model projects. Someone can design their own building heights, setbacks, standards of development, architectural styles, and so forth. This was the very first Code of Development approved. Therefore, everyone was learning their way at the time. There are a few kinds of updates to it that are necessary, which have been identified. The project is a mixed use project, which includes retail, office, residential, a hotel and cinema. She reviewed a copy of the approved application plan. The off-site road improvements were approved as part of the original proffers. They are only making kind of a technical change to those off -site improvements, but she wanted to give them an overview. They wanted to put it in context of the 250 Bypass and provide an overview of the off-site improvements that were going to be made at the very beginning of the project as part of the first phase. The one exception is the one light at Albemarle Place Boulevard and Route 29. That light will not be installe d until the second phase of the project and until VDOT determines that the signal warrants are met. Everything else is being done as part of the first phase. There will be an additional lane added to Route 29 starting just south of Westfield Road. For the last two years Mr. Gallagher and others from Albemarle Place have been working with 11 or 12 land owners from whom they needed to obtain easements for these off -site road improvements. That is part of what has taken a while to get the project going forward again. They will add that new lane on 29 all the way to Hydraulic. There will be a new bus stop essentially being relocated from the front of the former Comdial building to the front of Albemarle Place. Also, they will be adding some frontage improvements on Hydraulic Road and a signal at Albemarle Place Boulevard and Hydraulic Road. They will be adding an extra turn lane so that there will be a dual right turn lane at Hydraulic and 29. Traffic tends to back up a little at that location. There are frontage improvements, as shown in blue in the presentation, that are along Hydraulic Road and 29 on the east side of the road that they are proposing to have the option to not have to do and instead use the money for something else. These are improvements on the city side of the line that at the time they were requested of the applicant were agreed to. Since then things have changed and they have been working very closely with the city over the last few years. The city has indicated that they would rather the applicant spend the funds towards what she calls the Best Buy ramp rather than using them for the improvements near the Kmart. Essentially it is an additional lane on 29 south starting at Hydraulic Road to improve the ramps and adding additional space on the Bypass to improve the situation with the traffic backing up. There are some real safety issues there. All of these improvements are being made as part of the first phase of the project with the exception of the light at Albemarle Place Boulevard and 29. Tonight they are asking for approval of the following three action items. 1. Amendments to the proffers; 2. Minor amendments to the Code of Development, and 3. Three sign waivers. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4 Amendments to the proffers are broken down into three categories. 1. Phasing Plan – They are asking for changes to the proffers to allow them to phase the project differently than was originally intended. 2. They are asking for the opportunity to use the funds that they would have used on the improvements shown in front of the Kmart, and instead having the option to take that money, which they have estimated at about one-half a million dollars to make those improvements, plus an additional one-half million dollars for a total of one million dollars, and give that to the city for its portion to contribute to the Best Buy ramp improvements. The city is working on that project in cooperation with VDOT. At this time that is the city’s strong preference for the use of those funds. 3. As Ms. Grant indicated they have a hand full of technical changes to the proffers, which are essentially updating language since the proffers were originally approved in 2003, adding some clarification and just reflecting the phasing changes being proposed to the plan. Regarding the phasing, the block plan essentially includes blocks A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Blocks A, B, C, and D are all part of phase one. As Ms. Grant indicated they would also build a portion of Albemarle Place Boulevard as part of phase one. Phase two would include several block s plus the remainder of Albemarle Place Boulevard. The light would go in as part of phase two. The signal at Hydraulic and Albemarle Place Boulevard will go in as part of the first phase . Again they will complete all of the other off-site transportation improvements. Phase two is the rest of the project and the rest of the road and the signal. The fund swap would be to take the money they would have originally spent on improvements on the city side of the line near the Kmart and instead put them towards the Best Buy ramp improvements to 29 and 250. Then they would actually put additional funds towards that. That project not only is strongly supported by the city, county and VDOT, but the applicants for Albemarle Place as well. It will have a much more significant impact on the project in terms of improving the traffic flow along Route 29 than the improvements near the Kmart would have. There are some technical changes to the proffers and minor amendments to the Code of Development. All of the changes to the table of uses are really technical. Some of the other changes relate to the definition changes for such things as farm stands and farmer’s market. Therefore, they had to update some of the definitions to make sure they had the appropriate term s in there. There were also a few uses that should have been permitted by right in some districts back in 2003 that just for whatever reason got left off accidentally. As staff has worked on other codes of development they have kind of refined their list of things that really need to be allowed in every Neighborhood Model District. So they went back and compared it and added them back in when they were not in the original one. The three sign waiver requests are pretty straight forward. The Neighborhood Model zoning district sign regulations are slightly different than those for similar mixed use projects. Planned Development-Mixed Commercial, Planned Development-Shopping Center, and Highway Commercial all have a certain set of sign regulations that are slightly different than the Neighborhood Model District regulations. They are asking to be able to use the same sign regulations for this project given that it is on Route 29 the major commercial thoroughfare. Staff has been supportive of that request. It is a relatively minor change in the big scheme of things, but very important for Albemarle Place in terms of remaining competitive from a leasing perspective and so forth. It will allow them to have the same sign regulations that other projects along 29 are permitted to have. The off-site sign is a bit of a technical issue. If there was a hotel in the back corner of the project that is sold as a separate parcel, they would not by right be able to have a sign up along 29 that advertises the hotel because it would be technically on a separate tax map parcel, which makes that an off-site sign. The proposal is to allow for the ability to have a technical off -site sign by right so long as it is within the project. As staff indicated that is a change tha t the zoning administrator has been working on and thinking towards for some time because it is a reoccurring request with these large Planned Development Districts where they often have to sell off a parcel as part of the development process. That would intermediately create a problem for their signage because they can’t put a sign near the road where it needs to be. Finally, they are requesting the maximum height for wall signs be slightly higher. Because there are some taller buildings that will be part of this project eventually they want to make sure they have the ability to put the wall signs at the appropriate heights so that they look aesthetically appropriate and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 5 also so the signs are not blocked by any other tall buildings that are in the for eground. It would still be subject to ARB review in some circumstances to ensure that appropriate design standards are followed and so forth. Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Lafferty asked if phase one of Places 29 was taking into account what is shown in the lower left hand corner and wouldn’t that be part of the round-about or grade separated interchange. Ms. Long replied that there are proffers that have been there since 2003, which they are not proposing to change, that obligate the owner to dedicate and reserve certain land for those types of improvements. So they are doing all of that. The county has made the official request that they go ahead and dedicate that land. The applicant is having the subdivision plats prepa red so that they can go ahead and take care of that. Some of this may be reserved for off-site improvements long term. Mr. Cilimberg noted that at the end of last year the Planning Commission recommended and the Board ultimately approved the official map for the actual interchange, which gave the county limits of the right-of- way needed. That is what staff has used with the applicant, which they have designed around and would be dedicating. Mr. Lafferty noted that they are showing a lot of buildings in there. He asked if they are moving the bus stop to phase two. Mr. Gallagher replied that the bus stop will be constructed with phase one. There were concerns about putting the bus stop down closer to 29 because of stopping and stacking distances. Tha t is why the bus stop was kept a little bit further to the north. Mr. Loach questioned the request for a rezoning from Commercial to Neighborhood Model. Ms. Long replied that the balance of the property has already been zoned Neighborhood Model since 2003, but the 7/11 property was not part of the original application. Mr. Loach suggested that they wait on the signage until the sign ordinance was amended in order to include it in the broader scope. He was leery to sort of spot rezone within the Neighborhood Model Districts from what they have set up as the rules and regulations for signage. He suggested that the changes be made during the overall amendment process. Ms. Long pointed out that they have been working on this request with staff for a couple of years. Staff has been supportive of the request all along. The signage is also an issue in terms of leasing with future tenants. They are looking at signs for other projects with similar zoning and saying that they just want to be treated the same way. Staff is supportive of the sign waiver request. Given that this Neighborhood Model zoning district is situated right on the busiest commercial thoroughfare and intersection in the community they just want to be treated the same way and have the appr opriate district. It is not like they have single-family detached residential units in here and are asking for commercial signage. There is residential here, but it is apartments, condominiums and things like that. It is more heavily focused on the commercial and office side. That is why they felt it was an appropriate request. Mr. Zobrist asked what would be the mix and actually be built. Ms. Long replied that the residential portions are in the back. They are not sure what will be built at this time. Mr. Gallagher asked to add two things. They are at are a critical junction right now in terms of the leasing. From the signage standpoint in terms of leasing it is important for them to knock this out now. They find the request appropriate given where it is located notwithstanding there is a separate process as pertains to looking at the signage. Additionally, they still have to go through the ARB process in terms of the review regarding the signage. There is that second tier. In terms of the mix t heir primary focus has been ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 6 on the retail, which is also one of the reasons they are at this junction and why they are seeking to phase it in this manner. As a testament to Charlottesville and the market, notwithstanding the current economic trend, they have gotten some positive momentum. There will be retail, a hotel, and some residential. But they are not sure exactly what the mix is going to be. Mr. Zobrist pointed out that 700 or 800 is a lot of residential, but he did not think that much residential is going to fit there. It won’t be single-family residences, but will be apartments and townhouses. Mr. Gallagher replied that there would be no single-family residences, but there is a possibility that there will be some dense townhouse product. It will be multi-family with for sale condos and multi-family rental, but the market has a bit to come back on. Mr. Lafferty asked if the sign can be seen from Route 29 doesn’t the ARB have to make a judgment on it. Mr. Loach invited Ms. McCulley to address the Commission. Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning, noted that all the signs visible from Route 29 would be subject to ARB review. She asked Mr. Kamptner if one option could be that the waiver be granted for only non - residential uses since that is where the applicant needs it the most. The Neighborhood Model District sign regulations are the same as the PUD sign regulations. It is based on the assumption that they have largely a residential development that is very internal. They did not anticipate something like this with two major road frontages, a town center and things like that. Mr. Loach noted that they have been hearing that staff is supportive of this. He asked if that is correct. Ms. McCulley replied that was correct. Mr. Loach asked if she saw this as setting any precedent outside the process that would come back to bite them later because they approved this. He asked if she thought it was going to be fairly consistent with the changes that the committee was going to bring forth and if it would fit. Ms. McCulley replied that since they were very early in the process it remains to be seen where it will go once staff meets with the ARB again, the Commission for the first time and the Board. The o ff-site sign requirement staff absolutely supports and sees no reason why not to since it is a provision where someone would not get extra signage. They are c ontrolling the message so to speak because they can only advertise on-site uses. In allowing it by right they do not lose anything in terms of giving away additional signs or sign area. It would definitely serve the purposes of the sign ordinance and be much more efficient for the applicant and staff. The wall sign height thing is something that has come up a couple of times and actually another Neighborhood Model development had a variance. Staff is looking at that with the sign text amendments. At the time they were not able to get the variance because it was based on hardship on the constraints of the property and not the constraints of the ordinance. For the non-residential uses and those that are situated along the major roads, 29 and Hydraulic, staff does support sign areas and sign sizes that are more consistent with other commercial properties. It would be identical, but not zoned Neighborhood Model. Mr. Franco said that in Planned Developments there are Planned Residential Developments as well as Planned Development Shopping Centers and they are leaning towards the PD-SC regulations. He thought that it has already been envisioned in Planned Developments that there be different sign ordinances and criteria for whether it is more residential or commercial in nature. For the commercial it just seems appropriate where as in the Neighborhood Model District there is no distinction. Therefore, he felt that the request is appropriate. Mr. Lafferty asked what would be a competitive sign and if the applicant could give an example of the demands of a person who was going to lease in what they would want that they normally don’t get. They have heard the term competitive signs. Ms. Long replied that some of the similar type of projects they were looking at that were similarly large ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 7 mixed use with a similar scale and right on 29 were Hollymead Town Center (zoned PD-MC), Kohl’s and North Point. The North Point project is PD-MC and there is some residential there as well, which was approved by a special use permit. That is what she was referring to. She would let Mr. Gallagher speak to some of the more specifics in terms of tenant demands for signs and so forth. Mr. Gallagher said that he could not be any more specific other than tenants always want more signage than they are going to be able to get. It is just on a case by case basis. Mr. Lafferty pointed out that since they were look ing at the signage overall having some guidelines would be helpful. Mr. Gallagher noted as Ms. Long said that he thought what they are asking for is reasonable and consistent with the other commercial projects on 29. Some of the national tenants have an expectation for signage in terms of even the PD-SC that they are trying to meet. Mr. Loach asked what realistic time frame that they are looking at. Mr. Gallagher replied that this project is very lease driven. They have gotten over the last year a lot more attraction in terms of leasing. While he could not confirm any existing leases that are in place he could say that they are looking forward to making some announcements shortly with respect to people that are signed up. They are on a daily basis working on the leasing front. They would like to get started later this year. They obviously have a fair amount of site work they have to do. There is probably about eight months of site work and depending on the complexity of the building another 6 to 12 months of vertical construction. Mr. Loach invited public comment. Jeannette Janiczek, City of Charlottesville ECI Program Manager, said that they have been working with the county staff as well as the developer. She wanted to bring two concerns to thei r attention that city staff has towards implementation. One of those would be that they were requesting additional time to institute proffer 14. Currently they have three years and they were looking for additional time. She thought that they were close to reaching an agreement on that. Since they can’t start planning until they receive official notification that is the proffer they are picking rather than 8b, which is the reason for the request for additional time. The second is a minor clarification regarding proffer 5 for the Jitney Service since there is some staff concern that this might be taken as a new service rather than helping CTS establish a new stop within the development along with amenities, etc. It would not fund a completely new route, but it would certainly help serve the development with an existing route. There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach invited Ms. Long to come back and address the last two items. Ms. Long said that they have been working very closely with the city. In fact, during the past few days they had meetings with city staff, including Angela Tucker, and have spoken to Mark Graham about it. She would ask Mr. Graham speak to it as well since he has spoken recently with Ms. Tucker from the city. Part of the arrangements to make all of this work is an agreement that the developer has from working with the city on basically all of the details of how this “swap” of transportation improvement dollars would work and what the process would be. They have tried to include time frames that work for everybody. They are working hard to incorporate the preferences and concerns of the city, the county and VDOT and to make sure that the applicant’s million dollars is put to that use. It is a challenge to get everybody on the same page, but she was very confident that they are very close on those issues. It is just a matter of working out some of the details and probably including a bit of flexibility in the agreement to ensure that if the city decides that they need more time to get the project completed that the county has an opportunity to weigh in and allow more time to take place without triggering any of the money going back to the county. She asked if that makes sense. As for the other issue with the J itney Service, they will work with folks on that issue to address those concerns. Her understanding, having not been involved with the project in 2003, was that proffer was made to be put towards the J itney Service if that was put in place. As they know it has not been put in place. So there is now a desire to instead have that proffer dollar just ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 8 essentially go to other CTS projects in the area. So they are willing to consider that and work with the staff on those issues. Mr. Loach invited Mark Graham to address the issues. Mark Graham , Director of Community Development, said with respect to proffer 14 and the timing of the transportation improvements obviously from a county perspective the interest of the county would be concurrency that the improvements are complete at the time that the stores are open. What they have recognized is that there are some issues with that and they have proposed a three year time frame there as seen in proffer 14. What Angela Tucker has brought up, which is a valid concern, is there is federal permitting and state permitting that they have to go through and they can’t have total assurance that everything is going to be in place. What he has discussed with Ms. Tucker, which he certainly is willing to recommend, is an idea of allowing for the three year deadline to be extended by joint agreement of the city and the county perhaps by the County Executive and the City Manager if they see that there are extenuating circumstances that made it impossible for them to get it done. But other than that the intent is to get those improvements done as quickly as possible and to stick to that three year time line. Mr. Loach asked if the Planning Commission needs to make any changes to this proffer. Mr. Graham replied that he did not think there wa s any need to make changes at this point. It is something that staff will work with the applicant on. It certainly seems amenable to those kinds of modifications and is something that they could work out between now and the Board hearing. Mr. Loach noted that when he hears words from an attorney, Ms. Long, like challenge and flexibility he gets worried sometimes hearing it. He asked if there were any other questions. Since there were no further questions he noted that he had one more question for staff. Regarding utilities and the Meadow Creek Interceptor and the upgrade he asked if that was phased now to concur with this development. He asked if they were not going to have a flush factor problem. Mr. Cilimberg replied that actually they were going to need the interceptor in order to get their permits. The interceptor is under construction. Part of the timing of the whole project has actually ended up being associated with that as well as the other factors Mr. Gallagher explained. Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for action. Mr. Franco asked if they need to act on the request to Section 4.15 separately. Mr. Kamptner replied that both requests would be going to the Board, but the regulations now require that there be an affirmative action on the waivers or modification so that they never have a situation where there is an approval by implication. For clarity they would ask for a separate motion so that it is clear on the modification. Motion for ZMA-2008-00003: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion to recommend approval of ZMA-2008- 00003, Albemarle Place provided that the outstanding issues on the proffers (see Staff Report Attachment C) and the Code of Development are clarified between staff, the applicant and the City before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0. Motion for Modifications: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage based on the findings in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 22, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 9 Mr. Loach noted that would ZMA-2008-00003, Albemarle Place and the modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signage would go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Cilimberg thanked Mr. Lafferty for bringing up the issue regarding the complexity of the staff report because staff is going to pay more attention to that for the future and also before the request goes to the Board to make sure that it is understood what are the attachments to this report and to the prior report to give a little more flow. Also, he wanted to correct the record because he misspoke a bit in terms of the obligations under the matter of the signal at 29. That is not something that is proffered. That actually has been handled in their permitting with VDOT in terms of removing that at the time that access would be provided through the Sperry light. So it is not in the proffers, but through another mechanism that has been addressed. Return to exec summary