Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-9-09Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 5:00 P.M. - LANE AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. - Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/ Amendment, to begin with public comments and possible Board direction. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner. · Chapter 12: Community Facilities - Solid Waste · Chapter 9: Housing Recess: 6:30 – 7:00 p.m. 3. 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. – Continuation of Work Session to include public comments and possible Board direction. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6. Adjourn. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0909/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/6/2020 4:16:03 PM] BOS – CPA 2013-01 September 9, 2014 Page 1 of 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Chapter 12 Community Facilities (Solid Waste) and Chapter 9 Housing STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: September 9, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission’s recommended Comprehensive Plan is found in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan can be found online here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2013/ Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf. Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions have also been identified for the Board’s consideration. This work session is the eighth in the series of detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151 The Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which the topic was discussed. STRATEGIC PLAN: Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds. DISCUSSION: For its September 9th work session, the Board of Supervisors has agreed to review recommendations for solid waste which are part of Chapter 12 Community Facilities (the rest of this chapter is scheduled to be reviewed later in the Fall). At least one Board member has expressed interest in this as an opportunity to provide guidance to the Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee that is working on a set of recommendations related to the Ivy Landfill/Convenience Center. Also at this meeting the Board will discuss Chapter 9 Housing. A link to staff reports and associated Planning Commission minutes for these topics can be found in Attachment A. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal is one of ten topics discussed in the Community Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Draft. Information on this topic can be found on pages 27 and 28 of Chapter 12 and is provided as Attachment B. Also provided in Attachment B is a comparison of the existing Comprehensive Plan solid waste recommendations to the proposed recommendations. It should be noted that the Commission had very minimal discussion specific to solid waste management. Housing A link to the recommended Chapter 9 Housing, can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Developm ent/Forms/Comp_Plan_2 013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/09_Chapter_Housing_1-23-14_final.pdf AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment September 9, 2014 BOS – CPA 2013-01 September 9, 2014 Page 2 of 3 And to the related Appendices:  Affordable Housing Policy  Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities which can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2 013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/A.9_Appendix_Housing_Final_1-23-14.pdf and here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/Comp_Plan_2 013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/A.3_Appendix_Growth_Management_Final_1-23-14.pdf There are no reference documents. Until now, housing policies have been addressed in two places in the Comprehensive Plan: the Neighborhood Model and the Affordable Housing Policy. This Comprehensive Plan amendment takes recommendations from both parts of the existing plan to create an independent chapter for Housing. Objectives and strategies within the Housing Chapter address the need for:  decent, safe, and sanitary housing in good repair for all residents (pages 9.5 -9.6)  housing that is equally available to all persons (pages 9.6 and 9.7)  sufficient land area exists for future housing needs (page 9.7)  a variety of housing types for all income levels (pages 9.7 – 9.9)  housing to meet the needs of various ages and levels of mobility (pages 9.9 – 9.10)  affordable housing options for low-to-moderate income residents who work in the County and wish to live here (pages 9.10 – 9.13)  mixing affordable units within neighborhoods (pages 9.13 – 9.14)  working with the City of Charlottesville on housing issues (pages 9.14 – 9.15) The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and Appendices for Housing are listed in Attachment C. A table comparing the existing and recommended Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Housing is provided as Attachment D. The focus of the September 9th work session on Housing will be on the following:  The Affordable Housing Policy (pages 9.10 – 9.14 and A.9-1 – A.9.6) The Affordable Housing Policy was an outgrowth of the Neighborhood Model adopted in 2001. The Neighborhood Model articulated the importance of having affordable housing available in the County, locating most of it in the Development Areas where services and infrastructure are available, and mixing affordable units with market-rate units. The Affordable Housing Policy, appended to the Comprehensive Plan in 2005 , set expectations for developers to provide at least 15% affordable units in residential rezonings and with special use permits for residential uses. Staff comment: The Planning Commission recommended two policy changes for provision of affordable housing. The first change would allow for a reduction in the number of expected affordable units if the units are targeted to households with less than 80% of median household income. At present, there are no credits for providing housing targeted to lower incomes. The Commission also recommended changes to allow for more flexibility in the way that affordable housing proffer expectations could be accomplished. Attachment E provides more detail on the proposed changes to the policy.  Clarification to the Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities re: Affordable Housing Credits (page A.3.3) The current Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities allows for the exclusion of dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of affordable housing from the calculation of the AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment September 9, 2014 BOS – CPA 2013-01 September 9, 2014 Page 3 of 3 number of dwelling units subject to a cash proffer. In practice, this exclusion has only applied to affordable units physically built and not when a unit is replaced by cash in lieu of the unit for affordable housing. For some projects, developers have requested that the exclusion also be applied to the number of affordable units not physically built, but for which the cash in lieu of unit is provided. Staff comment: The Planning Commission did not recommend this exclusion. Attachment F provides the specific changes in language and more information on the Commission’s recommendation. BUDGET IMPACT: Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital improvements and operations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein presented and concur on those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then make any necessary changes and bring them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Reports and Associated PC Minutes Attachment B: Solid Waste: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress and Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information Attachment C: Housing: Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Indicators of Progress Attachment D: Comparison of Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for Housing Attachment E: Background and Discussion on Proposed Changes to Affordable Housing Policy Attachment F: Background and Discussion on Clarification to Cash Proffer Policy In Relation to Affordable Units Return to agenda 1 of 2 Attachment A BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Staff Reports and Associated PC Minutes Solid Waste May 22, 2012 – Community Facilities in General Staff Report Minutes ____________________ Community Facilities November 27, 2012 – Community Facilities in General Staff Report Minutes Minutes - May 14, 2013 – Community Facilities in General __________________ Housing February 14, 2012 – Future Housing Supply Staff Report Minutes ____________________ June 26, 2012 – Affordable Housing Staff Report Minutes ____________________ November 27, 2012 – Housing in General Staff report Minutes ____________________ April 16, 2013 – Cash Proffer for Affordable Housing Staff Report Appendix A.1 Cash Proffer Policy-Affordable Housing Minutes ____________________ May 7, 2013 – Housing Minutes Return to exec summary CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 1 STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL, WEAVER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: MAY 22, 2012 CPA 2013-00001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION Worksession 8 – Community Facilities and Design Expectations for the Development Areas BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Plan includes information for a number of topics including expectations for community facilities and design expectations for the Development Areas. Input on community facilities needs was received at the Livability Workshop on February 23, 2012. To prepare for this worksession, Planning staff consulted with department heads of the various departments in the County and also ARB staff. PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION The purpose of this worksession is to re-affirm the recommendations of the Neighborhood Model and talk about needs for the Entrance Corridor. The worksession will also be used for the Commission to review existing and proposed standards for Community Facilities and provide input to staff. Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model is a set of recommendations for creating livable urban neighborhoods and areas. It was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2001 after being developed by a diverse committee ranging from developers, development professionals, citizens, business professionals, advocacy and neighborhood groups. The 23-member committee was called DISC – the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee which worked on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for 3 years. DISC was tasked with recommending ways to make density a desirable feature of the Development Areas. The policy to have more densely developed Development Areas had been established as a County goal before that time. The Neighborhood Model has the following 12 principles for the Development Areas:  Pedestrian Orientation  Interconnected Streets and Transp. Networks  Neighborhood Centers  Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths  Parks and Open Space  Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability  Relegated Parking  Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale  Redevelopment  Mixture of Uses  Site Planning that Respects Terrain  Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 2 These are also principles of “new urbanism”; however, every developmen t is not expected to become a traditional neighborhood development or provide for a mixture of uses. Sidewalks with street trees, curb and gutter on interconnected streets, parks and amenity areas, human-scaled architecture, and working with terrain are expectations for all new developments. Other than that, each new development is expected to be designed in relation to the surrounding properties and uses. Master Planning was intended to provide the detail needed for each Development Area and to show how the principles could play out over a larger area. There was a great deal of discussion after adoption of the Neighborhood Model as to whether these principles were “the model” or “a model” for new development. The Comprehensive Plan says that the Neighborhood Model is the preferred model for development. Each development proposal is unique and, especially in infill situations, application of all of the principles would not be possible. Staff believes that these statements should remain in the Comprehensive Plan. As part of this update, staff believes that it is important to refine the principles and provide a more comprehensive set of design options to achieve the principles. A small set of design options was provided in 2001 and adopted with the Neighborhood Model. Staff would like to propose the following 8 principles as the 2012 version of the Neighborhood Model. These 8 principles would incorporate all 12 of the 2001 Principles and are proposed as:  Create centers  Have a pedestrian orientation  Provide attractive, multi-modal streets  Build human-scale buildings  Provide for a mixture of housing types  Make parks, green systems, and open space features of development  Ensure compatibility with nearby and adjoining uses  Provide for appropriate site grading to help meet the other principles Each one of these principles is discussed below to show how they relate to the existing principles. Staff will provide some photographs of how to achieve the proposed principles in the Powerpoint presentation on May 22. Additional Illustrated options for achieving these options would be provided as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Centers – Centers are focal points for an area and places where greater intensity of use or activity occurs. They are places where people want to be. A center CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 3 could be a single use, such as a school, religious institution or park or a place of mixed use, such as the Old Trail Village center. Areas of lower intensity are expected to radiate away from the Center. In some cases the lowest intensity of use will be at the boundary of the development Area. In other cases, the intensity of use may be high at the boundary. The Master Plans show expectations for boundary conditions. Pedestrian orientation – Walkability is expected in the Development Areas and the main way to help achieve a pedestrian orientation is to provide sidewalks and places to which people can walk. Walking is not expected to be the main mode of transportation; but, as the obesity epidemic continues and gas prices increase, walking is looked at as a way to improve public health and decrease dependency on oil. Having a sidewalk along the street and a front door to the street is very important in welcoming pedestrians to shopping or employment areas. Attractive, multi-modal streets – Defined streetscape and options for transportation are characteristics of more urban areas that are desired in the Development Areas. Streetscape includes curb/curb & gutter, street trees, and sidewalks. The comfort of the pedestrian and the ability to create outdoor meeting places is also part of the streetscape. Interconnected streets help the pedestrian as well as provide more efficient transit, school bus, and emergency service provision. On-street bike lanes and off-street multi-modal paths can also help with providing multi-modal opportunities. Lighting improves safety and allows for pedestrians to use sidewalks after dark. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale – Part of making livable urban areas is having the places in which people want to live, work, and play. The height, scale, and massing of buildings plays into creating those places. Setbacks, window and door openings, the location of parking as well as street width in relation to building height also contribute to creating places with a human scale. Mixed housing types – Having a mixture of housing types within an area or a neighborhood provides more living options in a community than developments with only a single unit type. Young adults and older adults generally have different housing needs than residents raising families. Having a variety of housing types in close proximity to each other helps people be able to age in place as well as to purchase in a neighborhood where they may want to live for a long time. An expectation of mixed housing types is that affordable units will also CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 4 be provided in a way that they are not physically distinguishable on the exterior from market rate units. Parks, green systems, and open space – Natural areas and places for recreation help to create a more pleasant urban area. In the Development Areas, environmental systems are indicated on the Parks and Green Systems maps for each Development Area. Amenity areas with hardscape can be part of public and private parks. Along with preserved environmental features, these activity areas are expected to have places of prominence in the community, rather than be “leftover space”. Compatibility with nearby and adjoining uses – One of the most important resources in the Development Areas is the presence of existing neighborhoods. Most of Albemarle’s Development Area neighborhoods are attractive stable places in which residents are invested. How infill and redevelopment takes place must be carried out with respect to existing development patterns and potential impacts on residents. Appropriate Site Grading—In hilly places like Albemarle County, site grading can create inviting or uninviting places, connected or unconnected areas, and easy or hard areas to maintain. Cut and fill is a necessity; however, balancing cut and fill on a single property sometimes creates severe grade differences between developments. Large/tall retaining walls and vast expanses of 2:1 slopes make pedestrian and vehicular interconnections diffi cult. Maintenance can also be problematic. In the Development Areas, more gentle grading is expected to create greater connectivity and prevent stark changes in topography. If density cannot be achieved by working with steep terrain, then regrading plans must be created carefully and thoughtfully, then executed with that same care to create places people want to see, be in, and enjoy. These features continue to be expected in the Development Areas. Prioritization of the most important features is indicated in the Master Plans. For example, the text of a Master Plan and associated environmental maps may show that environmental features are to be preserved. If a road connection is expected which would disturb these features, the Master Plan should clearly indicate this expectation such as Eastern Avenue in Crozet which will cross Lickinghole Creek. In places where the Master Plan has not shown which principle is a priority, discretion is needed. In exercising discretion, priority is to be given to overall community needs and which features would create the most livable places. CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 5 Entrance Corridors (ECs) The County’s Entrance Corridors are the gateway into the historic parts of the City and County and are regulated in the County through the Entrance Corridor Zoning Overlay District. Design within these districts is approved if it is in conformity with the EC Guidelines. (Attachment A provides the General Design Guidelines for the Entrance Corridor.) The Comprehensive Plan update is intended to provide updated maps and recommendations on a few changes to the Guidelines. By and large, the design guidelines work well for the Entrance Corridors. However, the recommendations from the 1996 Land Use Plan for corridor specific plans are still needed because of the distinctive character of the different corridors. In addition, the guidelines don’t reflect the distinctions between expected urban places and expected rural places. For example, the Guidelines have an expectation for site development to be sensitive to the existing natural landscape by preserving trees and preserving the rolling terrain of the area, to the extent possible. Retaining the existing landscape is often not possible when creating more urban places, especially in commercial corridors. Corridor specific guidelines would help deal with the expectations for urban and rural settings. Staffing has prevented these EC guidelines from being developed. Some guidance has been provided in the Master Plans for the major streets such as Route 250 West in Crozet, Route 250 East in Pantops, and Route 29 in the Places 29 Plan. At present, the Entrance Corridor guidelines don’t reference these plans. The guidelines should be updated to help provide guidance to developers as well as the Architectural Review Board. Other problematic areas with application of both the Neighborhood Model principles and the Entrance Corridor guidelines are streetscape and location of parking lots. In commercial zoning districts in the Development Areas, deep front building setbacks are required. In the Entrance Corridor, this area provides an area for heavy landscaping. Setback regulations for parking lots are less deep than building setbacks which promotes the provision of parking areas between the street and the buildings. The Neighborhood Model suggests that parking areas be located to the side or behind buildings and that front setbacks be more shallow. Buildings should actually be front- facing with entrances from sidewalks along the street. Street trees should be provided between the street and the sidewalk. At present, the Entrance Corridor guidelines don’t address these expectations. Both the existing Entrance Corridor guidelines and expectations from the Neighborhood Model continue to conflict with the physical condition of wide utility corridors parallel to CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 6 the street. More work is needed in this area so that realistic expectations are set for this particular condition. The guidelines should be updated to address how to resolve the conflict. Staff recommends that the Comprehensive Plan include these recommendations for the Entrance Corridor to:  Develop corridor specific plans  Rework the Entrance Corridor Guidelines to address guidance and expectations for a building face and entrance to the street.  Rework the Entrance Corridor Guidelines to reference the Master Plans for the Development Areas for guidance for streetscape features, including utility corridors Community Facilities The Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan describes the existing facilities and services provided by the County as well as the standards to be used for provision of service and new or upgraded facilities. Adherence to the standards ensures provision of facilities and services in an efficient and cost effective manner. This information is essential for Capital Improvements Program requests. Service provision is also part of the County’s growth management policy. The following statement is contained in the Community Facilities section of the Plan as well as being featured prominently in several other places in the Comprehensive Plan: “Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in, and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, service and facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those persons living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of public service delivery equal to services provided in the Development Areas.” No changes to this policy are recommended nor are significant changes to the Community Facilities section are expected with the update except for formatting and Police Services. Information is provided on both existing standards and proposed changes in Attachment B. Information is not provided on schools or water and sewer utilities. The Schools Division is still working on their proposed changes. In addition, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle CPA 2013-01 PC May 22, 2012 Staff Report Page 7 County Service Authority recommendations go through their respective boards and current plans are the Community Water Supply Plan and wastewater facilities plan. The Police Department is recommending a change in the way service is provided. Currently, the Department is based a sector/beat system. Police officers are assigned to certain geographic beats or sectors from the central headquarters on Fifth Street. They operate on three shifts and process violations at satellite locations in other community facilities, such as fire stations and the Meadows Community Center in Crozet. The Department desires to move towards a Police Service Area Model, which is better known as geographic policing. Geographic policing provides for districts and district stations that the Police Department feels will result in enhanced community relations, partnerships and outreach. The strategy puts Police operational level personnel closer to citizen, which can allow for a single point of contact for each geographical area. Rather than the three sectors headquartered at Fifth Street, the Department proposes northern and southern district stations. The stations would have regular business hours for public access to government services such as purchasing licenses and permits or paying tax bills or other fees. District stations would provide locations for officers to complete administration functions without having to return to headquarters which keeps the officer in the patrol district and improves overall response time in the district. The southern district would remain at Fifth Street. The northern district would cover the northern part of the Development Area which has the greatest number of residents. Internally, the Police Department believes that the Police Service Model will create ownership of geographic areas among Police officers and supervisors will use a variety of traditional and community based policing strategies to address crime and quality of life issues. More specific details on the Police Department desired community facility objectives and standards can be found in Attachment B. Recommendations Staff recommends that the Commission review the recommendations in this report, take public comment and direct staff on proposed changes to the Neighborhood Model principles, the Entrance Corridor guidelines, and Community Facilities to reflect the desired goals for the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments Attachment A: Entrance Corridor – General Design Guidelines Attachment B: Community Facilities Recommendations 11 ATTACHMENT B Existing and Recommended Community Facilities Overall Objectives This section includes both existing text of the overall objectives for Community Facilities. Objectives have been taken word-for-word from the existing community facilities plan. For brevity with this staff report, additional explanations have not been included. Additional explanations will be updated with the final recommendations. The section on the Neighborhood Model exists in the Community Facilities Plan and will be updated after the Commission’s discussion on updates to the Neighborhood Model. There are a number of general objectives which are common to all community facilities. Other service objectives established within specific facility sections are to be utilized in conjunction with these objectives in evaluating facility need and design. Objectives:  Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost- effectiveness. Levels of service will vary based on the area of the County. Those in the outlying Rural Area should not anticipate levels of service delivery equal to those provided in the Development Area.  The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s Development Areas so as to support County land use policies. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as service center locations for the Rural Areas. Only in cases where it is not possible to locate a new facility in the Development Area due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility, and/or service(s) provided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area.  Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety concerns, and provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population served.  Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet service needs.  Maintenance of existing facilities is of primary importance. No benefit is gained if new facilities are provided while existing facilities deteriorate and become substandard. Also, in meeting new service needs, consideration should be given to whether the existing facilities can provide an adequate level of service through modification of them.  All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service needs. All buildings, structures and other facilities shall be designed to permit expansion as necessary.  Related or complementary services/facilities should be located together when possible.  Schedule funding of community facilities through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), based on the adopted Community Facilities Plan.  Determine the value of maintaining existing but obsolete facilities and sites for the potential re- use for other services/facilities prior to their disposal.  Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to providing 12 ATTACHMENT B facilities that are environmentally responsible.  Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to occupant health and community benefits.  All community facilities shall be in conformance with County regulations, site development standards, and policies to the greatest extent feasible. The Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model impacts community facility planning and development in varied ways, but for the most part, it impacts the relative location of the facility within the designated Development Area, and the location and design of the facility on-site. The Neighborhood Model has relatively limited impact on the management and operation of the service. The following is a description of what the model offers and the goals for Neighborhood and how these may relate to facilities planning and development. What the Neighborhood Model Offers The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model: 1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. All public facilities should be designed and/or located to accommodate multi-modal transportation options, including walkways, bike facilities and transit access, if available. 2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. Greater emphasis will be placed on strategic location of open space areas and their design to make them more accessible to neighborhood residents. There will be a greater potential smaller- scale public park and open space areas will be dedicated to the County for operation as part of future development activity. Also see #12, below. 3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian friendly. Building size and orientation on the site (and to the street and neighborhood) should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to the extent possible and appropriate. As a general rule, buildings should be oriented to the street, with parking relegated internal to the site and away from the street. 4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Not directly related to facility development. However, on-site development density should be taken into consideration to avoid lower density/sprawling site development which under-utilizes sites and 13 ATTACHMENT B does not create or contribute to compact, walkable neighborhood development. 5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment. Public facility sites do not need to be mixed-use in character. It should be recognized that public facilities contribute to the mixed-use character of neighborhoods. Therefore, strategic location and siting of facilities can contribute to creating mixed-use neighborhoods. 6. Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. Interconnected streets should be considered and accommodated as part of site development to the greatest extent feasible and as appropriate for the neighborhood and the facility. 7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking. This should be applied to the facility site design to the greatest extent feasible. 8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. Typically, this would not be applicable to facilities development. However, should opportunities be offered/presented to provide housing as part of a facility development should it should be considered for its appropriateness. Mixing of housing and public facilities is not necessarily discouraged. 9. Emphasizes re-use of sites. This is already a long-standing objective in the Community Facilities Plan. 10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved. This should be given strong consideration in site selection and site/building design. Public facilities should strive to meet this to the greatest extent feasible. It is recognized that grading and site alterations will occur with facility construction, but efforts need to be made to seek a sustainable balance with better grading and preserving natural topography. Two important focus points should be protecting important open space/resource areas (streams, significant wooded areas, etc.) and the character of the finished grading (steepness, ability to maintain, vegetate and avoid erosion). 11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas. Some facilities may be appropriate to locate at the edges of the Development Areas. The recommendations for the Development Area boundaries, or edge treatments, will be articulated in future Master Plans for each Development Area. 12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood. 14 ATTACHMENT B Public facilities may be established and function as neighborhood centers and/or opens space areas, particularly parks, libraries, and schools but also facilities like fire departments and county offices because of the meeting room/public gathering function. New public facilities will likely be encouraged to locate in existing neighborhoods centers, if feasible. 15 ATTACHMENT B Specific Community Facilities and Service Standards NOTE: All service objectives are taken from the existing Community Facilities Plan. The formatting is different in an effort to provide for consistency. The legend is as follows: existing text = no changes; bold italicized text = proposed changes; strike-through text = proposed deletions. Police Department Specific Service Objectives Service Area:  Police Service Area Model (Geographic Policing).Sectors/Beat System. Maintain an effective and efficient geo-policing strategy Sector/Beat system that facilitates meeting the identified response time standards.  Proposed Southside and Northside districts with more districts as population increases. Southside District would utilize Headquarters on 5th St. Ext. and Northside District will require new station. Building and Service Expectations: District Stations. Satellite Offices. Provide a minimum of one (1) district station satellite office in each police service area. all sectors.  Provide a level of service of one and one-half (1.5) officers per 1000 residents.  The primary service objective for police services is to achieve a five-minute response time to all emergency calls 85 percent of the time in the Development Areas (average 10 minutes to Rural Area). The Police Department patrols are assigned performed based on geographic policing districts. a Sector/Beat System.  Achieve a an average response time of five minutes or less to all emergency calls 85 percent of the time in the designated Development Areas.  Achieve an average response time of ten minutes or less to all emergency calls in the Rural Area of the County.  Provide new facilities in a manner that accommodates anticipated service demands and the needs of the current and future staff.  Maintain and upgrade, as necessary, headquarters and other support facilities to meet the standards outlined in this Plan. Public Safety Training Academy. Provide a locally managed regional or independent academy to allow community public safety agencies to train together as a team in the community they serve. Police officers and other first responders will train together as new recruits at the academy as well as at annual in-service training events. Specific Locations: District Stations:  Locate Police District Stations Satellite Offices within all designated police service areas service Sectors of the County.  The location of district stations should be within a designated Development Area whenever possible or a well defined existing rural crossroad, commercial/residential concentration, or neighborhood. village. 16 ATTACHMENT B  The district station satellite office should be in a location which allows response from the site to help meet response time standards.  Southside District Station will operate from existing Fifth Street location.  Northside District Station. Provide a new district station that would serve the northern police service area. Public Safety Training Academy  Locate at the Keene landfill Specific Service or Facility Standards District Stations  Each station will have regular business hours for public access to government services. It will provide a location for officers to complete administration functions.  Building Size: TBD  Building Configuration: TBD  Location within Development Areas: In a location which allows response from the site to help meet response time standards. Public Safety Training Academy  Components of the academy will consist of:  A police firing range (size: TBD);  Fire Haz-mat training areas (size: TBD);  Burn Buildings (size: TBD);  Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC);  Classrooms (size: TBD);  Auditorium (size: TBD);  Exercise Facility (size: TBD);  Special training environments for Police, Fire, Dispatch, Courts, and Jail. (size TBD);  Site Size: TBD  Impacts of outdoor facilities will be mitigated through locations as far away as practicable from buildings and uses on adjoining properties, use of trees and other vegetation to buffer appearance and noise  Some classroom and auditorium facilities may be located at sites in the Development Areas 17 ATTACHMENT B Fire & Rescue Services Specific Service Objectives Service Area:  Ten Fire station areas as shown on First Due Response Areas map (from the County website) Building and Service Expectations:  Achieve an average response time (how long it takes once the call is dispatched from ECC until a fire apparatus arrives on scene) to fire emergency calls of five minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.  Achieve an average response time (from time the call is dispatched from ECC to time an EMS staffed vehicle arrives on-scene) to rescue emergency calls of four minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.  Over the next 3-5 years have Albemarle County Fire and Rescue lead an initiative with volunteer agencies and the City to align fire/rescue response times in our Urban Areas to have one standard for City/County.  Have Construct fire and rescue stations at strategic locations throughout the County to help achieve desired response times to all emergency calls and increase the level of service.  Maintain and utilize the current emergency response data collection system in order to provide the County with sound information to anticipate demand for services, subsequent staffing, and new equipment and facilities  Provide firefighting and rescue equipment as needed to meet the characteristics of particular service areas.  A threshold of 2,500-3,000 1,000 total calls per year (including emergency and non- emergency) should be used as a benchmark indicator of full capacity of any fire/rescue station. Once threshold is reached, improvements or modifications will need to be made to function effectively above 2,500-3,000 1,000 total calls per year. Specific Locations:  Encourage joint fire and rescue stations at new locations when possible. Specific Service or Facility Standards Site size: 2 acre minimum Building Configuration:  Provide firefighting and rescue equipment as needed to meet the characteristics of particular service areas.  The station should be oriented to the street and brought forward to the extent feasible and practical. Because of unique characteristics with fire/rescue stations (bay and apron access needs, site circulation needs, etc.), the building and parking area’s relationship to the street may need to be more flexible. Location of Stations:  In general, a good location is a site that has direct access to a collector road, located within .5 mile from an arterial road. The fire and rescue departments should control any traffic signal lights located 18 ATTACHMENT B at the collector/arterial road intersection(s) during emergency calls.  A station should not be located such that its equipment would be immediately hindered during response by steep grades, crossing restricted bridges or railroad crossings.  Do not locate a facility directly on heavily traveled roads that are frequently congested due to the potential conflicts with entering traffic flow. A site close to high volume intersections may prevent equipment from leaving the station because traffic is backed up waiting for a signal to change. However, it may be possible to address these issues through the use of “station controlled” traffic signals along such road corridors.  Stations should be located in centers, or commercial/service areas/industrial areas. Locations near or adjacent to neighborhoods may be acceptable; however, potential noise and traffic conflicts must be adequately addressed. Indoor Facilities/Building Size: Each new fire and rescue station should include the following facilities: 1) Living quarters (w/ kitchen, wash rooms, etc.) 2) Chief's office 3) Radio room 4) Storage area 5) Exercise area 6) Training space/Apparatus area 7) Meeting room (serving 50-100 persons) 8) Police Department satellite office space (500 sq. ft.)  Generally, 700 square feet of apparatus space is needed for each major fire vehicle and 350 square feet for each rescue squad vehicle to accommodate for vehicle storage and free circulation around the apparatus.  Provide meeting room space within all new and renovated facilities.  Provide satellite office space for police department within all new or renovated stations (see Police section of the Community Facilities Plan). The space should consist of a general office space and include a small, secure storage area. Separate access is desirable, but not necessary. 19 ATTACHMENT B Library Services Specific Service Objectives Service Area:  Specific to each library facility  Library should be available to 75% of the service area within 10 min. DAs and 20 min. for RA. Charlottesville locations meet some of need. Building and Service Expectations:  0.7 gross square feet of library space per resident.  Target of 1 library per 20,000 residents. Alternative Service Provision:  Bookmobile services help serve RA.  Consider evolving changes in technology (on-line transactions, downloadable books, self check-out kiosks), after completion of the Crozet library. Use of on-line technology to access books and reference materials may have major impact on use and configuration of future library space. Visibility:  Prominent location required to attract and encourage use of the library.  Located in a place where people can access it and conduct other activities on the same trip. Specific Locations:  Retain existing locations in conjunction with Jefferson-Madison Regional Library System and after completion of Crozet Library with exception of Northside Library  New Northside library facility is needed in northern part of the DA. Preferred location is south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Explore realistic options for expanding library space at existing location.  New library facility is needed in the southern part of the Development Area. Consider location near Monticello High School. Specific Service or Facility Standards Site size: 2 acre minimum for standalone facility Building Size:  15,000 – 30,000 sq. ft;  25,000 sq. ft. for a headquarters library building. Building Configuration: Single story storage structures are preferred Multi-story or single-story buildings are permissible. In assessing whether a single-story or multi-story building is appropriate, factors such as due to construction cost, operation efficiencies and security are to be considered. However, m Multi-story structures are seen as may be a viable option to allow a location on use a smaller infill site, or to address topographic and/or other site constraints. Location within Development Areas: 20 ATTACHMENT B  Within neighborhood centers, downtown areas, or other commercial service area concentrations.  Locations in or at the edge of residential neighborhoods may be appropriate. Books/Indoor Facilities:  Use Jefferson-Madison Regional Library standards for total collections, resource materials, special rooms, staff space, and public seating space. 21 ATTACHMENT B Parks and Recreation Specific Service Objectives Service Area: In Development Areas as new and existing:  Neighborhood Parks  Community Parks  District Parks  Athletic fields  Trails  Preserved environmental features  Provide new park facilities, especially community and district parks, to support the County’s Land Use Policy. In Rural Areas as:  outlying development areas such as Communities and Villages as well as existing school sites will serve as park service centers.  Preserved open spaces  Existing District and County Parks  Athletic fields  Trails Service Expectations:  Utilize County school facilities as an integral part of providing recreational opportunities to County residents.  Upgrade facilities in Albemarle County that do not meet the standards outlined in this Plan to provide a full range of recreational opportunities to their service area in a complementary and non- duplicative fashion.  Emphasize maintenance and enhancement of existing facilities.  Ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are adequately maintained to permit their continues productive and safe use.  Preserve and provide access to and within areas identified in the Albemarle County Open Space Plan and Master Plans for public use.  Provide for additional athletic field facilities and/or park land that will accommodate athletic fields.  Provide for open spaces that can accommodate active and passive uses, trails and trail and water access for fishing and hiking among other uses. Specific Locations:  Provide District-level park service to the Scottsville Community by upgrading Totier Creek Park (as feasible) and/or Dorrier Park/ Scottsville Community Center. and/or Scottsville Elementary.  Upgrade and repair existing facilities at the elementary, middle and high schools to ensure that the sites are functioning effectively as Community and District Parks.  Construct public access facilities around and within sites indicated in the Open Space Plan for public use and ensure safe and efficient use of the area.  Encourage the maintenance and enhancement of existing public access points to the Shenandoah National Park.  Provide for public trail connections to Biscuit Run State Park 22 ATTACHMENT B Specific Service or Facility Standards Site Size: Recreation facilities are provided through a hierarchy and are classified by their function and services provided. These classifications include:  Neighborhood;  Community;  District and  County Function and Services Provided:  Provide new recreational opportunities in those Development Aareas not effectively served, especially in or near Development developments. Neighborhood Parks  New neighborhood-level park facilities shall be located in Development Areas in support of the County Land Use Policies.  The service area for neighborhood-level park service is approximately 5 – 15 minutes walking distance or within a one (1) mile driving distance.  New or renovated elementary school sites can also serve the need for neighborhood-level park facilities depending on site location and size and can provide the minimum level of recreational/ athletic facilities recommended to adequately serve the student population and surrounding neighborhood.  Site design and location should encourage pedestrian access to the greatest extent.  Facilities and services encouraged for neighborhood-level parks include but is not limited to:  Appropriate-sized parking areas  Playground with Benches  Shelter/Picnic Facilities  Basketball Court  Dog Park  Bike Rakes  Trail Head/Kiosk  Open space (can include improved area such as courtyards to plazas or natural areas) Community Parks  Use standards from Virginian Outdoor Foundation  New community-level park facilities shall be located in Development Areas in support of the County Land use Policies.  The service area for community level park service in Development Areas is generally within a 2.5 mile driving distance from a site.  New or renovated elementary school sites can also serve the need for community-level park facilities depending on site location and size and can provide a higher level of recreational facilities which will require a larger site to accommodate.  Site design and location should encourage pedestrian access to the greatest extent. 23 ATTACHMENT B  Provide Community-level park service to the eastern portion of the Pantops Development Area Neighborhood 3 by upgrading facilities at Darden Towe Park through a community engaged master planning process. District Parks  Use standards from Virginian Outdoor Foundation  New district-level park facilities shall be located in Development Areas in support of the County Land use Policies.  The service area for district-level park service in Development Areas is generally within a 5-7 mile driving distance from a site.  New or renovated middle or high school sites can also serve the need for district-level park facilities depending on site location and size and can provide a diversity of recreational opportunities for the school population and well as the surrounding community.  Site design and location should encourage pedestrian access to the greatest extent. County Parks  Standards o be provided by Parks and Recreation Staff  County – level parks are located in the Rural Areas in support of the County Land use Policies 24 ATTACHMENT B County Government Specific Service Objectives Service Area:  Insert UPDATED Map K to depict the location of the County Office Buildings, Courts, Schools, Parks, etc. for specific locations of these services:  COB-McIntire housing Community Development, County Attorney, County Executive, Finance, General Services, Human Resources, Information Technology, Office of Facilities Development, Office of Management and Budget, and Schools Division administration.  COB-5th Street housing Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families, Fire Rescue, Housing, Police, Social Services, Virginia Cooperative Extension, and Voter Registration.  Courts Service Area is the entire County for these agencies:  Albemarle County Circuit Court, Albemarle County General District Court, Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Commonwealth’s Attorney, District 9 Adult Probation and Parole, Public Defender, Albemarle County Bar Association, and Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office Building and Service Expectations:  Centralize government administrative services near population/employment centers in the City and/or in Development Areas of the County to effectively provide efficient operations and convenient locations for the general public.  Courts system: TBD Visibility:  Court facilities should be highly visible iconic and set the tone for government, architectural style, and urban patterning in the community. Specific Service or Facility Standards Building Size/Configuration:  If deemed appropriate, provide additional office space either through leasing, purchasing, or construction of a new building. If future additional space is provided, the existing office building should be reconfigured, as necessary, to accommodate anticipated office space demand of remaining departments.  Provide a standard of office space per employee. Additional space needs may be met by one or more of four options:  Construct additional space at the existing central site.  Provide satellite facilities in one or more highly populated Development Areas of the County.  Lease nearby, office space.  Purchase additional building(s).  Provide ancillary space needs in conjunction with the provision of new space and the expansion of services in the development areas with the addition on annex County offices.  Provide additional space in accordance with need. Do not defer provision of new space to a point where unsatisfactory conditions exist. Maximize flexibility in space design to maximize opportunities 25 ATTACHMENT B to use/modify/expand/reduce internal space.  Evaluate existing space in the current buildings and eliminate inefficient design which may allow for additional office space. Use industry standards pertaining to employee workspace needs in the renovation design process.  Provide adequate space to allow departments that relate closely in responsibility and activities to locate in the same structure. Within the structure, location of such departments should be primarily based on their operational inter-relationships to assure they can function efficiently and serve the public effectively.  Design any new facilities constructed on the existing site to be functionally and aesthetically complimentary to the existing structure.  Provide adequate storage space to enable departments to meet their missions, respond to FOIA, and adhere to state and federal archive requirements. 26 ATTACHMENT B Solid Waste Services Specific Service Objectives Service Area:  County-wide. Service Expectations:  County initiatives are reflected in the TJPDC Regional Solid Waste Plan.  Implement an efficient and environmentally sensitive solid waste management program in keeping with the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan and the County’s Environmental Management Policy. Ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County.  Local Initiatives should be generally reflective of the state of Virginia’s hierarchy for solid waste management activities: source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfills.  Develop a solid waste program that adheres to the rules and regulations of the Virginia Waste Management Act.  Develop an efficient and environmentally sensitive solid waste management program. Ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County.  Explore and participate in solid waste disposal methods and programs which will cost effectively provide services to our citizens. increase the life expectancy of the existing landfill. This should include study of all solid waste activities listed in service objective #1.  Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste material in the county.  In cooperation with the RSWA, provide establish a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for the County.  In cooperation with RSWA and as proposed by the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan, increase understanding of the need for solid waste management and increase the participation of individuals, businesses, and institutions in waste reduction.  Recognizing the changes brought by comingled solid waste services now being provided, analyze possible economic savings and other benefits by evaluating various financing methods including City/County, private or regional funding matching public services to gaps not addressed by the private markets.  The County should utilize a combination of solid waste management activities discussed in this section. This program should assure the participation of individuals, businesses and institutions in source reduction and reuse in a cost effective manner.  Initiate a study to locate a new landfill site. This study should be in conjunction with other jurisdictions and the possibility of a Regional Landfill should be considered.  Determine the most cost-effective and beneficial method to collect recyclables and implement this program immediately to ensure the County adequately meets State mandates for recycling and provides services in keeping with its policies.  Develop a data collection program that ensures accurate reporting of recycling activities and allows the data to be used for accurately projecting future waste stream.  Through the work of the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan, Develop and implement an integrated education program for all aspects of the waste stream in consultation with the City, University, RWSA, private sector and other interested groups. This education program should promote the purchase and use of recyclable materials. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 18 CPA-2013-00001 Comprehensive Plan Revision Work Session 8 – Community Facilities and Design Expectations for the Development Areas (Elaine Echols) The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on the following issues regarding Community Facilities and Design Expectations for the Development Area: · Neighborhood Model - Re-affirm the recommendations · Entrance Corridor Needs · Community Facilities – Review existing and proposed standards and provide input to staff Elaine Echols and Andy Sorrell made a presentation on the existing Neighborhood Model principles, a proposed change to their format and reduction from 12 to 8 principles, information on the relationship of the Entrance Corridor guidelines to the Neighborhood Model, and expectations for Community Facilities. The following comments were received from Commissioners: Neighborhood Model · The 12 principles should be kept intact rather than generalizing them to 8 principles. More specificity rather than less is desirable. Reducing the number may send a message that the individual principles are not as important. Whatever you do, don’t lose the substance of the 12 principles. · The proposed 8 principles better reflect what has been learned over with the Neighborhood Model the last 10 – 12 years. · The principle of “neighborhood friendly streets and paths” seems to be missing. Due to concerns about preservation of paths in the community, this principle needs to be retained and emphasized. There are redundancies in verbiage that should be removed. Mr. Lafferty offered to provide specific information upon request. Additional detailed comments on NH model and public facilities will be emailed by Mr. Dotson. · More emphasis is needed on multimodal transportation. The term, “multimodal” doesn’t have to mean having all modes on the same street. · Comments in the Neighborhood Model related to concurrency should not be dropped. · Consider using the City’s terminology of “enhanced pedestrian experience” rather than “pedestrian orientation or human scale”. · Provide a better explanation about different types of housing and the importance of affordable housing in development. · Look for as many ways possible to emphasize “centers” -- on maps, in the text. The term, “commercial center” may better imply or describe the kinds of centers that are desirable. · When siting community facilities, see if you can group them together on the ground to create new centers. The principle of interconnectivity needs work, especially where the interconnections may affect an existing neighborhood. In some instances, the Commission has not supported this principle. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 19 · Walkability in areas and having the sidewalks along the street in front of the door to the street is very important to welcome pedestrians to shopping and employment areas. · If we are going to make the development area pedestrian friendly, then we have to figure out a way of getting people across those major thoroughfares without impeding more of the traffic. · Having sidewalks along Rt. 250 East and Rt. 29 North with entrances to buildings from these sidewalks is not realistic due to the amount and speed of traffic on these streets and the lack of pedestrian crossings across the roads. · If the western bypass is built, don’t count on less traffic on Rt. 29. There are no real opportunities to make this street more pedestrian friendly. · The Neighborhood Model has changed the form of development over the last 10 – 12 years, but, has it really increased density? See if you can provide more detailed information on densities achieved. · How will the upcoming critical slopes changes relate to the NM Principle of appropriate site grading? · The original NH Model principle, Clear Boundaries with Rural Areas, was left out of the new 8 principles and there does not appear to be a reference to the need for clear boundaries. Is there a change in philosophy? We don’t want to lose that principle. · On the attractive multimodal streets description, the last sentence says, “Lighting improves safety and allows for pedestrians to use sidewalks after dark.” Does this conflict with the dark sky goals? Entrance Corridors · Why keep the recommendations for developing corridor specific guidelines if there is no staff or money to pay for development of these guidelines? · More flexibility is needed with application of EC guidelines. It isn’t useful to spend hours of time arguing over paint colors. Community Facilities · Concurrency goals should be added to the Community Facilities Plan particularly on infrastructure. There need to be benchmarks established. · Greater direction is needed for guidance on how to provide facilities and services when full funding is not available. · Cost effectiveness should be defined. · Statements should be provided that relate to the need for consistency of service delivery. · Items listed in the CIP need to be listed in the Comprehensive Plan first. There seems to be a disconnect between the CIP and Comprehensive Plan at times. · A community facilities map is needed so that one can see the relationship of community facilities to one another. Public Comments Valerie Long: · Don’t lose the language in the current Comprehensive Plan related to redevelopment and infill. The County historically has supported infill and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 20 redevelopment even when it has not been considered to be compatible by neighbors. There is some really wonderful helpful language in the Infill Development process that could be looked to for guidance on this issue. · How do critical slopes and critical slope regulations relate to goals for site grading? Is more flexibility for disturbing critical slopes contemplated in the designated development areas? If so, how do those two issues relate? It is very important to be clear on the expectation because oftentimes applicants are working so hard to avoid disturbing critical slopes that, final grading is not necessarily the best outcome. There needs to be some balance between critical slope regulations and grading expectations. · There should be some language added to the introduction of the Entrance Corridor Guidelines to discuss goals, the scope of ARB review, and statement that the guidelines aren’t intended to micro- manage design in developments but ensure compatibility. · There is a need for balance between achieving the kind of development in the designated growth areas that is desirable and the incredible challenges, delays, and expenses that come with the ARB process. · Retain flexibility in application of the NM Principles. Having 8 rather than 12 provides greater flexibility in how the principles are addressed. If it makes more sense to have 8 principles the smaller number allows the same goals to be achieved. Don’t discourage efforts to simplify the process. · Have the ARB provide better guidance when they are reviewing projects · Rules need to be flexible enough to achieve the common goals. Neil Williamson · The EC Guidelines are ripe for reform as is the role of the ARB. Consideration should be given to establishing performance standards and getting rid of the ARB. · The Commission should have asked for public comment before discussing the information that came from the staff presentation. · It is unfair to say that builders are not relegating parking as they are working to do just this. No formal action was taken. Old Business: Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being no old business, the meeting moved to the next item. New Business: Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. · There will be no Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, June 5, 2012 or June 12, 2012. · The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –MAY 22, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 21 Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the Tuesday, June 19, 2011 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 1 of 36 Other Community Facilities These pages represent text to be found in six different parts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. They are as follows:  Community Facility Standards and Plan – which are to be used in the upgrading and development of new community facilities (other than Parks and Rec.)  Specific Community Facility Standards are provided for for following service providers: o Police o Schools o Fire and Rescue o County Government o Solid Waste Management o Library Services CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 2 of 36 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 3 of 36 Community Facilities Standards and Plan Introduction and Expectations for all Community Facilities Community facilities provide a location for necessary and desired services for County residents and are important components in supporting and enhancing the quality of life in Albemarle County. The facilities covered within this plan include police, fire – rescue, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, government administration services, water and wastewater utilities, and solid waste facilities. Transportation facilities and sewer and water utilities are not covered in this part of the plan. Transportation is in a separate part of the plan. The provision of community facilities can influence where and when development will occur; therefore, they are important tools for managing growth. The importance of the provision of public services and facilities is recognized in the prior section on Sustainability, Growth Management and Facilities Planning & Financing. As indicated there, emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in, and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, service and facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those persons living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of public service delivery equal to services provided in the Development Areas. Community facilities are provided to residents in the County in a number of different ways. Some facilities/services are provided entirely by the County (schools, police), some are volunteer stations, while others are a combination of County and volunteer (fire). Some are regional in scope (libraries), while still others are provided jointly by the County and City (solid waste disposal facilities). In the case of Parks and Recreation facilities, separate facilities are provided by the City and County, but are made available for use by all residents in the entire area, including outlying Counties. Some park facilities are also provided jointly by the City and County (Darden Towe Park and Ivy Creek Natural Park). The County’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the County's role in providing regulations, support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be recognized that the desired increase in density and more urban model for development recommended in the Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure improvements and community facilities and services. Because of the high cost involved in providing community facilities and the potential impact to the County's growth pattern, it is important to have a comprehensive and systematic planning process. This process should promote an efficient provision of services and facilities that is consistent with current needs and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for future CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 4 of 36 development. This plan will serve as a framework for community facility development decisions. It will permit a better evaluation of service and facility performance and needs, and a more objective review of competing demands for new and expanded facilities so that the resources are used in areas of highest need. It is to be used to assist agency administrators and elected officials in determining the capital project needs and priorities, and timing for facility development. It establishes what the County determines to be the adequate level of service for community facilities. "Level of service" defines what County residents consider as necessary and desirable. To do this, service objectives and standards for provision of facilities are established. This Plan is an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and, like the Comprehensive Plan, will be reviewed on a regular basis. A goal from the earlier section in this plan on Sustainability, Growth Management and Facilities Planning and Financing Comprehensive Plan for facilities planning is to: Strongly support and effectively implement the County’s growth management priorities in the planning and provision of transportation, public facilities and public utilities. Residents of the County expect high quality facilities and services. It is recognized that the provision of such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of development. By their very nature, public facilities are capital-intensive, requiring significant funding not only for the initial development of the facility, but also for its continual maintenance and operation. It is becoming increasingly difficult for communities to find adequate fiscal resources to pay for new or improved facilities, as well as maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, to provide facilities in a fiscally responsible and equitable manner, adequate plan ning is necessary to ensure that the highest benefit is provided to the citizens in exchange for the cost required providing the service. The policies, objectives, and strategies presented in this chapter outline an active process to assure this success. OVERALL FACILITY OBJECTIVES: There are a number of general objectives which are common to all community facilities. Other service objectives established within specific facility sections are to be utilized in conjunction with these objectives in evaluating facility need and design. Objective 1: Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost-effectiveness. Levels of service will vary based on the area of the County. Those in the outlying Rural Area should not anticipate levels of service delivery equal to those provided in the Development Area. Objective 2: The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 5 of 36 Development Areas so as to support County land use policies. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as service center locations for the Rural Areas. Only in cases where it is not possible to locate a new facility in the Development Area due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility, and/or service(s) pro vided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area. The location of community facilities can be an important factor in determining where development can and will be accommodated. Therefore, the provision of community facilities must be carefully coordinated with the land use plan to ensure the adequate provision of facilities and services to accommodate existing and anticipated development. The primary focus of the land use plan is to encourage development in the Development Areas; the necessary facilities should be provided to support this pattern of growth. In certain cases it may not be appropriate, or possible, to provide facilities solely in the Development Areas due to the nature of the service or other unique circumstances. However, the priority is to provide the highest level of service to the Development Areas. Objective 3: Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety concerns, and provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population served. Objective 4: Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet service needs. Maintenance of existing facilities is of primary importance. No benefit is gained if new facilities are provided while existing facilities deteriorate and become substandard. Also, in meeting new service needs, consideration should be given to whether the existing facilities can provide an adequate level of service through modification of them. Objective 5: All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service needs. All buildings, structures and other facilities shall be designed to permit expansion as necessary. Objective 6: Related or complementary services/facilities should be located together when possible. There are distinct advantages for both the service providers and the public when related and supporting facilities are in a central location. Operational economies are achieved, capital facility and development costs are reduced (buildings, parking and accessory fa cilities can be shared), and cooperation and support between personnel can be provided in some cases. Objective 7: Schedule funding of community facilities through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), based on the adopted Community Facilities CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 6 of 36 Plan. Objective 8: All community facilities should be in conformity with County regulations, site development standards, and policies to the greatest extent feasible. County projects are expected to meet all County development regulations and procedures, consistent with any other like type of development project. County projects should further strive to achieve or meet all other appropriate development standards and policies established/encouraged by the County (stormwater/water quality, critical slope management, building form/orientation, amount/location of parking, pedestrian/bike accessibility, others). Public projects should be examples of good development and should be models to demonstrate the type of development the County wants to see. Objective 9: Determine the value of maintaining existing but obsolete facilities and sites for the potential re-use for other services/facilities prior to their disposal. Consideration should be given to the re-use of public facilities/sites for other public uses, if no longer viable for its original service/facility. It is costly and often difficult to purchase property and site public facilities in new locations. Prior to disposing of public properties, a review of the site/facilities potential for other public uses or reservation of the property for future use should be considered. Objective 10: Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to providing facilities that are environmentally responsible. (See section on Energy Efficiency for more guidance.) By addressing environmental responsibility in the design and development of community facilities, the County will create facilities that protect ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, improve air and water quality, reduce solid waste, and conserve natural resources. Objective 11: Community facilities should be designed and constructed with a commitment to occupant health and community benefits. By addressing occupant health and community benefits in the design and development of community facilities, the County will be creating facilities with improved indoor air quality, improved thermal and acoustic environments. These facilities will enhance occupant comfort and health, and contribute to the overall quality of life. Objective 12: All community facilities in the Development Areas should conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 7 of 36 The County’s Neighborhood Model for the designated Development Areas provides guidance on the form of development expected in the growth areas. It represents an urban form which is the preferred form for new development and redevelopment to help achieve the residential densities recommended in the Land Use Plan. To achieve that density and desired form, community facilities provided by the County should adhere to the principles of the Neighborhood Model. It is understood that, due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility, and/or service(s) provided, not every County facility will be able to meet all of those principles. Efforts should be made, however, to meet as many of those principles as possible. The Neighborhood Model Principles and Application with Community Facilities The Neighborhood Model impacts community facility planning and development in varied ways, but for the most part it impacts the relative location of the facility within the designated Development Area, and the location and design of the facility on-site. The Neighborhood Model has relatively limited impact on the management and operation of the service. New development and redevelopment in the Development Areas is expected to have sidewalks to encourage walking. Sidewalks are expected along all streets along with street trees, and interconnected streets and paths. Neighborhood centers are expected in the D evelopment Areas and they are to provide for a mixture of uses. A mixture of housing types is proposed to allow for all income levels to find housing in the Development Areas. Parks, amenities, and public spaces are expected to support residents. Redevel opment is strongly encouraged. Working with terrain is preferred to leveling sites; however, when major grading takes place, finished grades should not be steep in order to allow for connectivity and to help create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. There should be a visible distinction between the Rural Areas and the Development Areas. These principles are expected so that the Development Areas will:  Accommodate walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. All public facilities should be designed and/or located to accommodate multi-modal transportation options, including walkways, bike facilities and transit access, if available.  Make open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, use greenway trails, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. Greater emphasis will be placed on strategic location of open space areas and their design to make them more accessible to neighborhood residents. There will be a greater potential smaller-scale public park and open space areas will be dedicated to the County for operation as part of future development activity. Also see #12, below. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 8 of 36  Keep buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian friendly. Building size and orientation on the site (and to the street and neighborhood) should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to the extent possible and appropriate. As a general rule, buildings should have their front entrance oriented to the street, with parking relegated internal to the site and away from the street.  Incorporate varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing density is not directly related to facility development; however, when locating and building facilities, the expectation for residential density nearby should be taken into consideration to avoid sprawling site development which under-utilizes sites and does not create or contribute to compact, walkable neighborhood development.  Contain a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment. Public facility sites do not need to be mixed-use in character. It should be recognized, however, that public facilities contribute to the mixed-use character of neighborhoods. Therefore, strategic location and siting of facilities can contribute to creating mixed -use neighborhoods.  Have interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. Interconnected streets should be considered and accommodated as part of site development to the greatest extent feasible and as appropriate for the neighborhood and the facility.  Have on-street parking and parking lots out of sight so that pedestrians d on’t have to cross major parking areas when walking to facilities along sidewalks. This should be applied to the facility site design to the greatest extent feasible.  Mixed housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. Typically, this would not be applicable to facilities development. However, should opportunities be offered/presented to provide housing as part of a facility development should it should be considered for its appropriateness. Mixing of housing and public facilities is not CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 9 of 36 necessarily discouraged.  Emphasize re-use of sites. This is already a long-standing objective in the Community Facilities Plan.  Development which has worked with rather than against natural grades. If preserv ing natural topography is not feasible, properties should be developed with attention to final grades. This principle should be given strong consideration in site selection and site/building design. Public facilities should strive to meet this to the gr eatest extent feasible. It is recognized that grading and site alterations will occur with facility construction, but efforts need to be made to seek a sustainable balance with better grading and preserving natural topography. Two important focus points should be protecting important environmental resources such as steep slopes along streams, stream buffers, significant wooded areas, wetlands, and the like. The character of the finished grading should avoid massive/tall retaining walls and take into acco unt the ability to maintain slopes, vegetate and avoid erosion.  Maintain a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas. Some facilities may be appropriate to locate at the edges of the Development Areas. The recommendations for the Development Area boundaries or edge treatments is articulated in each master plan.  Provide for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood. Public facilities may be established and function as neighborhood centers and/or opens space areas, particularly parks, libraries, and schools but also facilities like fire departments and county offices because of the meeting room/public gathering function. New public facilities will likely be encouraged to locate in existing neighborhoods centers, if feasible. Energy Efficiency Objective 13: Conserving energy in public buildings is fiscally responsible. In order to conserve public dollars in building construction and maintenance, the following strategies are provided: Strategy 13a: Participate in the EnergyStar Courthouse Campaign (ESCC) to reduce local government’s consumption of energy. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 10 of 36 Strategy 13b: In keeping with (ESCC), create a policy for County buildings and operations to reduce energy consumption by 30% in keeping with EnergyStar guidelines. Strategy 13d: For new County projects, perform energy modeling during the design - development phase to assess long-term economic benefits of green upgrades. Strategy 13e: Achieve U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) basic level certification on new public buildings so long as planning and energy modeling determine that the upfront expense does not unreasonably exceed the long-term savings. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 11 of 36 Community Facility Standards for Police SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: Provide for polic service using the Police Service Area Model (Geographic Policing). Maintain an effective and efficient geographic policing strategy that facilitates meeting the identified response time standards. Objective 2: Provide a northern district (Jefferson District) and a south-western district to cover the southern and western area of the county (Blue Ridge District) with more districts as population increases. Blue Ridge District would utilize Headquarters on 5th Street and Jefferson District will require a new station. See Figure 1. LOCATION OBJECTIVES: District Stations Objective 3: Locate Police District Stations within all designated police service areas of the County.  The location of district stations should be within a designated Development Area whenever possible or a well defined existing rural crossroad, commercial/residential concentration, or neighborhood.  The district station should be centrally located to support meeting response time standards.  The Blue Ridge District Station will operate from the existing 5th Street location.  The Jefferson District will require a new district station that would serve the northern police service area. Public Safety Training Facility Objective 4: Locate the Public Safety Training Facility on County property at the site of the closed Keene Landfill in Keene, Virginia. Public Safety Training Academy Objective 5: Locate the Public Safety Training Academy in a central location so that it provides convenient access for all regional members. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS: District Stations. Provide a minimum of one (1) district station in each police service area.  Provide a level of service that supports the police department’s geographic based policing strategy. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 12 of 36  Police Department patrol assignments are made based on geographic policing districts.  Achieve a response time of five minutes or less to all emergency calls 85 percent of the time in the designated Development Areas.  Achieve an average response time of ten minutes or less to all emergency calls 85 percent of the time in the Rural Area of the County.  Provide new facilities in a manner that accommodates anticipated service demands and the needs of the current and future staff.  Maintain and upgrade, as necessary, headquarters and other support facilities to meet the standards outlined in this Plan. Public Safety Training Facility. Provide a locally managed regional training facility to allow for community public safety agencies to train together in an operational and scenario based training environment. Public Safety Training Academy. Provide a locally managed regional or independent academy to allow community public safety agencies to train together as a team in the community they serve. Police officers and other first responders will train together as new recruits at the academy as well as at annual in-service training events. FACILITY STANDARDS: DISTRICT STATIONS  Each station will have regular business hours for public access to government services and serve as a location for officers to meet for roll call and to complete administrative functions.  Components of the facility will minimally consist of: o Roll call room (20x35, 660 sq. ft.) o Conference room (25x30, 700 sq. ft.) o Administrative offices to support District Patrol Command, Crime Prevention Office, Problem Orientated Policing (POP) Unit, Animal Control Unit, Traffic Unit (1300 sq. ft.) o Mail and copy room (15x15, 225 sq. ft.) o Services area to process records and handle walk-ins (20x30, 600 sq. ft.) o Waiting area for citizens (10x20, 200 sq. ft.) o Evidence/Property area for district storage and processing (900sq.ft) o Interview room (10x10, 100 sq. ft.) o Fitness room (30x30, 900 sq. ft.) o 2 Bathroom facilities(10x10each, 100 sq. ft. total) o Locker rooms with showers (30x40 each, 1200 sq. ft. total)  Location within Development Areas: The district station should be centrally located to support meeting response time standards.  Acreage required: 1.5 acres CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 13 of 36 FACILITY STANDARDS: PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY  Components of the facility will consist of: o Police Firearms Training Facility: consisting of three ranges, parking, classroom, and bathroom facilities. Designed with future Department of Criminal Justice Services certification in mind o Fire hazmat training areas o Burn buildings o Police driving track, consisting of a 1.5 mile road course. Designed to accommodate required basic, in-service, and advanced training needs, as per Department of Criminal Justice Services certification requirements. o Emergency vehicle operations course (EVOC) consisting of a concrete pad used for slow speed vehicle training  All components of this outdoor operational facility will be lo cated at suitable locations on a 169 acre, County owned parcel in Keene, Virginia.  Impacts of outdoor facilities will be mitigated through locating infrastructure as far away as practicable from buildings and uses on adjoining properties. Use of trees, other vegetation, and purpose designed structures will help to buffer noise and appearance. FACILITY STANDARDS: PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING ACADEMY  The academy facility will meet all Department Criminal Justice Services regulations regarding size, infrastructure, instructional equipment, and office space.  Components of the facility will minimally consist of: o 2 Training classrooms (20x30each, 1200 sq. ft. total) o Lecture hall (20x60, 1200 sq. ft.) o Practical training area (30x60, 1800 sq. ft.) o Administrative office area (600 sq. ft.) o Lobby (10x20, 200 sq. ft.) o Break room (20x30, 600 sq. ft) o Conference room 25x30, 700 sq. ft.) o Storage for file, equipment, and media (600 sq. ft.) o 2 Bathroom facilities(10x10each, 100sq.ft total) o Locker rooms with showers (30x40 each, 1200 sq. ft. total)  An exercise facility will either be located on site or a corporate partnership will be formed with an existing exercise facility in the community. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 14 of 36  Offsite classroom and auditorium facilities may be used when attendance exceeds approved capacity or the topic of instruction requires very specific infrastructure characteristics.  When feasible, all academy functions will be centrally located in the County’s development areas.  Acreage required: 2.5 acres CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 15 of 36 Figure 1: Albemarle County Geographic Policing Districts Source: Albemarle County Police Department 2012 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 16 of 36 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 17 of 36 Community Facility Standards for School Facilities As part of the County’s mission to provide educational opportunities to its citizens, the County is committed to:  Provide the physical facilities which enable the School Division to provide a high quality educational system for students in Albemarle County.  Provide County parks and recreational facilities at school sites to make more effective use of parks and recreational facilities in the County and prevent duplication of many recreational facilities.  Recognize the vital role schools play in the County’s development and the importance of location and development of schools to be consistent with providing educational opportunities to all children and facilities to educate adults, but also the growth management goals of the County. The service area objectives, other objectives and standards are found in the sections below. SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: The priority is to provide new schools within the County’s designated Development Areas in support of the County’s growth management policies. In cases where it is not possible to locate a new school in the Development Area due to physical constraints, land area needs or availability, and/or service considerations, they may be located adjacent to or in very close proximity to the Development Areas where infrastructure and utilities can feasibly be provided. Objective 2: Maintain and upgrade existing schools in the designated Rural Areas, as necessary, in order to continue to serve rural residents. LOCATION AND OTHER OBJECTIVES: Objective 3: Provide facilities that are appropriate for projected enrollment that assure parity for all students. Objective 4: Locate and design schools in accordance with recommendations of neighborhood Master Plans to the greatest extent possible. Objective 5: Program capital funding to achieve parity in all levels of school facility provision. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 18 of 36 Objective 6: Provide adequate recreational/athletic facilities on a school site to serve the students and provide park services as identified in the Parks and Recreation section of this Plan. In collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department, school, park, and recreational facilities will be available for community and public use after schools meet their responsibilities to students. Objective 7: Use the Long Range Plan for Albemarle County Schools to guide capital programming for new school facilities and the expansion of existing facilities over the next ten years. Objective 8: Based on the Long Range Plan for Albemarle Count y Schools, identify land needed for school expansion and new schools and reserve these sites as soon as feasible for future use. Objective 9: Use modular facilities only during periods of enrollment fluctuations or prior to expansion or development. Modular facilities are not an appropriate long-term solution to overcrowding or as a substitute for permanent facilities. Objective 10: Consider innovative alternatives to address new facility needs, including potential cooperation with the City of Charlottesville. Objective 11: Where schools are accessible from pedestrian and bicycle facilities, promote walking and biking to school to help reduce school transportation costs and prevent childhood obesity. This objective must be achieved in conjunction with and not counter to school safety and security measures. Objective 12: Provide individual sites for schools rather than multi-school sites except where co-location reduces individual school land area demands. This objective is to provide for ease of walking to and on the school site. Objective 13: The County should program in the CIP necessary bikeway/walkway improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian linkages between nearby neighborhoods and schools. Objective 14: Locate schools on sites where the maximum number of criteria below can be met: CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 19 of 36  Elementary schools within neighborhoods or at the edge of neighborhoods to promote walkability.  Middle schools and high schools in a central location relative to elementary schools which feed these schools to support the feeder pattern policy of the Schoo l Board.  Safe and convenient access is or can be provided to pedestrian and road networks.  Compatibility with adjoining planned and existing land uses can be achieved. Though not preferred, locations near industrial and major commercial developments are not prohibited.  Water, sewer, police, and fire/rescue service can be adequately provided.  The site can be developed with aesthetically pleasing physical qualities and appropriately engineered with regard to topography, soils, floodplains, wetland, etc. SCHOOL SERVICE AND FACILITY STANDARDS (FOR ALL SCHOOLS): The following standards apply to elementary, middle and high schools. These include the following: Building Design: School design and development should reflect the desire to achieve parity, cost efficiencies and timeliness of construction. School buildings should be designed to fit the terrain of the site and transition into the surrounding neighborhood to the greatest extent physically and programmatically, feasible. While single story structures maybe preferred for operational and program efficiencies, multi-story structures are considered a viable option to address locational preferences, site development issues, and/or expansion needs. Facades of buildings which face public streets should not be blank walls but have architectural features such as windows, covered walkways, building projections, and the like. Dumpsters, refuse areas, and delivery areas should not face public streets Walkability: Site design and building design should encourage walking from nearby neighborhoods and residential developments that have or are planned to have sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities. It is recognized that these walkers may only be a small part of the school population; however, school facilities are community centers, public parks, and a place for recreational activities which are enjoyed by the larger community. Sidewalks, walkways and trails should be channelized to a controlled access point which is easily observable from the main office. On site, walkways should directly connect off-site pedestrian facilities, bus loading zones, parking areas and auxiliary facilities to main building(s). Driveways: Driveways are to provide access and control traffic to student loading areas, parking areas and building service entrances, and should be strategically located and designed to minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Multiple access points to a site may be considered appropriate based on site design issues. Entrances should be designed in a manner that allows for the construction of right and left turn lanes at the intersection with a public road. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 20 of 36 Bus and Student Loading and Unloading Zones: Bus loading zones are to be designed to accommodate all buses anticipated at one time. The bus parking area should be designed in connection with the loading zone, independent of driveways and designed so that backing up is unnecessary. Because of the size of these areas, it is preferred that they be located behind buildings when new scho ol sites are developed. Designated bus spaces control signs are also recommended. Bus unloading zones may be in a different location than loading zones. When this occurs the unloading zones should be designed for efficient bus flow within the narrow wi ndow of time before the school day begins. Student drop-off/pick-up areas should be separated from the bus loading zone and parking area. Parking: To the extent physically and programmatically feasible, parking areas should be located no closer to the street than the school building. It is recognized that there may be characteristics of certain sites or programmatic needs of the school which affect the ability to fully implement this standard. Efforts should be made to meet parking requirements, particularly for overflow needs, through alternate means including designing internal roads to accommodate parallel parking, recognition and use of available on-street parking, and cooperative parking agreements with adjacent uses. Student Drop-off and Pick-up Areas: Student drop-off and pick-up areas should be separated from bus loading zones and parking lots. These areas should be located in areas where channeling students to the main entrance to the school is possible. This area may best be accommodated with a driveway in front of the main entrance to the school, where the main entrance faces the public street. Bicycle Facilities: Bicycle infrastructure (bike trails and racks) should be incorporated into the design of schools where accessible from off-site by bicycle. The County should program in the CIP or the Six Year Secondary-Road Construction Plan the necessary bike facilities improvements within a ¼ mile radius of the site to provide adequate linkages between the neighborhood and the school. Lighting: On-site lighting (for parking, fields) should be the minimum necessary to provide for adequate safety and security. On-site Environmental Resources: Site grading and school construction should not disturb any environmentally sensitive resources shown for preservation on Development Area Master Plans or as critical resources in the County’s Comprehensive Plan (streams, wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes, etc.). CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 21 of 36 The soil and subsoil conditions on the site are to be both adequate for supporting the building and vegetation. Finished grades should not result in massive retaining walls or extensive 2:1 slopes. Terraced walls are preferred and more gently graded slopes are easier to revegetate and maintain. Usable area: Usable area for the school and recreational activities is defined as the acreage that can be used for educational or recreational activities exclusive of critical slopes, storm water management facilities, required stream buffers, and other limiting environmental factors. Recreational Fields, Facilities, and Equipment: Standards for specific equipment size and area needed for recreation or are provided in the Parks and Recreation Section of this Plan. The Parks and Recreation Department shall collaborate with the Schools Division on which type of park to provide at Elementary Schools and High Schools. If there are any differences between the County’s standards for fields, gyms, facilities, and equipment and those of the Virginia Departme nt of Education Guidelines, the larger of the two standards should apply. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 22 of 36 FACILITY STANDARDS - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: The standards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities developed will meet the elementary school needs of the County. 1. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where population growth in the Development Areas is anticipated. Seventy-five percent of the students are to live within a 2.5 mile radius of the facility. In a neighborhood setting, elementary schools should be located on a minor collector or local street. Though not preferred, there may be locations where elementary schools can be located on a major collector street. Existing schools located in and largely serving the Rural Area are not expected to meet this standard. 2. Public Park at School: Elementary school sites shall provide for a Neighborhood or Community Park, depending on the need as established for particular areas of the County, in keeping with the equipment and facility standards provided in the Parks and Recreation Section of this Plan. 3. Size of Site: The usable area for a typical elementary school with a Neighborhood Park is expected to be 15 acres. The usable area for a typical elementary school with a Community Park is expected to be 20 acres; however, smaller sites may be viable depending on the location within neighborhood settings, parking needs, altern ative building design concepts and location of field areas, off- site storm water facilities or other features. 4. Enrollment: Rated Capacity should not exceed 600 students when building new schools. 5. Parking: Parking area should be based on faculty and staff size, and school/public assembly and recreational use and needs for overflow parking. The most significant generator of parking is school events and gym use for assembly and/or recreational activities. 6. Recreational Facilities: The following recreational facilities are needed to support an elementary school. Schools which provide Community Parks serve a larger area and require some additional facilities which are shown below. MINIMUM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FACILITIES: Facility Amount With Community Park Gymnasium 1 1 Hard Surface Area* 2 2 Multi-purpose Field 1 2 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 23 of 36 Baseball/Softball Field 0 2 Basketball Court 0 1 Playground/tot lot 2 2 Track**/measured loop N/A 1 * Including 2 basketball goals ** Can be accomplished in different ways at elementary schools FACILITY STANDARDS - MIDDLE SCHOOLS: The standards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities will meet the middle school needs of the County. 1. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where population growth in the Development Areas is anticipated. Seventy -five percent of the students are to live within a five mile radius of the facility. To the greatest extent possible, middle schools should be located on a collector street. 2. Public Park at School: Middle school sites shall provide for a Community Park which is in keeping with the equipment and facility standards provided in the Parks and Recreation Section of this Plan. 3. Size of Site: The usable area for a typical middle school site is expected to be 30 - 35 acres inclusive of a Community Park site. However, smaller sites may be viable depending on the location within neighborhood settings, parking needs, altern ative building design concepts and location of field areas, off- site storm water facilities or other features. 4. Enrollment: Rated capacity should not exceed 900 students when building new schools. 5. Parking: Parking area should be based on faculty and staff size, and school/public assembly and recreational use and needs for overflow parking. The most significant generators of parking are school events and gym use for assembly and/or recreational activities. 6. Recreational Facilities: The following recreational facilities are needed for a middle school and also provide the facilities needed for a Community Park: MINIMUM MIDDLE SCHOOL FACILITIES: Facility Amount Gymnasium* 1 Hard Surface Area 1 Multi-purpose Field 2 Baseball/Softball Field 2 Basketball Courts (2 full courts) 2 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 24 of 36 Tennis Courts 2 Playground/tot lot** 1 Jogging/walking trail/track 1 Asphalt track/Loop 1 *When capacity exceeds 850 pupils, an additional 5,000 sq. ft. should be provided. **May be provided when recommended by Dept. of Parks and Recreation, based on community need. FACILITY STANDARDS - HIGH SCHOOLS: 1. High Schools offer a wide range of educational opportunities and extra-curriculum activities. The standards below attempt to ensure that all new facilities developed will meet the high school needs of the County and address Community or Regional level park services. 2. Location of Site: Sites shall be selected and acquired where population growth in the Development Areas is anticipated. Seventy-five percent of the students are to be within a seven-mile radius of the facility. School sites shall be located on a major collector road with good visibility; however, locations on arterial streets are permissible with adequate building and recreational area setbacks. 3. Public Park at School: High school sites should provide for a Community or Regional Park, depending on the need as established for particular areas of the County, which is in keeping with the equipment and facility standards provided in the Parks and Recreation Section of this Plan. 4. Size of Site: The usable area for a typical high school site is expected to be 65 - 80 acres. 5. Enrollment: Rated capacity should not exceed 1500 students when building new schools. 6. Parking: Parking area should be based on faculty, staff and student size, and school/public assembly and recreational use and needs for overflow parking. The most significant generators of parking are schools events, including gym and stadium use for assembly and/or recreational activities. 7. Recreational Facilities: The following recreational facilities are needed for a high school. Schools which provide Regional Parks serve a larger area and require additional facilities which are shown below. MINIMUM HIGH SCHOOL FACILITIES Facility Amount With Regional Park Gymnasium 1 (to be provided) Auxiliary Gym 1 Hard Surfaced Area 0 Multipurpose Field 5 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 25 of 36 Basketball Courts 2 Game Field w/Track 1 Softball Field 1 Baseball Game Field 1 Tennis Courts 6 Playground/Tot Lot* 0 Cross Country Trail 1 Jogging/Walking Trail 0 *May be provided when recommended by Dept. of Parks and Recreation, based on community need. Community Facility Standards for Fire / Rescue SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: Provide firefighting and rescue facilities and equipment as needed to meet the characteristics of particular service areas. The accompanying map shows service areas for First Response. LOCATION OBJECTIVES: Objective 2: In general, sites should have direct access to a collector road, located within .5 mile from an arterial road. Facilities should not be located on heavily traveled roads that are frequently congested due to potential conflicts when entering the street. The fire and rescue departments should control any traffic signal lights located at the collector/arterial road intersection(s) during emergency calls. Objective 3: A station should not be located such that its equipment would be immediately hindered during response by steep grades, crossing restricted bridges or railroad crossings. Objective 4: Stations should be located in centers, or commercial/service areas/industrial areas. Locations near or adjacent to neighborhoods may be acceptable; however, potential noise and traffic conflicts must be adequately addressed. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS:  Have fire and rescue stations at strategic locations throughout the County to help achieve desired response times to all emergency calls and increase the level of service. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 26 of 36  Encourage joint fire and rescue stations at new locations when possible.  Achieve an average response time to fire emergency calls of five minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.  Achieve an average response time to rescue emergency calls of four minutes or less in the Development Areas and thirteen minutes or less in the Rural Areas.  Over the next 3-5 years have Albemarle County Fire and Rescue lead an initiative with volunteer agencies and the City to align fire/rescue response times in our Urban Areas to have one standard for City/County.  Maintain and utilize the current emergency response data collection system in order to provide the County with sound information to anticipate demand for services, subsequent staffing, and new equipment and facilities.  A threshold of 2,500-3,000 total calls per year (including emergency and non-emergency) should be used as a benchmark indicator of full capacity of any fire/rescue station. Once threshold is reached, improvements or modifications will need to be made to function effectively above 2,500-3,000 total calls per year. FACILITY STANDARDS: Site size: 2 acre minimum Building Configuration: To the greatest extent possible, parking lots should not separate buildings from the public street. Facades of buildings which face public streets should not be blank walls but have architectural features such as windows, covered walkways, building projections, and the like. Dumpsters, refuse areas, and delivery areas should not face public streets. It is recognized that this may not be possible in every circumstance because of unique characteristics of fire/rescue stations (bay and apron access needs, site circulation needs, etc.) Indoor Facilities/Building Size: 1) Each new fire and rescue station should include the following facilities: o Living quarters (w/ kitchen, wash rooms, etc.) o Chief's office o Radio room o Storage area o Exercise area o Training space/Apparatus area o Meeting room (serving 50-100 persons) CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 27 of 36 o Police Department satellite office space (500 sq. ft.) 2) Generally, 700 square feet of apparatus space is needed for each major fire vehicle and 350 square feet for each rescue squad vehicle to accommodate for vehicle storage and free circulation around the apparatus. 3) Meeting space to serve 50 – 100 persons should be provided within all renovated facilities. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 28 of 36 Community Facility Standards for County Government Buildings SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: (Insert UPDATED Map to depict the location of the County Office Buildings, Courts, Schools, Parks, etc. for specific locations of these services) Objective 1: Have two centers for local government and schools administration. These two centers are located on McIntire Avenue and Fifth Street. Objective 2: Provide a Courts Service Area to support the judicial operations of the County. Objective 3: Be part of a regional Emergency Communications/Emergency Operations Center in conjunction with the City and the University of Virginia to direct emergency calls to service providers and coordinate a unified regional response to emergencies. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS:  Government and school administrative buildings should be located in central areas near population/employment centers in the City and/or in Development Areas of the County to effectively provide efficient operations and convenient locations for the general public.  Court services should be located in central areas near population/employm ent centers in the City and/or in the Development Areas to effectively provide efficient operations and convenient locations for the general public, judicial operations, and litigants.  The Charlottesville – UVA – Albemarle County regional Emergency Communications Center shall be located in an area accessible to the City, County, and University operations. FACILITY STANDARDS: Building Size/Configuration for Administration:  General government and school administration office space may be provided through owned properties, leased, purchased, or newly constructed buildings, with preference given to use of existing County-owned owned properties.  Future additional office space should be provided in accordance with the priority listing below:  Existing office buildings should be reconfigured, as necessary, to accommodate anticipated office space demand of departments. o Additional building area may be constructed at the existing McIntire Avenue site. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 29 of 36 o Satellite facilities may be constructed in one or more highly populated Development Areas of the County. o Office space near the McIntire Avenue office space may be leased. o Additional buildings located in the Development Areas may be purchased.  Additional space should be provided in accordance with need; however, provision of new space should not be deferred to a point where unsatisfactory conditions exist. Maximize flexibility in space design to maximize opportunities to use/modify/expand/reduce internal space.  When evaluating whether existing space in the current buildings could be reconfigured, assessment should be made and inefficient design eliminated which may allow for additional office space.  Use industry standards pertaining to employee workspace needs in the renovation design process.  Provide adequate space to allow departments that relate closely in responsibility and activities to locate in the same structure. Within the structure, location of such departments should be primarily based on their operational inter -relationships to assure they can function efficiently and serve the public effectively.  Design any new facilities constructed on the existing site to be functionally and aesthetically complimentary to the existing structure.  Provide adequate storage space to enable departments to meet their missions, respond to FOIA, and adhere to state and federal archive requirements. Building Sizes/Site configurations for Court Services:  Court facilities may be provided at the current location in downtown Charlot tesville or at a new site in the County’s Development Areas. Good accessibility to the site is essential.  Space provided should be based on population forecasts and forecasts of caseloads and staffing needs. Building Sizes/Site configurations for Emergency Communications/Emergency Operations Center:  Regional Emergency Communications Center services may be provided at the current location, at a new site in the City of Charlottesville, or at a new site in the County’s Development Areas. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 30 of 36  Good accessibility and security at the site is essential.  The location shall include redundant connectivity of services including but not limited to 9-1-1 communications links from the telephone providers and back-up power sources.  Space provided for the facility should include a fully operational emergency operations center in addition to the emergency communications functions. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 31 of 36 CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 32 of 36 Community Facility Standards for Solid Waste Management (may be moved to a different section) SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: The service area for solid waste management shall be county wide. SERVICE OBJECTIVES: Objective 2: County solid waste management initiatives are reflected in the TJPDC Regional Solid Waste Plan. Objective 3: Implement an efficient and environmentally sensitive solid waste management program in keeping with the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan and the County’s Environmental Management Policy. Ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County. Objective 4: Local Initiatives should be generally reflective of the state of Virginia’s hierarchy for solid waste management activities: source reduction, reuse , recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfills. Strategy 4a: The County should utilize a combination of solid waste management activities discussed in this section. This program should assure the participation of individuals, businesses and institutions in source reduction and reuse in a cost effective manner. Strategy 4b: Determine the most cost-effective and beneficial method to collect recyclables and implement this program to ensure the County meets State mandates for recycling and provides services in keeping with its policies. Objective 5: Explore and participate in solid waste disposal methods and programs which will cost effectively provide services to our citizens. Objective 6: Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste material in the county. Objective 7: In cooperation with the RSWA, provide a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for the County. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 33 of 36 Objective 8: In cooperation with RSWA and as proposed by the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan, increase understanding of the need for solid waste management and increase the participation of individuals, businesses, and institutions in waste reduction. Strategy 8a: Through the work of the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan, implement an integrated education program for all aspects of the waste stream in consultation with the City, University, RWSA, private sector and other interested groups. This education program should promote the purchase and use of recyclable materials. Objective 9: Recognizing the changes brought by comingled solid waste services now being provided, analyze possible economic savings and other benefits by methods including City/County, private or regional funding matching public services to gaps not addressed by the private markets. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 34 of 36 Community Facility Standards for Library Services SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: Libraries should be provided in the designated Development Areas. Locate library facilities in a manner that provides the most convenient access possible to residents within the designated service area. Services to the Rural Areas shall be provided from facilities located within the Development Areas and by the Bookmobile service. Other such alternative outlet facilities/services (such as small kiosks/outlets with network connections to the library system) which do not require significant capital outlays for buildings may be considered as alternative methods for providing service to the Rural Areas, if consistent with the County’s Growth Management and Rural Area policies. Objective 2: Specific service areas should be identified for each library facility. Objective 3: Desirable travel time to the library facility for 75 percent of the service area should be ten (10) minutes for Development Area residents and 20 minutes for Rural Area residents. LOCATION AND OTHER OBJECTIVES: Locations Objective 4: Retain existing library locations in conjunction with Jefferson-Madison Regional Library System and after completion of Crozet Library with the exception of Northside Library. Objective 5: Open new Crozet Library located at the intersection of Library Avenue and Crozet Avenue in the summer of 2013, maintain operation of Scottsville Library at the existing location and continue the short-term lease of property in Albemarle Square Shopping Center for the Northside Library. Objective 6: Undertake planning and site analysis for construction of a new library facility to replace the existing Northside Library in the northern part of the Development Areas. The preferred location is south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River in the general vicinity of the existing f acility. Objective 7: Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a new library facility to serve the southern part of the Development Area. A County-owned site near CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 35 of 36 Monticello High School may provide sufficient area and an appropriate location. Visibility Objective 8: A prominent location is required to attract and encourage use of the library. The site shall be located where people can access it and conduct other activities in the same trip. Available street frontage, building placement, location relative to employment/service/activity centers; existing traffic volumes shall be considered in evaluating visibility. Alternative Service Provisions Objective 9: Maintain existing bookmobile service to the outlyin g areas, especially those areas that require outreach service. Ensure that the bookmobile is maintained and replaced when necessary. Objective 10: Consider evolving changes in technology (on-line transactions, downloadable books, self check-out kiosks), after completion of the Crozet library. Use of on-line technology to access books and reference materials may have major impact on use and configuration of future library space. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS:  Provide a total library space of 0.7 gross square feet (gsf) per reside nt in the Albemarle- Charlottesville area. This is measured as the aggregate space of all buildings in the County. It should be recognized that the state’s minimum library space standard (Library of Virginia standard) is 0.6 gsf. Due to the level of service experienced in the County, it is most desirable to strive to achieve the 0.7-gsf level; the state standard should be considered the minimum acceptable standard.  As a general target, library facilities should be provided at a rate of one for every 20,000 residents. However, size of existing structures, use of alternative service techniques, and actual demand for services will affect the number of facilities provided. LIBRARY FACILITY STANDARDS: The following standards apply to new county library facilities. These include the following: Location within Development Areas: 1. Locate library facilities within neighborhood centers, downtown areas, or other commercial/service area concentrations. Locations in or at the edge of residential neighborhoods may also be considered an appropriate location. CPA 2013 – 001 Planning Commission 11-27-12 Page 36 of 36 2. Library location/design should be consistent with the general intent for the facility as described in the Comprehensive Plan-Neighborhood Master Plans. Site Size: 1. The site should be large enough to provide a sufficient square or rectangular library footprint, the required parking, future expansion needs, and allowances for set backs, zoning requirements and suitable landscaping. 2. A target minimum size is 2 acres for a standalone facility, with more acr eage potentially needed for larger facilities. Smaller sites may be appropriate depending on the character of the site, building design, and ability to use alternative parking schemes. Building Size: 1. Due to construction and operational cost efficiencies, generally libraries will be between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet in size. Smaller facilities may be appropriate, given the needs of the service area and the relationship of the facility to other library facilities. 2. Minimum size for a headquarters library building shall be 25,000 square feet. Building Design: 1. Multi-story or single-story buildings are permissible. In assessing whether a single- story or multi-story building is appropriate, factors such as construction cost, operation efficiencies and security are to be considered. Multi-story structures may be a viable option to use a smaller infill site or to address topographic and/or other site constraints. Books/Indoor Facilities: 1. The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library standards for total collections, resource materials, special rooms, staff space, and public seating space are to be used in conjunction with new or upgraded facilities. 11-21-12 Community Facilities Notes Page 1 of 5 Notes on Other Community Facilities November 21, 2012 NOTE: Use the below in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan draft section “Other Community Facilities”. Page numbers in italics correspond to the draft plan location. Pages numbers underlined correspond to existing plan location, New text is indicated in Bold. NM – Neighborhood Model, CP = Comprehensive , LUP – Land Use Plan Community Facilities Standards and Plan pages 3 - 10 Introduction and Expectations for all Community Facilities  Updates and revises existing text CP, LUP p. 140-141 Community Facilities section  The discussion of the Capital Improvements Program and Population Growth and Service Demand are addressed in other locations OVERALL FACILITY OBJECTIVES: pages 4 - 7  These Objectives (1-13) are updated text from the objectives listed on pages 143-144 CP LUP Community Facilities - Introductory section. The Neighborhood Model Principles and Application with Community Facilities pages 7 - 9  Updates and revises existing text CP, LUP p. 144-145 Community Facilities Introductory section  The goals of the Neighborhood Model were repetitive and were removed as they are mentioned elsewhere in the plan. Energy Efficiency – pages 9 - 10 Objective 13 and strategies 13a-d:  Updates and revises existing text CP, NR section Sustainability Design in Buildings and Planning p. 4.1 *** Community Facility Standards for Police pages 11 – 15  Updated and revised text is from pages 147 – 149 CP LUP Community Facility Standards for Police and Police Dept.  Changes for Geographic policing and map are from Police Dept. SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 11 11-21-12 Community Facilities Notes Page 2 of 5  Objectives 1 and 2 are updated and revised and reflect the new geographic service model that has two districts. LOCATION OBJECTIVES: page 11 District Stations – page 11  Objectives 3 is new and revised text based upon the new geographic policing model. Public Safety Training Facility – page 12  Objective 4 is new. Public Safety Training Academy – pages 12  Objective 5 is new. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS: pages 11 - 12  New and updated text from CP, LUP p. 147 Community Facilities – Police section. FACILITY STANDARDS: DISTRICT STATIONS pages 12 - 14  For the most part facility standards are new. They update a few such standards already provided, CP, LUP p. 147-148 Community Facilities - Police section. Page 15 - Figure 1: Albemarle County Geographic Policing Districts – this map is new based on the proposed geographic policing model. *** Community Facility Standards for School Facilities Mission Bullets page 17  Generally updated and revised text from CP, LUP, p. 161 Community Facilities – Schools section. SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 17  Objectives 1 and 2 update and revised objectives found in CP, LUP p. 164 Community Facilities - Schools section. LOCATION AND OTHER OBJECTIVES: pages 17 -19  Objectives 5, 11, 12 are new. Other Objectives update and revise text found in CP, LUP p. 164-165 Community Facilities – Schools section. SCHOOL SERVICE AND FACILITY STANDARDS (FOR ALL SCHOOLS): pages 19 - 21 11-21-12 Community Facilities Notes Page 3 of 5  Generally updates and revised text found in CP, LUP p. 165-166 Community Facilities – Schools section. Portions on “Usable Area” and Rec. Fields, Facilities and Equipment” are new. Portions on “sustainability” and “infrastructure” were not included because they were duplicative from introduction. FACILITY STANDARDS - ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: pages 22 - 23  Generally updates and revised text found in CP, LUP p. 166-167 Community Facilities – Schools section. “Public Park at School” is new and the minimum facility standards have been revised based on consultation with the Schools Division and Parks and Recreation staff. FACILITY STANDARDS - MIDDLE SCHOOLS: pages 23 - 24  Generally updates and revised text found in CP, LUP p. 167 Community Facilities - Schools section. “Public Park at School” is new and the minimum facility standards have been revised based on consultation with the Schools Division and Parks and Recreation staff. FACILITY STANDARDS - HIGH SCHOOLS: pages 24 - 25  Generally updates and revised text found in CP, LUP p. 168 Community Facilities section. “Public Park at School” is new and the minimum facility standards have been revised based on consultation with the Schools Division and Parks and Recreation staff. *** Community Facility Standards for Fire – Rescue pages 25 - 27 SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 25  Objective 1 is updated and revised text found in CP, LUP p. 154-155 Community Facilities section – Fire and Rescue Services. LOCATION OBJECTIVES: page 25  Objectives 2-4 are updated and revised text mainly found in facility and service objectives found in CP, LUP p. 155 Community Facilities – Fire and Rescue Services section. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS: pages 25 - 26  These 7 bullets are updated and revised text mainly found in facility and service objectives found in CP, LUP p. 154-156 Community Facilities – Fire and Rescue Services section. The response times for fire and rescue emergencies and the number of calls for service have been adjusted in consultation with the Fire-Rescue staff. 11-21-12 Community Facilities Notes Page 4 of 5 FACILITY STANDARDS: pages 26 - 27  Generally updates facility standards found in CP, LUP p. 155 Community Facilities – Fire and Rescue Services section. Some of the facilities standards listed on pages 155 and 156 have been removed because of repetition or from being addressed elsewhere. *** Community Facilities Standards for County Government Buildings pages 28 - 30 SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 28  Map: [to be updated] from p. 165.1  Objectives 1 – 3 are new text which reflects existing activities. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS: page 28  Bullets relating to court services and emergency communications are new. Administrative facilities updates and revises existing text from CP, LUP p. 165.4 Community Facilities – County Government Administration. FACILITY STANDARDS: - pages 28 - 29  For general government administration, generally updates and revises existing text from CP, LUP p. 165.4 Community Facilities.  Sections on Courts and Emergency Communications are new standards from County staff. *** Community Facility Standards for Solid Waste Management – page 32- 33 SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 32  Objective 1 is new. SERVICE OBJECTIVES: page 32-33  Objectives 2 and 3 are new. Objective 4 and its two strategies updates and revises existing text found in CP, LUP p. 165.5 Community Facilities.  Objectives 5 – 9 updates and revises existing text found in CP, LUP p. 165.5 Community Facilities. *** 11-21-12 Community Facilities Notes Page 5 of 5 Community Facility Standards for Library Services pages 34 - 36 SERVICE AREA OBJECTIVES: page 34  Objectives 1 – 3 updates and revises existing text found in CP, LUP p. 160 Community Facilities – Library Services section. LOCATION AND OTHER OBJECTIVES: pages 34 - 35 Locations pages 34 - 35  Objectives 4 – 7 reflect language in Places 29 Master Plan, Crozet Master Plan, and the CP LUP page 58 – Neighborhood 4 and are updated text. Visibility page 35  Objective 8 updates and revises existing text found in CP, LUP p. 161 Community Facilities – Library Services section. Alternative Service Provisions page 35  Objective 9 updates and revises existing text found in CP, LUP p. 160 Community Facilities.  Objective 10 relating to new forms of technology is new. BUILDING AND SERVICE EXPECTATIONS: page 35  Bullets update and revise existing text found in CP, LUP p. 160 Community Facilities. LIBRARY FACILITY STANDARDS: pages 35 - 36  Numbered items under all 5 headings update and revise existing text found in CP, LUP p. 161 Community Facilities. CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 1 STAFF PERSONS: ECHOLS, SORRELL, WEAVER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: FEBRUARY 14, 2011 CPA 2013-00001: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Worksession 4: Future Housing Supply and General Plan Format PURPOSE OF WORKSESSION The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss characteristics of existing and expected housing as well as the general plan format (Vision and Goals) and standard land use categories. The Housing Director, Ron White, will make a presentation on the status of affordable housing, proffered units, and cash proffers for affordable housing at the Commission’s March worksession. PART 1: FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY - BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission worksession on October 11, 2011, the Commission discussed: 1) current demographic and land use information; 2) trends and projections for future populations and land capacity for growth; and 3) requests for expansions of the Development Area boundaries. At that worksession, the Commission asked staff to provide the following additional information as part of future deliberations on land use and housing. The Commission asked for:  the breakdown of dwelling unit type for the approved but unbuilt units  the mix of housing types currently on the market , asking price, and location  the number of single family detached units in the Development Areas versus the number in the Rural Areas and differences in their assessed value  the dwelling unit types being built and density being achieved in the City  information on whether current development has been achieving its approved density and the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan  information on infrastructure ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY Mix of Unit Types Questions from the Commission at the October 11 meeting revolved around how well the existing and future supply of housing would meet future needs. To understand the future needs it is helpful to know the mix of housing types available now. A table showing the mix of housing types in the County by location was provided with the October 11 staff report and has been updated on Table 1. From analysis of the table, 63% of the housing supply is in single family detached product. Of Development Areas land, 40% of the units are single CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 2 family detached. The lower percentage is in keeping with County policy to increase density and diversify housing mix in the Development Areas and discourage sprawl. Table 1: Housing by Comprehensive Plan Areas Comprehensive Plan Area Single Family Attached Units Multi- Family/ Condos Mobile Home Units Total Dwelling Units Crozet Community 1,719 494 43 132 2,388 Hollymead Community (Places 29-North) 1,917 611 300 331 3,159 Piney Mt. Community (Places 29-North) 135 329 0 1 465 Village of Rivanna 788 2 0 1 791 Neighborhood 1 (Places 29-South) 499 820 2,255 152 3,726 Neighborhood 2 (Places 29-South) 1,760 875 1,245 0 3,880 Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) 225 249 1,371 0 1,845 Neighborhood 4 825 327 481 5 1,638 Neighborhood 5 663 231 1,020 406 2,320 Neighborhood 6 436 100 467 0 1,003 Neighborhood 7 412 291 1,144 0 1,847 Rural Area 1 4,741 208 430 173 5,552 Rural Area 2 3,081 21 0 130 3,232 Rural Area 3 5,337 46 69 152 5,604 Rural Area 4 3,681 16 16 279 3,992 Development Area Units 9,379 4,329 8,326 1,028 23,062 Rural Area Units 16,840 291 515 734 18,380 Total 26,219 4,620 8,841 1,762 41,442 Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012 Mix of housing types currently on the market now, location, and value On January 31, 2012 staff reviewed listings provided by the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR). Because each listing would have to be reviewed individually and put into a data base for sorting by County staff, staff has been unable to tell which units are in the Development Areas and which are in the Rural Areas. Table 2 (following page) provides the following snapshot1 of all listings in Albemarle County as of that date. 1 The snapshot includes speculative units yet to be built but proposed to be a certain unit type. With the information available, staff was unable to separate listings by RA or DA. CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 3 Table 2 indicates that while there is a larger supply of single family detached units for sale, the units are also more expensive than the other housing types. In addition, the higher listing price of SFD may be due to their location on larger parcels of land in the Rural Areas. The lower number of attached units and condominiums for sale and their lower listing price could mean that demand is high and supply is low right now. Anecdotal evidence from the County Assessor’s Office and the number of site plans and plats for townhouses being processed by staff suggest that this is the case. Table 2: January 31, 2012 MLS Albemarle County Listings – Total on Market 834 Value of Single Family Homes To see if any trends could be ascertained on location of homes by housing value throughout the County, staff attempted to make a comparison using County assessments. After speaking with the Assessor’s office, staff found that a comparison could be made but was not totally reliable in drawing conclusions because of the number of variables which go into assessments. A house setting, it’s location in a part of the County, amenities, and comparables cannot be accounted for in such a comparison. Other factors such as age and quality of construction also come into play. Staff is still working on putting together data for review which should be available at the Commission meeting. New houses in the Rural Areas In October, staff brought information to the Commission on building permits for new residential units over the last twenty years. From that information, it appeared that , on the average, approximately 250 new detached units per year were being built in the Rural Areas. Price Detached Attached Condominiums Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent > $1,000,000 110 18% 0 0 0 0% $999,999 - $750,000 56 9% 3 2% 0 0% $749,999 - $500,000 123 20% 10 7% 2 2% $499,999 - $300,000 158 26% 15 10% 1 1% $299,999 - $200,000 103 17% 75 51% 10 12% < $200,000 52 9% 44 30% 72 85% CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 4 This figure has dimini shed significantly over the last few years. Table 3 below shows the building permits for single-family detached housing in the Development Areas and Rural Areas over the last ten years. Table 4 shows the certificates of occupancy for single-family detached housing over the last five years. Table 3: Building Permits Issued for Single Family Detached Housing (SFD) 2001-2011 Year Development Area % DA Rural Area %RA Total SFD Units 2001 205 47% 232 53% 437 2002 296 50% 293 50% 589 2003 273 51% 261 49% 534 2004 228 47% 256 53% 484 2005 269 48% 287 52% 556 2006 135 36% 245 64% 380 2007 103 35% 194 65% 297 2008 93 37% 157 63% 250 2009 82 52% 77 48% 159 2010 125 57% 95 43% 220 2011 123 55% 101 45% 224 1,932 2,198 4,130 Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012 Table 4: Certificates of Occupancy for Single Family Detached Housing 2007 -2011 Year Development Area % DA Rural Area %RA Total SFD Units 2007 136 39% 211 61% 347 2008 75 33% 153 67% 228 2009 85 37% 147 63% 232 2010 125 48% 135 52% 260 2011 120 60% 80 40% 200 541 726 1,267 Source: Albemarle County GDS Department, 2012 These tables show at least as many single-family permits being issued for housing in the Rural Areas as the Development Areas on an annual basis, if not more. The percent of certificates of occupancy for houses in the Rural Areas for the last five years is even greater except for 2011. CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 5 As preservation of the Rural Areas has been a longstanding goal for the County, staff and many members of the community have tried to gain insight on why the number of new single-family detached units being built is as high as it is in the Rural Areas. Staff believes that there have been three main reasons people have moved to or built in the Rural Areas other than to be involved in agriculture. These reasons are lifestyle choice, wealth, or family land. The Rural Areas routinely receive the highest amenity rating by Albemarle residents and there are many people who enjoy that lifestyle which includes open space and privacy. Albemarle has seen its share of millionaires who have bought property in the Rural Areas of the County with the most recent examples being Donald Trump and Jim Justice II. There are also families who own large tracts of land which divide it into smaller parcels for family members on which to either build on place a mobile home. In addition, gas prices have been relatively cheap. Rising gasoline prices and an aging population may change a part of this picture. Compact Development vs Large Lot Subdivisions In addition to the issue of affordability, there has been speculation by members of the development community that compact Neighborhood Model type developments have not met the demand of a sector of the population that is building in the Rural Areas. This group of homeowners would prefer to have larger lots typical of suburban development. It is difficult to know if this situation is the case or how many people might be a part of that sector. Staff can only note that Bargamin Park, Parkside Village, and Waylands Grant all built out very quickly during the boom years of the mid 2000s. In addition, two large Neighborhood Model developments – Old Trail and Belvedere – appear to be successful and are filling the needs of some of the population moving in to Albemarle or moving out of the Rural Areas. It must also be noted that there continue to be large-lot subdivisions built in the Development Areas (Foothill Crossing was the last example) where property owners declined to rezone to get maximum density. The same situation occurred with the Foxchase development which is no longer in the Crozet Development Area. So, choice continues to exist, even if it is sometimes at the expense of density in the Development Areas. FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY Breakdown of dwelling unit type for the approved but unbuilt units For the October 11 packet, staff provided a list of rezoning and special use permits that include residential units that have been approved since 2001. That list has since been updated to include units currently under construction. Findings from the table in Attachment A are below: CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 6  Since 2001, 12,566 units have been approved. Changes to Biscuit Run and the rezoning of the Fontaine Townhomes to Morey Creek Offices, leaves a total of 9,505 units now available from approved rezonings and special use permits in the last ten years.  Since 2001, 1,729 units approved by rezoning and special use permit have been built, leaving 82% of the units unbuilt.  Due to the flexibility for several different unit types in several of the rezoning (Old Trail, Hollymead Town Center, Belvedere), the true mix of units remaining unbuilt cannot be ascertained If the unbuilt rezoned units are evenly distributed within the corresponding development, the following conclusions can be made:  24% (2,316 units) of approved units are SFD of which 94% (2,174) are unbuilt;  33% (3,142 units) of approved units are Attached/TH of which 79% (2,473) are unbuilt; and  43% (4,042 units) of approved units are MF of which 77% (3,124) are unbuilt. It should be noted that the mix of unit types shown above is not a fixed figure. The County purposely approved Planned Districts with flexibility to allow for developers to respond to market demand for housing types. This same flexibility means that where single family detached units are chosen over attached or multi-family units, the high end of the recommended density shown on the Comprehensive Plan will not be met. Rural Area Capacity for Residential Development While the Rural Areas are not intended to be places for new residential development, opportunity for development is fairly high. At present, staff believes that the Rural Areas has the potential for over 50,000 new houses. In 1996, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission performed a buildout analysis where an estimate was made on the capacity for new units in Albemarle’s Rural Areas. At that time, the PDC estimated that the Rural Area capacity would allow for 54,867 new homes in the Rural Areas. Since that time, 3,687 new units have been constructed which leaves the potential for approximately 51,180 additional dwelling units in the Rural Area using the PDC’s methodology. This figure is speculative because the County has never done an inventory of development rights in the Rural Areas, which would be extremely labor intensive; however, it does give a measure of magnitude for additional by-right development. CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 7 Achieving approved density and the density desired by the Comprehensive Plan A question posed by one Commissioner was whether or not residential units are being built to the maximum capacity allowed. This question is difficult to answer because of the diversity of size and type of developments as well as projects which are unfinished. For example, Bargamin Park and Avinity (currently under construction) have achieved or will achieve their maximum number of units allowed. Both projects provided density in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. In Belvedere, a new apartment complex has almost maxed-out the allowable multi-family units allowed for the development. However, in Avemore, there are 106 units which have not been built and the remaining undeveloped area likely could not support that many units. There is also a lot of variability among approved projects in relation to densities shown in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Old Trail development was proposed at the high end of density shown for the Crozet Master Plan. In Glenmore, the Leake and Livengood developments were rezoned at a much lower density than the Comprehensive Plan recommended. The same is true in by-right developments. The new by-right multi-family project, Arden Place, received density bonuses on that R15 zoned property. The Foothill Crossing project was approved at R1 density, even though the Crozet Master Plan recommended a minimum of 3 units per acre. As shown with these examples, some projects are built at the high end of what the Land Use Plan would recommend and some are not. Dwelling unit types and density being achieved in the City of Charlottesville Vacant land in Charlottesville is typically different than vacant land in the Development Areas. The County has much larger tracts of land for new residential development. City developers work with more confined spaces. As such, new development is often more dense in the City than in the County. From the building permits approved in 2010 and 2011 for new residential units in the city, the average lot size for SFD buildings is 6600 square feet and the average lot size for SFA is 3800 square feet which equates to densities of 6.6 units per acre for SFD and 11 units per acre for SFA. Density for multi-family projects is approximately 14 units per acre. Staff will try to provide a similar analysis for the Development Areas at the February 14 meeting. WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? Livability Workshop Questionnaire On December 1, 2011, a workshop with the Livability Project was held for input on housing and economic drivers. In addition to the summary provided with the packet for the February 8, 2012 joint Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor’s worksession a questionnaire was provided. The questionnaire about housing and job preferences and was available to attendees at the workshop. A link to the survey on-line was also sent to all City, County, and CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 8 UVA employees. Staff was looking for information from people who live in the community but also from people who work in the community but don’t live here. The total number of respondents was 508. Attachment B provides responses by County and City residents and persons who live outside the City and County (commuters). The responses were different among City, County, and commuters’ responses. Most Albemarle residents said they live in Albemarle because they like the lifestyle, amenities, neighborhoods, etc. These same people said they are currently living where they want to. Most of the commuters said that the cost of housing prevents them from living where they want to; however, the difference between those responders and the ones who said they are living where they want to was only 11%. Most of the respon ders (Albemarle and commuters alike) said they would prefer to live in the Rural Areas of Albemarle County if there were no barriers in choice of housing. Sixty-one percent of the commuter respondents said they live out of the area because of the cost of housing or a better value for their money. Thirty-nine percent had reasons such as privacy, family, taxes, location near church, or preferred the schools where they live. As shown in the questionnaire, over half of the commuters said that affordability of housing was a major reason why they don’t live where they work. Some responders said that they get more house and land for the money they spend on housing. This situation has long been the case. Would these same people buy a townhouse in Charlottesville or the Development Areas if it were within their housing budget? Staff ventures that the answer depends on a number of variables but likely not. However, as mentioned before, rising gasoline prices may change a part of this picture. It should be noted that this questionnaire was not conducted as a scientific survey. Answering the survey was a self-selecting process and there might be multiple forms filled out from the same person. In addition, there was no way to ensure that respondents who don’t live in the City or County actually work in the City or County and are commuters. Individual comments are being reviewed for a greater understanding of respondents’ needs and desires for housing and jobs. Nevertheless, it does provide a window into percept ions of about availability of housing in this community, affordability, and jobs. Will future trends be the same as past trends? In 2011 the National Association of Realtors conducted a consumer preference study on choice of location for housing. The results of that study were that an overwhelming majority (89%) of respondents said they preferred a single-family house on a large lot. A slightly smaller majority (78%) said that a short commute was an important consideration. Three quarters of the respondents said that walkability to a grocery store was important. These CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 9 preferences were from a nationwide survey of 2,000 people. While the desire for a single- family house on a large lot reflected current preferences, there was a desire for walkability to mixed-use areas as well. Staff believes that trends of the past in housing choice will likely not be the trends of the future. Many young adults are waiting longer to start families and are looking f or a more urban lifestyle before they start their families. Baby boomers are downsizing rather than increasing the size of their house and yard responsibilities. An aging population is looking to be closer to services and transit. Rising gasoline costs will impact disposable income causing more persons to opt for closeness to work rather than a larger detached house on a large lot. While demand for single family detached housing will continue; it will likely not be at the same rate and in the same form. INFRASTRUCTURE IN RELATION TO NEW DEVELOPMENT One of the concerns of the Commission at the October 11 meeting was with expansion and infrastructure. The statement was made that the County does not have sufficient money to build infrastructure to meet current needs, much less future needs. At the January 31, 2012 Commission meeting, County staff presented the Capital Improvements Program and current budget for new projects. Each of the completed Master Plans as well as the area’s Long Range Transportation Plan provides a list of implementation projects needed for now and the future. However, available CIP and VDOT funds have severely limited the abil ity to undertake projects. This means that, in addition to future needs, current needs are not being met which is an issue best dealt with by the Board of Supervisors. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are made about the information above:  A variety of housing types exists in the County  A variety of housing types and prices is available for sale at this time  There are fewer townhouses than apartment units in the housing mix and for sale at this time where market demand for townhouses may be high  Except for 2011, SFD homebuilding in the Rural Areas has occurred historically at higher rate than the Development Areas  Although national trends would suggest that walkability to mixed -use centers is desirable, a local survey indicated that commuters continue to have a preference for larger houses on larger lots in nearby counties  If expense were not a barrier, many of these commuters would prefer to live in Albemarle’s Rural Areas  There is flexibility in the inventory of approved residential units to respond to market demand CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 10  Demands of the past may not be the same as demand in the future  There are current needs for infrastructure which must be met and will affect future development PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION No action is needed from the Planning Commission at this time unless the Commission wishes to revisit the topic of expanding the Development Areas. If this is desired, the Commission is asked to advise staff on any additional information needed for that dis cussion. PART 2: FORMAT AND LAND USE CATEGORIES - BACKGROUND On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed a recommended format for the plan as well as a vision statement. These items are provided as Attachment C which is a portion of the multi-page set of goals and objectives. On October 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted a vision and strategic plan goals. Knowing that the Board was working on a vision statement and a strategic plan, Commissioners asked staff to return with that information to inform the Comprehensive Plan. Once the Commission has agreed to a general format, staff will start putting together the goals and objectives in that format for Commission review. DISCUSSION - Format The Board of Supervisors adopted a vision statement and goals which can be found in Attachment D. Also in Attachment D is staff’s recommendation of how existing sub -goals can fit under the Board’s headings of goals. If the Commission is in agreement with this format, staff can begin to place sub-goals under the umbrella of this overarching vision and goals statement. Staff will bring back the sub-goals for further discussion by the Commission. DISCUSSION – Standard Land Use Categories Since the Crozet Master Plan was adopted in 2004, Master Plans have been developed with an expanding list of land use categories. This list became even larger with adoption of the Places 29 Master Plan. One of the goals of this Update is to simplify and standardize the categories for ease of use. At this time, the only plans which would be affected by a change in the names of categories and colors on the map would be the Crozet Master Plan, the Pantops Master Plan, and the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. There would be no change in substance to any of these plans. The general descriptions of the land use categories would be the same across all of the plans. Particular areas, such as Downtown Crozet and the Village Center in the Village of Rivanna would include their own descriptions. Other specifics would be stated in the Master Plans so that there would be no difference in expectations of the plans with the modified colors and categories. CPA 2013-01 PC February 14, 2012 Staff Report Page 11 Attachment E provides the recommended categories along with a chart showing how the standard land use categories would be applied to the existing plans. Future charts showing expected building heights and scale of development within the land use categories will follow later in the update process. Staff is asking for a general affirmation of these categories as it begins work on the southern urban neighborhoods plan. There may still be tweaking necessary and staff will bring this information back to the Commission later in the update process. SCHEDULE The Commission’s review schedule for the Comprehensive Plan is a very aggressive schedule, especially when the work with the City and Livability Project is factored in. In order to stay on this schedule, staff will be conducting outreach to the southern urban neighborhoods later in the month to get input into their desires for a general land use plan. The results of their input will be brought to the Commission in April. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission is asked to generally affirm the vision and goals format as well as the land use categories for staff to begin the next steps needed with the plan. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Updated Table of Residential Units approved since 2001 ATTACHMENT B: Jobs-Housing Questionnaire 2011 ATTACHMENT C: July 26, 2011 Vision and Goals Statement ATTACHMENT D: BOS Strategic Plan Vision and Goals and Staff Recommendations ATTACHMENT E: Recommended Standard Land Use Categories #Project Project Name**Approval date Approved Built Unbuilt Approved Built Unbuilt Approved Built Unbuilt Approved Built Unbuilt 1 ZMA 00-07 Mill Creek Village Homes*5/15/2001 36 36 0 36 36 0 2 ZMA 00-10 Avemore 6/20/2001 406 300 106 46 20 26 360 280 80 3 ZMA 01-01 Redfields Phase 4*9/19/2001 14 14 0 14 14 0 4 ZMA 01-02 Western Ridge 5C*7/11/2001 18 18 0 18 18 0 5 ZMA 01-03 Rio Square*12/5/2001 22 21 1 3 3 0 18 18 0 6 ZMA 01-07 Albemarle Place (Stonefield)10/22/2003 800 0 800 400 0 400 400 0 400 7 ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore 6/13/2007 521 0 521 200 0 200 150 0 150 171 0 171 8 ZMA 01-16 Bargamin Park*3/6/2002 43 42 1 20 19 1 23 23 0 9 ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Center Area C 8/6/2003 120 42 78 60 42 18 60 0 60 10 ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Center Area D*8/6/2003 288 288 0 212 212 0 76 76 0 11 ZMA 02-04 Cascadia 8/2/2006 330 0 330 74 0 74 150 0 150 106 0 106 12 ZMA 03-05 Meadows Expansion*10/6/2004 40 38 2 40 38 2 13 ZMA 03-08 Woodbrook Station 1/11/2006 8 0 8 8 0 8 14 ZMA 03-12 Poplar Glen I*6/9/2004 26 26 0 26 26 0 15 ZMA 04-03 Avon Park*7/14/2004 61 54 7 16 12 4 43 42 1 16 ZMA 04-05 Cottages at Jefferson Heights 4/20/2005 4 0 4 4 0 4 17 ZMA 04-16 Glenwood Station*3/16/2005 78 56 22 28 28 0 50 28 22 18 ZMA 04-24 Old Trail 9/14/2005 2,200 75 2,125 733 8 725 733 33 700 734 34 700 19 ZMA 04-07 Belvedere 10/12/2005 775 335 440 400 37 363 61 4 57 314 294 20 20 ZMA 04-17 Wickham Pond I 1/4/2006 107 48 59 35 18 17 72 30 42 21 ZMA 04-18 Fontana Phase 4C 3/29/2008 34 0 34 34 0 34 22 ZMA 04-22 Treesdale Park*12/12/2007 90 88 2 88 88 0 23 ZMA 05-05 Liberty Hall 12/12/2007 51 48 3 16 13 3 35 35 0 24 ZMA 05-07 Haden Place 2/14/2007 34 0 34 20 0 20 14 0 14 25 ZMA 05-14 Poplar Glen 2 7/5/2006 28 20 8 28 20 8 26 ZMA 05-17 Biscuit Run 9/12/2007 100 0 100 100 0 100 27 ZMA 05-18 Wickham Pond II 9/13/2006 106 0 106 48 0 48 58 0 58 28 ZMA 06-01 Westhall Phase V 9/13/2006 36 0 36 36 0 36 29 ZMA 06-05 Avinity*6/13/2007 124 124 0 100 100 0 24 24 0 30 ZMA 06-15 Glenmore - Livengood 10/10/2007 43 0 43 43 0 43 31 ZMA 06-16 Glenmore Addition: Leake 11/14/2007 110 0 110 110 0 110 32 ZMA 06-18 Forest Ridge*1/10/2007 4 4 0 4 4 0 33 ZMA 06-19 Willow Glen 3/14/2007 234 0 234 22 0 22 118 0 118 94 0 94 34 ZMA 07-01 HTC A-2 9/12/2007 1,222 0 1,222 374 0 374 848 0 848 35 ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh Farm 1/16/2008 109 0 109 2 0 2 21 0 21 86 0 86 36 ZMA 07-05 Avon Park Extended 11/14/2007 31 0 31 7 0 7 24 0 24 37 ZMA 07-11 Patterson 3/19/2008 10 0 10 10 0 10 38 ZMA 07-12 Blue Ridge Co-housing 11/14/2007 26 0 26 4 0 4 14 0 14 8 0 8 39 SP 02-23 White Gables 76 30 46 76 30 46 40 SP 02-72 North Pointe 893 0 893 314 0 314 314 0 314 265 0 265 41 SP 03-06 Cedar Hill MHP 32 0 32 32 0 32 42 SP 04-52 Kenridge 65 22 43 5 0 5 60 22 38 43 SP 07-26 Crozet Station 30 0 30 30 0 30 44 SP 07-31 NGIC 8/1/2007 120 0 120 120 0 120 Total 9,505 1,729 7,776 2,316 142 2,174 3,142 669 2,473 4,042 918 3,124 Multi-family Units *Project is completed or very close to build out Project Descriptions New Residential Units Approved Through Rezonings and Special Use Permits since May 15, 2001 Last updated 12/15/11 ** List also includes projects that appear to be built out but didn't achieve maximum density Total Units Single-Family Detached Units Townhomes / Attached Units Residential Table Remaining Units 2-1-12 ATTB xlsx.xlsx DRAFT Housing and Economic Drivers Survey 2011 as part of Livability Project Responses for “Other” 119 135 109 146 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Charlottesville Albemarle County, RA Albemarle County, DA Other I am a resident of: Question 1: I live in my current location because: Residents of Albemarle County generally like the lifestyle/amenities/neighborhood of their current location. Charlottesville residents live in the city because of the lifestyle/amenities/neighborhoods and because they work nearby. Residents outside Albemarle County list a variety of reasons why they live in their current location (specified in survey results) and some also like the lifestyle. Question 2: Many live where they desire, especially Albemarle County residents. Cost of housing is the biggest barrier to residents outside the county and to some Albemarle residents. Question 3: 68 73 8 13 22 59 157 8 43 50 5 48 12 3 93 0 50 100 150 200 My job is close to my home I like the lifestyle/amenities/neighborhoods , etc A family member needs to live here/there I like the schools Other (please specify) I live in my current location because Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle 27 5 2 73 10 63 1 5 156 15 66 6 2 53 17 0 50 100 150 200 Cost of housing Need to be near employment or spouse’s employment Not enough options available on the market I am currently living where I want Other (please specify) What barriers currently prevent you from living where you want? Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle Without barriers, many Charlottesville residents would still choose to live in the city. Many Albemarle residents would choose to live in the rural area of the county and some would choose to live in the urban areas of the county (this could be expressing satisfaction with the area in which they already live). Residents outside of Albemarle would like to live in the rural area of Albemarle. Question 4: Charlottesville residents had mixed answers to this question, the most would like to live in a different dwelling type. Albemarle residents would also like to live in a different type of dwelling or listed “other”. Residents outside of Albemarle prefered to be closer to work. Many in Albemarle listed a variety of other reasons for changing where they live (specificed in thesurvey results). Question 5: 86 9 11 9 32 60 107 29 13 19 72 34 0 50 100 150 Charlottesville Urban Area of Albemarle County Rural Area of Albemarle County Other (please specify) Where would you choose to live locally if there were no barriers to your choice of housing? Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle 47 12 13 34 36 74 46 23 27 80 19 89 12 22 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 Reside in a different type of dwelling, i.e., detached house, townhouse, … Be closer to work Be closer to a variety of transportation options Be in a better neighborhood Other (please specify) If you could change where you live, it would be to: (check all that apply) Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle Most people believed they could find another job matching their skill set regardless of location. A greater number of Albemarle residents felt there were not jobs to match their skill sets. Question 6: Most respondents desire to see more Professional/Management positions. Other jobs types that received a large number of responses included “Small Scale/Start ups” and “Manufacturing”. The smallest desire was for “retail/service” positions. Question 7: 57 26 31 110 68 52 87 15 29 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Yes No Unsure If you wanted to or needed to change jobs, are there other jobs available in Charlottesville or Albemarle County that match your current skill set? Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle 77 10 23 37 46 36 13 137 29 54 74 94 53 27 86 15 34 45 42 30 42 0 50 100 150 Professional/ Management Retail/ Service Construction/ Manual Trades Manufacturing Small Scale Start Up/ … Arts/ Entertainment/ Creative Other (please specify) What kind of jobs would you like to see more of in the Charlottesville -Albemarle area? (check all that apply) Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle Many respondents, especially Albemarle residents, desire jobs in “Professional/Management” but a large number of residents outside of Albemarle desire “Construction/Manual Trades” positions. Question 8: Respondents listed the largest barriers to local employment was the lack of suitable jobs and the poor economic climate. Many listed other barriers (especially residents outside of Albemarle) that are specified in the survey results. Question 9: 38 14 12 6 14 13 19 91 32 23 30 27 18 41 30 14 54 13 32 18 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Professional/ Management Retail/ Service Construction/ Manual Trades Manufacturing Small Scale Start Up/ … Arts/ Entertainment/ Creative Other (please specify) If you, a friend or family member are currently unemployed and actively seeking work in the area, what kind of job are you/they looking for? (check all that apply) Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle 6 5 21 32 17 7 0 55 69 40 10 15 10 3 46 0 20 40 60 80 Training/ skills Work history Poor economic climate No suitable jobs in area Other (please specify) What barriers prevent you, your friend or family member from finding a job in the area? Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle Respondents who live in Albemarle County and Charlottesville generally desire more affordable housing and better job opportunities. A smaller number of respondents from outside of Albemarle County felt there needs to be better job opportunities for those that do not live in the area. Question 10: Charlottesville residents felt that more jobs in the community would signal “better” job opportunities. Albemarle residents felt that higher paying jobs and more jobs woud provide better job opportunity. Residents outside fo Albemarle desired to see different types of positions and higher paying positions for better job opportunity. Many outside of Albemarle also listed “other” reasons for better job opportunities. 24 76 44 80 46 51 136 81 156 96 21 17 32 74 79 0 50 100 150 200 There should be more choice in the type of housing that is available. There should be more housing that is affordable for people who live here now. There should be more housing that is affordable to people who want to live here. There should be better job opportunities for people who live here. There should be better job opportunities for people who want to live here. Please select any of the following statements related to housing and employment that you agree with: Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle 25 32 43 11 38 81 83 20 63 59 18 56 0 20 40 60 80 100 Different types of positions Higher paying jobs Increased number of jobs in the community Other (please specify) What does “better job opportunities” mean to you? Charlottesville Albemarle Outside Albemarle Albemarle Responses Location I live in my current location because: Albemarle County, Development Area Easy accessibility to cultural events, shopping, etc Albemarle County, Development Area When I bought it was affordable Albemarle County, Development Area can’t afford an overpriced house, so i live in an apartment Albemarle County, Development Area It was close to my job Albemarle County, Development Area I am unable to sell and relocate closer to the City, which is what I would prefer. Albemarle County, Development Area broadband, neighborhood Albemarle County, Development Area Options were very limited when we moved to the area (peak of the real estate market) Albemarle County, Development Area It's close to Charlottesville, stores. Albemarle County, Development Area Have not been able to sell my house. Albemarle County, Development Area Relationship with current homeowner Albemarle County, Development Area affordable rent Albemarle County, Development Area best house for the price Albemarle County, Development Area DO NOT LIKE Albemarle County, Rural Area it’s a no growth area of Albemarle county Albemarle County, Rural Area We can exercise our free rights to manage our property and live with less big government regulation. Albemarle County, Rural Area Lots of affordable land but close to downtown Albemarle County, Rural Area I was stuck here... Albemarle County, Rural Area it is what i could afford when i bought a home Albemarle County, Rural Area it's quiet where I live Albemarle County, Rural Area Did not want to live near 29 North 20 years ago because of all the traffic lights and development. Albemarle County, Rural Area I live with my parents Albemarle County, Rural Area Living in a home owned by our family for 55+ years Albemarle County, Rural Area I own the house. Albemarle County, Rural Area Privacy - land - trees Albemarle County, Rural Area did not want to drive 30-35 minutes to town Albemarle County, Rural Area accommodates my horses Albemarle County, Rural Area It was affordable and I love the rural atmosphere. Albemarle County, Rural Area It was affordable. Albemarle County, Rural Area It is somewhat affordable Albemarle County, Rural Area I live in the county-where I want to live Albemarle County, Rural Area We just like our area. My job was never a decision to where lived. Albemarle County, Rural Area Relatively affordable with good schools Albemarle County, Rural Area beauty of the place, privacy, lack of trafficnoise & sirens, the clean air, small town atmosphere, affordability Albemarle County, Rural Area born in county Albemarle County, Rural Area It's Keswick, need I say more. Albemarle County, Rural Area i like living in the country Albemarle County, Rural Area Low population density Albemarle County, Rural Area Raised in the area. Albemarle County, Rural Area I am one of the few who can afford to live in the county i work for. Not because Albemarle pays me well. Albemarle County, Rural Area I found a house that I liked within my price range that had a little bit of land- 1.5 acres Albemarle County, Rural Area I have lived in the rural area of Albemarle all my life and enjoy the privacy Albemarle County, Rural Area This is where all of my family members live...northern Albemarle. Albemarle County, Rural Area less traffic Albemarle County, Rural Area I have lived at that location since I was a child Albemarle County, Rural Area Close to family Albemarle County, Rural Area Family Home Albemarle County, Rural Area Affordable and in a decent school district Albemarle County, Rural Area That's where we found a home we could afford Albemarle County, Rural Area Traffic and road noise made my home unlivable and forced me to take a small flat elsewhere. Commuter Responses Location I live in my current location because: City of Lynchburg close to my graduate school program City of Staunton (Augusta) Affordable, quiet. City of Staunton (Augusta) It's cheaper than Albemarle County City of Waynesboro it's affordable City of Waynesboro (Augusa) More house and yard for the money City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Cost compared to county City of Waynesboro (Augusa) cheaper then charlottesville City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Single dad... cant afford Charlottesville / Albemarle City of Waynesboro (Augusa) couldn't afford the kind of house we wanted in Cville/ALBCO City of Waynesboro (Augusa) I don't like Charlottesville City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Cost of living expenses and Housing prices are lower and more affordable County of Amherst Cost of housing County of Augusta Can't afford Charlottesville any more County of Augusta Costs County of Augusta I can not afford to live in the Albemarle/Charlottesville Area County of Cumberland Cost is cheaper County of Fluvanna I grew up in albemarle county and have worked for albemarle for 15 years but do not make enough to live were I work. County of Fluvanna Lower taxes County of Fluvanna Cost of living County of Fluvanna less expensive than albemarle County of Fluvanna Cost County of Fluvanna Housing prices when I moved in 2006 County of Fluvanna Charlottesville/Albemarle are too expensive. County of Fluvanna Affordable County of Fluvanna couldnt afford Albemarle or Ch-ville County of Fluvanna Cannot afford to purchase a home in the city or county. County of Fluvanna Where I was raised as a child County of Fluvanna Affordable Housing to meet family needs County of Fluvanna Cannot afford Albemarle county land prices, taxes. County of Fluvanna best housing value/affordability County of Fluvanna cost County of Fluvanna Can't afford to live in Albemarle county. County of Fluvanna Home Prices in Charlottesville & Albemarle County of Fluvanna cost of living WAS lower County of Fluvanna Privacy County of Fluvanna I can't afford to live in AlbCo due to housing prices County of Fluvanna cost County of Fluvanna love the County settings County of Fluvanna Family in error County of Fluvanna Affordable Housing County of Fluvanna Can't afford to live in Albemarle County where I work County of Fluvanna THAT IS WHAT I CAN AFFORD. County of Fluvanna My home is part of what was my father's homeplace County of Fluvanna Could not find affordable housing in Alb or Cville. County of Fluvanna CAN NOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY County of Fluvanna Lower tax base, good schools, easy commute County of Fluvanna Affordability (able to buy more house + amenities) County of Fluvanna Affordability County of Fluvanna Family property, no mortgage/rent County of Fluvanna Price of housing in relation to my income level County of Fluvanna we bought our property in 95' and moved here 2000 County of Greene Can not afford to live in Ch'ville/Albemarle County of Greene needed something fast County of Greene Housing is cheaper in Greene County of Greene Housing Cost County of Greene affordability County of Greene My Wife and I both work in Albemarle and Charlottesville, but it was the closest home we could afford which had a garage, basement and 1 acre County of Greene Best deal on house that was purchased. County of Greene Affordable housing County of Greene Cost of Housing/Likelihood of selling home County of Greene I could not afford to buy a home in Albemarle Co. County of Greene I like living in the "country" County of Louisa COST, VALUE FOR MY MONEY County of Louisa Cannot afford to live anywhere else County of Louisa Half the distance to work for my wife/me County of Louisa it was more affordable than Albemarle Co or Cville County of Louisa Lease was terminated at former residence in Alb Co, current location met my needs best County of Louisa lower taxes and cost of homes/property is lower County of Louisa reasonable proximity to Charlottesville but rural and lower taxes County of Louisa Housing is less expensive; we could get a little land County of Louisa It is not in or near a city County of Madison cost County of Madison given land on which to build County of Madison Prefer the lower tax rate and rural living County of Nelson Affordable, family & where we settled County of Nelson Cost of housing too high in Albemarle, Family County of Nelson I remained there after my divorce so my kids would not have to change schools County of Nelson Cheaper housing than Albemarle County of Nelson When I got married, my husband was already living in Nelson. County of Nelson mountain views County of Nelson farm owner opperator County of Nelson Less expensive County of Nelson Mostly price of farmland. We have horses. Also close to church and helpful neighbors. County of Nelson Can not afford to live in Albemarle County or city County of Nelson beautiful views, privacy, self-sufficiency County of Nelson Close to my Church County of Nelson lower taxes County of Nelson my job requires me to live within 10 miles of the city limits County of Orange it's the only county I can afford County of Orange that's where we bought a house County of Orange Its quiet and less traffic around County of Orange have to live with family due lack income to live on my own Town of Gordonsville (Orange) Also closer to wife's family Albemarle Responses Location If you could change where you live, it would be to: Albemarle County, Development Area maybe be out in the country more-- with no neighbors visible, more land. Albemarle County, Development Area Be in a more diverse and progressive area (Charlottesville as opposed to Albemarle whose Board of Supervisors has become too business-friendly and conservative for my tastes) Albemarle County, Development Area Have land and be more isolated and away from people Albemarle County, Development Area Near Downtown Mall amenities Albemarle County, Development Area None of the above Albemarle County, Development Area see 4 above Albemarle County, Development Area wouldn't change Albemarle County, Development Area Larger home Albemarle County, Development Area Peace and quiet Albemarle County, Development Area more rural area, more land Albemarle County, Development Area buy instead of rent Albemarle County, Development Area Be closer to the Downtown Mall Albemarle County, Development Area I live where I want to live. Albemarle County, Development Area I'd love to pick up my house (Mill Creek) and move it to a rural area :) Albemarle County, Development Area Retire and enjoy the beauty of Albemarle County countryside Albemarle County, Development Area If I need to get into something smaller since I'm getting older. Albemarle County, Development Area Be within walking/biking distance of activities and resources Albemarle County, Development Area I live exactly where I want to live Albemarle County, Development Area n/a Albemarle County, Development Area More rural, scenic area Albemarle County, Development Area Be able to bike to work. Completing the Meadowcreek Pkwy would allow this. I can't bike on Rio Rd. Albemarle County, Development Area Slightly larger and more modern house on a slightly larger lot. Albemarle County, Development Area Have more property - no restriction Albemarle County, Development Area live in a rural setting Albemarle County, Development Area Live in a place with recreation amenities e.g. more public parks, open space, and trails Albemarle County, Development Area more land Albemarle County, Development Area to live in the country Albemarle County, Development Area I do not wish to change where I live Albemarle County, Rural Area Purchase more land. Albemarle County, Rural Area Diff type of dwelling (older, larger home) but still with 10+ acres Albemarle County, Rural Area Move to the tropics Albemarle County, Rural Area get away from the trash moving here. Albemarle County, Rural Area To have more land Albemarle County, Rural Area Closer to Charlottesville Albemarle County, Rural Area None Apply Albemarle County, Rural Area Live close to downtown Albemarle County, Rural Area Rural area off of a paved road (currently living on a dirt road) Albemarle County, Rural Area Be in the city where I am closer to the downtown mall and belmont since I spend a lot of time there Albemarle County, Rural Area very content in my home. Albemarle County, Rural Area Closer to basic services in our old age. Albemarle County, Rural Area None-I live where I want to live Albemarle County, Rural Area Wouldn't change Albemarle County, Rural Area Living the Dream Albemarle County, Rural Area in the country wiht view and more land Albemarle County, Rural Area xx Albemarle County, Rural Area n/a Albemarle County, Rural Area Be closer to downtown Albemarle County, Rural Area Have more property / newer home Albemarle County, Rural Area Own more land Albemarle County, Rural Area to walk to a majority of things that I would like to do in town Albemarle County, Rural Area another state Albemarle County, Rural Area I do not plan to move. Albemarle County, Rural Area I like where I live and do not want to change. Albemarle County, Rural Area At the Beach! Albemarle County, Rural Area Would'nt change Albemarle County, Rural Area Be downtown Albemarle County, Rural Area n/a Albemarle County, Rural Area I am satiafied with were I live Albemarle County, Rural Area Cheaper taxes, more rural communities Albemarle County, Rural Area CLOSER TO MOUNTAINS Albemarle County, Rural Area would not change i like living in the country Albemarle County, Rural Area Have more cycle-friendly roads to allow for a commute via bicycle Albemarle County, Rural Area Look for a more affordable location. Albemarle County, Rural Area Albemarle County, Rural Area be further away from the liberal cesspool of Charlottesville. Albemarle County, Rural Area more open space Albemarle County, Rural Area Way out in the country-away from it all Albemarle County, Rural Area none Albemarle County, Rural Area have better amenities with still a nice size lot- 1/2 acre or so, but still be able to walk to downtown Albemarle County, Rural Area would have other amenities that I currently don't have like access to a pond, more sunlight (I live in the woods), space for a garden so none of the above apply. Albemarle County, Rural Area there are a few home improvements I'd do, if I could. Albemarle County, Rural Area a better lot in the same neighborhood Albemarle County, Rural Area Different State Albemarle County, Rural Area closer to work, school, and shopping, and activities Albemarle County, Rural Area Buy, not rent anymore. Property in the County is too expensive. Albemarle County, Rural Area Don't want to change Albemarle County, Rural Area would not Albemarle County, Rural Area larger home Albemarle County, Rural Area The islands Albemarle County, Rural Area N/A Albemarle County, Rural Area but for the noise, I would be perfectly happy to live in my house. Commuter Responses Location If you could change where you live, it would be to: City of Staunton (Augusta) To have a larger house City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Be in a better school district/feeder pattern City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Be closer to the beach City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Live in a home that would support my family's growth County of Fluvanna To move further away from Charlottesville or Albemarle County of Fluvanna Have better neighbors :) County of Fluvanna One level, lower maintenance County of Fluvanna be closer to shopping, etc. County of Fluvanna n/a County of Fluvanna Small rural farm County of Fluvanna be in rural area County of Fluvanna Large, sprawling land with no neighbors County of Fluvanna In the County County of Fluvanna would like to live where I work, having that sense of ownership County of Fluvanna Have better education for my kids County of Fluvanna Neighborhood County of Fluvanna Beach County of Fluvanna still want family close County of Fluvanna Better Schools County of Fluvanna more land County of Fluvanna TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO OWN A HOME IN THE COMMUNITY THAT I PROTECT EVERYDAY. County of Fluvanna modify my dwelling to fit my needs better County of Fluvanna BETTER SCHOOL SYSTEM County of Fluvanna Schools mainly - sports for kids and shopping County of Fluvanna move to a less developed area County of Fluvanna n/a County of Greene own a small piece of property of my own County of Greene Farm near work County of Greene Free range County of Greene School system, closer to work County of Greene (Ruckersville) Better school district County of Louisa The Island Man!! County of Louisa no desire to change County of Louisa I am happy where I am County of Madison nothing County of Madison I would not change a thing. County of Nelson Offer better education to son County of Nelson near ocean or river County of Nelson Warmer Climate County of Nelson None of the above County of Nelson Closer to Church County of Nelson I would not change County of Nelson in my permanent residence with out a restriction on the mileage County of Orange If closer means cheaper gas County of Orange Near the beach Town of Gordonsville (Orange) no desire to change residence Albemarle Responses Location Where would you choose to live locally if there were no barriers to your choice of housing? Albemarle County, Development Area Crozet Albemarle County, Development Area not in cville or albemarle, Revenue sharing agreement, my money needs to go to my county not the city Albemarle County, Development Area Nelson County or possibly Greene. Albemarle County, Development Area Various parts of the city and urban Albemarle Albemarle County, Development Area see above Albemarle County, Development Area i am where i want to be Albemarle County, Development Area maybe in the City central area Albemarle County, Development Area n/a Albemarle County, Development Area ruckersville/greene area Albemarle County, Development Area Either downtown Charlottesville, or possibly out in rural parts of North Garden Albemarle County, Development Area exactly where I do live now Albemarle County, Rural Area I am fine Albemarle County, Rural Area See answer to #3 Albemarle County, Rural Area far, far, away. Albemarle County, Rural Area None Apply Albemarle County, Rural Area Crozet Albemarle County, Rural Area None-I live where I want to live Albemarle County, Rural Area I live where I want, but it is expensive to do so. Albemarle County, Rural Area Not in albemarle county - taxes too high Albemarle County, Rural Area I live where I want. Albemarle County, Rural Area n/a Albemarle County, Rural Area Scottsville/ Fluvanna area Albemarle County, Rural Area CROZET Albemarle County, Rural Area Agusta County. Cost of living is to high in this area. Albemarle County, Rural Area Amherst Albemarle County, Rural Area Bigger house & property if I made a reasonable wage. Albemarle County, Rural Area not sure - depends on how I age Albemarle County, Rural Area No barriers, I live where I want to live Albemarle County, Rural Area where i am Commuter Responses Location Where would you choose to live locally if there were no barriers to your choice of housing? Unknown - Outside of Albemarle County Rural Area Outside of Albemarle County City of Richmond fine where I am City of Staunton (Augusta) Augusta County City of Waynesboro (Augusa) valley City of Waynesboro (Augusa) Closest Beach County of Augusta Augusta County of Augusta where i am County of Augusta I live in Augusta County County of Fluvanna Not in Charlottesville or Albemarle County of Fluvanna Louisa County County of Fluvanna same place County of Fluvanna Fluvanna County of Fluvanna Louisa County of Fluvanna Out of State County of Fluvanna Myrtle Beach SC County of Fluvanna not sure County of Fluvanna Where I am County of Fluvanna n/a County of Greene Rural Area outside of higher taxes like Albemarle County County of Greene Greene County County of Greene (Ruckersville) One of the giant houses on Park Street County of Louisa Louisa County County of Louisa Rural Louisa, Goochland, or Hanover Counties County of Louisa Where I am County of Madison I enjoy where i live now County of Nelson Nelson County County of Nelson Nelson County of Nelson Nelson County of Nelson Warmer climate County of Nelson Nelson County County of Nelson Where I live currently County of Nelson I have no barriers County of Nelson Nelson County Town of Gordonsville (Orange) Gordonsville Albemarle Responses Location What barriers currently prevent you from living where you want? Albemarle County, Development Area I plan on moving in the next couple of years, when my finances improve. Albemarle County, Development Area I like where I currently live.and do not wish to move Albemarle County, Development Area broadband access, cost of housing Albemarle County, Development Area I might like to live closer to downtown and I could afford it, but I don't want to try to sell my house at this point. Albemarle County, Development Area I chose my location 40 yrs ago and am happy with it Albemarle County, Development Area Renting Albemarle County, Development Area Have not been able to sell my house. Albemarle County, Rural Area Not enough money Albemarle County, Rural Area None- I live where I want to live Albemarle County, Rural Area I live where I want, but it is expensive to do so Albemarle County, Rural Area none Albemarle County, Rural Area economy Albemarle County, Rural Area can't sell house in this market Albemarle County, Rural Area None - I am where I want to be. Albemarle County, Rural Area Noise Commuter Responses Location What barriers currently prevent you from living where you want? County of Augusta children and housing County of Fluvanna Cannot sell due to the economy. County of Fluvanna Current market value of my home County of Fluvanna Too expensive to move again County of Fluvanna Poor housing market. Trying to sell to move in to Albemarle County of Fluvanna Can't sell my house without a loss County of Fluvanna money County of Fluvanna Current house not selling for what I have in it. County of Fluvanna Living where I want & cost of housing is less in Fluvanna County of Fluvanna we love it where we are and it is close to work too. County of Greene pay County of Greene no mortgages available County of Louisa Employment County of Nelson Housing market County of Nelson Cost of farmland, especially pasture with house. County of Orange Low salary County of Orange too much debt 2012 Comprehensive Plan Vision and Goals by Category – July 26, 2011 VISION AND OVERARCHING GOALS VISION Albemarle County is and will continue to be A thriving county, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities. Goals 1. Manage growth in order to provide for the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own n eeds. Sustainability Goals Overall Growth Management Rural Areas 2. Protect Natural, Cultural, and Historic Resources Natural Cultural Historic 3. Encourage a Diverse and Vibrant Local Economy Economic Development 4. Foster Attractive and Vibrant Communities Neighborhood Model Housing Goals 5. Provide Facilities that Meet Existing and Future Needs Transportation Utilities Community Facilities 6. Ensure the Health and Safety of the Community Community Services Board of Supervisors Vision and Goals and Staff Recommended Goals and Topics for Comprehensive Plan Update – February 14, 2012 Vision: A thriving county, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities. Board of Supervisors’ Goals Staff Recommended Goals Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs Transportation Utilities Community Facilities Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy Economic Development Protect the County’s natural, historic, and scenic resources Protect natural, cultural, scenic, and historic resources Natural Resources Cultural Resources Scenic Resources Historic Resources Sustainability Goals Overall Growth Management Rural Areas Neighborhood Model Housing Goals Ensure the health and safety of the community Ensure the health and safety of the community Community Services Very Low Density Residential Low to Medium Density Residential Medium to High Density Residential No Comparable n/a Neighborhood Density Urban Density Neighborhood Density (Low)Neighborhood Density Urban Density Residential Designations This designation represents residential areas where a density of 6.01 – 34 dwelling units per acre is expected, except in Crozet where overall density would not exceed 12 units per acre. Primary uses are single family detached dwellings, single family attached dwellings (townhomes, duplexes), multifamily (apartments, condominiums) dwelling units, accessory dwellings and nonresidential uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, child/elder care facilities, and parks. Secondary uses are small scale commercial land uses providing service to nearby residential uses. Examples include small retail shops, offices, laundromats, and dry cleaners which may be stand-alone buildings or multi- story buildings with residential uses on upper floors. 6.01 – 34 residential units per acre with support uses and some non-residential uses. Urban Density Residential areas accommodate all dwelling types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools Urban Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores, less than 4,000 square feet; live/work units above office and/or retail; small office buildings less than 20,000 square feet; and studios/cottage occupations No Comparable This designation represents residential areas where a density of 2 residential units per acre or less is expected. Housing is expected to be single-family detached. Nonresidential neighborhood uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, religious institutions, daycare facilities, parks, and private schools, may also be present in these areas. 3 – 6 residential units per acre with residential support uses and limited non-residential uses. Neighborhood Density Residential areas will primarily accommodate single family dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Neighborhood Density Residential areas accommodate small areas of non- residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service, to serve residential uses. This may include corner stores of less than 4,000 square feet; live/work units above office and/or retail; small office buildings with less than 20,000 square feet; and studios/cottage occupations This designation represents residential areas with a desired density of 3 – 6 residential units per acre. It also represents existing residential areas within or below this range. Housing in this area is primarily single-family detached with some single-family attached/townhouses. Non-residential uses include institutional uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools). Neighborhood-serving retail/commercial areas and office uses of less than 5,000 square feet may be allowed by exception only in Neighborhood Density Residential areas located within half a block of Downtown along Blue Ridge Avenue and east of Firehouse Lane. This designation represents primarily residential areas with a density of 6 – 12 residential units per acre. All housing types are found in this category, including single family detached, townhouses, and apartments. Urban Density residential areas include places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools). Urban Density residential areas also accommodate small scale office and commercial uses. Neighborhood-serving commercial buildings of less than 5,000 square feet and office uses of less than 20,000 square feet per site may be allowed by exception only.ProposedExisting: Pantops Master PlanExisting: Crozet Master PlanThis designation represents existing residential areas where density of 2 dwelling units per acre or less exists and is not expected to increase. Primary uses are single-family detached houses, accessory dwelling units, and parks. Secondary uses are places of worship, public and private schools, child/elder care facilities, and similar types of uses. This designation represents residential areas where a density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre is expected, except in the Village of Rivanna where overall density would not exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. Primary uses are single family attached and detached dwellings, and nonresidential uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, child/elder care facilities, and parks. Secondary uses are multifamily at a density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre and small scale commercial land uses providing service to nearby residential uses. Examples include small retail shops, offices, laundromats, and dry cleaners which may be stand- alone buildings or multi-story buildings with residential uses on upper floors. Infill development with this designation is expected to have the character and density of the surrounding development. Neighborhood Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Regional Mixed Use No Comparable n/a Urban Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Mixed Use See Below n/a No Comparable n/a Mixed Use Designations Proposed Existing: Pantops Master PlanExisting: Crozet Master PlanNo Comparable This designation represents areas where a mixture of commercial, service, and residential uses at a density of up to 34 units per acre is expected. Nonresidential uses include commercial, service, and office uses that will serve the region. Other nonresidential uses include parks and amenities and institutional uses. Dwellings are mostly multifamily (apartments, condominiums) or units on upper floors of multi-use buildings. Primary uses are commercial, service, office, residential, institutional, public, and civic uses. Secondary uses are office/R&D/flex, and light industrial. This designation represents areas where a mixture of commercial, service, and residential uses at a density of up to 34 units per acre is expected. Retail and services serve the community. Office uses that are major employment centers are also allowed in community mixed use areas. Dwellings are mostly multifamily (apartments, condominiums) and single family attached (townhomes, duplexes). Primary uses include retail, office, service, places of worship, hotels/motels, public and private schools, child/elder care facilities, parks, and uses serving neighborhoods and the community. Secondary uses are office/R&D/flex, and light industrial. This designation represents areas where a mixture of small-scale commercial, service, and residential uses are expected. Residential density of up to 34 units per acre is expected, except in Crozet where density is not expected to exceed 18 units per acre. Retail use and services primarily serve nearby residential areas. Nonresidential uses include parks and amenities as well as retail, office, service, and institutional uses which primarily serve the surrounding residential areas. Dwellings are mostly single family attached (townhomes, duplexes), multifamily (apartments, condominiums), and accessory dwelling units. Office uses which serve a community-wide need are also allowed. This designation represents areas with a mixture of residential, commercial, and office uses. Residential density does not exceed 18 dwelling units per acre, mostly as apartments or townhouses. This designation is used inside mixed use centers -- such as Old Trail and Clover Lawn and as transition areas around Downtown. In centers, it includes a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial, employment, and office uses along with some institutional uses. The types of retail and services, as well as dwelling unit types, vary depending upon the nature of the center. Specific recommendations for the Mixed Use (Transition) areas surrounding Downtown are provided in the Mixed Use Areas near Downtown section of this chapter starting on Page 24. Also see Crozet Master Plan Downtown Designation No Comparable Retail, commercial services, office, hotel/motel/conference facilities, and wholesale uses with scale appropriate for Neighborhood and Community Centers. Secondary uses include Employment uses. Residential uses at Urban Densities may be allowed as secondary uses. Retail, commercial services, office and a mix of residential types based on the Urban Density land use category. This mixed use land use category is expected to have equal parts of residential and commercial uses. Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex/Light Industrial Industrial Employment Mixed Use No Comparable n/a Employment District Mixed Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex and Commercial No Comparable n/a Light Industrial Industrial & Office/ R&D/ Flex/ Light Industrial Designations This designation, which is a subcategory of Downtown, represents a mixture of employment, retail, and service uses. Retail and service uses that would occur in Downtown are expected in this category of use as well as office, research and development (R&D), and flex uses. Examples of office/R&D uses include research and development of computer software, information systems, communication systems, geographic information systems, and multi-media and video technology. Development, construction, and testing of prototypes may be associated with this use. Such a business does not involve the mass manufacture, fabrication, processing, or sale of products. Flex describes businesses that may include several uses such as a manufacturing facility with warehouse space for components and completed products, a showroom for sale of the products, and office space where administrative duties for the business take place. Light industrial uses are secondary. They are expected to have limited impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors), although a use may have a greater traffic impact due to the number of employees. Residential uses are also secondary uses, up to 36 units per acre in the form of upper story apartments. Open space and institutional uses constitute additional secondary uses. This designation represents uses that involve manufacturing, predominantly from previously prepared materials, of products or parts. It may include processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these products. It does not include basic industrial processing. Light Industrial areas provide a place for employment and commercial uses that need to be segregated from residential uses and other commercial uses because of their impacts. Primary uses are light manufacturing, storage, and distribution. Secondary uses include related office and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research and development (R&D), flex, other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area, larger auto commercial service uses, open space, and institutional uses. No Comparable Existing: Crozet Master PlanProposedThis designation represents industrial uses that involve manufacturing and may include processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these products. It allows for a range of employment and commercial uses that may have impacts that would not be suitable in or adjacent to residential uses, retail uses, commercial uses, or many types of commercial office or research activities. Industrial uses with significant external effects, especially those related to noise, vibration, odors, heavy truck traffic, or involving large amounts of hazardous material are be allowed by exception. Primary uses in the Industrial Category are manufacturing, storage, and distribution. Secondary uses include related office and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research & development (R&D), flex, and other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area, larger auto commercial service uses, open space, and institutional uses. Uses by special exception include heavy manufacturing or users of large amounts of hazardous materials. This designation represents areas where very light industrial uses and employment-generating uses are expected. Uses in this category are expected to have the fewest impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors), although they may have a greater traffic impact due to the number of employees. Examples include research and development of electronic technology, communication systems, or information systems. Development, construction, and testing of prototypes may be associated with this use. Such a business does not involve the mass manufacture, fabrication, processing, or sale of products. Flex describes businesses that may include several uses, such as a light manufacturing facility with warehouse space for components and completed products, a showroom for sale of the products, and office space where administrative duties for the business take place. Primary uses in Office/R&D /Flex/Light Industrial could be any of the uses above in any combination. Secondary uses in this designation are retail, residential (at a density of 36 units per acre in the form of upper story apartments ), and institutional uses.Existing: Pantops Master PlanAn employment district is designated in Pantops at the almost 65 acre State Farm Insurance offices. Due to its size, it does not have a “center” and is not intended to given its characteristics and nearby mix of uses and other centers. Employment generators, including professional, business park, and medical offices, research & development, laboratory, and professional service uses. Light Industrial uses may be considered where appropriate. Secondary uses include retail/service that is supportive of the employment uses and residential uses at Urban Densities. No Comparable Institutional Village Center/Downtown TBA Parks and Green Systems Institutional No Comparable n/a Parks Greenspace Institutional Downtown Greenspace Downtown/ Institutional/ Parks & Green Systems Designations Existing: Pantops Master Plan Existing: Crozet Master PlanProposedSensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plain, and adjacent slopes. Typically only passive recreation will occur in these areas or greenway trails. Also includes open space areas that may be managed and owned by homeowners associations. No ComparableCivic uses such as schools, fire stations, and libraries; hospital uses, and other public uses. This designation refers to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space, environmental features and active park areas. It includes public greenways and park related institutional uses. It also contains important environmental features and privately owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive. The Parks & Green Systems map and Chapter 5 of the Master Plan further define expectations for the Greenspace shown on the Land Use Plan. Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plains, and adjacent slopes are included in this category. Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the sensitive environmental areas, while active recreation is planned for other areas. This designation is applied to the most intensely developed area in Crozet. It is a mixed use area, which promotes commercial, employment, and office uses and allows up to 36 residential units per acre in the form of multifamily/mixed use buildings. Institutional uses, such as libraries and County offices, as well as limited amounts of office, research, and development (R&D) uses are present in this area. This designation represents areas for civic use such as schools, libraries, parks, recreational facilities, water treatment facilities, and other similar uses on County or publicly-owned property. It may also include facilities such as community centers, clubs, lodges, and civic and fraternal facilities. This designation identifies public land uses and property (local, state and federal) and allows for a range of public or civic uses, such as schools, libraries, parks, recreational facilities, water treatment facilities, and other similar uses on County-owned properties. It is also applied to publically owned, but not yet developed property. It is not intended for private schools, civic organizations, and other private facilities. This designation represents areas which are expected to be the most intensely developed. It is a mixed use area which promotes retail, office, service, employment, institutional, and residential uses. In Crozet, density may be up to 36 units per acre in mixed use buildings. In the Village of Rivanna, residential uses are allowed in mixed-use buildings or on individual sites as multifamily or single family detached and attached units at an overall density of no more than 6 units per acre. This designation refers to all existing and proposed public and private greenspace including parks, public and private open space. It includes public greenways and park related uses. It also contains privately owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive. Sensitive environmental features are also included in this category. Public and semi-public parks, greenways, and more active recreation areas. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 4 Mr. Morris noted that they still have a quorum. Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of the consent agenda items as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5:0:1. (Mr. Dotson disqualified himself.) Mr. Morris said that the consent agenda had been approved. SDP-2011-00082 Boar’s Head Sports Club (squash club expansion) – Major was approved with the conditions recommended by staff as shown in Attachment 4. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Update (Elaine Echols) Future Housing Supply General Plan Format Ms. Echols presented a Power-Point presentation to explain the Comprehensive Plan Update on the future housing supply and general plan format. This work session is for general input and comment. No final decision making is being requested. On October 11 the Planning Commission asked staff about the existing and future housing units and some information on how cash proffers for affordable housing are being applied. Staff originally thought Ron White was going to be able to make this meeting to discuss that. He found out last week he had a conflict and could not attend tonight. Therefore, Ron White will be coming before the Commission in March. Future Housing Supply Existing Housing Supply Additional information on: • Breakdown of DU type for pipeline units • Housing types currently on the market • SFD units in DA vs. RA • Approved density vs. Comp. Plan density • New City DUs - type & density Mix of Housing Units Types ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 5 • Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser • Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac. • Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac. • MF = 14 DU/ac. • Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser • Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac. • Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac. • MF = 14 DU/ac. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 6 New Homes in the Rural Area • Significant drop in BP and COs since 2007 • Trend: same or greater # of SFD units being built in RA compared to DA • SFD in RA: Lifestyle choice, wealth or family land Will Future Trends be the Same as Past Trends? • Age of population • Childbearing later in life • Cost of gasoline • Cost in standard of living What do People Want? • 508 responded to Livability Project survey on housing & job preferences • Most County residents and commuters said they would prefer to live in Albemarle’s Rural Areas • Commuters: • 61% of those who live out of the area cite housing cost and a better value for ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 7 their money • Over 50% said housing affordability was major reason for not living where they work • Albemarle residents: • Live here for lifestyle, amenities neighborhoods • Live where they want to Approved Density vs. Comp. Plan Density · Diversity of size, type & many unfinished projects make comparisons difficult · Historically, Comp. Plan densities have fallen short of the highest density desired (and the low end of the range sometimes) · Meeting Comprehensive Plan densities can depend on location: Crozet & Glenmore · Bargamin Park & Avinity – achieving max. · Belvedere – close to max. on MF units · Foothill Crossing – not achieving density Charlottesville New Dwellings • Developers in City work with more confined space so development is often denser • Avg. SFD lot: 6,600 sq. ft. = 6.6 DU/ac. • Avg. SFA lot : 3,800 sq. ft. = 11 DU/ac. • MF = 14 DU/ac. Infrastructure • Available CIP & VDOT funds severely limited for planned projects • Current needs not being met Format and Land Use Categories Reasons for Including Format Issues in Work session • Bring BOS vision and relevant goals to PC’s attention • Show how all of the subject areas in the Comprehensive Plan tie back to BOS vision and goals • Proviso: Some topics may ultimately go under a different heading Vision, Goals, and Objectives Board of Supervisors Vision Statement: A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities. Objectives: • Encompass more than the Comprehensive Plan • Relate to actions the BOS is working on over the next several years Board of Supervisors’ Goals Related to Comprehensive Plan • Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs • Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy • Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources • Ensure the health and safety of the community ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 8 • New Standard Land Use Format • Not set in stone • Not for Places 29 • Would like to use for Neighborhoods 4 – 7 mini-Master Plans • Will preserve special aspects of Pantops and Crozet Master Plans Residential Designations -- essentially the same as now Commercial Designations become Mixed Use Designations, categories similar to 1996 Land Use Plan Multiple Industrial Districts become two districts: Office/R&D/Flex /Light Industrial & Industrial (no Light or Heavy) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 9 Schedule Upcoming Meetings • Community Facilities Workshop at City Space February 23 4 – 7pm • Neighborhoods 4 & 5 – Early March • Neighborhoods 6 & 7 – Late March • Joint PCs Meeting - April Questions or Comments · Housing Information · General Format · Land Use Categories Mr. Morris invited public comment. Public comment was taken from the following persons: · Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center, questioned whether there was any need to expand residential area to this expansion of the comp plan. From the meeting in October it was clear there was plenty of growth and they decided not to propose an increase in the development area since there was plenty of residential capacity. There is a fair amount of vacant land available. · Tom Olivier, chairman of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, recognized the comp plan is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PAGE 10 extremely important to public. From the state law point of view it is fundamental. He recognized it was a key vision for developed area. The comp plan needs to offer biodiversity protection for natural resource protection, which is important for community vision. They need to put in place environmental protections. The Population growth – with open space – needs to be sustainable in the comp plan. The update needs to seriously examine conflicts between environmental protection and economic vitality. · Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council, submitted a Draft of Combined Information from 12/20/2011 Staff Summary and 01/08/2012 Staff Report for CPA. (Attachment B) This information was referenced at last week’s Board meeting. The current inventory needs to be taken into consideration before future growth is allowed. There is a large amount of unbuilt retail. He would assume the multi-family attached would be shifted. There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited discussion and comments from the Planning Commission. The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take their comments into consideration in the continuing work on the Comprehensive Plan. Comments in general on Future Housing Study: · There was some question about the form of development taking place in the development areas. A suggestion made to review the forms, such as large lot subdivisions and compact developments that have been successful. · There was some fear expressed that the Commission was not looking at expected demand for housing by type for 20 years but just the number of units that could be built. · One Commissioner said he hoped that houses built in the DA were comparable to those built in the RA. He said we don’t want to force people to the RA because they can’t find a comparable house in the Development Areas and don’t have the opportunity. He asked if we need to change something to make it possible to build the type of unit in DA being built in RA. · Another Commissioner commented that there are some distinctive differences between housing in the DA and RA that relate to “setting”. He said that sometimes there is not a comparable option in the DA if someone just wants to live in the RA. · It was suggested that a discussion needs to take place about the building trend in the Rural Area and on whether that trend should continue or it should be encouraged. · A Commissioner noted that we need to look at available housing stock when analyzing supply and demand. She asked if we are really representing the amount of housing stock on the market. Later provided the total number of units by type that are on the market right now as 602 single family units, 147 townhouses, and 85 condominiums. · A question was asked if cluster development would be useful. Staff responded that it is now by right, but not used very often. · A question was asked concerning the percentage of 5 acre lots that were available in the RA. · A question was asked whether purchasers of recently built single family homes in the DA would tell us about why they chose to live in DA versus the RA. Comments in general on General Plan Format: · A suggestion was made that staff look at what the city is going to use as their format for possible consistency. · A suggestion was made that the staff see if we could simplify the categories into possibly just three categories, neighborhoods, centers and areas. · A Commissioner asked that staff explore ways to make sure that recommendations in the comp plan refer back to the goals established by the Board. In addition, it should be made clear how ordinance amendments are done to tie into the county’s goals so they can have topic areas that the board is already using. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Affordable Housing Work Session SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Affordable Housing Policy and Proffers STAFF CONTACT(S): Ron White, Wayne Cilimberg, Elaine Echols AGENDA DATE: June 26, 2012 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: At the request of Planning staff, a brief presentation was made to the Planning Commission on March 20, 2012 by the County’s Chief of Housing on the status of affordable housing proffers. Due to the time of evening, the Commissioners requested a follow-up work session and agreed to provide some questions for responses. DISCUSSION: Attached to this Executive Summary, Commissioners will find responses to a number of questions and some additional comments related to the Affordable Housing Policy and potential considerations for future revisions to the Policy. Given the economic downturn that created significant disruption in development and financing of housing units, a limited number of proffers have been satisfied. Most of the units developed to date have been rental units financed in part with federal housing tax credits. Approximately $450,000 in cash has also been received of which $300,000 was used for downpayment assistance as designated in the accepted proffer. Much of the balance was used to rehab owner-occupied houses, complete rehab and energy improvements for the Meadowl ands Apartments in Crozet, and address electrical hazards in the Southwood Mobile Home Park. The Board has reserved $30,000 as a local match for a Community Development Block Grant to rehab 20 – 25 houses in the Orchard Acres Subdivision. The grant application is pending. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is providing the attached information to the Planning Commission for discussion and guidance from the Commission as revisions to the Affordable Housing Policy are considered. Staff also asks that up to two Planning Commissioners agree to participate in the Affordable Housing Policy Working Group which will meet in early July. Have we quantified the County's affordable housing needs? Is that information broken down in any manner similar to the City? There has been no comprehensive needs analysis conducted in the County. The Housing Committee had suggested it just about the time that the economy was slowing down and funding was not available for this undertaking. The closest thing we have to an analysis is the regional study completed in October 2006 by Virginia Tech’s Center for Housing Research for the TJPDC. This study indicated that fairly low vacancy rates existed in both rental and owner-occupied units. This was consistent with what was happening in the market at the time with for-sale units selling in less than 60 days and sometimes for more than the asking price. The study did highlight that housing demand projections for Albemarle would increase from the current 34,000 (est.) households to 40,000 households in 2020 with owner-occupied demand outpacing rental demand. Projecting future demand based on current conditions may not produce the best results. It was interesting to read one conclusion in the report which stated that “Home sales in the PDC are robust with condominium sales “hot”.” Based on information provided by City staff, they are planning to update their report due to the lack of a consistent database and discrepancies in the number of “supported” units due to the initial report using guesstimates instead of actual numbers. It appears that the City’s approach is to focus on retaining or increasing the number of supported units which are primarily tax credit properties or other properties with some level of restrictions. It does not appear that the City’s work attempts to identify needs by tenure or type of units. What has been type of units (e.g., 1BR, price) built under proffer in the County? The majority of units built to date under proffers are rental consisting of two- and three-bedroom units. In addition, 14 townhouse units have been built and sold, all three-bedroom. There have also been a number of proffered accessory units built (one-bedroom) although we do not track these units except that they are built per site plans. One type of housing that is desired by many homebuyers is single-family, detached. There have been few of these units proffered most likely due to the cost of land and development. Those desiring detached housing would likely look to rural areas of the County or neighboring jurisdictions for affordable opportunities although they would have higher transportation costs and limited close access to many services. Are we creating the right kind of units? Most, if not all, of the proffered affordable units have been built under Neighborhood Model zoning which calls for a mix of housing types. Most proffers include a variety of types, not necessarily specified by individual types and numbers. Obviously, developers are likely to proffer units that they believe are marketable within the proposed development, whether for-sale or rental. It is difficult to assess what types of units may be needed at any point in time and more difficult to project needs when units may not be built for a number of years after approval. If we disregard market factors (cost to develop/build and mortgage financing), it would be easy to say that a need exists for potential purchasers in price ranges from around $100,000 up to about $250,000 to address lower-income needs and what has been termed “workforce” housing needs. Lower-income would address those between 50% and 80% of the area median income and “workforce” would include those up to 120% of the area median income. Rental housing targeted to those between 20% and 50% of the area median income should have rents ranging from $300 to $900 per month. Unfortunately, the realities of the market do not provide for many such units to be produced. Since there are a number of non-profits in this area that focus on affordable housing, should we be focused on creating opportunities for these groups through partnership opportunities or by providing funding or lots? Nonprofits have always been seen as potential partners in creating affordable housing although they have not been a major player so far. The limited availability of funding may be one factor. Nonprofits often survive off of grants and restricted funds which may address specific initiatives. They also often use public funding to maintain staffing and operational costs. Although not generally reflected in the sales price or rental costs, this public funding should be viewed as a cost to developing housing. It has not been proven that nonprofits can produce “affordable” housing any better than a for-profit builder although the perception is that they do when one only views the cost to the purchaser or renter. Even Habitat “sells” units for their appraised value taking back junior liens to secure the total value. The purchaser may get an affordable mortgage for $130,000 but the unit may be worth almost twice that much. How important do we feel it is to spread the affordable units throughout our community? One of the principles in the Neighborhood Model is that the majority of units be provided in the Development Areas and another principle is for a mixture of housing types and the desire to have affordable units dispersed throughout a development. The Development Areas are the preferred location because of the ability to walk and ride the bus, which is not present in the Rural Areas. Low-to-moderate income residents would not have to spend as much money on transportation if they work close to home or can ride mass transit. Also it is likely much easier to disperse affordable, for-sale units within a development of townhomes than it is to get scattered affordable rental units. As previously mentioned there has been some success with accessory or carriage-house units which are more dispersed than multifamily housing. However, there are funding mechanisms (primarily federal tax credits) that make multifamily affordability work while creating a significant number of units on one site. A recent example is Treesdale Park on Rio Road. When was the Affordable Housing proffer program developed and was there a projection developed at that time (as in a proforma of planned performance)? What are the goals and how is success measured? Describe the past history. The proffer system was developed from the Affordable Housing Policy which was adopted as a section of the Comprehensive Plan on February 4, 2005. The key thing to point out is that we do not have an Affordable Housing Ordinance but a policy that sets a target for 15% of any new development created through rezoning or special-use permit to be affordable or the developer provides “comparable contributions” for affordable housing. This target has been used to measure the success of the policy. What are the major barriers in the implementation of the For-Sale Units? There are a number of barriers with changes in the financial market being the most recent. The initial barrier is identifying a purchaser with enough income to qualify for a mortgage but whose income does not exceed our maximum income limits. An example from the sale of units in Avon Park was that purchasers had to have approximately $48,000 in income to qualify but could not exceed approximately $52,000. This creates a very small window for someone to fit in. These purchasers also needed down payment assistance for which the County has discontinued funding. There are some limited amounts of down payment assistance available through other sources. Another barrier created by the downturn in the real estate market is that builders are now mostly building units under contract which means that an eligible purchaser has to be found and qualified prior to the unit being built. Back to the financial market – although interest rates are at historical lows, qualifying for a mortgage now requires significantly higher credit scores and funds available for down payment. We also have a staffing issue in that the County’s housing counselor who was the contact for lenders and prospective purchasers is no longer funded as of June 30, 2012. Are there other comparable communities with more ‘successful’ programs we could do some benchmarking analysis with, in order to understand what changes would yield results for either the building of additional units and/or better mechanisms for the selling process? Albemarle County has been a leader in Virginia, particularly in relation to other rural counties, in working with developers to include affordable housing in their developments. James City County has utilized Community Development Block Grant funds to provide infrastructure for new developments in exchange for a set-aside of affordable units. Fairfax County has used an ordinance for a number of years to get affordable units through private development but have done so using a formula which takes into consideration the increase in density requested. I believe this formula was adopted after Fairfax was taken to court over a previous ordinance that was considered confiscatory. The formula works for Fairfax since most of the property is zoned R-1. Most of the County’s property identified for development has a higher zoning which does not allow a similar formula to work. For example, I used the formula for Biscuit Run. Based on the available density under then-current zoning and the density requested, Biscuit Run would not have been required to provide affordable units. I think we know there are people in our community that need this housing, and what I remember from previous PC discussions is that access and timing are complex and difficult for all to navigate once we do get a unit developed. Also, there has been discussion on issues around resale and related restrictions. If this kind of background could be provided to us in a summary before our session, I think the discussion will be more productive. Timing is a critical issue both from the standpoint of the builder and those working with the prospective purchaser. Current proffers require some period of notification when the builder has to notify the Housing Office X days prior to expected completion. It was anticipated that this notification period would allow the Office of Housing to identify potential purchas ers and/or work with housing partners to do so. As noted above, due to staff reductions, we believe going forward we will likely rely of the developments’ sales staff to assist in identifying eligible purchasers. The issue of resale restrictions has been discussed by the Housing Committee with little or no workable solutions available. I believe the changes in the financial market make any restrictions more problematic now than a few years ago. A deed restriction would have to be executed by the seller of the property and would likely be considered by the seller as making the property more difficult to sell or requiring a sales price lower than similar market units. Then the question would be who would monitor the restrictions. Obviously, there could be restrictions in financing instruments such as junior deeds of trust although enforcing these restrictions would likely require paying off the first mortgage. Most down payment assistance loans for affordable housing have some level of restriction but the nonprofit or governmental lender has to get those loans approved and generally sign a certification that the first mortgage overrides everything else. Some additional thoughts that may be helpful There may be opportunities to use nonprofit partners to assist in marketing and financing affordable units for sale. In particular, if developers would proffer donation of lots or sale of lots at a reduced price to the Land Trust, then the Land Trust could ensure long-term affordability. The current proffer system, particularly related to for-sale units, only benefits those at or near 80% of the area median income. One Housing Committee discussion a few years ago was to develop a chart on how developers could meet the 15%. The proposal would have allowed a developer to build houses affordable to higher income families (up to 120% of the area median income) although they would only get partial credit per unit. If they built a product affordable to households below 50% are a median income, they would get more that 1:1 credit. The proposal was structured so that a maximum number of 80 – 120% units would be allowed ensuring that units for lower-income households would also be developed. Another idea was floated that we should not be concerned about who purchases a house, other than the purchaser would have to reside there, as long as the appraised value of the house met the County’s affordable definition. This approach would req uire developers and builders to build an affordable product rather than discounting the price of a unit that has a higher market value. As for the current Affordable Housing Policy and potential revisions 1. The Policy should remain a general policy and not get into detail of how proffers are structured with the exception of setting forth targets. 2. We should retain the option of providing units or comparable contributions. 3. Flexibility should be maintained for the use of cash proffers. If any restrictions were considered, we should, at a minimum, allow for cash proffers to be used to assist in developing affordable housing and preserve existing affordable housing through rehabilitation and possibly acquisition. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2012 12 FINAL MINUTES 1- For an emergency situation for signage – such as a road closing more than 24 hours- they need to create a class of signage to allow a business to stay in operation. Staff noted that there is provision for temporary signage and VDOT signage that can deal with this situation. 2- Be sensitive to needs of businesses coming into the county to allow their business to be competitive. 3- Solicit other localities similar in size to see how they handle off-site signs. It would be helpful to get their information. 4- Consideration should be given to the bundling of signs in one location in RA. 5- Agreed with staff’s recommendation that the approving body should continue to be BZA since the process would be more timely. 6- Requested staff to work on development signs to possibly do a definition and come back to the Commission with examples. 7- Look at comparables and precedents of other communities and to understand how VDOT works to narrow approach. They have not narrowed the options enough to really understand how to approach this. It seems that understanding how the VDOT system works in terms of those blue signs would be helpful. 8- Signage should be administratively approved by staff as much as possible. 9- If something is truly unique maybe a variance is appropriate unless there is something in the ordinance that says they can’t vary that. Important that they were exhausting on-site remedies. The idea is appropriate. Supports the BZA or the staff, but not the Planning Commission and the Board making these decisions. 10- The idea of a development sign sounds like something one might call a sign planning program even outside of Planned Districts where a group of people collaborate. One Commissioner called it a bundle sign. There was some support for bundle signs. 11- In our cell tower policy they were very careful to use the word visible. One Commissioner noted he gets a little nervous when they talk about “effectively” or “ineffectively” communicate since he did not know what that is. However, visible he did. 12- The extreme situation is that there are some businesses where it was assumed they pay less rent because they are on the back side. One comment was the sign ordinance should not make those primary spaces as if they were up on the main drag. 13- Don’t want a “South of the Border” proliferation of off-site signs. 14- The health, safety, and welfare of the people of Albemarle County give them some ability to prioritize signage. 15- One thing that is a little off the subject but in the report again is the lack of staff. This keeps coming up that Albemarle County does not have adequate staff to do all the things that they are asking them to do or they have to do in their normal routine. The Commissioner was not saying go out and hire somebody, but noted it keeps coming up and somehow the Board of Supervisors needs to take this into account. 16- There was some discussion about having signage up for vineyards, having it all the same. Staff noted there is a fairly new provision for off-site signs by-right for agricultural products. The suggestion was made that the county might want to come up with some uniform sign and rent space instead of raising taxes. For different businesses they could have a uniform sign. No formal action was taken. Affordable Housing ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2012 13 FINAL MINUTES As a follow-up to the March 20 report on affordable housing proffers, this work session includes responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. (Ron White) The Planning Commission held a work session on affordable housing as a follow-up to the March 20 Planning Commission meeting. The work session included responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. A summary of the questions related to addressing the affordable housing needs, types of units that are being built under the proffers and if these are addressing the needs, process and procedures, financing, and other mechanisms was provided. Also included was some other issues of which he brought to the Commission in the brief time they had together back in March. The following was initially noted by the Commission: · What form should the proffers take? · Should the proffers provide for actual housing units or monies in lieu of units? · What is our goal with the affordable housing policy? · Is there a lack of units now? Public Comment was taken from the following persons: - Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum. He spoke to a concern that cost of cash proffers is paid by home buyers, but it does not always result in the production of new units as some of the cash is paid to rehabilitate existing housing stock. He felt that rehab is a great program, but proffer proceeds are the wrong bucket of money to help pay for it. He also expressed concern about the lack of deed restrictions or other mechanisms such as trust funds to assure that the value realized in the lower price of affordable housing for the initial buyer is passed on to subsequent owners of such housing. - Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council. He spoke to the need for more facts, figures, and sincerity in the conversation about affordable housing and who pays for it. He offered that it is a shared responsibility for the whole community and all have to talk honestly about how the issue can be addressed. The Commission noted the following: - Concern about County accepting cash in lieu of affordable units in the 15 percent proffers money vs. units. - Timeframe for people to have the opportunity to purchase proffered affordable units when made available. Look at programs that other localities have. - Need to understand how many affordable units are needed on a yearly basis. - Opportunity to exercise flexibility in moving from affordable units for purchase to affordable rental. Need to include the city in the discussion of demand and provision of affordable housing. The following are to be done as follow up: - Mr. White to send an electronic copy of the affordable housing proffers data to Mr. Cilimberg who will forward to Planning Commissioners. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2012 14 FINAL MINUTES - The Housing Committee has been disbanded. A work group reviewing Affordable Housing policies is being formed. Mr. White will notify Mr. Cilimberg and the two volunteers from the Planning Commission (Don Franco and Rick Randolph) of the meeting dates. No formal action taken. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:03 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m. Livability Project Goals Topics for Joint Comprehensive Plan Goals: Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources. (Summer Frederick) The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on three of the identified topics identified both through the public workshops and at the last joint Planning Commission meeting with the City where the City and County could come up with language that would be reflective of each other in the individual comprehensive plans. Summer Frederick, with Thomas Jefferson Planning District and Elaine Echols, County Principal Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the three joint comp plan goals. Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, was present to answer questions. Each topic was discussed with the Commission with staff requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on the following questions. The Planning Commission provided guidance and direction in response to staff’s questions regarding Joint City/County Comprehensive Plan Goals regarding Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources as summarized below: Historic Preservation: Given the City and County’s differing approaches to historic preservation, are there opportunities for the City and County to create joint goal statements related to Historic Preservation? Historic Preservation Comments from PC · There needs to be a map of places worth commemorating and remembering and seeing · We should continue with voluntary efforts rather than adopting a historic landmark ordinance and using regulatory methods – except for Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson was not at the point of saying he had made up his mind that a strictly voluntary approach is the only thing they ought to talk about. He was open-minded at this point and did not know. · We need to take advantage of historic tourism opportunities and need maps for City and County cultural and historic resources and landscapes. · Maybe put world heritage sites, presidential houses on that map · Perhaps provide a map of historic trails. It is about educational opportunities. · Cultural landscape is important to preserve · Staff potentially needs to map conservation easements also and archeology · Mr. Franco: We need more measureable goals on conservation easements CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 1 of 17 Housing These pages represent text to be found in three different parts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. They are as follows:  Existing Conditions  Proposed Plan  Appendix – Affordable Housing Policy CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 2 of 17 Existing Conditions - Housing Introduction Information on housing is important to any comprehensive planning effort. In Albemarle, location, housing mix, and affordability are all connected to the County’s land use policies. Having a future housing supply which allows for all income levels to thrive in the community requires knowledge of existing housing stock and also knowledge of the number of dwelling units which have been approved and not yet built. This section describes the characteristics of the housing stock which has been built as well as units which have been approved but not yet built. Safe, Sanitary Housing The goal of most communities in America is to ensure that its residents have decent homes and suitable living environments for now and in the future. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has made its mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all. Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2007 Albemarle County has also made a commitment to create sustainable communities and ensure that safe and sanitary housing. Some characteristics of housing stock which suggest that housing supply is safe, decent, and sanitary are housing age and whether or not houses have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Generally, the older the housing stock, the more likely that housing could not meet current building code standards for safety. The graph below shows that over half of the County’s housing stock was built after 1980 and ¾ of the housing was bu ilt after 1970. This suggests that most of the housing in Albemarle is fairly new. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Built Before 1960 Built 1960 to 1969 Built 1970 to 1979 Built 1980 to 1989 Built 1990 to 1999 Built 2000- 2009 Year Structure Built Charlottesville Albemarle Virginia CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 3 of 17 Housing safety is usually a matter of property being maintained in accordance with building codes. New construction is required to comply with building codes and property is inspected before it is available for occupancy. After that, County inspections are available to renters. Other housing safety is inspected by the Health Department and, in some cases Social Services. In 2010, the American Community Survey estimated that 0.3% of the housing stock lacked complete plumbing facilities (100 units out of 37,459 occupied units). This figure was lower than the state average of 0.5%. Approximately 0.7% of the housing stock was estimated to lack complete kitchen facilities (271 units). This percentage is the same as the state average of 0.7% and may be the result of housing oriented towards students which might not include a full kitchen. Although there are not many units which lack complete plumbing and kitchen facilities, the County supports efforts of owners and renters to provide these amenities. It does not have a program in place to assist with these improvements; however, it supports efforts of non-profit partners and other programs to provide this service. Equal Housing Opportunities The federal government prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap. The County supports equal housing opportunities by making information on housing laws available in public places and by not allowing discrimination in housing projects which are financially supported by the County. Location for Housing and Housing Mix In 2012, Albemarle County had 41,354 housing units. As seen in the tables on the following page, over sixty three percent (63.7%) of the housing units were single family detached houses. Eleven percent (11.1%) of the housing units were single family attached units such as a townhome or duplex. Multi-family housing accounts for nearly twenty-one percent (20.9%) of the total housing units within the County. As seen in the graph on the next page, over the last twenty years the number of single family detached houses has decreased while, attached housing has increased. This change is due in part to Albemarle’s growth management policy and the high cost of raw land in the Charlottesville-Albemarle MSA. Recent surveys conducted for the Livability Project indicate a strong demand for single-family detached homes. Some of this demand is being met in surrounding counties, such as Augusta, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson. An issue which will be discussed further in the Rural Areas Section is trends in residential units built in the Rural Areas. The County’s Rural Area policy is to encourage agricultural and forestal activity in the Rural Areas and direct residential development to the Development Areas. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 4 of 17 Distribution of New Dwelling Units by Issued Building Permits The table below indicates the housing types by location. As can be seen, the Southern Places 29, Neighborhoods 1 &2, have the highest number of dwellings, followed by Hollymead and Crozet. The Rural Areas contain less than half of the total residential units in the County. Housing by Comprehensive Plan Areas Comprehensive Plan Area Single Family Detached Single Family Attached & TH Multi- Family/ Condos Mobile Home Units Total Dwelling Units Crozet Community 1,652 478 43 85 2,258 Hollymead Community (Places 29-North) 1,843 606 300 327 3,076 Piney Mt. Community (Places 29-North) 127 329 0 0 456 Village of Rivanna 765 2 0 1 768 Neighborhood 1 (Places 29-South) 480 803 2,255 128 3,666 Neighborhood 2 (Places 29-South) 1,736 870 1,057 0 3,663 Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) 216 235 1,371 0 1,822 Neighborhood 4 802 324 481 5 1,612 Neighborhood 5 698 231 1,020 406 2,355 Neighborhood 6 431 95 467 0 993 Neighborhood 7 409 284 1,144 0 1,837 Rural Area Units 17,182 328 525 813 18,848 Total 26,341 4,585 8,663 1,765 41,354 Source: Albemarle County GDS 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 SFD SFA-TH Duplex Multi-family CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 5 of 17 In 2010, the average household size in Albemarle County was 2.19 persons per house, while one person and two person households represent the majority of households. Thirty percent (30%) of houses are occupied by one person and thirty four percent (34%) are two person households. This information is and will be important to homebuilders in the future. In combination with an aging population it is expected that smaller homes for a smaller number of occupants will be more in demand than larger homes for families with children. Affordability Historically, housing in Albemarle County has been more expensive relative to the rest of the state. Much of this situation has to do with higher than average incomes , the desirability of the area because of its scenic and historic resources. The County’s growth management policy most likely contributes to the value of Development Area land as well. As seen in the table and graphs below, according to the American Community Survey over half of all the housing units in Albemarle County are valued between $200,000 and $499,999 while, nearly twenty percent (19.4%) are valued between $500,000 and $999,999. Value of Housing in Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Virginia CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 6 of 17 As seen on the prior page, fifty-seven percent (57%) of Albemarle’s housing is valued at over $300,000 and the median housing value is $100,000 higher than that of the state. These higher values affect the ability of certain sectors of the population to afford housing in the County. Affordable housing is defined as houses affordable to households with in come not exceeding 80% of the area median income established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adjusted by family size. At present an “affordable” sales price for a home is $211,250 for a family of four paying 30% of their income for housing. Approximately 40% of the households in Albemarle have incomes at 80% of the median or lower. According to the American Community Survey it is estimated that approximately 20% of the housing in Albemarle County has a value which would meet the affordable housing. The American Community Survey does not take into account how students fit into this picture; however, that percentage is most likely a small part of the whole which means there is a mismatch between the quantity of affordable housing units available and the number of households needing affordable housing. If the gap between the supply of affordable housing and the amount of housing which may be needed to meet demand, a variety of initiatives County’s are needed. While the County’s land use policies promote a mixture of housing types and prices within neighborhoods, the County has few mechanism and programs to provide for affordable housing. The County’s Housing Office works with residents to distribute vouchers for rental units and also works with developers to provide for additional affordable housing. The County also has an affordable housing policy which sets a general target of fifteen percent (15%) of the total units developed as affordable. This has been promulgated into affordable housing proffers. The County’s Affordable Housing policy has been in place since 2005 and 175 affordable units have been constructed to-date. However, there is no inventory of all affordable units in the County. In addition, there are no mechanisms to ensure that affordable units remain affordable. In recent years, the County’s Housing Office has experienced a reduction in force and as a result, the Homebuyer’s Club, which operated with assistance from County staff, has been was eliminated. The Homebuyer’s Club helped potential homeowners learn how to improve their credit, save for a down payment, and the program also guided them through the purchasing process. This program was important to help match individuals with affordable units provided through proffers. Future Housing Trends Trends in housing since 1945 have resulted in much suburban development made up of single - family detached homes. This trend may not continue in the future, however. Many young adults are waiting longer to start families and are looking for a more urban lifestyle before they start their families. Baby boomers are downsizing rather than increasing the size of their house and yard responsibilities. An aging population is looking to be closer to services and transit. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 7 of 17 Rising gasoline costs will impact disposable income causing more persons to opt for closeness to work rather than a larger detached house on a large lot. While demand for single family detached housing will continue; it will likely not be at the same rate and in the same suburban form. Attention will need to be paid to retirees who are a growing segment of the community. The median age for Albemarle County is 38.2 years old but the age group that makes up the largest percentage of the population is the 40-64 years age group. While the number of individuals from the “Under 5” and “5-19” age groups has grown since 1970, the percentage of the total population these groups represent has decreased. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the “20-39” age group was the majority, but as those individuals aged and progressed to the next age group, the “40-64” age group became the largest representative age group. If people in this “40-64” age group continue to live Albemarle County, the “65+” age group could see a dramatic increase in the next ten to twenty years. The needs of senior citizens will be for transit, close proximity to doctors and other health care providers, and places for senior activities. The County has been anticipating the need for a more compact form of development which supports all sectors of the community and created the Neighborhood Model in 2001 with this in mind. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 8 of 17 Housing (Proposed Plan) Goal: Ensure housing opportunities for current and future residents in the County. Success can be measured by our ability to provide housing that is 1. Safe, sanitary, and available equally to all populations 2. Sufficient in supply 3. Provided in a variety of types for all income levels and age levels 4. Directed to the Development Areas 5. Affordable to people who live and/or work in the County Objective 1: Continue to support efforts of non-profit organizations to ensure safe, decent, and sanitary housing is available and available equally to all populations. As mentioned in the section on existing conditions, the American Community Survey suggests that approximately 0.3% of the County’s housing stock lacks complete plumbing facilities and approximately 0.7% lacks complete kitchen facilities. These figures are relatively low and indicate that safe and sanitary housing generally exists throughout the County. There are no figures available on the quality of all housing; however, several local non-profit agencies assist with housing renovation and bringing housing up to code. Strategy 1a: Work with non-profit partners to assist them in securing funding for housing rehabilitation. Strategy 1b: Apply for grant money to help fund housing rehabilitation programs. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigates complaints of housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. The County provides information on the Fair Housing Act and commits to ensure non- discrimination in County funded projects. Strategy 1c: Continue to make information on equal housing opportunities available in public places. Strategy 1d: Continue to monitor use of County money in support of housing to ensure non-discrimination. *** Objective 2: Ensure that sufficient land area is designated and zoned for residential development to accommodate future populations. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 9 of 17 Accommodating future demands for housing in the Development Areas while preserving the Rural Areas to the greatest extent possible requires that sufficient land area for housing development exist in the County’s Development Areas. Projections suggest that by 2030, 1,770 – 7,438 additional dwelling units will be needed in the County to accommodate the future population. According to the Development Area Master Plans, the Development Areas can accommodate approximately 15,000 to 30,000 new units; 13,000 to 18,000 new units can be provided with current zoning. [we will need to update this info with the new land use plan] Strategy 2a: Continue to monitor the supply of land designated and zoned for residential use in the Development Areas to ensure adequate capacity for futu re populations. *** Objective 3: Continue to provide for a variety of housing types for all income levels, supporting the needs of various ages and levels of mobility, and to help provide for density in keeping with the County’s growth management policy. Strategy 3a: Through rezoning and special use permits, ensure that a mixture of housing types can be provided which also supports all income levels of residents in Albemarle County. A variety of housing types is desired for all income levels. As new rezoning and special use permits are processed, the County provides information on the proposed mixture of housing types. Based on the amount of vacant land which has been rezoned over the last ten or so years, providing for a variety of housing types should be possible. Strategy 3b: Promote the mixture of different housing types in new neighborhoods to provide opportunities for individuals to age in place. Housing should also be provided for various ages and levels of mobility. This statement is especially true because of anticipated needs of the aging population. As indicated in the Existing Conditions section of this plan, the 40- 64 age group proportionately is the largest age group in the County and has been growing at a faster pace than the other age groups. The second fastest growing age group is 65 years old and older. Mixed-use neighborhoods allow for seniors to “age-in-place”. Building with “universal design” helps to ensure mobility within homes. Among other things, universal design means that doorways are wide enough for wheelchairs and entry-ways into a home do not have steps. Strategy 3c: Support local agencies which provide programs and assistance to persons with disabilities and for senior citizens in the County. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 10 of 17 Other needs of seniors and the disabled include reliable transportation, commu nity centers, and, in the case of seniors, independent and assisted living facilities. The private sector has provided less than 600 beds of assisted living facilities in the County and additional facilities and other senior housing will be needed in the future. Several not-for-profit agencies, such as the Senior Center and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging are expected to continue to provide services to local seniors with their programs and services. *** Objective 4: Have affordable housing available for those who live and/or work in the County within the Development Areas because of proximity to jobs, transportation, and services. As an exception allow for new affordable units to be constructed in the Rural Areas wh en provision is consistent with Rural Area policies. Strategy 4a: Apply the affordable housing policy (See Affordable Housing Policy in Appendix) when reviewing legislative proposals for residential units in the Development Areas. Approve developments through the legislative process when they commit to disperse affordable units throughout new developments, while meeting other Neighborhood Model goals. As indicated in the section on existing conditions, only about 1/5 of the County’s housing meets affordability guidelines outlined in the Affordable Housing Policy which is an appendix to this document. In order to increase the number of affordable housing units in the County, the following strategies are needed: Strategy 4b: Use recommendations in the Affordable Housing Policy to help increase the monitoring, supply, and availability of units to residents in need of affordable housing. Strategy 4c: Encourage builders to provide for affordable housing using density bonuses available in the Zoning Ordinance. Location and appearance are also important when providing affordable housing. From a land use perspective, one of the most important elements of is to ensure that affordable units are not segregated from other types of housing or built in enclaves. Instead, units should be scattered throughout the Development Areas as well as in neighborhoods. To help achieve a more cohesive looking neighborhood, the exterior of units should be similar to other units in a neighborhood. The affordability aspect should be reflected in the interior and not exterior of the units. Strategy 4d: Provide for affordable units as part of a mixture of unit types within neighborhoods. Provide units which are not distinguishable on the outside from other units in the development. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 11 of 17 Strategy 4e: Amend the zoning ordinance to provide for greater opportunities to construct accessory units to increase affordable housing supply. Recommendations to improve opportunities to construct accessory units were made with the Neighborhood Model which was adopted in 2001. While a few creative ways of providing accessory units have been achieved in Neighborhood Model type developments, there are still limitations on ways to provide for accessory units. Zoning text amendments are needed to allow for detached accessory units to be constructed. Restrictions to consider include  Retaining the requirement that the property owner reside in either the primary or accessory dwelling  Setting maximum size limitations for the detached accessory unit  Limiting the number of detached accessory units to one per parcel or lot  Limiting occupancy numbers  Prohibiting subdivision of the property to allow for the detached accessory unit to be on a separate lot  Prohibiting the detached accessory unit from being located in the front yard in front of the primary structure. *** Suggested Performance Measures  By 2018, at least 15% of the units provided in new housing developments can meet affordability standards.  By 2015, the zoning ordinance will be amended to provide opportunities for detached accessory units. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 12 of 17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY For Appendix It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to promote a variety of housing choices for residents. Choice shall be defined by type, tenure, and price ranges. Albemarle County believes its housing market can generally be best served by private sector providers that constantly assess demand and create products to meet that demand. The County will continue to work with real estate developers, builders, and other market partners to promote communities and products which are affordable to County residents and those who desire to become County residents. It shall further be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who face financial challenges in obtaining housing. In particular, the County may provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) fo r households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area median income by:  Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low - to moderate-income residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County;  Promoting variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities;  Creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods;  Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations;  Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the private sector alone; and  Encouraging the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County wide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Policy. The provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the Comprehensive Plan’s designated Rural Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations. DEFINITIONS Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners used to determine affordability include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner’s insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants used to determine affordability include tenant -paid rent and tenant- paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the County’s Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 13 of 17 Affordable Housing is further defined, for this policy, as those houses affordable to approximately 40% of the County population that have household incomes not exceeding 80% of the area median income established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adjusted by family size. Affordability Period is defined as the initial sale on for-sale properties and ten (10) years for rental property. Appraised Value means the market value of a property as determined by a third -party appraisal. Area Median Income means those income established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The incomes are adjusted based on family sizes from 1-person households to 8- or more person households. For the purpose of the County policy, calculations are made to establish maximum incomes for 1- and 2-person households and 3- or more person households. Cash-in-lieu means a monetary contribution by a developer or builder in place of constructing the targeted number of affordable units. The County’s expectation is that cash equal to ten - percent (10%) of the affordable sales price constitutes a comparable contribution. Comparable Contributions are donations, other than cash, which may be made in-lieu of producing affordable units. Such contributions may include  Donated lots/units to nonprofit entities in lieu of for -sale units; and  Other contributions that directly impact creation or preservation of affordable housing, such as but not limited to providing off -site units or participating in the rehabilitation of existing housing units in partnership with other entities. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are gross rents established by HUD for the MSA and updated annually. Maximum Gross Rent means rent plus tenant-paid utilities and is set by the County for the purpose of establishing affordability it no greater than 100% of the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and updated annually. Initial rents shall be established based on FMRs in effect at the time the rental units are placed in service. Rental rates may increase at a rate not to exceed three percent (3%) annually during the affordability term. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 14 of 17 Maximum Sales Price as set by the County for the purpose of establishing affordability is 65% of the maximum mortgage limit established by the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) for its first-time homebuyer programs for the Charlottesville region. Maximum sales prices are expected to be consistent with the property’s appraised value. In cases when the maximum sales price is less than the appraised value, the County will only consider the property as an affordable property if the developer or builder provides deed restrictions or junior deeds-of-trust to secure the difference. Such deeds-of-trust shall be assignable to the County or a designated agent for the County. Albemarle County sets a target for the inclusion of affordable housing or comparable contributions for affordable housing initiatives with the general target being fifteen percent (15%) of the total units proposed for development under rezoning and special u se applications. In negotiating proffers, considerations will be given to the nature of the community and surrounding development, availability of transportation, and proximity to employment and services. In addition, developers and builders who commit to serving households in lower- income categories demonstrated by sales prices and rents which would be affordable to those populations can receive credits towards the fifteen percent target. For for-sale units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % VHDA Limit 2012 Sales Price % AMI (target) 1.0 65% $211,250 80% 1.25 55% $178,750 70% 1.5 45% $146,250 60% 1.75 35% $113,750 50% For rental units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % Fair Market Rent (HUD) 2012 Rents (inc. utilities) 2 bedroom % AMI (target) 1.0 100% $1,029 50% 1.25 80% $823 40% 1.5 60% $617 30% Credit towards the 15% target will be calculated using the credit factors associated with the targeted income group and associated sales/rent price. For example, if a project’s for-sale CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 15 of 17 affordable units are restricted to 60% AMI or less, only ten percent (10%) of the total units would be required to be affordable. STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following strategies and recommendations are intended to help implement the County’s Affordable Housing Policy as resources are available. Strategy: Continue to implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications. Streamlining processes may be considered while maintaining an equitable approach to all zoning applications. Recommendations  Develop process to measure and track trends on existing affordable housing stock.  Update annual affordability figures for sales prices and rental rates.  Develop methods to assess and prioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required throughout the housing continuum.  Develop affordable housing production goals based on documented need/demand to address identified housing priorities and to insure that low- and moderate-income households have access to a sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units.  Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve affordable housing production in by-right developments.  Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a stream lined and timely process for plan approvals.  Develop procedures to measure the impact of County-imposed regulations on the affordability of housing units.  Follow the Affordable Housing Policy to the greatest extent possible for all rezoning and special use permit applications.  Explore opportunities to provide incentives/allowances for developments that commit to produce 25% or more of their proposed units as affordable.  Explore revising the zoning ordinance to allow for creating accessory dwelling units throughout the County which may be detached from the main dwelling unit while being mindful of the County’s growth management policy and goals and policies for the Rural Areas. Strategy: Work with developers to phase in affordable units within a neighborhood consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Neighborhood Model principles, including the use of regulatory and monetary incentives available through the County, its partners and state and federal programs. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 16 of 17 Recommendations  Promote site plan development that disperses affordable homes throughout a development and encourages a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed in designated development areas as guidance for the creation of affordable units that are scattered throughout the development.  Provide for a flexible, negotiated process based on the characteristics of the particular project when a development proposes the donation of lots, units, funding, off -site affordable housing, or other comparable contributions. Consideration may include, but is not necessarily limited to, proximity to jobs and services including day care and transportation, agreements with nonprofits for producing affordable units and maintaining long-term affordability, and the nature of proposed development and surrounding area. Strategy: Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. Recommendations  Develop procedures for monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law and/or funding sources.  Establish a first right-of-refusal for the purchase of affordable units for rent or sale by the County and/or its nonprofit partners as may be allowed by law.  Develop model deed restrictions and junior deeds-of-trust which may be proffered by developers and other mechanisms to insure affordable units remain affordable for a specific period of time (control period).  Utilize any allowances provided in the Code of Virginia which may reduce the tax burden of deed-restricted dwellings. Strategy: Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. Recommendations  Implement processes for reviewing and approving eligible families for purchase or rental units produced including utilizing nonprofit housing agencies and the developer’s/builder’s sales staff to identify eligible purchasers and renters for affordable housing units.  Increase access to counseling by refunding the County’s homeownership education program and utilizing similar services provided by others.  Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and help clarify roles and responsibilities for each including, but not limited to, community development, housing development, affordable lending, and housing counseling. CPA 2013-001 Planning Commission 11/27/12 Page 17 of 17  Develop formal and informal procedures for dialogue with and among the private sector (for-profit and nonprofit) development community to increase production of affordable housing during the rezoning and special use permitting processes.  Utilize credit criteria as outlined in the Affordable Housing Policy to facilitate the donation of or purchase of lots and/or units between for-profit developers and the nonprofit organizations which ensures occupancy of units by eligible households and long-term affordability.  Promote affordable housing by increasing participation with the real estate community including representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment council, realtors, and homebuilders).  Provide encouragement and incentives to nonprofit housing providers for the purchase, construction, rehabilitation and/or management of affordable owner-occupied and rental units.  Promote an understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues with increased coordination with the City of Charlottesville,  Explore available incentives to promote the production and preservation of affordable housing. Strategy: Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. Recommendations  Support tax credit applications for properties that preserve or create affordable rental units. Consider monetary support in the form of tax abatements and reduction of fees as allowable by law.  Develop strategies for effectively leveraging public and private funds to maximize resources for affordable housing including options for capitalizing a housing trust fund. CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 1 STAFF PERSONS: SORRELL, MALISZEWSKI, ECHOLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: APRIL 16, 2013 CPA 2013-00001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION Worksession22a –Monticello Viewshed, Capacity Analysis, and Explanation of Recommended Change to Cash Proffer Policy for Affordable Housing OVERALL BACKGROUND On April 2, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. At that meeting, Commissioners requested that April 16 be used to review outstanding items, such as the Monticello viewshed. Monticello staff have provided an updated map for Commission review which is provided in this packet. Staff also would like to use this meeting to update the Commission on the capacity analysis for residential units and the proposed change to the cash proffer policy related to affordable housing. MONTICELLO VIEWSHED Background The Commission last discussed the Monticello Viewshed map and guidelines at their February 12 meeting and made the following requests of Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) staff:  Please provide comparative maps showing the extent of the viewshed from the Monticello Plantation property as compared to the viewshed for all of the TJF-owned properties.  Please provide revised Viewshed Guidelines which are clearer and can be more easily understood. The Commission expected to review both of these documents and decide on the extent to which the Guidelines should be applied to properties in each viewshed. Specifically, the Commission wished to decide whether to recommend that the Guidelines be adhered to in cases of rezonings and special use permits or if the Guidelines would simply be advisory in all situations. Proposed Language Related to the Monticello Viewshed from April 2 Draft Plan Update To hold a place in the proposed Plan for the Monticello Viewshed, staff provided the following language on page 5.2.12: Objective 4: Promote heritage tourism. Strategy 4a: The County should help to protect Monticello’s Viewshed using these measures: Strategy 4a.1: Make use of current efforts of the Piedmont Environmental Council and Monticello to precisely delineate the Monticello Viewshed. This information should become CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 2 a layer in the County’s Geographic Information Service (GIS) application, which is provided at the County website. Strategy 4a.2: Advise applicants and property owners if their property is shown on the map as being part of the Monticello Viewshed. Provide this information in preapplication meetings and as other opportunities arise. Strategy 4a.3: Provide Viewshed guidelines to applicants and property owners along with contact information for staff at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) so that applicants and owners can coordinate with the TJF. Strategy 4a.4: Request developers to coordinate with the TJF early in the development review process. Strategy 4a.5: Staff should be aware of the Viewshed map and be especially careful when applying existing land use regulations to properties within the viewshed. Viewshed guidelines which have been developed by TJF are provided as an appendix. These guidelines are intended to help builders, developers, and owners with properties in the Monticello viewshed understand methods for developing their property in a way that helps to protect the view from Monticello. At the writing of this document, the TJF has not completed the Monticello Viewshed Map. When the map is completed, the County will be able to determine the extent of the viewshed that should be protected and the degree to which the viewshed guidelines should be applied when considering legislative actions. Discussion Protection of the Monticello Viewshed has been important for many years in Albemarle County. Recommendations for viewshed protection are contained in the existing Comprehensive Plan as seen in Attachment A. Attachment B contains wording from the 2000 Historic Preservation Plan. Attachment C provides wording from the Pantops Master Plan and the Village of Rivanna Master Plans. Attachment D is the latest recommended set of Viewshed Guidelines from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Attachment F compares “Parcels Visible from All TJF Properties” to “Parcels Visible from Monticello Mountaintop Observation Points.” The recommended Viewshed Guidelines (Attachment D) refer to land visible from the Monticello mountaintop (see image on right of Attachment F.) The TJF is no longer asking for viewshed protection from all TJF properties. The new mapping identifies a much larger viewshed area compared to the 1990 mapping; however, one should not automatically assume that the Viewshed Guidelines would be considered on more properties as staff routinely refers developers to TJF if a project is proposed in the Village of Rivanna, Pantops, or Southern Neighborhoods. Staff at Monticello check for visibility from the Monticello mountaintop and, if a project likely would be visible, staff from TJF alert the County staff. In turn, County staff ask the property owner to coordinate with TJF. CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 3 In recent years, keeping up with all site plans, subdivision plats, rezonings, and special use permits has been difficult for TJF staff. They have asked for the Viewshed to be come a layer on the County’s GIS Web and that descriptions of projects include whether or not a property is shown in the Viewshed. Using this process, the County, the applicant, and TJF are all on notice early on that visibility should be checked. As occurs now, if land on a proposed site plan or subdivision will be visible from the Monticello mountaintop, the recommended guidelines are advisory to the applicant. If a proposed special use permit or rezoning of land will result in visible change from the Monticello mountaintop, the guidelines are advisory to the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Staff proposed that this process not change. According to Monticello, developers seem to have been able to satisfy Monticello’s concerns without undue hardship. Sometimes this is done with tree plantings; other times it is done with non-reflective roof materials and/or breaking up the massing of buildings. Regarding the guidelines, staff notes that the 2013 Viewshed Guidelines are essentially the same as existing guidelines. The only change is more specificity in how to achieve what is described in the pre-2013 Guidelines. For example, the guideline: Parking lots are best concealed when located on the far side of the building (as viewed from Monticello) and when the area is broken up by plantings. [from pre-2013 Guidelines] is stated in the 2013 Guidelines as: Parking can always be broken up with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping. When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello . [from 2013 Guidelines] and Earth-tone colors such as reddish-brown brick help to soften the visual impact of a building. If not adopted for the street side, consider it for the back of the building if it faces Monticello. Dark roofs (black, gray) are preferred. Mottled patches of light and dark stone can camouflage expansive flat roofs. [from pre-2013 Guidelines] is now stated as: Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the natural landscape from Monticello. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural landscape (ie. mid-spectrum browns and greys, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites on building faces and roofs. To minimize impact, avoid large roof expanses, especially those of one color—mottled coloring that combines light and dark elements for roofs is preferred. [from 2013 Guidelines] CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 4 The proposed Guidelines do not recognize potential conflicts with LEED Guidelines for energy efficient buildings. However, Monticello staff have said that there is almost always a way to satisfy Monticello’s visibility concerns along with the developer’s desire for energy efficiency when a developer works with Monticello. Recommendation for Monticello Viewshed The changes proposed by the TJF do not materially change the current process and expectations of the County . The map is a tool which can be used by staff to alert property owners and developers of a potential relationship to the Monticello Viewshed. In all instances where a property may be visible from Monticello, staff currently asks that developers coordinate with TJF. This process is not proposed to change. For that reason, staff suggests that the recommendations of the April 2, 2013 Draft remain, except that the Guidelines be moved from the Reference documents to the Appendix and the Viewshed Map be included with the recommended plan. ***** CAPACITY ANALYSIS Background The Commission last reviewed staff analysis for land capacity to absorb new residential growth in October 2011. Staff provided the following population projections from Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) shown on Table 1 and the Water Supply Plan shown on Table 2: Table 1: Population Projections from Oct. 11, 2011 Staff Report -- Low 2010 2020 2030 Albemarle County 96,247* 107,760 120,456 Charlottesville, VA MSA 200,683 226,372 254,873 Thomas Jefferson PD 234,606 268,261 305,612 Virginia Statewide 8,010,239 8,917,396 9,825,019 Source: Virginia Employment Commission "Summary Sheet" 2007 *VEC projections made in 2007 were lower than Census figures of 2010 which was 98,970 at that time. Table 2: Population Projections from Oct. 11, 2011 Staff Report – High 2010 2020 2030 Albemarle County 98,970 115,919 132,868 Charlottesville 43,475 46,894 50,583 Total 142,445 162,813 183,451 Source: RWSA Regional Water Demand Forecast prepared by AECOM August 24, 2011 Taking the VEC projections as “low” and RWSA projections as “high, staff estimated the number of potential new units needed for new residents in 2020 and 2030, as shown on Table 3. CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 5 Table 3: 2020 and 2030 Projections and Residential Needs from Oct. 11, 2011 Staff Report 2020 (low) 2020 (high) 2030 (low) 2030 (high) Additional Population 8,790 16,949 21,486 33,898 Additional Units Needed 4,014 7,739 9,811 15,479 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service/VEC 2013 projections and RWSA projections / 2.19 Staff provided the information as to capacity (Table 4) at that time: Table 4: Residential Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units from Oct. 11, 2011 Staff Report Staff concluded that capacity existed in the Development Areas for up to 30,149 units on land that was designated for residential use on the Land Use Plan. Land zoned in the Development Areas could accommodate up to 17,861 new units. This zoning figure was approximately 2000 more units than would be needed at the h igh end of projections in 2030. Updated Population Projections and Capacity Analysis In 2012, the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service updated population projections for the Virginia Employment Commission. (See Table 5.) These projections were very close to the RWSA-AECOM projections. As a result, only one projection is now being used to estimate the need for future residential units. The City’s information is provided to gain a better picture of the community but has not been factored into any of the analysis. Table 5: Population Estimates and Projections from 2013 Reports Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service/VEC 2013 2012 2020 2030 Albemarle County 101,575 115,642 134,196 Charlottesville, VA MSA 45,073 45,636 47,252 City/County Combined 146,648 161,278 181,448 CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 6 Table 6: 2020 and 2030 Projected Residential Unit Needs 2020 2030 A Projected Population 115,642 134,196 B Estimated 2012 Population 101,575 101,575 C Additional expected residents (A minus B) 14,067 32,621 D People/unit multiplier 2.19 2.19 E Potential needed units (C divided by D) 6,423 14,895 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service/VEC 2013 projections / 2.19 Projected residential need in 2011, at the high end of the population projections for 2030, was 15,479 units, as seen Table 3. In 2013, the projected need for 2030 is 14,895 units as seen in Table 6 above. Updated Capacity Analysis based on 2013 Recommended Master Plan Land Use Since the capacity analysis was done in 2011, several changes have been made to the Land Use Plan, which is the future land use shown on the Master Plans . Recommended land use changes in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods, such as the Granger property, Southwood Mobile Home Park, Whittington, and Biscuit Run have now been factored into the analysis. Proposed land use changes from residential to office/r&d/flex/light industrial near NGIC and from light industrial to residential in the Places 29 area have also been included. In addition, building activity over the last two years has reduced some of the capacity. Rezonings, such as Estes Park, have increased some of the capacity. The table below shows the expected number of new units which could be built at the lowest and highest density to meet potential residential demand. This figure does not include the 7861 units in the “pipeline” for which were approved through rezonings and special use permits, but are not yet constructed. Table 8: Residential Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units Possible Dwelling Units on Buildable Land Approved Unbuilt Units Total Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units Low High Low High Comprehensive Plan 6,009 21,214 7,861 13,870 29,075 Zoning 5,544 12,013 7,861 13,405 19,874 Source: Albemarle County Community Development 2013 As indicated in the October 2011 staff report, most future residential needs will be accommodated on land which was rezoned or had special use permits approved for residential use in the past 12 years, for which units have not been constructed. Although it will most likely occur, no new units are projected to be provided in the Rura l Area or the Town of Scottsville. Only capacity in the Development Areas has been included in the calculations. CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 7 In summary, it continues to appear that sufficient land capacity exists on both zoned land and land designated in the Comprehensive Plan Master Plans for new residential needs in 2020. If land is developed at the lowest density of development based on existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoned land, in 2030, there will not be enough capacity for the anticipated 14,895 new units needed. However, if land is developed at the highest densities, sufficient land should be available to support new residential development needs in 2030. This conclusion is essentially the same as it was in the October 2011 staff report. ***** CASH PROFFER POLICY Background In October 2007, the Board of Supervisors adopted a cash proffer policy for public facilities. Cash proffers expected on new residential units are expected to help pay for new public facilities which will be needed as a result of new residents living in those unit s. The Board of Supervisors has applied this policy for the last six years. In 2012, during the Estes Park rezoning, the Commission concurred with staff that cash proffers should apply to units for which cash-in-lieu of affordable units was also proffered. The applicant disagreed and the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning with only cash-in-lieu of affordable units rather than both a cash proffer for public facilities and a cash proffer in lieu of affordable units. Because of the discussion at both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meeting, staff indicated that any confusion over how the policy should be applied could be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan update. Discussion Staff has attempted to clear up the confusion over when cash proffers apply to affordable housing by adding the following phrase, “This exclusion does not apply to cash provided in lieu of affordable units,” following the statement, “Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of affordable housing.” These changes can be seen on page A.1.2. in the proposed 2013 Comprehensive Plan and on Attachment E of this report. Also seen on Attachment E are updated cash proffer amounts for 2012. Cash proffer amounts for 2013 are not yet available. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Commission review the Monticello Viewshed issues, the updated Capacity Analysis, and the Cash Proffer policy clarifications to ensure unders tanding prior to making decisions related to the Comprehensive Plan Update. Planning Commission decisions should wait until at least April 23 in order for the public to have adequate time to read and review the recommendations in the Plan and provide comment to the Commission. CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 8 Monticello Information from Historic Resources Section of Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Page 161 Monticello and the Rotunda/Lawn also appear on the World Heritage List, an international honor accorded only six other cultural resources and eight natural resource sites in the United States. Consequently, these two Albemarle County sites rank with the St atue of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the Palace of Versailles, and the Taj Mahal in terms of contribution to the heritage of the country in which they are located. Pages 162-163 Strategy: Defining the Monticello viewshed as all property visible from the Monticello mountaintop, protect Monticello’s setting and viewshed as follows:  Notify the TJMF of proposed developments in the designated viewshed area so that they are afforded opportunity to provide comment during the approval process;  Strongly encourage the developer to consult with the TJMF about the visual impact of the project;  Strictly enforce existing regulations;  Carefully review by-right development plans with suggestions for voluntary protection measures;  Require protection measures as appropriate on discretionary land use proposals, and  Consider the impact of proposed land use regulations and decisions on Monticello’s viewshed. Attachment A CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 9 Monticello Information from 2000 Historic Preservation Plan which is a component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Protecting Monticello’s Viewshed To help protect the Monticello viewshed, the Department of Planning and Community Development should: (1) Use current technology to precisely delineate the Monticello viewshed. Make this infor- mation available for use in development review. (2) Enforce careful application of existing land use regulations. (3) Adopt a more formalized procedure that which begins early in the planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) and developers of property within the viewshed. (see Page 42) Protecting Monticello’s Viewshed Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, is located in Albemarle County, just southeast of Charlottesville. Jefferson began the design of Monticello, “Little Mountain,” in 1770, and worked onit over a period of forty years, completing an extensive revision in 1809. Perhaps more than any other presidential home in the United States, Monticello reflects the interests, values, and attitudes of its owner and the times in which he lived. Jefferson, as architect, scientist, agriculturist and citizen of Albemarle County, was acutely aware of his surroundings, the lands he owned and those adjacent to and leading to Monticello. The contribution of this rural setting is invaluable to the national and international significance of Monticello as a National Historic Landmark, the highest status bestowed on historic properties by the United States government. It is also the only home in America on the World Heritage List. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) has preserved and maintained Monticello open to the public since 1923. Monticello’s elevated location adjacent to the Pantops Development Area means that its once- rural setting is now subject to significant change. Increased development in the surrounding Rural Area may also impact Monticello’s setting. For Monticello to be viewed in any semblance of its original context by the hundreds of thousands of visitors who tour it annually, an effort must be made to protect the rural character of the viewshed. From a purely economic standpoint, the protection of the viewshed is important in sustaining the drawing power of Monticello as a national monument. The most recent available data shows that, in 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translated into over $159 million in revenue to the County. Attachment B CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 10 Albemarle County therefore has a cultural responsibility and an economic in terest in helping to protect Monticello's viewshed, which has been simply defined as “all property visible from the mountaintop.” The key to this viewshed protection effort is precise delineation of the viewshed; careful enforcement of existing regulations; and a more formalized procedure beginning early in the planning process to encourage cooperation. The Open Space Plan contains the following strategy, which the Historic Preservation Committee supports: Through the Historic Preservation Committee, define the Monticello viewshed, considering the viewshed analysis prepared for the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. After the viewshed has been established, protect Monticello’s setting and viewshed through: • Strict enforcement of existing regulations; • Careful review of by-right development plans [site plans and subdivisions] with suggestions for voluntary protection measures; and • Requirement of protection measures on discretionary [rezonings and special use permits] land use proposals. • In addition, the recommended historic district ordinance and Entrance Corridor plans can provide protection for Monticello. The TJMF has identified three locations at Monticello for which viewshed protection is of paramount concern. The locations are: (1) the northwest terrace promenade where visitors exit the house and begin to explore the grounds; (2) the shuttle bus stop northeast of the house; and (3) the uppermost, primarily pedestrian, road about a half-mile in circumference that encircles the house (“First Roundabout”). From the above listed locations, using the 1990 Monticello Viewshed Analysis and Protection Strategy prepared by the Trust for Public Lands and using current technology, it would be possible to locate the most important areas in the viewshed by tax map and parcel number. This level of detail will be needed to manage the viewshed protection process effectively. Current regulations most applicable to development within the areas identified through the above procedure include the: Entrance Corridor Overlay District; Outdoor Lighting Ordinance; Rural Preservation Development Option; and Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District zoning regulation can contribute to the preservation of rural character along the major entry routes to Monticello, which is a desirable part of a visitor’s experience It can also provide effective design control for new construction in developed areas such as Pantops. These regulations must be balanced with viewshed considerations, however. For example, the location of parking lots behind buildings to make them less visible from the Attachment B CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 11 entrance corridor, could have the undesirable effect of making them more visible from Monticello. The recently adopted Outdoor Lighting Ordinance will benefit Monticello because it requires new lights to be directed downward and they are therefore less obtrusive when viewed from higher elevations. In rural areas, the Rural Preservation Development option provides a means to cluster development, which if properly located, could mitigate the visual impact of by-right subdivisions on the viewshed. Careful site planning in Development Areas can minimize the potential impact of development as viewed from Monticello. Much can be hidden through prudent use of existing topography and vegetation, and existing regulations regarding landscaping, screening, and tree cutting can help maintain a concealing green canopy. The following guidelines provide specific suggestions for consideration during the design phase of development with the anticipated result being a minimal visual impact on the Monticello viewshed. 1. Parking lots are best concealed when located on the far side of the building (as viewed from Monticello) and when the area is broken up by plantings. 2. Building facades are less intrusive if articulated and not monolithic. 3. Earth-tone colors such as reddish-brown brick help to soften the visual impact of a building. If not adopted for the street side, consider it for the ba ck of the building if it faces Monticello. 4. Dark roofs (black, gray) are preferred. Mottled patches of light and dark stone can camouflage expansive flat roofs. 5. Screening by a long narrow border of trees of a single species should be avoided. Landscaping and buffer areas should use a variety of planting materials. A canopy of lofty trees (such as tulip poplars) to screen out development should be planted if the vista from Monticello is angled down on the site. The lower limbs of the trees can be pruned to open ground-level views while protecting the vista from Monticello. 6. The lighting of buildings and parking areas should be shielded to eliminate glare and light pollution. Experience indicates that the viewshed can be protected best if land use regulations are augmented by a cooperative effort that begins early in the planning process and leads to voluntary measures. The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development could establish a formal process for notifying the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) of proposed development in the designated viewshed area, and could strongly encourage developers to consult with the TJMF. The TJMF could assist the developer early in the process – at the design stage – so that the development is sensitive to the viewshed Attachment B CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 12 issue and the viewshed impacts could be voluntarily minimized. As a final step in the process, the Department of Planning and Community Development could insure that the TJMF is afforded an opportunity to comment on a proposed site plan within the designated viewshed prior to approval. Strategy: To help protect the Monticello viewshed, the Department of Planning and Community Development should: 1) Use current technology to precisely delineate the Monticello viewshed. Make this information available for use in development review. 2) Enforce careful application of existing land use regulations. 3) Adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) and developers of property within the viewshed. ATTACHMENT B CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 13 Monticello Information from Pantops Master Plan and the Village of Rivanna Master Plan which are components of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Page 8 – Pantops Master Plan For Gazebo Plaza Area, page 22 ATTACHMENT C CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 14 For Rivanna Ridge Area, page 23 Pages 46 and 47 ATTACHMENT C CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 15 Village of Rivanna Master Plan, Page 23  Developers should coordinate with Monticello to prevent negative impacts on the Monticello viewshed. Page 33 Historic Resources As assets to the County, historic resources in and near the Village should be protected and preserved. To educate residents and visitors on the historic assets of this part of the County, interpretive areas could be designed and put in place. New develo pment and redevelopment along US 250 East should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello’s viewshed and along a designated Entrance Corridor roadway. The County’s voluntary guidelines for protection of the Monticello vie wshed should be followed. ATTACHMENT C CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 16 Recommended Monticello Viewshed Guidelines 3-11-13 The Monticello Protection Area is defined by the GIS map on file with Albemarle County which depicts all property visible from the Monticello mountaintop. The intent of the Guidelines for Development within the Monticello Protection Area (MPA) is to protect the historic character of Monticello and the rural character of entrance corridors, particularly as it relates to the visitor experience. The implementation of these guidelines is intended to maintain the historic and rural character of the area for both visitors and residents to improve the economic vitality of this community resource. Designs that address the following concerns will help to reduce visual impact and better camouflage development in the MPA. Monticello welcomes conversations with landowners about possible impacts of impending improvements within the MPA including exterior renovations and new construction projects. Below are some guidelines for development within the MPA: 1. Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the natural landscape from Monticello. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural landscape (ie. mid-spectrum browns and greys, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites on building faces and roofs. To minimize impact, avoid large roof expanses, especially those of one color—mottled coloring that combines light and dark elements for roofs is preferred. 2. Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility and should be avoided whenever possible. For example, expansive windows facing Monticello should be avoided. 3. Flood lights, up-lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts. Whenever possible lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line. Lighting on the tops of cellular towers should be avoided when possible. Lighting for buildings and parking areas should use fixtures that reduce/eliminate glare. 4. Employ techniques that break up massing. 5. Development that breaks the mature tree line is more apparent than development that is lower than the mature tree line. Special consideration should be given to development which is higher than the mature tree line to camouflage impacts. 6. Parking can always be broken up with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping. When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello. 7. Landscaping to screen buildings and parking should employ trees which will generate a mature canopy of trees. 8. Monticello welcomes the opportunity to assist homeowners and developers who are contemplating construction in the MPA. Please contact Monticello with any questions about these guidelines. ATTACHMENT D CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 17 9. Projects that require discretionary land use permits should consider offering a proffer that addresses protection of the views from Monticello. Albemarle County could consider conditions that protect the views from Monticello when special use permits are issued. ATTACHMENT D CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 18 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES Originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 10, 2007; amended with this Comprehensive Plan A. General 1. Authority: Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 enables the County to accept proffers as reasonable conditions to address the impacts resulting from a rezoning. This authority includes the authority to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new residential development. 2. Policy: It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. 3. Reasonableness: This cash proffer policy must meet a “reasonableness” test, which requires the Board to determine for each rezoning whether the amount proffered is reasonably related both in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development on public facilities. Through this policy, staff will recommend a maximum cash proffer in each case that meets this test of reasonableness. 4. Public facilities covered by this policy: The following public facilities will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The County does not currently calculate a cash proffer value to fund public facilities such as water and se wer improvements, jails, landfills and other government facilities. B. Maximum Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount 1. Maximum: The maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants is $19,754 per SFD; $13,400 per SFA/TH; and $14,000 per MF unit, to be adjusted annually without any further action by the Board according to the most applicable Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index, as determined by the Director of Community Development, and as expressly provided in the proffer statement. ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 19 2. Annual adjustment: Adjustments to the cash proffer amount due to projected public facilities costs may be considered every fiscal year. Staff will re-compute net costs based on the current methodology and recommend adjustments. C. Calculation of Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount for a Rezoning 1. General: Pursuant to this policy, staff will (i) calculate the annual net cost of public facilities; (ii) calculate the fiscal impact of a rezoning request that permits residential uses on those public facilities; and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of the proffered funds in accordance with State law. 2. Assumptions made in calculating the cash amount: Staff determines the cost of public facilities generated by new residential development by relying on the assumption that any revenue derived from growth (residential and commercial real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.) will pay the normal operating costs for services to residents of new developments and a percentage of the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). 3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating the gross number of dwelling units, staff will: a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning. b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations (except as provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not consider the transferring of allowable units from other properties. c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of affordable housing. This exclusion does not apply to cash provided in lieu of affordable units. 4. Use of averages: In determining the net cost per dwelling unit of a public facility, staff relies on countywide averages, where possible. For certain public facilities, staff relies on averages established for geographic service areas or districts established in the County. a. Parks, libraries and public safety facilities: Since parks, libraries, and public safety facilities serve the entire County, the geographic service districts for these facilities are determined to be countywide. Rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis to determine impacts on these facilities and proffers may be spent to fund these facilities countywide. ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 20 b. Schools: The impacts of a residential development on schools will be analyzed on a district basis to determine impacts on schools. In order to ensure that the cash proffered by an applicant is used to fund the public facilities impacted by or required for the development, the County is divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the attendance zones of high schools. District 1 corresponds to the attendance zone for Albemarle High School, District 2 corresponds to the attendance zone for Western Albemarle High School, and District 3 corresponds to the attendance zone for Monticello High School. Funds collected from a development within a District will be spent on school improvements within that District or for any school improvement that provides relief for the District the development is in. c. Transportation: With respect to transportation, the fiscal impact of rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis, with cash collected from a rezoning expended on transportation projects in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, Strategic Plan, or VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan that relate to the impacts resulting from the rezoning. 5. Consideration of demand, service level and cost: In addition to the use of averages, staff will consider the four “components” involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will cost the County in terms of providing public facilities. These components are as follows: a. Demand generators: Staff uses the average for single family detached (SFD), Single Family Attached / Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH) and Multi- Family/Apartment (MF) to determine the number of persons per dwelling unit, the number of students per dwelling unit (for elementary, middle and high schools) and the number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit to calculate demand generators (population, population portion of population plus jobs, pupils, and daily vehicle trips) associated with a new dwelling unit. b. Service levels: Staff assumes that the public facilities contained in the County’s CIP/Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic Plan will accommodate ten years’ worth of new development in a manner that will maintain present levels of service. Service levels are calculated on a per-person, per-pupil, and per-daily vehicle trip basis. (Service levels are calculated annually). c. Gross cost of public facilities: Staff calculates the gross cost of public facilities. The term gross cost is used because a credit (described in C (5)(d) below) for anticipated future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against the gross cost. For example, to calculate the gross cost of park facilities, the average persons per dwelling unit is multiplied by the County’s per-capita CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan amount for park facilities. ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 21 d. Net cost: Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash proffer. This is the gross cost [(C)(5)(c)] per public facility minus the applicable credit [(C)(6)] per public facility. 6. Credits: Staff calculates a credit to apply against the gross cost for each public facility. The County has issued and plans to continue to issue general obligation bonds to finance the construction of public facilities. New development will generate real estate and other taxes to the County and staff assumes that a percentage of these taxes will go to help retire this debt. So that new dwelling units are not paying twice (once through payment of a cash proffer and again through real estate taxes) a credit is computed. For FY 08, that percentage is assumed to be 6%. Credits are authorized for the following: a. Land and public infrastructure: In some cases, a rezoning applicant may wish to mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating property or doing in-kind improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. The dedication of land and the construction of public facilities recommended by the County’s CIP or its master plans, or otherwise identified as being necessary to address the impacts resulting from the proposed development. Land and improvements that are not identified in the CIP or in a master plan should be entitled to a credit only when it is found that the proposed development creates an immediate need for the land or improvement that is better addressed by the applicant d edicating the land or constructing the improvement than by receiving the cash equivalent. Credit for transportation may be allowed for off-site land dedication or improvements, as recommended by the Department of Facilities Development. (1) Determining value: The value of donated land generally will be based on the current assessed value of the specifically proffered property (not the assessed value of the property as a whole), not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The value of improvements shall be the estimated cost as if constructed by a governmental entity. If the dedication or in-kind improvement does not fully mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities, then the dedication and/or improvement’s value may be applied as a credit against the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility. (2) Maximum credit: The credit cannot exceed the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility. b. Operational expenses: Operational expenses where the Board determines that the cash contribution reduces the demand for public facilities. For example, a ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 22 cash proffer for the operational expenses of public transit that eliminates the need for planned road improvements could be entitled to a credit, which would be an amount comparable to the reduction in infrastructure costs. c. No increase or small increase in density: In rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning. This credit may be allowed only for those rezoning applications where the rezoning seeks the design flexibility allowed by the Neighborhood Model zoning district or seeks to amend a prior rezoning with no increase in density. The credit should not be allowed if the rezoning application seeks to increase density in a conventional, rather than a planned, zoning district. d. Small infill development with existing dwellings: In rezoning applications for small infill developments, a credit may be given for each existing dwelling that will remain. For example, if a rezoning application would rezone a lot with an existing house to allow three lots, only two new lots would be created allowing two new dwelling units. If the existing dwelling unit will remain after the rezoning, the cash proffer policy should apply only to the two new dwelling units. e. Substantial upgrades to design/development standards: The Board may consider development proposals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development standards and ordinance requirements as justification for granting a credit to the pre-existing lot yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using average actual recorded lot yields provided the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields in conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features. f. Unique circumstances: The County considers any unique circumstances about a proposed development that: (i) mitigate the development's projected impact on public facilities; and (ii) create a demonstrable reduction in capital facility needs. Unique circumstances may include, but not be limited to, such projects like an age-restricted housing project. Staff, the applicant or any other person may identify such mitigating circumstances. 7. Applicable policy: A rezoning’s fiscal impact on public facilities shall be established under the cash proffer policy in effect on the date of the last public hearing prior to the Board of Supervisors’ decision on the rezoning. ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 23 D. Timing of Contribution and Expenditure of Cash Contributed 1. Timing: Payment of the cash proffer for residential development must occur prior to release of a building permit. Timing for dedication of property or in-kind improvements should be specified in the proffer. 2. Expenditure: The cash contributions shall be expended in accordance with State law. Cash contributions received under this policy must be used for projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, and/or Strategic Plan. For public facilities having a countywide service area (parks, libraries and public safety), the cash contribution may be spent countywide. ATTACHMENT E CPA 2013-01 PC April 16, 2013 Staff Report Page 24 Comparison of all Parcels Visible from TJF Properties to all Parcels visible from Monticello Mountaintop Source of Information: Thomas Jefferson Foundation and Piedmont Environmental Council April 4, 2013 PARCELS VISIBLE FROM ALL TJF PROPERTIES PARCELS VISIBLE FROM MONTICELLO MOUNTAINTOP OBSERVATION POINTS Red color indicates properties owned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation ATTACHMENT F A.1.1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES Originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 10, 2007; amended with this Comprehensive Plan A. General 1. Authority: Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 enables the County to accept proffers as reasonable conditions to address the impacts resulting from a rezoning. This authority includes the authority to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new residential development. 2. Policy: It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. 3. Reasonableness: This cash proffer policy must meet a “reasonableness” test, which requires the Board to determine for each rezoning whether the amount proffered is reasonably related both in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development on public facilities. Through this policy, staff will recommend a maximum cash proffer in each case that meets this test of reasonableness. 4. Public facilities covered by this policy: The following public facilities will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The County does not currently calculate a cash proffer value to fund public facilities such as water and sewer improvements, jails, landfills and other government facilities. B. Maximum Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount 1. Maximum: The maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities from residential rezoning applicants is $17,500.00 per SFD; $11,900 per SFA/TH; and $12,400 per MF unit, to be adjusted annually without any further action by the Board according to the most applicable Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index, as determined by the Director of Community Development, and as expressly provided in the proffer statement. 2. Annual adjustment: Adjustments to the cash proffer amount due to projected public facilities costs may be considered every fiscal year. Staff will re-compute net costs based on the current methodology and recommend adjustments. C. Calculation of Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount for a Rezoning 1. General: Pursuant to this policy, staff will (i) calculate the annual net cost of public facilities; (ii) calculate the fiscal impact of a rezoning request that permits residential uses on those A.1.2 public facilities; and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of the proffered funds in accordance with State law. 2. Assumptions made in calculating the cash amount: Staff determines the cost of public facilities generated by new residential development by relying on the assumption that any revenue derived from growth (residential and commercial real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.) will pay the normal operating costs for services to residents of new developments and a percentage of the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). 3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating the gross number of dwelling units, staff will: a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning. b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations (except as provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not consider the transferring of allowable units from other properties. c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of affordable housing. This exclusion does not apply to cash provided in lieu of affordable units. 4. Use of averages: In determining the net cost per dwelling unit of a public facility, staff relies on countywide averages, where possible. For certain public facilities, staff relies on averages established for geographic service areas or districts established in the County. a. Parks, libraries and public safety facilities: Since parks, libraries, and public safety facilities serve the entire County, the geographic service districts for these facilities are determined to be countywide. Rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis to determine impacts on these facilities and proffers may be spent to fund these facilities countywide. b. Schools: The impacts of a residential development on schools will be analyzed on a district basis to determine impacts on schools. In order to ensure that the cash proffered by an applicant is used to fund the public facilities impacted by or required for the development, the County is divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the attendance zones of high schools. District 1 corresponds to the attendance zone for Albemarle High School, District 2 corresponds to the attendance zone for Western Albemarle High School, and District 3 corresponds to the attendance zone for Monticello High School. Funds collected from a development within a District will be spent on school improvements within that District or for any school improvement that provides relief for the District the development is in. c. Transportation: With respect to transportation, the fiscal impact of rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis, with cash collected from a rezoning expended on transportation projects in the County’s Comprehensive Plan A.1.3 and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, Strategic Plan, or VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan that relate to the impacts resulting from the rezoning. 5. Consideration of demand, service level and cost: In addition to the use of averages, staff will consider the four “components” involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will cost the County in terms of providing public facilities. These components are as follows: a. Demand generators: Staff uses the average for single family detached (SFD), Single Family Attached / Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH) and Multi- Family/Apartment (MF) to determine the number of persons per dwelling unit, the number of students per dwelling unit (for elementary, middle and high schools) and the number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit to calculate demand generators (population, population portion of population plus jobs, pupils, and daily vehicle trips) associated with a new dwelling unit. b. Service levels: Staff assumes that the public facilities contained in the County’s CIP/Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic Plan will accommodate ten years’ worth of new development in a manner that will maintain present levels of service. Service levels are calculated on a per-person, per-pupil, and per-daily vehicle trip basis. (Service levels are calculated annually). c. Gross cost of public facilities: Staff calculates the gross cost of public facilities. The term gross cost is used because a credit (described in C(5)(d) below) for anticipated future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against the gross cost. For example, to calculate the gross cost of park facilities, the average persons per dwelling unit is multiplied by the County’s per-capita CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan amount for park facilities. d. Net cost: Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash proffer. This is the gross cost [(C)(5)(c)] per public facility minus the applicable credit [(C)(6)] per public facility. 6. Credits: Staff calculates a credit to apply against the gross cost for each public facility. The County has issued and plans to continue to issue general obligation bonds to finance the construction of public facilities. New development will generate real estate and other taxes to the County and staff assumes that a percentage of these taxes will go to help retire this debt. So that new dwelling units are not paying twice (once through payment of a cash proffer and again through real estate taxes) a credit is computed. For FY 08, that percentage is assumed to be 6%. Credits are authorized for the following: a. Land and public infrastructure: In some cases, a rezoning applicant may wish to mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating property or doing in-kind improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. The dedication of land and the construction of public facilities recommended by the County’s CIP or its master plans, or otherwise identified as being necessary to address the impacts resulting from the proposed development. Land and improvements that are not identified in the CIP or in a master plan should be entitled to a credit only when it is found that the proposed development creates an immediate need for the land or improvement that is better addressed A.1.4 by the applicant dedicating the land or constructing the improvement than by receiving the cash equivalent. Credit for transportation may be allowed for off- site land dedication or improvements, as recommended by the Department of Facilities Development. (1) Determining value: The value of donated land generally will be based on the current assessed value of the specifically proffered property (not the assessed value of the property as a whole), not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The value of improvements shall be the estimated cost as if constructed by a governmental entity. If the dedication or in-kind improvement does not fully mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities, then the dedication and/or improvement’s value may be applied as a credit against the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility. (2) Maximum credit: The credit cannot exceed the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility. b. Operational expenses: Operational expenses where the Board determines that the cash contribution reduces the demand for public facilities. For example, a cash proffer for the operational expenses of public transit that eliminates the need for planned road improvements could be entitled to a credit, which would be an amount comparable to the reduction in infrastructure costs. c. No increase or small increase in density: In rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning. This credit may be allowed only for those rezoning applications where the rezoning seeks the design flexibility allowed by the Neighborhood Model zoning district or seeks to amend a prior rezoning with no increase in density. The credit should not be allowed if the rezoning application seeks to increase density in a conventional, rather than a planned, zoning district. d. Small infill development with existing dwellings: In rezoning applications for small infill developments, a credit may be given for each existing dwelling that will remain. For example, if a rezoning application would rezone a lot with an existing house to allow three lots, only two new lots would be created allowing two new dwelling units. If the existing dwelling unit will remain after the rezoning, the cash proffer policy should apply only to the two new dwelling units. e. Substantial upgrades to design/development standards: The Board may consider development proposals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development standards and ordinance requirements as justification for granting a credit to the pre-existing lot yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using average actual recorded lot yields provided the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields in conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features. A.1.5 f. Unique circumstances: The County considers any unique circumstances about a proposed development that: (i) mitigate the development's projected impact on public facilities; and (ii) create a demonstrable reduction in capital facility needs. Unique circumstances may include, but not be limited to, such projects like an age- restricted housing project. Staff, the applicant or any other person may identify such mitigating circumstances. 7. Applicable policy: A rezoning’s fiscal impact on public facilities shall be established under the cash proffer policy in effect on the date of the last public hearing prior to the Board of Supervisors’ decision on the rezoning. D. Timing of Contribution and Expenditure of Cash Contributed 1. Timing: Payment of the cash proffer for residential development must occur prior to release of a building permit. Timing for dedication of property or in-kind improvements should be specified in the proffer. 2. Expenditure: The cash contributions shall be expended in accordance with State law. Cash contributions received under this policy must be used for projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, and/or Strategic Plan. For public facilities having a countywide service area (parks, libraries and public safety), the cash contribution may be spent countywide. A.1.6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to promote a variety of housing choices for residents. Choice shall be defined by type, tenure, and price ranges. Albemarle County believes its housing market can generally be best served by private sector providers that constantly assess demand and create products to meet that demand. The County will continue to work with real estate developers, builders, and other market partners to promote communities and products which are affordable to County residents and those who desire to become County residents. It shall further be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordabl e housing for those who face financial challenges in obtaining housing. In particular, the County may provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area median income by:  Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate-income residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County;  Promoting variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities;  Creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods;  Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations;  Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the private sector alone; and  Encouraging the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County wide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan Growth Management Policy. The provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the Comprehensive Plan’s designated Rural Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations. DEFINITIONS Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners used to determine affordability include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner’s insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants used to determine affordability include tenant- paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the County’s Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. A.1.7 Affordable Housing is further defined, for this policy, as those houses affordable to approximately 40% of the County population that have household incomes not exceeding 80% of the area median income established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adjusted by family size. Affordability Period is defined as the initial sale on for-sale properties and ten (10) years for rental property. Appraised Value means the market value of a property as determined by a third-party appraisal. Area Median Income means those income established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The incomes are adjusted based on family sizes from 1-person households to 8- or more person households. For the purpose of the County policy, calculations are made to establish maximum incomes for 1- and 2-person households and 3- or more person households. Cash-in-lieu means a monetary contribution by a developer or builder in place of constructing the targeted number of affordable units. The County’s expectation is that cash equal to ten- percent (10%) of the affordable sales price constitutes a comparable contribution. Comparable Contributions are donations, other than cash, which may be made in-lieu of producing affordable units. Such contributions may include  Donated lots/units to nonprofit entities in lieu of for-sale units; and  Other contributions that directly impact creation or preservation of affordable housing, such as but not limited to providing off-site units or participating in the rehabilitation of existing housing units in partnership with other entities. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are gross rents established by HUD for the MSA and updated annually. Maximum Gross Rent means rent plus tenant-paid utilities and is set by the County for the purpose of establishing affordability it no greater than 100% of the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and updated annually. Initial rents shall be established based on FMRs in effect at the time the rental units are placed in service. Rental rates may increase at a rate not to exceed three percent (3%) annually during the affordability term. Maximum Sales Price as set by the County for the purpose of establishing affordability is 65% of the maximum mortgage limit established by the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) for its first-time homebuyer programs for the Charlottesville region. A.1.8 Maximum sales prices are expected to be consistent with the property’s appraised value. In cases when the maximum sales price is less than the appraised value, the County will only consider the property as an affordable property if the developer or builde r provides deed restrictions or junior deeds-of-trust to secure the difference. Such deeds- of-trust shall be assignable to the County or a designated agent for the County. Albemarle County sets a target for the inclusion of affordable housing or comparable contributions for affordable housing initiatives with the general target being fifteen percent (15%) of the total units proposed for development under rezoning and special use applications. In negotiating proffers, considerations will be given to the nature of the community and surrounding development, availability of transportation, and proximity to employment and services. In addition, developers and builders who commit to serving households in lower-income categories demonstrated by sales prices and rents which would be affordable to those populations can receive credits towards the fifteen percent target. For for-sale units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % VHDA Limit 2012 Sales Price % AMI (target) 1.0 65% $211,250 80% 1.25 55% $178,750 70% 1.5 45% $146,250 60% 1.75 35% $113,750 50% For rental units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % Fair Market Rent (HUD) 2012 Rents (inc. utilities) 2 bedroom % AMI (target) 1.0 100% $1,029 50% 1.25 80% $823 40% 1.5 60% $617 30% Credit towards the 15% target will be calculated using the credit factors associated with the targeted income group and associated sales/rent price. For example, if a project’s for-sale affordable units are restricted to 60% AMI or less, only ten percent (10%) of the total units would be required to be affordable. A.1.9 STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following strategies and recommendations are intended to help implement the County’s Affordable Housing Policy as resources are available. Strategy: Continue to implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications. Streamlining processes may be considered while maintaining an equitable approach to all zoning applications. Recommendations  Develop process to measure and track trends on existing affordable housing stock.  Update annual affordability figures for sales prices and rental rates.  Develop methods to assess and prioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required throughout the housing continuum.  Develop affordable housing production goals based on documented need/demand to address identified housing priorities and to insure that low- and moderate- income households have access to a sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units.  Promote the use of the density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve affordable housing production in by-right developments.  Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a streamlined and timely process for plan approvals.  Develop procedures to measure the impact of County-imposed regulations on the affordability of housing units.  Follow the Affordable Housing Policy to the greatest extent possible for all rezoning and special use permit applications.  Explore opportunities to provide incentives/allowances for developments that commit to produce 25% or more of their proposed units as affordable.  Explore revising the zoning ordinance to allow for creating accessory dwelling units throughout the County which may be detached from the main dwelling unit while being mindful of the County’s growth management policy and goals and policies for the Rural Areas. Strategy: Work with developers to phase in affordable units within a neighborhood consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Neighborhood Model principles, including the use A.1.10 of regulatory and monetary incentives available through the County, its partners and state and federal programs. Recommendations  Promote site plan development that disperses affordable homes throughout a development and encourages a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed in designated development areas as guidance for the creation of affordable units that are scattered throughout the developm ent.  Provide for a flexible, negotiated process based on the characteristics of the particular project when a development proposes the donation of lots, units, funding, off-site affordable housing, or other comparable contributions. Consideration may include, but is not necessarily limited to, proximity to jobs and services including day care and transportation, agreements with nonprofits for producing affordable units and maintaining long-term affordability, and the nature of proposed development and surrounding area. Strategy: Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. Recommendations  Develop procedures for monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law and/or funding sources.  Establish a first right-of-refusal for the purchase of affordable units for rent or sale by the County and/or its nonprofit partners as may be allowed by law.  Develop model deed restrictions and junior deeds-of-trust which may be proffered by developers and other mechanisms to insure affordable units remain affordable for a specific period of time (control period).  Utilize any allowances provided in the Code of Virginia which may reduce the tax burden of deed-restricted dwellings. Strategy: Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. Recommendations  Implement processes for reviewing and approving eligible families for purchase or rental units produced including utilizing nonprofit housing agencies and the A.1.11 developer’s/builder’s sales staff to identify eligible purchasers a nd renters for affordable housing units.  Increase access to counseling by refunding the County’s homeownership education program and utilizing similar services provided by others.  Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and help clarify roles and responsibilities for each including, but not limited to, community development, housing development, affordable lending, and housing counseling.  Develop formal and informal procedures for dialogue with and among the private sector (for-profit and nonprofit) development community to increase production of affordable housing during the rezoning and special use permitting processes.  Utilize credit criteria as outlined in the Affordable Housing Policy to facilitate the donation of or purchase of lots and/or units between for-profit developers and the nonprofit organizations which ensures occupancy of units by eligible households and long-term affordability.  Promote affordable housing by increasing participation with the real estate community including representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment council, realtors, and homebuilders).  Provide encouragement and incentives to nonprofit housing providers for the purchase, construction, rehabilitation and/or management of affordable owner- occupied and rental units.  Promote an understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues with increased coordination with the City of Charlottesville,  Explore available incentives to promote the production and preservation of affordable housing. Strategy: Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. Recommendations  Support tax credit applications for properties that preserve or create affordable rental units. Consider monetary support in the form of tax abatements and reduction of fees as allowable by law.  Develop strategies for effectively leveraging public and private funds to maximize resources for affordable housing including options for capitalizing a housing trust fund. 1 of 3 Attachment B BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT B Community Facilities SOLID WASTE Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress GOAL: Facilities and services provided by Albemarle will be high-quality and delivered in a responsible and cost-effective manner. Objective 7: Provide solid waste management services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Strategy 7a: Continue to abide by the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan and the County’s Environmental Management Policy to ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed, and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County. *Strategy 7b: Increase understanding of the need for solid waste management and increase the participation of individuals, businesses, and institutions in waste reduction. Strategy 7c: Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste material in the County. *Strategy 7d: Analyze possible economic savings and other benefits for solid waste management by methods, including City-County and private or regional funding to match public services to service gaps that are not addressed by the private sector. Strategy 7e: Continue to provide a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for County’s citizens and County businesses. Strategy 7f: Continue to support source reduction and reuse, and provide for recycling and resource recovery. Comparison of Goals, Objectives and Strategies, and other Key Information The goal, objectives, and strategies for the Proposed 2013 Plan are shown on the right in this table. Goals, objectives, and strategies shown on the left are taken from different sections of the existing Comprehensive Plan. The source of information from the existing Plan is shown by existing goal, objective, or strategy number or by page number in the existing Plan. Solid Waste Management Recommendations • The County should utilize a combination of solid waste management activities discussed in this section. This program should increase the participation of individuals, businesses and institutions in source reduction and reuse. (CF, p. 152) Objective 7: Provide solid waste management services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. (p. 12.27) 2 of 3 Attachment B BOS 9-9-14 • Initiate a study to locate a new landfill site. This study should be in conjunction with other jurisdictions and the possibility of a Regional Landfill should be considered. (CF, p. 153) Solid Waste Management Service Objectives: 1. Local initiatives should be generally reflective of the State of Virginia’s hierarchy for solid waste management activities: source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, incineration, and landfills. (CF, p. 152) 2. Develop a solid waste program that adheres to the rules and regulations of the Virginia Waste Management Act. (CF, p. 152) 3. Develop an efficient and environmentally sensitive solid waste management program. Ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County. (CF, p. 152) 4. Explore and participate in solid waste disposal methods and programs which will cost effectively increase the life expectancy of the existing landfill. This should include study of all solid waste activities listed in service objective #1. (CF, p. 152) Strategy 7a: Continue to abide by the TJPDC Solid Waste Plan and the County’s Environmental Management Policy to ensure solid waste generated in the County is collected, processed, and disposed of in a manner beneficial to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County. (p. 12.27) Solid Waste Management Service Objectives: 7. Increase understanding of the need for solid waste management and increase the participation of individuals, businesses and institutions in waste reduction. (CF, p. 152) Strategy 7b: Increase understanding of the need for solid waste management, and increase the participation of individuals, businesses, and institutions in waste reduction. (p. 12.27) Solid Waste Management Service Objectives: 5. Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste material in the County. (CF, p. 152) Strategy 7c: Continue to support the use of private haulers in the collection and transfer of solid waste material in the County. (p. 12.28) Solid Waste Management Service Objectives: 8. Analyze possible economic savings and other benefits by evaluating various financing methods including City/County, private or regional funding. (CF, p. 152) Strategy 7d: Analyze possible economic savings and other benefits by methods, including City-County and private or regional funding to match public services to service gaps that are not addressed by the private markets. (p. 12.28) Solid Waste Management Service Objectives: 6. Establish a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for the County. (CF, p. Strategy 7e: Continue to provide a comprehensive household hazardous waste program for County’s citizens and County 3 of 3 Attachment B BOS 9-9-14 152) businesses. (p. 12.28) Solid Waste Management Recommendations • Determine the most cost-effective and beneficial method to collect recyclables and implement this program immediately to ensure the County adequately meets State mandates for recycling. (CF, p. 153) • Develop a data collection program that ensures accurate reporting of recycling activities and allows the data to be used for accurately projecting future waste stream. (CF, p. 153) • Develop and implement an integrated education program for all aspects of the waste stream in consultation with the City, University, RWSA, private sector and other interested groups. This education program should promote the purchase and use of recyclable materials. (CF, p. 153) Strategy 7f: Continue to support source reduction and reuse, and provide for recycling and resource recovery. (p. 12.28) 1 of 3 Attachment C BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT C Housing Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Priorities, and Indicators of Progress Priorities are indicated with * GOAL: Located primarily in the Development Areas, housing in Albemarle will be safe, decent, and sanitary, available to all income and age levels, and available equally to all current and future County residents. Objective 1: Support the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary housing in good repair for all residents. Strategy 1a: Continue to work with non-profit partners to assist them in securing funding for housing rehabilitation, including applying for grant funding for housing rehabilitation and community improvement programs. Objective 2: Ensure that housing is equally available to all populations. Strategy 2a: Continue to make information on equal housing opportunities available in public places. Strategy 2b: Continue to monitor use of County money in support of housing to ensure non- discrimination. Objective 3: Ensure sufficient land area exists in the Development Area to accommodate future populations. Strategy 3a: Continue to monitor the supply of land designated and zoned for residential use in the Development Areas to ensure adequate capacity for future populations. Objective 4: Provide for a variety of housing types for all income levels and help provide for density in the Development Areas. *Strategy 4a: Through rezonings and special use permits, continue to ensure a mixture of housing types are provided that also support all income levels of residents in Albemarle County. *Strategy 4b: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for greater opportunities to construct accessory units to diversify the housing supply as well as a portion of the County's affordable housing needs. Objective 5: Support provision of housing which meets the needs of various ages and levels of mobility. *Strategy 5a: Encourage developers to include housing for seniors and individuals with disabilities in new residential and mixed-use developments. Approve these proposals when they are in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. 2 of 3 Attachment C BOS 9-9-14 *Strategy 5b: Continue to require and provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Development Areas and support expanded transit services. Strategy 5c: Support local agencies which provide residential living facilities for persons with disabilities and senior citizens. Objective 6: Provide affordable housing options for low-to-moderate income residents of Albemarle County and those persons who work within Albemarle County who wish to reside in Albemarle County. *Strategy 6a: Provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the non-profit and for-profit development and financing entities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0% and 80% of area median income. *Strategy 6b: Continue to ensure that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits are affordable, as defined by the County’s Office of Housing, or a comparable contribution be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Strategy 6c: Encourage developers and builders, through by-right zoning, to provide for affordable housing using density bonuses available in the Zoning Ordinance. *Strategy 6d: Provide additional staff resources to better implement affordable housing policies and assist low-to-moderate income individuals in obtaining affordable housing. *Strategy 6e: Gather information on the location of affordable and proffered units in the C ounty. Develop mechanisms to help promote long-term affordability and protect public investments. Strategy 6f: Where necessary, amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide greater flexibility inthe provision of affordable housing. *Strategy 6g: Continue to direct affordable housing activities to the designated Development Areas. Objective 7: Promote the mixing of affordable units mixed throughout neighborhoods and strive for similarity in exterior appearance to market-rate units. Strategy 7a: Approve developments which mix affordable units with market rate units thoughout neighborhoods, and work with developers to ensure visual compatibility. Objective 8: Work with the City of Charlottesville to provide a range of housing types that support various incomes, ages, and levels of mobility. These housing types should be connected to community amenities, parks, trails and services in the City and located in the County’s Development Areas. *Strategy 8a: Develop a plan for regional cooperation in provision of affordable housing in the community. 3 of 3 Attachment C BOS 9-9-14 Indicators of Progress: 1. Increase in number of affordable housing units built. 2. Increase in number of proffered affordable units over "cash-in-lieu" through rezonings and special use permits. 3. Development Activity Report continues to indicate a mixture of affordable housing types is being constructed. 4. Increase in affordable units created using the density bonus provisions of zoning ordinances. 5. Increase in number of developments which, through rezonings and special use permits, result in affordable housing provided within a neighborhood. 6. Increase in number of developments where applicants have proffered architectural features to result in an exterior appearance for affordable units similar to other units in a neighborhood. 7. Reduction or elimination of charges of discrimination which are issued from the Attorney General of Virginia. 8. Bi-Annual Residential Land Capacity Analysis continues to show sufficient land area to accommodate projected populations. 9. Number of accessory units increases after zoning text amendment. 10. Increase in number of senior housing developments and assisted living and long-term care facilities; increase in these developments within mixed-use areas. 11. Increase in linear feet of public sidewalk built to complete sidewalk network. Appendices Affordable Housing Policy http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Developmen t/Forms/Comp_Plan_Round_2/14_2_Affordable_Housing_Policy.pdf Reference Documents There are no reference documents associated with this Chapter. Page 1 of 4 Attachment D BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT D Comparison of Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and other Key Information Chapter 9: Housing January 23, 2014 Draft The goal, Objectives, and strategies for the Proposed 2014 Plan are shown on the right in this table. Goals, Objectives, and strategies shown on the left are taken from different sections of the existing Comprehensive Plan. The source of information from the existing Plan is shown by existing goal, Objective, or strategy number or by page number in the existing Plan. Existing Housing Related Policies Proposed Housing Chapter Affordable Housing Policy Objectives: It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the County. GOAL: Located primarily in the Development Areas, housing in Albemarle will be safe, decent, and sanitary, available to all income and age levels, and available equally to all current and future County residents. (p.9.1) Affordable Housing Policy Objectives: Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate- income residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County. Objective 1: Support the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary housing in good repair for all residents.(p.9.5) Affordable Housing Policy Strategy: Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. Affordable Housing Policy Strategy: Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. Strategy 1a: Continue to work with non-profit partners to assist them in securing funding for housing rehabilitation, including applying for grant funding available for housing rehabilitation and community improvement programs. (p.9.6) Affordable Housing Policy Objectives: Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities. Objective 2: Ensure that housing is equally available to all populations. (p.9.6) Strategy 2a: Continue to make information on equal housing opportunities available in public places. (p.9.6) Strategy 2b: Continue to monitor use of County money in support of housing to ensure non- discrimination. (p.9.6) Objective 3: Ensure sufficient land area exists in the Development Area to accommodate future Page 2 of 4 Attachment D BOS 9-9-14 populations. (p.9.7) Strategy 3a: Continue to monitor the supply of land designated and zoned for residential use in the Development Areas to ensure adequate capacity for future populations. (p.9.7) Neighborhood Model: Mixes housing types and markets so that the full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. Neighborhood Model: Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 4: Provide for a variety of housing types for all income levels and help provide for density in the Development Areas. (p.9.7) Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations: Develop formal and informal procedures for dialogue with and among the private sector (for- profit and nonprofit) development community to increase production of affordable housing during the rezoning and special use permitting process. Strategy 4a: Through rezonings and special use permits, continue to ensure a mixture of housing types are provided that also support all income levels of residents in Albemarle County. (p.9.8) Neighborhood Model: Encourage the construction of accessory apartments in ancillary structures. (Page 101) Strategy 4b: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for greater opportunities to construct accessory units to diversify the housing supply as well as to meet a portion of the County’s affordable housing needs. (p.9.9) Objective 5: Support provision of housing which meets the needs of various ages and levels of mobility. (p.9.9) Strategy 5a: Encourage developers to include housing for seniors and individuals with disabilities in new residential and mixed-use developments. Approve these proposals when they are in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. (p.9.9) Neighborhood Model: Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. Neighborhood Model: Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, Strategy 5b: Continue to require and provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Development Areas and support expanded transit services. (p.9.10) Page 3 of 4 Attachment D BOS 9-9-14 and car trips are reduced in number and length. Strategy 5c: Support local agencies which provide residential living facilities for persons with disabilities and senior citizens. (p.9.10) Affordable Housing Policy Objectives: It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the County. Objective 6: Provide affordable housing options for low-to-moderate income residents of Albemarle County and those persons who work within Albemarle County workers who wish to reside in Albemarle County. (p.9.10) Affordable Housing Policy Objectives: The County will provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0% and 80% of area median income. Strategy 6a: Provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the non-profit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0% and 80% of area median income. (p.9.11) Affordable Housing Policy Strategy: At a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County’s Office of Housing and housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. Strategy 6b: Continue to ensure that at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits are affordable, as defined by the County’s Office of Housing, or a comparable contribution be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. (p.9.12) Affordable Housing Policy Strategy: Promote the use of the existing density bonus ordnance as a tool to achieve affordable housing. Strategy 6c: Encourage developers and builders, through by-right zoning, to provide for affordable housing using density bonuses available in the Zoning Ordinance. (p.9.12) Strategy 6d: Provide additional staff resources to better implement affordable housing policies and assist low-to-moderate income individuals in obtaining affordable housing. (p.9.12) Affordable Housing Policy Strategy: Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. Strategy 6e: Gather information on the location of affordable and proffered units in the County. Develop mechanisms to promote long-term affordability and protect direct public resource investments. (p.9.12) Strategy 6f: Where necessary, amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide greater flexibility in the provision of affordable housing. (p.9.13) Page 4 of 4 Attachment D BOS 9-9-14 Strategy 6g: Continue to direct affordable housing activities to the designated Development Areas. (p.9.13) Neighborhood Model: Mixes housing types and markets so that the full range of housing choices is offered within the Neighborhood. Objective 7: Promote the mixing of affordable units mixed throughout neighborhoods and strive for similarity in exterior appearance to market- rate units. (p.9.13) Affordable housing Policy Recommendations: Develop procedures to work with developers to phase in affordable units within a neighborhood as described in the Neighborhood Model including the use of regulatory and monetary incentives available through the County, its partners, and state and federal programs. Strategy 7a: Approve developments which mix affordable units within and market-rate units throughout neighborhoods, and work with developers to ensure visual compatibility. (p.9.13) Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations: Promote understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues. Objective 8: Work with the City of Charlottesville to provide a range of housing types that support various incomes, ages, and levels of mobility. These housing types should be connected to community amenities, parks, trails, and services in the City and in the County’s Development Areas. (p.9.14) Affordable Housing Policy Recommendations: Promote understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues. Strategy 8a: Develop a plan for regional cooperation in provision of affordable housing in the community. (p.9.14) 1 of 2 Attachment E BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT E Background and Discussion on Proposed Changes to Affordable Housing Policy The Affordable Housing Policy was originally adopted in 2005. A significant component of the policy is that 15% of all new units approved legislatively should be affordable units. These units may be provided in a number of ways, such as for-sale detached houses or townhouses, rental apartment units, as units in carriage houses, and in accessory units within townhouses. Cash in lieu of units is acceptable under some circumstances. Commitments to provide 15% affordable units are provided as proffers with rezoning and occasionally as conditions with special use permits. The Commission asked for Housing Director Ron White’s help with their review and discussion of the policy. Mr. White provided historical information and information on challenges in applying the policy. The staff report for the June 26, 2012 Planning Commission meeting is found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/PC_ Reports/EXEC_SUMMARY%20June262012%20PC.pdf The Commission was particularly concerned with the lack of actual production of affordable units in combination with the lack of variety in the income of beneficiaries and wanted to identify ways to have affordable units constructed that would be available to a wider range of low and moderate income families. It concluded that an incentive could be to reduce the number of units for which proffers are expected when the units are targeted to households with less than 80% of the median income. Information on this proposed change is shown below: Albemarle County sets as a target for the inclusion of affordable housing or comparable contributions for affordable housing initiatives with the general target being fifteen percen t (15%) of the total units proposed for development under rezoning and special use applications. In negotiating proffers, considerations will be given to the nature of the community and surrounding development, availability of transportation, and proximity to employment and services. In addition, developers and builders who commit to serving households in lower-income categories demonstrated by sales prices and rents which would be affordable to those populations can receive credits towards the fifteen percent target. For for-sale units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % VHDA Limit 2012 Sales Price % AMI (target) 1.0 65% $211,250 80% 1.25 55% $178,750 70% 1.5 45% $146,250 60% 1.75 35% $113,750 50% For rental units, the following credits may be provided: Credit Factor % Fair Market Rent (HUD) 2012 Rents (inc. utilities) 2 bedroom % AMI (target) 1.0 100% $1,029 50% 1.25 80% $823 40% 1.5 60% $617 30% 2 of 2 Attachment E BOS 9-9-14 Credit towards the 15% target will be calculated using the credit factors associated with the targeted income group and associated sales/rent price. For example, if a project’s for -sale affordable units are restricted to 60% AMI or less, only ten percent (10%) of the total units would be required to be affordable. The other recommended change of note was to add ways to provide for flexibility in how affordable housing is provided in new developments as seen in the recommendation below: Provide for a flexible, negotiated process based on the characteristics of the particular project when a development proposes the donation of lots, units, funding, off-site affordable housing, or other comparable contributions. Consideration may include, but is not necessarily limited to, proximity to jobs and services including day care and transportation, agreements with nonprofits for producing affordable units and maintaining long-term affordability, and the nature of proposed development and surrounding area. At present, there is no guidance on how to deal with different circumstances which might affect how or where affordable housing is provided. The Planning Commission believed that these changes would help provide additional opportunities for developers to meet affordable housing expectations. 1 of 1 Attachment F BOS 9-9-14 ATTACHMENT F Background and Discussion on Clarification to Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities In Relation to Affordable Units The County’s current Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities seeks to ensure that all new residential units approved through rezonings and special use permits address impacts for new infrastructure and public facilities. A few developers have indicated that they should not be expected to proffer cash for public facilities in those cases when they are also paying cash for affordable housing in lieu of actually building affordable units. For example, if a developer is proposing to build 100 units that would be entitled through a rezoning, it is expected that 15 of these units will be affordable. The current Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities allows for the exclusion of the 15 dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing from the calculation of the number of dwelling units subject to a cash proffer. So, cash proffered for public facilities would be expected for 85 of the units. But the Planning Commission did not feel that this exclusion should apply in cases where cash is being provided for affordable housing in lieu of actual construction of the units. The Commission stated its concern with the lack of production of affordable housing, expressing its great preference that proffered affordable units be built and developers not simply “pay their way out” of building the units. It felt that cash-in-lieu of units should be the exception and not the rule. In support of this preference, the Commission stated that the cash proffer for public facilities is an expectation for every market-rate unit and there should be no exclusion for affordable units that are replaced by cash in lieu of the unit. So, using the example above, if cash is provided for affordable housing in lieu of constructing the 15 affordable units, then cash proffers for public facilities would be expected for all 100 units. This, in fact, has been the practice since adoption of the Cash Proffer Policy, but is not clear in the existing policy. To make sure this expectation is clear, the Commission has recommended the following clarification to the Cash Policy (highlighted below): 3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating the gross number of dwelling units, staff will: a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning. b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations (except as provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not consider the transferring of allowable units from other properties. c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s definition of affordable housing. This exclusion does not apply to cash provided in lieu of affordable units.