HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-08Tenatative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOBER 8, 2014
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 P.M. – Room 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Joint Meeting with School Board
a. Total Compensation Report. (Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources)
b. Goal Setting for Five Year Plan. (Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget)
c. Work Groups Report-out
1. Legislative
2. Communications
3. 6:00 p.m. - Recess.
6:30 P.M. – Lane Auditorium
4. Reconvene and Call to Order Night Meeting
5. Pledge of Allegiance.
6. Moment of Silence.
7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
9. Recognitions:
a. Commonwealth of Virginia Innovation Technology Symposium (COVITS) First
Place Award, Crystal Rejonis.
b. Muscular Dystrophy Association - Albemarle County Fire & Rescue
Department Annual Fill the Boot Campaign.
c. Proclamation Recognizing October 2014 as Disability Employment Awareness
Month.
d. Crozet Library Fundraising Team.
10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
11. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. PROJECT: SP-2014-00009. Castle Hill Cider (Signs #20&21). MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Rivanna Magisterial District. PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to remove
expiration date for farm winery events on 310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed. ZONING: RA Rural
Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots). LOCATION: 6055 Turkey Sag Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04900-00-00-
018B1, 04900-00-00-018B2. (Scott Clark, Senior Planner)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1008/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/6/2020 5:10:08 PM]
Tenatative
13. PROJECT: ZMA-2013-00017. Spring Hill Village (Signs #74&75).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000002800. LOCATION: 1776
Scottsville Road. Approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street Extended and
Route 20. PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district
which allows residential at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses. A maximum of one hundred (100) units proposed for a density of 7.7 units per acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses in Neighborhood 4 of the
Development Areas. (Claudette Grant, Senior Planner)
Action Items:
14. Update on meeting with Planning Commission leadership. (Jane Dittmar)
15. Establishment of Economic Development Office. (Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive))
16. Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Transfer Station Viability. (Doug Walker, Deputy
County Executive)
17. Route 29 Matters:
a. Consideration of Ashwood Boulevard and Hollymead Connectors. (Mark Graham,
Director of Community Development)
b. Best Buy Ramp, wall treatment. (Mark Graham)
18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
19. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
20. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
11.1 Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013 and February 24, 2014.
11.2 ZMA-2004-00024. Old Trail – Special Exception to Authorize Variations from the Code of
Development. (J. T. Newberry)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1008/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/6/2020 5:10:08 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Total Compensation Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Market data and benefit plan updates for use in
budget development for FY15-16, subject to
available revenues
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Gerome, Cloutier
PRESENTER (S): Lorna Gerome, Claudine Cloutier
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The School Board and Board of Supervisors (the “Boards”) approved a Total Compensation Strategy in 2000 to target
employee salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. See Attachment 1 for
a list of the localities included in the adopted market. Since that time, the Boards have continued to recognize the
importance of providing competitive salaries and benefits to attract and retain a high quality workforce. To that end, the
County’s total compensation has been designed and is continually adapted to meet these objectives in an ever-changing
labor market. This Executive Summary outlines staffs’ findings and recommendations based on its annual compensation
analysis for the Boards’ consideration as the Boards provide direction to the County Executive and Superintendent in the
upcoming FY 16 budget process. It is noted that all final funding for the recommendations is subject to available revenues
and final Board direction.
The benefit programs are a significant component of Total Compensation in terms of cost, employee satisfaction and well-
being. Staff is proposing plan changes and premium adjustments to our Medical and Dental Insurance programs, as well
as modifications to our leave and disability insurance programs to meet market, financial, operational and regulatory
requirements. As regards the County’s leave/disability programs, staff shared information with the Boards regarding the
newly-mandated short and long-term disability coverage the County is now required to provide to VRS Hybrid Members
effective January 1, 2014 at the October 10, 2013 and December 12, 2013 joint Board meetings. Given this mandated
change in benefits to new employees and the inconsistencies and administrative burdens that managing an additional
State-imposed benefit change creates, the Boards directed staff to explore options for potential revisions to the County’s
current benefits for all employees.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This supports the Goal of Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service
that achieves community priorities.
DISCUSSION:
1) Compensation Strategies
The adopted strategy for total compensation is detailed in Attachment 2. In October 2013, the projected salary
increase to meet the Boards’ adopted strategy was an average overall pay increase of 2.00% in FY 15. However, due
to budget limitations, this increase was reduced in the FY 15 adopted budgets to a 1.00% general increase for
classified employees and teachers.
The salary increases projected to meet the Boards’ compensation strategy, set out in Attachment 2, is for the Boards’
consideration in the development of the FY 16 budget. As detailed in Attachment 2, the County’s FY 15 pay increase
of 1.00% was less, on average, than actual pay increases in our adopted market during the same period, resulting in
a reduction in the County’s overall competitiveness within the market for classified and administrative employees. Our
loss of competitiveness within the market further contributes to the problem of salary compression among existing
employees. It is noted that the majority of the County’s adopted market have fully implemented the required VRS
employee contribution of 5%, with only a handful still “phasing in”. As in previous years, the classified salary increase
and teacher salary scale data has been normalized for comparative purposes to address these differences.
AGENDA TITLE: Total Compensation Report
October 8, 2014
Page 2
2) Benefits Strategies
Medical and Dental
The Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) is comprised of representative staff from several departments in the
School Division and Local Government, as well as members from other affiliated organizations who participate in the
County’s health and dental plans. The HCEC develops recommendations for the County’s medical and dental plans to
present to the Boards. A comprehensive report on this information and recommendations on plan design and
premium rate adjustments is detailed in Attachment 3.
Leave
Effective January 1, 2014, VRS mandated a new "Hybrid Plan" for new employees which, among other things, will not
offer the option of disability retirement. Instead, Hybrid Plan members will receive mandated employer-paid short-term
and long-term disability coverage. At the December 12, 2013 meeting of the Boards, Standard Insurance was
approved to provide the County’s short and long-term disability coverage for Hybrid Plan members. Because the
newly mandated benefits will create some inconsistencies between the County’s current leave programs and those it
must follow for Hybrid Plan members, staff has assessed how best to administer benefits to all employees, regardless
of which VRS plan may apply. Human Resources staff has conducted a series of employee engagement meetings to
seek employee input on the various leave options. A comprehensive report on this information, options reviewed and
recommendation is detailed in Attachment 3.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This information is presented to the Boards for consideration in their preparation of the FY 16 budget. It is noted that
all final funding is subject to available revenues and final Board direction.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the following:
1. Based on the adopted Total Compensation Strategy, establish a budget target providing a 3.00% salary
increase for classified staff, administered through our pay for performance program, and a 2.00%
increase to fund teacher salary increases to maintain the top quartile position. Final recommendations by
the County Executive and Superintendent will be based on the availability of adequate funding.
2. Medical insurance plan changes effective October 1, 2015:
a. Implement reallocated health insurance rates to more accurately reflect usage;
b. Implement spousal adjustment so that spouses would be ineligible for coverage if they have
affordable coverage elsewhere;
c. Implement the proposed plan design changes;
d. Plan for a 9.6 % increase in Board contributions and total employee premiums for medical
insurance. Actual premium increases for employees for the different categories of coverage will
be illustrated by staff during the presentation on October 8th.
3. Plan for a 5% decrease in dental costs, effective October 1, 2015.
4. Implement one leave program for all benefits-eligible employees, to include employer-paid short-term and
long-term, disability benefits for all benefits-eligible employees.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Adopted Market
2 - Compensation Strategies
3 - Benefit Strategies
Return to agenda
Attachment #1
Augusta County Hanover County
City of Charlottesville James City County
City of Chesapeake Loudoun County
City of Danville Louisa County
City of Harrisonburg Madison County
City of Lynchburg Montgomery County
City of Roanoke Nelson County
City of Staunton Orange County
City of Virginia Beach Prince William County
City of Williamsburg Roanoke County
Buckingham County Rockingham County
Chesterfield County Spotsylvania County
Fauquier County Albemarle County Service Authority
Fluvanna County Martha Jefferson Hospital
Greene County UVA Health Systems
Albemarle County
Adopted Competitive Market
October 2014
Compensation Strategy
The School Board and Board of Supervisors jointly approved a Total Compensation Strategy to
target employee salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above
market levels in 2000. To maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy,
two separate but related actions are required:
1) Ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County/School Division is able to attract
and recruit new employees.
2) Ensure current employees are rewarded for job performance by maintaining internal
equity in their pay range, as well as maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills
through granting competitive salary increases.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, we implement the following processes each year:
1) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment
implemented in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
2) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the average total salary increase
granted employees in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
3) This market data is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales and increases (both
classified employee and teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the adopted
market.
4) Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next
fiscal year through a compensation database (WorldatWork, Eastern Region). This data
is used to project the merit increase percentage and develop the teacher scale, including
step increases.
Step 1: FY 14-15. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented
for classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments - Target median of adopted market
A competitive scale is important in attracting new hires. For classified employees, the
scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates that might fall
below the new minimums. Our Classified/Administrator Pay Scale has only been
increased once since FY 2008-2009, and was not changed for FY 2014-2015.
A review of the classified/administrator salary scale data for FY 2014-15 reveals that four
localities and one school division within our adopted market increased their salary scales
through cost-of-living or scale adjustments; these adjustments ranged from 1.00-2.00%,
with a median of 1.50%. Additionally, twelve other school divisions within our adopted
market at least marginally increased their minimum pay levels.
Teacher Scale Adjustments - Target top quartile (75th percentile) of adopted market
We applied an average of a 1.00% increase to the Teacher Scale. New market data
indicates that we remain in the top quartile for all steps except for T-Maximum (i.e., more
than 30 years of service).
Step 2: FY 14-15. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase
implemented for classified pay achieved the strategy.
Classified Total Salary Increases - Target median of adopted market
We received a salary increase of 1.00% for Classified/Administrator positions, effective
July 1, 2014 (FY 2014-15). This decreased our salary position relative to the market
(from target to -1.00%), as it did not meet our adopted market’s median net increase
(2.00%).
October 2014
Step 3: Projections for FY 15-16. Based on current market position and scale/salary
projections, determine the changes necessary to achieve the Joint Board approved
strategy using the WorldatWork, Eastern Region data.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments
The scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates below
the new minimums. The FY 15-16 scale adjustment will be developed based on the
Board approved salary increase percent. The scale adjustment percentage will be
less than the salary increase percentage; this methodology minimizes compression
of employee salaries.
Classified/Administrator Salary Increase
Adopted Market Median increase in FY 2014-15: 2.00%
Albemarle Salary Increase: 1.00% (lags Market Median by 1.00%)
WorldatWork projections for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.75%.
FY 2015-16 proposed Classified/Administrator salary increase: 3.75%.
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
Albemarle Teacher Scale, Relative to Market: meets all targets, except at T-
Maximum.
WorldatWork projections for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.75%
FY 2015-16 proposed Teacher average scale increase: 2.75%, to include the
step increase.
WorldatWork Projections Compared to Adopted Market
As the information below illustrates, the WorldatWork projections have not been as reliable of an
indicator for our market projections since FY2009-10. That said, the continued recovery of our
economy has improved the accuracy of this projection relative to our adopted market for the
past two years. This is illustrated in the chart below.
Source 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Worldat-Work
Projection 3.65% 4.00% 3.30% 2.25% 1.95% 3.00% 2.85% 2.75%
Adopted Market
Median Increase 4.00% 3.63% 0% 0% 1.00% 0.70% 2.00% 2.00%
Pay for Performance System
Reinstituting our pay for performance increase will help us to regain our salary position relative
to our adopted market, address continuing salary compression issues, and encourage
excellence in public service.
Teacher Longevity Stipends
The market does apply value to teachers that exceed the typical career teaching scale, usually
provided in the form of an annual stipend. Albemarle County Schools provides a stipend of
$200 for each year beyond the end of the teacher scale, with a maximum of $1000. As in
previous years, our stipend is consistent with our market strategy and within market ranges.
Lump Sum Increases for Classified Employees at or Near Pay Grade Maximum
Merit pay for performance focuses on rewarding excellence in performance for all employees.
An important tool in accomplishing this is the ability to provide a merit increase to include those
who are at or near the maximum of their respective pay grade without jeopardizing the integrity
of our pay scales. To that end, and as with past practice, a lump-sum increase for these
affected classified employees will be provided.
October 2014
Benefits Strategies
The Boards’ joint benefits strategy is to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above that of
our adopted market.
Medical Insurance
The Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) is comprised of representative staff from several
departments in the School Division and Local Government, as well as members from other
affiliated organizations who participate in our health and dental plans. The HCEC develops
recommendations for our medical and dental plans based on the following objectives:
Offer affordable options that meet varying needs of employees and their families
Maintain reserves at approximately 25% of claims
Ensure plans are in compliance with Health Care Reform
Maintain our competitive position for benefits (slightly above market)
Plan Review Process
The HCEC works routinely with KSPH Employee Benefit Management to review our health care
plan. This includes:
Detailed reviews of claims utilization with Coventry’s medical director
Analysis of market information on plan design and employee/employer premiums
Plan design, including: inpatient/outpatient coinsurance; provider, emergency room and
prescription drug co-payments; annual deductibles; out-of-pocket maximums
Employee/employer premiums (includes market data from KSPH and our adopted
market)
Employee feedback--input from employees via focus groups and surveys
Review and projections of reserve balance
FY14-15 Medical Plan
We currently offer two plans (Basic and Plus) through Coventry, both offering the same benefit
coverage, but differing in cost sharing (co-pays, co-insurance, out-of-pocket maximums,
deductibles) and employee premium requirements. Effective January 1, 2015, we will be
implementing a $250 deductible. Both the employee and Board contributions were increased by
8% for this plan-year, effective October 1st.
FY15-16 Medical Plan
Information regarding the medical insurance was presented to the BOS and School Board on
May 14, 2014. The Boards directed staff to evaluate additional policy modifications as may be
necessary or advisable to maintain a competitive and sustainable health insurance program.
The HCEC evaluated a number of strategies as follows:
Reallocating rates. Currently, the board medical contribution for full time employees is a flat
amount ($7,794), regardless of type or tier of coverage that an employee elects. In order to get
our rates closer to actuarial costs among tiers and to avoid the Cadillac tax, the HCEC reviewed
a reallocated structure which would distribute the Board contribution differently among the tiers,
rather than a flat contribution across the board. In order to reallocate our rates to more
accurately reflect usage, the Board contribution amount will decrease for employee only and
employee plus child coverage and increase for employee plus spouse and family coverage.
Our market data supports this differentiated employer contribution strategy, as nearly 70% of
October 2014
our adopted market contributes a higher amount for dependent coverage. The impact to full-
time employees is minimal with this rate allocation (see below); however, the impact to part-time
employees based on the current practice is a concern.
Based on current (FY14/15) Rates, the allocation would appear as indicated below:
Albemarle County & Schools
Note: Rates Rounded to Whole Dollars
Current Structure - 10/14 PLAN YEAR
Enrollment, 1/14 10/14 Funding Rates * Actives/Retirees Pay
Employer
Pays
Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus
Employee 1026 258 $696 $661 $46 $12 $650
Employee + Child 283 50 $748 $696 $98 $46 $650
Employee + Children or
Spouse 452 93 $883 $796 $233 $147 $650
Family 651 178 $960 $851 $311 $201 $650
Monthly Total 2412 579 $1,949,792 $430,816 $382,707 $54,845 $1,566,690
Annual Total 2991 $28,567,000 $5,251,000 $23,313,000
PEPM Rate Structure $ Tier Difference ER % (0.82)
$650 1 1 $34 93%
1.1 1.1 $52 87%
1.3 1.2 $86 74%
1.4 1.3 $110 68%
* Albemarle is funding for $28,988,000 and the projected increase was $29,868,000. The deficit ($880,000) is being paid by reserves.
Re-allocated Structure - 10/14 PLAN YEAR
Enrollment, 1/14 10/14 Funding Rates Actives/Retirees Pay
Employer
Pays
Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus
Employee 1026 258 $449 $405 $56 $12 $393
Employee + Child 283 50 $639 $577 $101 $39 $538 Employee + Children or
Spouse 452 93 $949 $856 $232 $139 $717
Family 651 178 $1,361 $1,227 $316 $182 $1,045
Monthly Total 2412 579 $1,955,900 $431,192 $396,619 $50,369 $1,559,281
Annual Total 2991 $28,645,000 $5,364,000 $23,281,000
PEPM Rate Structure $ Tier Difference ER % (0.81)
$649 1 1 $44 88%
1.4 1.4 $62 84%
2.1 2.1 $93 76%
3.0 3.0 $134 77% :
October 2014
Currently, a benefits-eligible part-time employee receives a Board contribution amount that is
prorated to their full-time equivalency (FTE). Part-time employees are critical to providing
services in several areas (teachers, teaching assistants, extended day enrichment program,
child nutrition, etc.), so part-time employees who are covering families on the medical plan
would see increased premium costs under the reallocation structure. The HCEC evaluated
several revised contribution strategies to base Board contribution on brackets of percent of FTE
to minimize the impact on part-time employees. At this time, 173 part-time employees are
enrolled on our medical insurance plan.
:
October 2014
Option 1-Three band structure:
:
Cost to fund increased Board contributions $187,000.
BAND I - Part-time Emplyees Classified as 50%-65% of FTE - Funded at 65%
Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus Basic
$449 $405 $193 $149 $255 $255
$639 $577 $289 $227 $350 $350
$949 $856 $483 $390 $466 $466
$949 $856 $693 $390 $255 $466
$1,361 $1,227 $681 $548 $679 $679
BAND II - Part-time Employees Classified as 66%-75% of FTE - Funded at 75%
Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus Basic
$449 $405 $154 $110 $295 $295
$639 $577 $236 $173 $404 $404
$949 $856 $411 $318 $538 $538
$949 $856 $411 $318 $538 $538
$1,361 $1,227 $577 $443 $784 $784
FULL-TIME - Part-time Employees Classified as 76%-99% of FTE - Funded at 100%
Plus Basic Plus Basic Plus Basic
$449 $405 $56 $12 $393 $393
$639 $577 $101 $39 $538 $538
$949 $856 $232 $139 $717 $717
$949 $856 $232 $139 $717 $717
$1,361 $1,227 $316 $182 $1,045 $1,045
Employee + Child
Employee + Children
Employee + Spouse
Family
100%REALLOCATED
10/14 Funding Rates
Employee
Contribution
Albemarle
Contribution
Employee
Albemarle
Contribution
Employee
Employee + Child
Employee + Children
Employee + Spouse
Family
Employee + Children
Employee + Spouse
Family
75%REALLOCATED
10/14 Funding Rates
Employee
Contribution
65%REALLOCATED
10/14 Funding Rates
Employee
Contribution
Albemarle
Contribution
Employee
Employee + Child
October 2014
Option 2- Four band structure:
Cost to fund increased Board contributions $132,600.
October 2014
Spousal eligibility: Many employers are evaluating spousal eligibility as a means to minimize
cost increases to premiums and to minimize the new fees that went into effect as part of the
ACA. This year, that fee is $65 per member (not per employee) on the health plan. In the
County’s adopted market, many localities and school divisions are considering removing
spousal coverage (if the spouse has access to affordable coverage through their own
employers), but few have made a decision to limit eligibility thus far. The HCEC also reviewed
claims data, which indicated that spouses have 20% higher claims than employees. Options
reviewed include:
Surcharge for spouses if they have coverage elsewhere. Due to the
administrative inefficiencies, HCEC did not support this option
Spouses would be ineligible for coverage if they have coverage elsewhere.
KSPH estimates 25% of currently enrolled spouses would be ineligible, with a
cost savings of $1,721,000 for 2015
Continue allowing spouses to be eligible for coverage
Plan Design/Market Competitiveness
Offering a competitive medical plan that balances the benefit design against the cost to fund the
program is a major consideration each year. Benchmark data, while not an exclusive
comparison with our adopted market is used by the HCEC is developing recommendations
consistent with our strategy.
Proposed Plan Changes
Plus plan: Deductible from $250 indiv/$500 family to $500/$1000
Provider co-pay from $15 PCP/$30; Specialist to $20/$40
ER co-pay from $200 to subject to deductible/$10% co-insurance after
Rx co-pay from $7/$30/$50 to $10/$40/$60
Basic Plan: Deductible from $250 indiv/$500 family to $500/$1000
Provider co-pay from $25 PCP/$40; Specialist to $30/$50
Rx co-pay from $7/$35/$60 to $10/$45/$75
October 2014
Market Survey Data:
Market Survey -- Total Annual Plan Costs
Market Survey -- Total Annual Plan Costs
Individual Family
(Lowest to
Highest
Individual
Plan Cost)
Individual Family
$5,028.00 $14,748.00
$8,346.00 $11,526.00 Albemarle
$5,484.00 $16,896.00
$6,893.04 $13,409.16
(Lowest to
Highest
Family Plan
Cost)
$5,822.00 $18,633.24
$5,028.00 $14,748.00
$6,096.00 $18,000.00
$6,685.92 $15,980.04
$6,120.00 $17,160.00
$5,484.00 $16,896.00
$6,264.00 $18,036.00
$6,120.00 $17,160.00
$6,378.48 $18,415.44
$6,792.00 $17,328.00
$6,587.00 $19,767.00
$6,648.00 $17,952.00
$6,648.00 $17,952.00
$6,096.00 $18,000.00
$6,685.92 • $15,980.04
$6,264.00 • $18,036.00
$6,720.00 $18,144.00
$6,720.00 $18,144.00
$6,752.64 $22,842.96
$6,756.00 $18,228.00
$6,756.00 $18,228.00
$6,378.48 $18,415.44
$6,792.00 $17,328.00
$5,822.00 $18,633.24
$6,893.04 $13,409.16
$8,023.80 $19,176.72
$7,320.00 $19,764.00
$7,799.28 $19,552.48
$7,799.28 $19,552.48
$7,320.00 $19,764.00
$8,023.80 $19,176.72
$6,587.00 $19,767.00
$8,184.00 $24,156.00
$8,388.00 $20,412.00
$8,346.00 $11,526.00 Albemarle
$6,752.64 $22,842.96
$8,388.00 $20,412.00
$8,739.72 $23,451.12
$8,739.72 $23,451.12
$8,184.00 $24,156.00
$6,901.27 $18,344.46
AVERAGE
TOTAL COST
$6,901.27 $18,344.46
AVERAGE
TOTAL
COST
24 Jurisdictions Total
Survey Average Cost for Individual Premium: $6,901.27
22 Jurisdictions included in Average calculation
Survey Average Cost for Family Premium: $18,344.46
68.18% of jurisdictions surveyed reported Deductibles
Albemarle Cost for Individual Premium: $8,346.00
(15 of 22)
Albemarle Cost for Family Premium: $11,526.00
Average Deductible for Individual Employee: $370.00
Average Deductible for Family: $763.33
October 2014
Health Care Reserve Fund
As our medical plan is self-insured, the County is responsible for all claims. Reserve funds
serve to cover any difference between claims paid, but not covered by the revenues (employee
premiums collected & Board contributions). If claims exceed our revenue collections, the
difference is paid from our reserves; if revenue exceeds claims, the difference is added to our
reserves. Ideally, a reserve balance of at least 25% of total claims should be maintained. The
following table illustrates the changes necessary to meet our target:
Annual Board Premium
Increase (percentage)
Monthly Employee
Premium Increase
Ranges* (Dollar Amount)
No Plan Changes 21% TBD
Proposed Plan Changes (increasing
the deductible to $500,increasing
doctor visit co-pays, increasing
prescription co-pays)
16.4%
TBD
Proposed Plan Changes and Spousal
Adjustment
9.6%
TBD
*Based on reallocated rates
FY 14-15 Dental Plan
We offer two plans (Basic and High) are through United Concordia. As our dental reserve
balance was favorably above the target, a dental premium holiday was given from February
2014 until September 2014 for all dental enrollees for this period.
FY15-16 Dental Plan Year
Continue to offer two plans with no coverage changes and decrease current premiums by 5%.
October 2014
Virginia Retirement System:
On April 18, 2012, the General Assembly approved a variety of changes in reform of the
retirement plan administered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). The Assembly passed
bills establishing a new hybrid retirement plan for state and local employees who are hired on or
after January 1, 2014 (HB 1130 and SB 498), as well as a companion bill (SB 497) which
requires local governments’ and school divisions’ current employees to pay a 5% member
contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and school divisions
to provide employees with a salary increase to offset the cost of the employees’ VRS
contribution (the “5 and 5 Requirement”). Both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors
approved the whole “5 and 5 Requirement” in FY13, and the majority of localities and schools in
our adopted market (69%) have now, as well.
Virginia Local Disability Plan Considerations : Effective January 1, 2014, VRS implemented
a mandated “Hybrid Plan” for all full-time new hires without active prior VRS service (note:
hazardous duty members may not be in the hybrid plan). The Hybrid Plan is a combination of a
defined benefit plan (which VRS Plan 1 and Plan 2 members currently participate in) and a
defined contribution plan. Also, unlike the current VRS Plan 1 and Plan 2, the Hybrid Plan does
not offer a disability retirement benefit.
The Hybrid Plan and the state-mandated leave benefits associated with the Hybrid Plan’s short-
term and long-term disability coverage, Virginia Local Disability Plan (VLDP)), has created a
separate set of employee leave benefits associated solely with membership in the Hybrid Plan.
In order to assess the impact of these state-mandated benefits for one set of employees on the
County’s current leave policies and practices, and to seek solutions as to how the County can
best manage the coming changes, staff worked with KSPH to address the goals of:
• Providing adequate sick leave for all employees, regardless of VRS status
• Creating/maintaining one leave program that is simple to explain and administer
• Providing benefits that are consistent with the County’s total compensation strategies
Background:
Significant effort was expended to engage all employee groups regarding leave issues
associated with the advent of the Hybrid Plan. Focus groups and departmental meetings sought
feedback on possible changes and allowed for valuable interaction with Human Resource staff.
Over 700 employees were addressed in approximately 10 focus group meetings or in-person for
Local Government and the School Division, and over 1200 teachers and 400 Local Government
employees were sent a custom-made video and survey by email; additionally, the information
was posted on the School Division’s news blog. Feedback from non-Hybrid employees was
mixed on how to transition to a VLDP-like plan, particularly when discussing the option of
capping sick leave balances (vs. employees’ current ability to accrue sick leave without caps).
The ability to keep at least a portion of their accrued sick leave was a major concern, since a
VLDP-like plan would only cover individual employees (i.e., not for use in family leave
situations). Most employees, however, were positive regarding the VLDP-like plan design once
they understood its benefits. Further, market data for the County’s adopted market was
analyzed. There is no clear market trend; however, many localities are currently evaluating this
issue.
Staff considered the following:
October 2014
Option1: Implement one leave program for all benefits-eligible employees, to include
employer-paid short-term and long-term disability benefits for all benefits-eligible
employees. Considerations for this option:
Avoids having two classes of employees resulting in morale issues and benefit inequities
between employee groups
Avoids the long-term complexities and cost of permanently administering two (or more)
leave systems by not acting now
Provides a superior and more consistent leave benefit for employees in most situations
Third Party Administrator - managed short-term disability (STD) claims, which is
expected to result in less usage due to increased oversight and more proactive return-to-
work resource provision
Provides a predictable amount of employee leave for use, rather than an amount that
may not be accessed beyond the 60-day FMLA eligibility period
Consider implementing a lower accrual rate for sick leave than the 8 hours per month
currently provided (would incentivize employees to save leave to cover the 7 day STD
waiting period)
Employees with large leave balances may have a negative perception of the change to a
different system
Budget Impact FY15/16: Third party administrator costs to provide short and long term
disability to all benefit eligible employees is projected to be approximately $450,000. We
expect a reduction in substitute costs (8% reduction in absenteeism through managed
care), which equates to approximately $101,443 in savings
Option 2: Retain the current leave policies for Non-Hybrid Plan employees and create
new, fiscally responsible leave policies that coordinate with state-mandated leave
benefits for Hybrid Plan employees. Considerations for this option:
Slower increase in costs of VLDP mandated system as employee base transitions to
mostly Hybrid membership (estimated 5-6 years)
Employees would receive different leave benefits based on their VRS status, creating
disparate treatment of leave issues
Need to hire at least one additional leave administrator to manage the communication,
systems and manual tracking for these different groups of employees. Most
organizations of similar size have a time-tracking system and some have as many as
three leave administrators to manage their policies/programs. Currently, we have 1 full
time HR Specialist who is responsible for the administration of all leave processing for
over 3,000 employees
Prolonging long-term commitment to two leave systems regardless of the eventual
change in ratio of the County’s Hybrid vs. non-Hybrid employees
Need to maintain a sick bank program (or equivalent) for first year of employment for
hybrid employees; however, this bank will likely become unsustainable given the
increasing ratio of Hybrid to non-Hybrid staff
Budget Impact FY15/16: Third party administrator costs to provide short and long term
disability to hybrid employees for FY 15/16 is projected to be $99,954. The total costs
for adding an additional HR Specialist II is $63,450. This position is required solely to
manage two leave systems. Additionally, it is estimated that the additional
administrative time for schools/departments to administer, communicate and manage
two systems for employees is approximately $10,000.
PROCLAMATION
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS
MONTH
WHEREAS, every year since 1945 the President of the United States has proclaimed a
National Observance in October to promote the employment of individuals with
disabilities, and this tradition continues in October 2014 with “Expect. Employ.
Empower.” as the theme for this year’s National Disability Employment
Awareness Month; and
WHEREAS, nearly one in five Americans have some type of disability, making people with
disabilities the nation’s largest minority; and
WHEREAS, work is fundamental to identity, providing the opportunity to lead a more
independent, self-directed life for all people; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that disability is a natural part of the human experience and affirm
that disability in no way should limit a person’s ability to make choices, pursue
meaningful careers, or participate fully in all aspects of life; and
WHEREAS, workplaces welcoming of the talents of all people, including people with
disabilities, are a critical part of our efforts to build an inclusive community and
strong economy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims
October 2014 as Disability Employment Awareness Month in the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, and conveys the message that people with
disabilities are equal to the task throughout the year.
Signed and Sealed this 8th day of October, 2014.
Return to agenda
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE CROZET LIBRARY FUNDRAISNG TEAM
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strives to provide lifelong learning
opportunities for all our citizens, invest in critical infrastructure that improves the capacity to serve
community needs, and engage citizens so that local government reflects their values and aspirations;
and
WHEREAS, the Crozet Library Fundraising Team of volunteers has been meeting monthly since
February 2013 to develop ideas and materials to inform the citizens of western Albemarle of events,
promotions, and opportunities to support fundraising for the new library; and
WHEREAS, the team mailed over 66,000 brochures to citizens in the library service area, and sent
over 125 proposals to foundations, corporations, individuals, and state agencies; and
WHEREAS, the team raised over $1.1 million for the Crozet library, including over 850 individual
donations from private citizens and three grants of over $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the demonstrated teamwork, dedication and the team’s can-do attitude of hard work
has resulted in every item in the new library being paid for in full, with all future donations being used to
purchase programs to aid literacy and books to reach a goal of 75,800 books in circulation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby honor and congratulate the Crozet Library Fundraising Team
John Halliday, Jane Kulow, Jackie Loach, Nola Miller, Brenda Plantz, Wendy Saz,
Bill Schrader, Tim Tolson, David Wayland, Krista Weih, and Leslie Burns
and urge all residents of Albemarle County to visit the branches of the Jefferson Madison
Regional Library and to support this and other volunteer service efforts in the County.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA200400024 Old Trail – Special Exception to Authorize
Variations from the Code of Development
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize variations from setback
requirements in Blocks 15 and 28/29B.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish
and Newberry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Old Trail Village was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District with an associated Application Plan and Code of
Development (COD) on September 14, 2005. Nineteen (19) variations to the Plan and/or COD have previously been
granted. The developer is currently proposing development within three different blocks that requires additional variations
from the COD before building permits can be approved by staff.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development
areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting
the quality of neighborhoods.
DISCUSSION:
The following summarizes staff’s analysis of the relevant factors for each variation request. The attached staff report
(Attachment A) provides additional details for each request.
Block 15:
Variation #20: To allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building setback by up to one foot.
The variation will enable larger buildable area for each lot and more flexibility in the design of each unit without
impacting health, safety and welfare. The proposed change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan, does not increase density, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved
zoning in Old Trail.
Blocks 28/29B:
Variation #21: To allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building setback by up to one foot.
The variation will enable larger buildable area for each lot and more flexibility in the design of each unit without
impacting health, safety and welfare. The proposed change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan, does not increase density, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved
zoning in Old Trail.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact will result from this special exception.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve the special exception to
vary the setback in the approved Old Trail COD for Block 15, Block 28, and Block 29B.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Staff Report
B – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: October 8, 2014
Staff Report for Variations #20 and 21 from ZMA200400024, Old Trail Village
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
Each variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Variations
are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections 33.5 and
33.9. Staff analysis of each variation request under County Code § 18-8.5.5.3(c) is provided below.
VARIATION REQUEST #20: Allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five (5) foot building
setback in Block 15.
The applicant is requesting roof overhangs and eaves be allowed to project up to one foot into the five
foot building setback within Block 15. The justification for this request is that the encroachment will
enable a larger buildable area for each lot and therefore allow more flexibility in the design of each unit.
Staff confirmed with the Building Official, Fire/Rescue Division and the Zoning Division tha t public health,
safety and welfare would not be impacted by this request with the use of the appropriate building
materials (enforced through building permit review). Further staff analysis of this request is provided
below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
This request enables development to occur consistent with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
Density is not increased.
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of any development in this district is unaffected.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning
application.
This variation enables development to occur in general accord with the purpose and intent of
the approved rezoning application.
Staff recommends approval of allowing roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building
setback in Block 15, subject to the following condition:
1. Roof overhangs and eaves shall not project further than one foot into the five-foot building
setback.
VARIATION REQUEST #21: Allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five (5) foot building
setback in Blocks 28 and 29B.
Similarly, the applicant is requesting roof overhangs and eaves be allowed to project up to one foot into
the five foot building setback within Block s 28 and 29B. The justification for this request is that the
encroachment will enable a larger buildable area for each lot and therefore allow more flexibility in the
design of each unit. Staff confirmed with the Building Official, Fire/Rescue Division and the Zoning
Division that public health, safety and welfare would not be impacted by this request with the use of the
appropriate building materials (enforced through building permit review). Further staff analysis of this
request is provided below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
This request enables development to occur consistent with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
Density is not increased.
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of any development in this district is unaffected.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning
application.
This variation enables development to occur in general accord with the purpose and intent of
the approved rezoning application.
Staff recommends approval of allowing roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building
setback in Blocks 28 and 29B, subject to the following condition:
1. Roof overhangs and eaves shall not project further than one foot into the five-foot building
setback.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, March Mountain Properties, LLC (“March Mountain”) is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 055E0-01-00-000A1 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, March Mountain filed an application to amend the code of development approved in
conjunction with ZMA 2004-00024, Old Trail Village, to allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the
five-foot building setback within Blocks 15, 28, and 29B, as those blocks are depicted on the pending site
plan for Block 15 and the pending subdivision plat for Blocks 28 and 29B under review by the County’s
Department of Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment A
thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-8.5.5.3(c)
and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to authorize
the roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five-foot building setback within Blocks 15, 28, and 29B,
subject to the following condition:
1. Roof overhangs and eaves shall not project further than one (1) foot into the five-foot
building setback.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special use permit amendment to remove
expiration date for farm winery events on 310.47
acres. No dwellings proposed.
AGENDA DATE:
September 16, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
This special use permit was heard by the Planning Commission on July 29, 2012. The Commission
recommended approval of this special use permit with the conditions shown in the staff report for that meeting.
After the July 29th hearing, staff discovered that there had been an error in the first legal advertisement for that
hearing. The advertisement gave a hearing date of August 29th rather than July 29th. Therefore the July 29th
hearing was not valid, and the item must be heard again by the Commission before it goes on to the Board of
Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
There are no changes to the proposal described in the July 29th staff report. The purpose of this hearing is to
address the error in the legal advertisement and to ensure that a valid hearing has been held for this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this special use permit request to the
Board of Supervisors, with the conditions listed in the July 29th staff report.
Attachments:
PC Actions Letters of July 29 and September 16, 2014
Staff report and attachments
Pc Minutes of July 29 and September 16, 2014
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 26, 2014
Trevor Gibson
6065 Turkey Sag Rd.
Keswick, Va 22947
RE: SP201400009 Castle Hill Cider
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 16, 2014, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above noted petition with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated
8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of
the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events;
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”);
Location of parking;
Location of “Event Vicinity”;
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to eight (8) single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter,
collectively, “these events”) for more than two hundred (200) persons may be held per calendar year,
with a maximum total daily attendance of three hundred fifty (350) persons. Attendance at these
events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One (1) single-day farm winery event for three hundred fifty-one (351) to one thousand (1,000)
persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per twelve (12)-month period or calendar year:
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and Turkey
Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained
personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the intersection of
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic if this event’s
attendance may exceed five hundred (500) persons based on reservations received or tickets
sold. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than three (3) weeks
before the scheduled date for this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator prior to
holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than three (3) weeks
prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be contingent upon the Zoning
Administrator determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2),
(10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event subject to this condition”) at which there is amplified
sound, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound management plan which has
been prepared by an acoustical consultant and approved by the Zoning Administrator. This plan shall
include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at the property lines of the site, including one or
more permanent sound meters providing a date and time record of the sound, and for immediately
adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels to no more than the allowed maximum
provided in this condition. As part of the implementation of this plan, no event subject to this condition
shall commence before the screened openings on the northeast side of the Event Barn are replaced
with glass panels approved by the acoustical consultant. Sound levels at the property lines of the site
shall not exceed an average of fifty-two (52) decibels (dBA) for any five (5) - minute period, or a more
restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County Code. At any event
subject to this condition, the sound at the source of the amplified music shall not exceed ninety-five
(95) decibels (dBA) and the volume shall be monitored by an on-site sound meter. The sound limit for
any band shall be limited by contract to not exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA). The glass panels
on the openings of the Event Barn shall remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than two hundred (200) watts RMS
output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be contained
within the Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding, wedding
reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), traffic-
management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to Virginia Route 231.
These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel required under Condition
3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag Road, except for those
vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above
or for any farm winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under
County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), to all owners of properties within one-half (1/2) mile of the
Event Barn and to the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least fourteen
(14) days before each event. The letter shall include:
1. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
2. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
3. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within two
hundred (200) feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her designee for approval.
10. In order to ensure the Event Barn doors remain closed while amplified sound is being produced within
it during any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding,
wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11),
the permittee shall install and maintain an air conditioning system in the Event Barn, together with
fans, insulation, and other measures (hereinafter, collectively, the “system”). The system shall be
subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, who shall approve it if she determines that the
system’s cooling load design is adequate to serve the Event Barn.
11.SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 8, 2014
Trevor Gibson
6065 Turkey Sag Rd.
Keswick, Va 22947
RE: SP201400009 Castle Hill Cider
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 29, 2014, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above noted petition with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special
Use Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion
Engineering, and dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following
central features essential to the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events;
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Roa d” and “Existing
Entrance”);
Location of parking;
Location of “Event Vicinity”;
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to eight (8) single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter,
collectively, “these events”) for more than two hundred (200) persons may be held per
calendar year, with a maximum total daily attendance of three hundred fifty (350) persons.
Attendance at these events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One (1) single-day farm winery event for three hundred fifty-one (351) to one thousand
(1,000) persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per twelve (12)-month period or
calendar year:
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and
Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the per mittee shall provide, police officers
or other trained personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at
the intersection of Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and
departing traffic if this event’s attendance may exceed five hundred (500) persons based
on reservations received or tickets sold. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator
prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less
than three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will
be contingent upon the Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this
special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or a ny farm winery
event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-
5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event subject to this condition”) at which
there is amplified sound, the permittee shall submit , and thereafter comply with, a sound
management plan which has been prepared by an acoustical consultant and approved by
the Zoning Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels
at the property lines of the site, including one or more permanent sound meters providing a
date and time record of the sound, and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to
reduce sound levels to no more than the allowed maximum provided in this condition. As
part of the implementation of this plan, no event subject to this condition shall commence
before the screened openings on the northeast side of the Event Barn are replaced with
glass panels approved by the acoustical consultant. Sound levels at the property lines of the
site shall not exceed an average of fifty-two (52) decibels (dBA) for any five (5) - minute
period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in the Albemarle
County Code. At any event subject to this condition, the sound at the source of t he amplified
music shall not exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA) and the volume shall be monitored by
an on-site sound meter. The sound limit for any band shall be limited by contract to not
exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA). The glass panels on th e openings of the Event Barn
shall remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than two hundred (200)
watts RMS output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified soun d systems
shall be contained within the Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding,
wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10)
or (11), traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to
Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic -management
personnel required under Condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go
eastward on Turkey Sag Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward
on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under Conditions 2 and
3 above or for any farm winery event, wedding, wedding re ception, or other event allowed by-
right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), to all owners of properties within
one-half (1/2) mile of the Event Barn and to the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter
shall be sent by mail at least fourteen (14) days before each event. The letter shall include:
1. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
2. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
3. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it
as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within
two hundred (200) feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away
from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no
greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her designee
for approval.
10. In order to ensure the Event Barn doors remain closed while amplified sound is being
produced within it during any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm
winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County
Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), the permittee shall install and maintain an air
conditioning system in the Event Barn, together with fans, insulation, and other measures
(hereinafter, collectively, the “system”). The system shall be subject to approval by the
Zoning Administrator, who shall approve it if she determines that the system’s cooling load
design is adequate to serve the Event Barn.
11.SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201400009 Castle Hill
Cider
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 29, 2014
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner: Route 231 LLC Applicant: Castle Hill Management LLC
Acreage: 310.47 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.53 Farm winery
uses authorized under section 5.1.25 (c)
TMP: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
Location: 6065 Turkey Sag Road, Keswick
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
in development)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Special Use Permit amendment to
modify a condition of approval to remove
expiration date for farm winery events on
310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: The property is
largely open pastureland, with two large
wooded areas (see map).
Use of Surrounding Properties: The nearby
properties include large- and small-lot
residences, horse farms, other open land, and
forests.
Factors Favorable:
1. No zoning complaints about this
use have been received since the
original special use permit
approval.
Factors Unfavorable: None found.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit amendment,
with conditions.
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 29, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
PETITION:
PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to remove expiration date for farm winery
events on 310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
LOCATION: 6055 Turkey Sag Rd
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04900-00-00-018B1, 04900-00-00-018B2
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit amendment to modify a condition of approval (#11) to
remove expiration date for farm winery events on 310.47 acres. No other changes are being
proposed. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
Castle Hill Cider is located northeast of Cismont, on the southeastern slopes of the
Southwest Mountains. It lies within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
The area is largely defined by a pattern of large estates whose lower elevations are in
open pasture. Higher elevations and steep slopes on the Southwest Mountains are
forested. Among the large farms there are clusters of large- and small-lot rural
subdivisions. The Peter’s Mountain AT&T communication facility is located
approximately 2.5 miles north of the site.
The property is adjacent to Route 231, an Entrance Corridor, and to Turkey Sag Road, a
narrow secondary road that connects Route 231 over the Southwest Mountains to Route
20. Turkey Sag Road becomes unpaved and narrower as it climbs toward its highest
point.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP201200001 Castle Hill Cider: On February 6, 2013, the Board of Supervisors
approved this special use permit for farm-winery events for over 200 persons, including
up to eight events per year for up to 350 persons, and one event per year for 1,000
persons.
SP201200018 Castle Hill Cider Pond: On January 21, 2013, the Board of Supervisors
approved this special use permit for construction of a pond in the floodplain. This pond
was built without the special use permit approval that is required for fill in the 100-year
floodplain.
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 3
SP201200019 Castle Hill Stream Crossing: On January 21, 2013, the Board of
Supervisors approved this Special Use Permit for repairs to the existing stream crossing
located on the main entrance road for the property. This crossing was rebuilt without the
special use permit approval that is required for fill in the 100-year floodplain.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
On February 6, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for farm-winery
events on this property (see Attachment C for the Board action, including the conditions of
approval). To address nearby residents’ concerns over noise and other impacts, the Board
imposed an expiration date (December 31, 2014) on the Special Use Permit so that the use could
not continue indefinitely if noise or other impacts were not sufficiently controlled.
The current proposal is to remove that expiration date, so that the permitted events (those above
200 attendees) could continue indefinitely. No changes to the size or frequency of events are
proposed.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting
upon an application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment
to adjacent lots.
The applicants installed the noise-suppression and noise-monitoring equipment and
facilities required by the original special use permit approval. Since that time, the
County has received no complaints about the events held at Castle Hill. The
requirements for notification of neighbors and of the County, and for traffic control,
would remain in place.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by
the proposed special use.
The removal of the expiration date would allow the existing event use to continue as
approved under the original special use permit. As the limits on the use would not
change, there would be no further changes to the character of the district.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter,
As the scale and character of the use would remain the same, the use’s harmony with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance would not change.
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 4
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
The lack of complaints received since the approval of the special use permit for events
on this site indicates that there have been no significant conflicts with uses on the
adjacent parcels.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
Section 5.1.25 establishes the uses that are permitted at farm wineries, which this
proposal would continue to comply with.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic control was a significant issue during the review of the original special use
permit approval, and the eventual conditions of approval included requirements for
traffic control (see Attachment C). Those requirements would still apply. County staff is
not aware of any traffic complaints related to this use.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the
preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources as land use options.
The proposed amendment would allow an approved use to continue under existing
restrictions. As the use would not change, there would be no difference in the use’s
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. No zoning complaints about this use have been received since the original special use
permit approval.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this application:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201400009 Castle Hill Cider subject to the following condition, as amended from the
original conditions of approval:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special
Use Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 5
Engineering, and dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following
central features essential to the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events;
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing
Entrance”);
Location of parking;
Location of “Event Vicinity”;
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to eight (8) single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter,
collectively, “these events”) for more than two hundred (200) persons may be held per calendar year,
with a maximum total daily attendance of three hundred fifty (350) persons. Attendance at these
events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One (1) single-day farm winery event for three hundred fifty-one (351) to one thousand
(1,000) persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per twelve (12)-month period or calendar
year:
a.This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and Turkey
Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained
personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the intersection of
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic if this event’s
attendance may exceed five hundred (500) persons based on reservations received or tickets sold.
This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before
the scheduled date for this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator prior to
holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than three (3) weeks
prior to the date of the event . Approval of the zoning clearance will be contingent upon the
Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been
satisfied.
c.Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery
event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-
5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event subject to this condition”) at which
there is amplified sound, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound
management plan which has been prepared by an acoustical consultant and approved by the
Zoning Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at
the property lines of the site, including one or more permanent sound meters providing a date
and time record of the sound, and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to
reduce sound levels to no more than the allowed maximum provided in this condition. As
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 6
part of the implementation of this plan, no event subject to this condition shall commence
before the screened openings on the northeast side of the Event Barn are replaced with glass
panels approved by the acoustical consultant. . Sound levels at the property lines of the site shall
not exceed an average of fifty-two (52) decibels (dBA) for any five (5) - minute period, or a more
restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County Code. At any event
subject to this condition, the sound at the source of the amplified music shall not exceed ninety-five
(95) decibels (dBA) and the volume shall be monitored by an on-site sound meter. The sound limit
for any band shall be limited by contract to not exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA). The glass
panels on the openings of the Event Barn shall remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than two hundred (200) watts RMS
output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be contained
within the Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding,
wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or
(11), traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to Virginia
Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel required under
Condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag Road,
except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under Conditions 2 and
3 above or for any farm winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right
under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), to all owners of properties within one-half (1/2)
mile of the Event Barn and to the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at
least fourteen (14) days before each event. The letter shall include:
1. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
2. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
3. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within two
hundred (200) feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her designee for approval.
10. In order to ensure the Event Barn doors remain closed while amplified sound is being produced
within it during any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2),
(10) or (11), the permittee shall install and maintain an air conditioning system in the Event Barn,
together with fans, insulation, and other measures (hereinafter, collectively, the “system”). The
system shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, who shall approve it if she
determines that the system’s cooling load design is adequate to serve the Event Barn.
11.SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – SP 2011-00002 Conditions of Approval (approved February 6, 2013)
Return to memo
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 1
SP2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
PC July 29, 2014
Staff Report Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 29, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July
29, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Tim
Keller, Bruce Dotson and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Karen Firehock. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; David
Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to
Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Item
a. SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Magisterial District
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04900-00-00-018B1, 04900-00-00-018B2
LOCATION: 6055 Turkey Sag Rd
PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to remove expiration date for farm
winery events on 310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation on SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider.
Proposal: The applicants are requesting to amend the special use permit to modify a
condition of approval to remove the expiration date for farm winery events at a cidery on
310.47 acres. No dwellings are proposed.
Location: The property is located on Gordonsville Road and Turkey Sag Road with the
Southwest Mountains between the property and Route 20.
Background:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
2
In February, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for:
• eight events per year for 200 up to 350 persons, and
• one event per year for 350 up to 1,000 persons.
These events are in addition to the unlimited number of events for up to 200 persons
that are permitted by right.
The approval included conditions requiring noise control and monitoring, traffic control,
and other requirements to reduce the impacts of the use. Due to concerns over noise
and traffic the Board imposed an expiration date of 12/31/2014 so that the use could not
continue indefinitely if there were unmanageable impacts.
Staff reviewed the conceptual plan for the events use . The events largely occur inside
the event barn building. All the parking spaces are not actual spaces, but are just being
measured out in the grassed area. There is adequate surface parking closer to the
building. Since the February approval the facility has had over 40 events, the majority
of which were by right events. One condition of the approval, as changed by the Board,
was the applicants would need to notify the neighbors of every event, including the by
right events, before they were going to happen. In addition, the applicant would need to
notify the Zoning Department. The condition was to let people be aware of what is
going on, know what to expect as far as traffic and be ready to check if there were
impacts. In that time there actually have been four (4) events governed by the special
use permit. Three events were in the 201 to 350 class in which they were allowed 8 per
year. One event was the one annual event for up to 1,000 people, which is their Cider
Festival. During that time no complaints have been received about noise impacts or
traffic from the uses at Castle Hill. In June the applicants held their required community
meeting. Of the people who actually attended the meeting there were none who had
objections to the use or had experienced significant negative impacts from the events.
Factors Favorable:
1. No zoning complaints about this use have been received since the original special
use permit approval.
Factors Unfavorable: None found.
RECOMMENDATION: Given that during the test period, as established by the Board’s
approval, they have had no complaints and received fairly positive comments at the
community meeting, staff is recommending approval of the amendment to remove the
expiration date.
Staff summarized the recommended conditions of approval, as follows:
Condition 1 requires development in accord with the conceptual plan.
Condition 2 covers the 8 events for up to 150 people.
Condition 3 allows for 1 single day event for up to 1,000 persons. It has some
additional traffic control measures for the intersection of Turkey Sag and Route
231.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
3
Condition 4 was about sound management. The applicant before they started
with the special use permit permitted events made major investments in the
property including the sound proofing of windows and the sound monitoring
equipment. It included a feedback system that if the sound levels at the property
line started to get too close to what is the maximum that was permitted it actually
feeds back into the building and flashes a light to tell them they are getting close
to that limit so they can pull back.
Condition 5 is about outdoor amplification for events that had outside music.
Condition 6 is about traffic management at the entrance.
Condition 7 is about notifying the neighbors in the county.
Condition 8 is about parking locations.
Condition 9 is the standard lighting condition.
Condition 10 established the applicant would be required to air condition the
building so that they could close it in and control the sound levels.
Condition 11 is the request to remove the expiration date.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph recognized that Commissioner Loach and h e both during the initial
hearing voiced concern about ensuring there was an adequacy for adjoining property
owners to be able to weigh in on how the special use permit was operating. He is happy
to see that codified in the conditions, which leads to another question. He hoped they
will see similar criteria built in as an ongoing standard operating procedure for special
use permit applications that involve public events. As they all recognize when they
approve a special use permit the use goes with the land so if the present owners leave
the new owners are still going to be governed by the same criteria. He asked is that the
case and if this will become a standard operating procedure.
Mr. Clark replied whenever staff has discussions with applicants about special events in
the rural areas that particular attention is given to noise impacts and management.
While particular conditions may vary due to size of events, location and terrain he
expects conditions similar to these would show up in the recommendations for most of
the public event special use permits once they came forward.
Mr. Randolph said he hoped that was done for consistency in order to prevent problems
from arising down the line.
Mr. Lafferty said he was curious why staff in condition #5 spec ified the wattage of the
amplifier instead of just classifying it under the noise controls.
Mr. Clark replied that makes sense now that he mentioned it. However, at the time they
were just wrestling with the issue of the very loud music sources in the building, which
would go away at night. They were also looking at it separately that there will be much
smaller outdoor ceremonies and things that would have some sort of amplification for
speakers or small music groups. He just wanted to make sure there is not something
about the time of day in this.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
4
Mr. Cilimberg suggested based on the very particular aspects of the permit at the time it
was approved and the time it took to construct the conditions to adequately satisfy the
concerns of those who had expressed various concerns that they don’t want to be
modifying a condition that was expressly developed for the circumstances at hand.
Mr. Lafferty noted it was not the wattage that makes any difference, but the amount of
noise.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that was also addressed in condition #4.
Mr. Lafferty questioned if they are going to require the owner to have a light meter.
Mr. Cilimberg noted this was a somewhat special case all the way around.
Mr. Dotson said to follow up on item 5 that he would assume the amplification system
would not exceed 200 watts as opposed to five (5) 200 watt amplifiers.
Mr. Clark replied actually what it says is, “Outdoor amplification systems shall not use
amplifiers with more than two hundred (200) watts RMS output, and shall not be used
after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be contained within the Event
Barn.” That is a rated output on the amplifier and not a measure on the current they
use. They could potentially use more than one amplifier because 200 watts was fairly
low for an outdoor event. They wanted to have something that people could actually
hear but that would not go onto the neighboring properties.
Mr. Dotson asked if the 200 watts applies to the system and not any component in the
system.
Mr. Clark replied it applies to each amplifier in the system.
Mr. Dotson asked if they could have multiple 199 watt output amplifiers under this
condition.
Mr. Clark replied they could. However, they would still be subject to the sound limits in
condition #4 and they do have real time sound monitoring going on.
Mr. Dotson pointed out given Mr. Cilimberg’s caution he was not proposing to fix it
because he was not sure it was broken. However, it does seem to be unclear.
Mr. Benish suggested perhaps the applicant can address whether that has been a
concern with them so far to date because they have been through this process and he
did not think there has been a request to modify it.
Mr. Cilimberg noted there also have been investments made by the appl icant to meet
these conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
5
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Trevor Gibson, CEO and General Manager of Castle Cider since April of last year,
represented the application. He explained the request, as follows.
He was tasked with implementing all of the 10 conditions to satisfy the approval
of the special use permit of which was very pain staking. They were happy with
the heating and air conditioning and the sound mitigation on the enclosure of the
east facing wall of the event facility. The events facility originally was enclosed
on three sides which created almost like a speaker effect. By closing that one
wall it significantly mitigated the amount of noise that was escaping from the
event facility. They may recall from this special use permit that it is actually a
little more stringent than county regulations on the amount of dBA allowed at the
property line. He believes they are at 52 dBA and the county regulation is 55
dBA. They have made significant investments to satisfy the conditions here. It is
an important part of our business model.
Originally the Farm Winery Act gave wineries the ability to have these types of
events to supplement the growth of the actual winery or cidery. The cidery now
falls under a winery as classified by the Farm Winery Act. He was happy to say
they have experienced tremendous growth on the cidery side. They are now
distributed from Pennsylvania down to Florida, and will probably pick up Georgia
this year as well. These types of larger events give us a little bit more flexibility.
Virginia and Charlottesville have become a very popular event and wedding
destination because of the history, beauty, culture, restaurants and great hotels.
It is an incredible environment to be in. What they are seeing is some demand to
have events that are slightly larger. He believes this special use permit helps
brings economic vitality while preserving the rural landscape. T hey have 16 full
time employees at the cidery mostly in production. They believe it is a nice
economic bump for the community with the vendors, whether it is caterers,
equipment rentals, bands, DJ’s, and florists that come in.
This allows Castle Hill Cider to take significant up front capital expenditure in
creating the cidery in which they essentially get it back $8 to $15 at a time.
There are millions of dollars of investment that they get back very slowly.
However, in that vein they have turned profita ble in the last year, which is pretty
significant for a company in this sector in this phase of its growth since most
wineries can take 7 to 10 years before they turn profitable. Therefore, this
business has helped Castle hill Cider a lot. By enclosing the building they have
actually been able to extend the wedding season and event session, which is a
big economic impact for us as well as the community, vendors and employees.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked if the one annual event for up to 1,000 guests was a fund raiser
event.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
6
Mr. Gibson replied no, the event was a cider festival called Cider Fes in which they
invited all of the cidery from Virginia to participate. They ha d 6 or 7 other cidery
participate in this event. They had a local band called Love Canon come out and play.
The event was on Saturday, November 23 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. It turned out to be a
beautiful day and they had close to a 1,000 people . They will be doing it on November
23 again this year, which falls on a Sunday. It is hard to compete with a UVA home
football game. The cider festival is a great event to educate consumers and give them
an opportunity to try ciders and local foods. They had Barbecue Connection, Blue Ridge
Pizza, Albemarle Angular who came out and did fly catching demonstrations, and
Crutchfield showing the Miami game. They got a lot of community involvement and
received no complaints. During the community meeting one neighbor, who opposed this
to begin with, asked if they ever had the event up to a 1,000 people. When they told her
they already had that event, she asked when it occurred. They told her the event was
on November 23 and the letter was sent to her. She told them that she had no idea. He
pointed out that neighbor’s property was literally across street from Castle Hill Cider.
He believed the Commission and Board did a great job in their special use permit
recommendations of putting together steps and measures that really mitigate the impact
to the neighbors.
In addition, Mr. Gibson pointed out they found a number of events which have been
mostly weddings up to 350. They did host the Critter Ball for the SPCA last year and are
doing the event again in September of this year. From what he understands they raised
a significant amount of money from the event for the community. They are hoping to be
able to do a few more of those events. There definitely is a demand for those types of
events. He explained they have not marketed the events up to 350. The conditions of
the special use permit were put in place in March of last year and it took them several
months to meet all of the conditions. They had to order special glass, which came from
California, went through Maryland, and then came down to Dotson Glass to get
installed. Several of those panes broke in transit. The panes have a film on the inside
which deflects noise upwards. In the rafters they have 3” of spray foam insulation and
then 1.5” of acoustic foam treatment which really absorbs the noise so not to ge t a lot of
reverberation. That improves the acoustics and cancels a lot of extra noise that might
escape.
Mr. Randolph asked why they made the early request for removal of the condition of
approval.
Mr. Gibson replied that he did not believe it was early because it was December 31,
2014. They started this process at the end of November of last year and it just takes a
long time to move through the various committees and to get approval. They book
events a year to 18 months in advance. They have some events that are 2 years in
advance. They have a limited number of weekends that they can host events when the
weather is good and there is availability in local hotels without a lot of pull from UVA
sporting events, particularly the football events. Now basketball is becoming a huge pull
on local resources and availability of hotels. If they booked an event 18 months from
now and it was an event up to 350 people and they have to call the bride and say hey
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
7
guess what you are going to have to slash your guest list by 150 people that is a phone
call he did not want to make. That is why they have moved forward in this process. It is
almost August and in farming 4 months is a blink of an eye. So they look at everything
on pretty much a 5 year time horizon.
In addition, Mr. Gibson pointed out they have an orchard on the property and are in the
process of planting another high density orchard, which will be 7,000 trees on the right
side of the entrance. It is a beautiful slope and a good aspect. They are very excited
about the prospects of continuing to grow the agricultural side of the business as the
second largest industry in Virginia. They really see a reservoir of cider being very
important. Cider is the fastest growing drink segment in the world and the United
States. It has more health benefits than beer and lower alcohol than wine. It is a nice
mixture for a beverage that can be enjoyed. The ciders they make are all on the dryer
side to be pared with foods. They have done a number of food parings. They did one at
Keswick Hall a couple of months ago where they did a 5 course cider paring. They also
teamed up with Blue Mountain Brewery as well on that. They had a nice event for their
members.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, said he had been hearing good
things about Mr. Gibson. That is a tough crowd out there and if he is making those folks
feel good about what he is doing out there, that is a positive. He reached out into the
community and folks generally say there have not been problems. There are a couple
folks that said yes they hear things, but they have gotten use to that. He was not sure if
it was one of these special events or a wedding since people were unsure. Mr. Gibson
is correct that one person who lived across from the site did not know that one of these
large events was held. It was good to hear that she was not upset about that event. He
pointed out one or two folks did say they still hear the sounds at night. However, one
woman said she was not going to complain because the county is not going to do
anything. He suggested to folks to email the Commission if they could not attend
tonight’s meeting. Generally what he heard from people was they asked have they had
these events and how many. He thanked Mr. Clark for sharing some of the information.
Continuing, Mr. Werner said they had a large event last year in November. There were
two (2) up to 350 person events held in October and November. So one of the things
people asked is well within the next six months are we going to get more of these
events. Since they have only had 3 of one type the people asked if they have
experienced the full experience. So he is just offering that as a minor perspective of
what he had heard from folks in does this need to be done now or can it wait throughout
the remainder of the wedding season or is there some point later this fall it can be
looked at. However, again he compliments the folks out there. From what he has
heard Mr. Gibson has been very receptive to the community. As you know when things
go bad in Keswick he hears about it very quickly and he has not heard a whole lot about
this one.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
8
There being no further public comment Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not want to beat a dead horse but the sound coming out of any
amplifier depends on the efficiency of the speakers and not on the RMS wattage. This
afternoon there was an email sent by a neighbor who was very complimentary and was
appreciative of the glass doors that they had put in. But, she also wanted to stay with
the original agreement so that they ride it out for the 2 years.
Mr. Cilimberg said just noting on the time frame there will need to be an action to
approve this special use permit before the two years would expire. That could happen
later. However, for planning purposes they want to know because they are looking into
next year and beyond in their bookings. This will not get before the Board of
Supervisors until at least September based on schedules. So realistically the Board
would probably hear it in September which is a little over a month.
Mr. Morris noted when he initially saw this he was concerned about ki cking it up that
much. However, he fully appreciates exactly what the applicant said as far as the
timeframe that they are looking at and the need to be able to plan further out.
Therefore, he has amended his concerns on that. He invited other discussion and if not
would anyone like to make a motion.
MOTION:
Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of SP -2014-
00009 Castle Hill Cider subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled
“Special Use Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by
Dominion Engineering, and dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning
and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development
shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events;
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road ” and “Existing
Entrance”);
Location of parking;
Location of “Event Vicinity”;
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to eight (8) single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions
(hereinafter, collectively, “these events”) for more than two hundred (200) persons
may be held per calendar year, with a maximum total daily attendance of three
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
9
hundred fifty (350) persons. Attendance at these events shall be by prior reservation,
ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One (1) single-day farm winery event for three hundred fifty-one (351) to one
thousand (1,000) persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per twelve (12)-
month period or calendar year:
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia
Department of Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the
permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained personnel approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the intersection of Virginia Route
231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic if this event’s
attendance may exceed five hundred (500) persons based on reservations
received or tickets sold. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for this
event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning
Administrator prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning
clearance no less than three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of
the zoning clearance will be contingent upon the Zoni ng Administrator
determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or an y
farm winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right
under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event
subject to this condition”) at which there is amplified sound, the permittee shall
submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound management plan which has been
prepared by an acoustical consultant and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at the property
lines of the site, including one or more permanent sound meters providing a date
and time record of the sound, and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment
to reduce sound levels to no more than the allowed maximum provided in this
condition. As part of the implementation of this plan, no event subject to this
condition shall commence before the screened openings on the northeast side of the
Event Barn are replaced with glass panels approved by the acoustical consultant. .
Sound levels at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of fifty-two
(52) decibels (dBA) for any five (5) - minute period, or a more restrictive applicable
maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County Code. At any event
subject to this condition, the sound at the source of the amplified music shall not
exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA) and the volume shall be monitored by an on -
site sound meter. The sound limit for any band shall be limited by contract to not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
10
exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA). The glass panels on th e openings of the
Event Barn shall remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than two hundred
(200) watts RMS output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified
sound systems shall be contained within the Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code §
18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the
exit to direct traffic eastward to Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in
addition to the traffic-management personnel required under Condition 3(a) above.
All departing traffic shall be directed to go east ward on Turkey Sag Road, except for
those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under
Conditions 2 and 3 above or for any farm winery event, wedding, wedding re ception,
or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), to
all owners of properties within one-half (1/2) mile of the Event Barn and to the
Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least fourt een (14)
days before each event. The letter shall include:
1. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the
event
2. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
3. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and
identify it as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be
permitted within two hundred (200) feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut -off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property
lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or her designee for approval.
10. In order to ensure the Event Barn doors remain closed while amplified sound is
being produced within it during any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above
or any farm winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by -
right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), the permittee shall install
and maintain an air conditioning system in the Event Barn, together with fans,
insulation, and other measures (hereinafter, collectively, the “system”). The system
shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, who shall approve it if she
determines that the system’s cooling load design is adequate to serve the Event
Barn.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –JULY 29, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
11
11. SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider would be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –September 16, 2014
Draft Partial Minutes - SP-14-9 Castle Hill Cider
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 16, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
September 16, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Karen
Firehock, Tim Keller, Bruce Dotson and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Jonathan Newberry, Senior Planner,
Rachael Falkenstein, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Items
a. SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Magisterial District
PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to remove expiration date for farm
winery events on 310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
LOCATION: 6055 Turkey Sag Rd
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04900-00-00-018B1, 04900-00-00-018B2
(Scott Clark)
DUE TO AN ADVERTISING ERROR FOR THE JULY 29, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, THIS IS BEING REHEARD.
Mr. Morris noted SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider was recommended for approval on
July 29, 2014. However, due to an advertising error it must come back.
Mr. Clark explained the proposal in a PowerPoint presentation on SP-2014-00009 Castle
Hill Cider.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –September 16, 2014
Draft Partial Minutes - SP-14-9 Castle Hill Cider
2
Proposal: The applicants are requesting to amend the special use permit to modify a
condition of approval to remove the expiration date for farm winery events at a cidery on
310.47 acres.
Location: The property is located on Gordonsville Road and Turkey Sag Road with the
Southwest Mountains between the property and Route 20.
This is a special use permit request for events over 200 people at Castle Hill Cidery,
which is located near Cismont on Turkey Sag Road.
In February, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permi t for events
over 200 people, as follows:
• eight events per year for up to 350 persons, and
• one event per year for up to 1,000 persons.
These events are in addition to the unlimited number of events for up to 200 persons
that are permitted by right for farm wineries.
The approval included conditions requiring noise control and monitoring, traffic control,
and other requirements to reduce the impacts of the use. Due to concerns about the
ongoing impacts of the use about noise and traffic, the Board imposed an expiration
date of 12/31/2014, so the use could not continue indefinitely if there were
unmanageable impacts. The applicants are requesting to amend the special use permit
by removing the expiration date now that the period of checking on the impacts has
passed. There are no changes to the conceptual plan that was attached to the original
application. The event building parking area is around the building. The parking spaces
are actually grassed areas measured out for parking for a large event.
Since the special use permit was approved the applicants have had 37 by right events,
in other words for 200 persons or less. They have had 3 events of up to 350 people
and one event up to 1,000 people. During that time staff has received no complaints
about noise or traffic impacts from the use. The applicant held a community meeting
regarding this amendment request on June 11, 2014. Attendees did not express
concerns about the use or report significant impacts.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider amendment request
subject to the conditions, as amended from the original conditions of approval to
eliminate condition #11 which strikes through the expiration date.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Commission may recall they actually recommended
approval with these conditions at their last hearing on the item.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public comment. He invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –September 16, 2014
Draft Partial Minutes - SP-14-9 Castle Hill Cider
3
Trevor Gibson, CEO and General Manager of Castle Hill Cider, represented the
application. He explained they have obviously gone through the process. They took all
of the recommendations from the county request and they have turned out really
positively for us. They request a unanimous approval from the Commission at this
subsequent meeting and plan to present to the Board in October.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. He asked when he thinks this will be
going into effect if approved by the Commission and Board. One of the things that he
recalls is a concern that the way it is written right now December 31 is the time they
switch. It just seemed to the Commission based on the Mr. Gibson’s comments last
time that it will probably be December or January anyway. However, they need the time
for scheduling. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Gibson replied that was correct. He explained that most wedding are take
anywhere between 8 to 18 months in planning. So to schedule these larger events they
really need the time to be able to offer those larger events to their clients. Right now
they are sort of in this limbo area in wanting to book events for next year and 2016 as
well. They have to remain in limbo and say yes they are fine for the smaller events, but
if they want to do a larger event they will get back to them. It has been a bit of a tricky
dance with our potential customers.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted that of SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on October 8, 2014.
Mr. Cilimberg extended an apology to Mr. Gibson that our advertising problem
necessitated this to come back. It is not the normal course of actio n and they certainly
appreciate his cooperation.
ZMA 2013-00017
BOS October 8, 2014
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300017, Spring Hill Village
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential
district to NMD Neighborhood Model District district for a
mixed use development with a m aximum of one hundred
(100) residential units and 10,000 – 60,000 square feet of
non-residential uses.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
PRESENTER(S): Claudette Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Spring Hill Village rezoning request. The
Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA2013-00017, provided that technical revisions were made to
the proffers, the code of development, and the application plan, as recommended by staff and described in the staff report
(Attachment E), prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting, and amended as follows:
1. That language be added to Proffer #4 regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon Street Extended that
specifically include the additional provision of a potential retaining wall (which is subject to ARB review with attention
provided to material and design) to avoid erosion and/or cutting further into the property of Mr. Schickedantz at 1858
Scottsville Road, and
2. Urge VDOT to consider a 45 mile per hour speed limit from Mill Creek to the Avon Street Extended/Route 20 intersection.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The following strategic plan goals are applicable for this rezoning request:
Development Areas:
Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by providing services
and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of neighborhoods ,
DISCUSSION:
In response to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant has provided the following:
Application Plan
The application plan has been revised and all outstanding technical issues with the application plan have been
addressed. (See Attachment A)
Code of Development (COD)
The COD has been revised and all outstanding technical issues with the COD have been addressed. (See Attachment
B)
Proffers
The proffers have been revised to address all outstanding technical issues identified by staff. Proffer #4 describes the
improvements the Owner needs to make to Route 20 and Avon Street to install the proposed entrances. The applicant
has now added language to the proffer to provide that, if a retaining wall is needed to address erosion and other
impacts to adjacent property along Route 20, the retaining wall will be subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB)
review. This change addresses the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (See Attachment C)
With regard to considering a 45 mile per hour speed limit, suggested by the Planning Commission, between Mill Creek
and the Avon Street Extended/Route 20 intersection, unless otherwise directed by the Board of Supervisors, staff will
discuss this further with VDOT and advise the Board of the results of the discussion at a later date.
ZMA 2013-00017
BOS October 8, 2014
Executive Summary Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment D) to approve ZMA 2013-00017, Spring Hill
Village, including Sheets 1-3 of the Application Plan, dated October 21, 2013, Sheets 1 and 3 last revised August 29, 2014
and Sheet 2 last revised July 7, 2014; the Code of Development, dated October 16, 2013, last revised August 28, 2014;
and the Proffers, dated September 29, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Revised Application Plan, dated October 21, 2013, revised August 29, 2014
B – Code of Development, dated October 16, 2013, revised August 28, 2014
C – Proffers, dated September 24, 2014
D – Ordinance
E – Planning Commission Staff Report
PC Minutes
Return to agenda
Draft: September 29, 2014
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A(3)
ZMA 2013-00017
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 09000-00-00-02800
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-00-02800
(the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2013-00017, Spring Hill Village (“ZMA 2013-00017”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Residential (R-1); and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00017 proposes to rezone the Property to Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
with proffers, an application plan, and a code of development, to allow a mixed-use development that is primarily
residential in character; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2013-00017, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers, application
plan, and code of development and, more specifically, including the recommendation that Proffer 4 be amended
regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon Street Extended; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public
hearing on ZMA 2013-00017.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the executive summary and staff report prepared for ZMA 2013-00017 and their attachments,
including the proffers, the application plan, and the code of development, the information presented at the public
hearing, the material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA 2013-00017 with the
proffers dated September 29, 2014, Sheets 1 through 3 of the application plan entitled “NMD Rezoning Application
Plan Spring Hill Village Albemarle County, Virginia,” Sheets 1 and 3 last revised August 29, 2014, Sheet 2 last
revised July 7, 2014, and the code of development entitled “Spring Hill Village ZMA # 2013-00017,” last revised
August 28, 2014, and the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-00-02800 is amended accordingly.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular
meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 10, 2014
Vito Cetta
1730 Owensfield Dr.
Charlottesville, Va 22901
RE: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village
Dear Mr. Cetta:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19, 2014, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Request that language be added to proffer #4 regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon
Extended that specifically include the additional provision of a potential retaining wall (which is subject to
ARB review with attention provided to material and design) to avoid erosion and/or cutting further into the
property of Mr. Schickedantz at 1858 Scottsville Road, and
2. Urge VDOT to consider 45 mile per hour speed limit between Mill Creek to Avon/Route 20 intersection.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
Staff report and attachments
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
1 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2013-00017 Spring Hill
Village Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 19, 2014
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be
Determined
Owner(s): Spring Hill Village Holdings, LLC Applicant: Spring Hill Village Holdings, LLC
with Vito Cetta as the contact.
Acreage: Approximately 12.99 acres
Rezone from: R-1, residential to NMD,
Neighborhood Model District with proffers code
of development and application plan.
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 09000000002800
(See Attachment A)
Location: 1776 Scottsville Road. Approximately
2000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Extended and Route 20.
By-right use: The R-1 district allows residential
uses up to 19 dwelling units with bonus
density/clustering provisions for the entire
parcel.
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to rezone 12.99 acres from
R-1 Residential zoning district to NMD
Neighborhood Model District zoning district for a
mixed use development with a maximum of one
hundred (100) residential units and 10,000 –
60,000 square feet of non-residential uses.
(Attachment B).
Requested # of Dwelling Units: Maximum 100.
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office, and service uses.
Character of Property: The property has a
house and outbuilding located on it. The rest of
the property is wooded and vacant with rolling
hills.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The two
adjacent properties located to the north are both
light industrial use parcels, one with Parham
Construction company and the other is
developed with a variety of light industrial and
commercial/office uses. The area to the east,
across Route 20 is rural area and consists
primarily of single family residential uses. Single
family houses are also located to the south and
west of this property.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning request is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal contains the principles
of the Neighborhood Model.
3. This rezoning request would provide
additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Technical revisions are needed to
proffers, code of development, and
application plan.
2 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
County.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of ZMA201300017, Spring Hill Village
provided technical revisions are made to the proffers, the application plan, and code of
development as described in the staff report prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
3 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 19, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 201300017 Spring Hill Village
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201300017/Spring Hill Village
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000002800
LOCATION: 1776 Scottsville Road. Approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Extended and Route 20.
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at
a density of 1 unit per acre to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which allows residential
at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. A maximum of one
hundred (100) units proposed for a density of 7.7 units per acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses in Neighborhood 4 of
the Development Areas.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
This proposal is located within Development Area four (4), in the southern portion of the County. The
property is located in the scenic byways. Mill Creek South, Avon Park I and II, a church, and low
density residential lots are located to the west of the site. The area east of the site and across Route 20
is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Area is fairly wooded and
undeveloped. Both the Rural and Development Areas have some older single family dwellings in the
vicinity. Adjacent and to the north of this site is the Parham Construction and a development with a mix
of light industrial, and commercial/office uses. This property transitions to adjacent low density
residential uses to the south. The future Biscuit Run State Park site is also located close by (south and
west of site).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 residential to NMD Neighborhood Model
District. The subject parcel has frontage on Avon Street Extended (Route 742) and Scottsville Road
(Route 20 South). The project is divided into seven (7) blocks (A – G). The proposal is inclusive of a
maximum of 100 residential units that could be comprised of townhouses, apartments, and/or single
family residential units. Three of the seven blocks could include 10,000 – 60,000 square feet of non-
residential uses. Roads will be a mix of public and private streets, as well as alleys. A variety of open
space and amenities are proposed. There is a 1 + acre central park and 4 smaller pocket parks that are
strategically located throughout the development. The parks will provide both active and passive
opportunities for the residents.
The application plan, code of development and proffers are in need of technical revisions. The technical
revisions relate to typographical errors, and the need for revisions to be made so that the documents
are consistent with each other. (See Attachment B for the Application Plan, Attachment C for the Code
of Development and Attachment F for the Proffers)
4 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant developed Avon Park I and II located across Avon Street Extended. In developing Spring
Hill Village he saw an opportunity to develop a mixed use community in the southern portion of the
County that would promote flexibility and creativity in establishing the building locations, mixture of
uses, and densities on the subject property.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
SP1974-00368 was a special use permit for a mobile home.
ZMA1980-00008 was rezoning request for A-1 Agriculture use to M-1 Industrial use that was denied
due to the intensity of industrial use proposed for the site.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The existing Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential, which is
intended to provide for a gross residential density of 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre with supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan update recommends this property for Office, R & D flex uses along
with residential uses. This proposed change is a reflection of the adjacent Parham property located
north of the subject property which is designated for industrial use in the proposed Comprehensive Plan
update. It is anticipated that buildings with similar uses on this subject property would be located
adjacent to the already existing industrial uses, making this property become the transition from
Industrial/commercial uses to the residential uses located to the southern area of the property. Retail
uses are not recommended or expected for this property.
This proposal is primarily a residential development with a mixed use component (10,000 - 60,000
square feet) of office, R & D and Flex uses. Therefore, it is consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Plan. It also provides for some of the non-residential uses recommended in the draft
Comprehensive Plan, although on a smaller portion of the site.
The Neighborhood Model: Staff’s analysis below indicates how well the proposal meets the 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model:
Pedestrian Orientation Spring Hill Village proposes sidewalks on Avon Street
Extended, Route 20 and throughout the proposed
development. Residents will be able to walk between the
Avon Park developments and Spring Hill Village. This
principle is met.
Neighborhood Friendly
Streets and Paths
Spring Hill Village provides a network of public and private
streets and alleys, along with sidewalks and paths throughout
the site. Landscaping and streetscaping standards are
described in the code of development. This principle is met.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
The proposed site is topographically challenging as the land
rolls down towards Scottsville Road from Avon Street
Extended. The applicant provides a road that connects from
Avon Street Extended to Scottsville Road. There are also
potential areas for future interconnection on the northern side
of the property should the need ever arise. This principle is
met.
Relegated Parking Majority of the parking for this property is shown to be
relegated. Parking will either occur on individual lots or in
parking lots. There is some on street parking proposed. This
5 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
principle is met.
Parks and Open Space A central park consisting of slightly over one (1) acre, along
with four (4) smaller pocket parks, strategically located
throughout the development are proposed in this
development. The parks will provide both active and passive
opportunities for the residents. Biscuit Run State Park is also
within close proximity to this development, and will provide
additional acres of park and open space. This principle is
met.
Neighborhood Centers The park(s) can serve in many ways as a neighborhood
center. This property is also located relatively near to
Monticello High School, Cale Elementary School and a
shopping center. The future Biscuit Run Park may also serve
as a center, depending on features developed within the
park. Depending on the type of business that locates within
this community, it is possible that additional community space
could be utilized within the commercial space. This principle
is addressed.
Buildings and Spaces of
Human Scale
The code of development describes four (4) stories to be the
maximum height for any building on this site. Majority of the
buildings proposed are described to be no taller than three
(3) stories. The proposed non-residential building which
fronts on Route 20 can have a maximum height of four
stories. The height of the proposed buildings has been
organized with the terrain of the site, which slopes down from
Avon Street Extended to Route 20 in mind, in order to
maintain the views of the nearby mountains. Architecture and
streetscape guidelines also help to provide spaces that are of
human scale on this site. This principle is met.
Mixture of Uses This is primarily a residential development with potentially
one to three commercial buildings which could be located
adjacent to Route 20 and south of the Parham construction
site. The mixture of uses could be somewhat minimal (10,000
square feet minimum). There are industrial, commercial and
institutional uses nearby (Parham Construction, Snow’s
Garden Center, and a church). This principle is addressed.
Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability
This proposal provides a mixture of housing types, including
single family detached and attached houses. Multifamily units
could be included in Block(s) A, B, and/or C if desired. The
applicant has also committed to provide 15% of the total
number of residences for affordable housing. This principle is
addressed.
Redevelopment Not Applicable
Site Planning that Respects
Terrain
The terrain of the subject property is somewhat challenging.
The applicant has provided a layout of buildings, blocks,
travelways and other improvements that responds to the
topography of the site. It appears there will be considerable
grading on the property. The applicant has proffered to
provide an overlot grading plan for the project.
Clear Boundaries with the The Rural Areas is located across Route 20, to the east of
6 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
Rural Areas this site. Route 20 represents a clear boundary between this
portion of the Development Area and the Rural Area. The
eastern boundary along with some areas south of this site,
remain rural in character. The site is not visible from
Monticello.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents.
This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and
existing local businesses.
The proposed Spring Hill Village development would support the Plan by providing additional
employment, office, and service uses for the residents who live within this development and this portion
of the County. The residential component would support the Plan by providing housing for employees
of existing and potential businesses in the County and would also be close to the proposed commercial
building.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
Neighborhood Model Districts are intended to provide for compact, mixed-use development with an
urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within
close proximity to each other. This development project incorporates elements that are consistent with
the intent of the NMD district such as the compact nature, density, and urban scale of the residential
use. This proposed mixed use development, with its proximity to existing institutional and recreational
uses will be an additional enhancement to this portion of the County. This site is currently not well
connected to these areas due to a lack of sidewalks in the area. Staff’s opinion is that the proposed
sidewalks within the site and along the frontage of Avon Street Extended and Route 2 0 will provide
pedestrian connections to an area that is not otherwise well served in this manner. This proposal is
consistent with the intent of the District. The proposed proffers do not violate the intent of the
Neighborhood Model District.
Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources
There are no anticipated impacts from the proposed development on environmental or cultural and
historic resources.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets:
The following engineering concerns are provided relating to the proposed street design for the subject
development:
Engineering staff provides the following comment concerning future road connections: this plan
is still using an alley-type layout, with 90-degree angled turns at either end. This is typically
acceptable where an intersection of roads or a future intersection is provided. In this case, the
intersections are hemmed by retaining walls, making future connections less likely. [Some
modifications to intersections will be needed]
(See Attachment D for engineering comments).
7 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
The County Engineer and VDOT have identified several issues regarding details of the internal
road design. These issues can be addressed at the site plan/subdivision plat review stage of
approval, and may result in the relocation or loss of some lots and the relocation of landscaping
in order to gain the adequate sight lines, etc. Staff believes the application plan provides a level
of flexibility that will provide room for revisions to address the comments from VDOT. (See
Attachment E for comments from VDOT)
The illustrative plan shows private streets for the areas with townhouse units or apartments. If
single family units are developed on Roads ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and/or ‘F’ then a waiver of private streets
will be needed.
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Cale Elementary School, Walton Middle School, and
Monticello High School.
Fire and Rescue:
The Monticello Fire Station located near Monticello High School provides fire and rescue services to the
area. Fire/Rescue has no objection with this development as proposed.
Utilities:
The applicant will tie in to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) waterline. There is a
proposed extension of 8” ACSA sanitary sewer from the Kappa Sigma property located further north on
Route 20.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
This property transitions from adjacent industrial uses to the north to residential uses to the south of the
property. For the most part, this project is expected to be in keeping with the residential character of
this area. While the property proposes some non-residential uses on the site, they are primarily located
at the northern end of the property and/or front on Route 20. Non-residential uses are located to the
north and adjacent to this site. The applicant proposes improvements to Route 20 and Avon Street
Extended to mitigate traffic concerns from this development. There are no major anticipated impacts
from the proposed development on nearby and surrounding properties.
Public need and justification for the change
The proposed rezoning will provide additional employment and residential opportunities for the local
community.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided proffers which are summarized below.
The applicant has made a commitment to provide no more than 100 dwelling units and to
provide 15% of the total units as affordable housing units for lease or sale.
Cash proffers are provided for each dwelling unit constructed within this development (not
including the by-right credit (12 units) and affordable units).
The applicant has also agreed to provide additional erosion and sediment control measures by
providing an overlot grading proffer.
The applicant has proffered to provide improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon Street
Extended prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project. These will
include details such as sidewalk improvements, and the addition of turn lanes on Avon Street
Extended and Route 20. (See Attachment F for proffers)
8 Spring Hill Village
PC Public Hearing 8/19/2014
The substance of the proffers is adequate, but they are in need of minor technical revisions, such as an
inconsistent date referencing the code of development revision date. There are some inconsistencies
within sections of the code of development and between the code of development and application plan,
etc. For example, there are minor typographical errors in the code of development, and the phasing
described in the density table (in the application plan) does not match the phases shown on the plan or
the density table in the code of development. In general, the proposed rezoning of this property is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning district. Staff does not see any major
issues with this request other than the need to clean up technical revisions to the application plan, the
code of development and proffers.
SUMMARY
In general, the proposal remains consistent with the intent of the zoning district, density and land use.
In summary, staff can support the proposed rezoning.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal contains the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
3. This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for residents in
this portion of the County.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Technical revisions are needed to proffers, code of development, and application plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff can recommend approval of this rezoning ZMA2013000017, Spring Hill Village provided
technical revisions are made to the proffers, application plan and code of development as
described in the staff report prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – Location Map
ATTACHMENT B – Application Plan, dated, 10-21-13, revised, 7-7-2014
ATTACHMENT C – Code of Development, dated, 10-16-13, revised, 7-7-2014
ATTACHMENT D – Memorandum from Glenn Brooks (Rev. 5), dated July 16, 2014
ATTACHMENT E – Letter from Troy Austin, dated July 29, 2014
ATTACHMENT F – Proffers, dated July 7, 2014
Return to exec summary
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201300017
provided technical revisions are made to the proffers, code of development, and the application plan
as recommended by staff, prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201300017. Note
reasons for denial.
AVONSTREETEXTSCOTTSVILLERDA R D ENDR
RESEARCH
W
A
YSTONEYCREEKDR
¡742
}ÿ20
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ResourcesMap created by Elise Hackett, August 2014.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Photos copyright 2013 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2013
0 200 400100Feet
ZMA 2013 - 017Spring Hill Village
Roads
Railroads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
±
90-28
1
SPRING HILL VILLAGE
Code of Development
ZMA # 2013-00017
Dated October 16, 2013
Revised January 21, 2014
Revised March 4, 2014
Revised March 31, 2014
Revised May 16, 2014
Revised July 7, 2014
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Intent
Pursuant to the requirements of the Neighborhood Model District (“NMD”) under
Sections 20.A.4 and 20.A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County (the “Zoning
Ordinance”) this “Code of Development”, together with the “Application Plan”
referenced herein, sets the parameters within which Spring Hill Village is to be
developed.
As envisioned by the NMD ordinance, th is Code of Development for Spring Hill Village is
intended to accomplish the following: (a) to promote flexibility and creativity in
establishing the building locations, mixture of uses, bulk requirements, and densities
within the subject property, and (b) to establish the regulatory framework and
guidelines for each block within Spring Hill Village, as well as the uses, location, building
types, and street systems contained therein.
Spring Hill Village is comprised of 12.991 acres, which is owned by Vito Cetta, who, for
the purposes of this Code of Development, shall herein be referred to as the
“Applicant.” The term “Owner” shall refer to XYZ Company, its heirs, successors and
assigns.
1.2 Existing Conditions
Spring Hill Village is formally known as Tax Map 90 Parcel 28 (1776 Scottsville Road) and
has frontage on two of Albemarle County’s Entrance Corridors, Route 20 South
(Scottsville Road) and Avon Street Extended (Route 742). The current zoning of the
parcel is R-1 and the comprehensive plan designation for this site is Urban Density
Residential (6.01- 34 DU/AC). It resides within the Neighborhood 4 Growth Area.
It is bounded on the north by Parham Constructions headquarters and commercial
development fronting Avon Street. To the south are older single-family detached
homes. The majority of the property is comprised or rolling, open areas of moderate
topography with some wooded areas and an old home site. No cre eks, ponds, wetlands
or historic structures occupy the parcel. There are a small amount of critical slopes on
the property, all of which appear to be manmade.
Public water mains extend to the property along Avon Street Extended. Public sanitary
sewer service currently terminates near the new Kappa Sigma property on Route 20. A
preliminary engineering study indicates that extending this line to the site would be a
rather simple process. Stormwater management will have to be provided on site and
enough land exists to permit the creation of an above-grade facility.
3
On this and the following pages are contextual images to help you visualize the
surrounding area and the site’s location.
To the left is a portion of Tax Map 90 with the site
highlighted.
Following is an aerial context map.
SITE
Avon Street
Ext. (Rt. 742)
Lake
Reynovia
Avon Park
(w/ ACSA
Water Tank)
Parham
Constr.
The Stone
Creek
Villages
Scottsville Rd.
(Rt. 20)
Carter’s Mt.
Kappa
Sigma
Cale
Elem.
Snow’s
Garden Ctr.
Somerset
Farm
Mill Creek
Drive
Monticello
H.S.
Monticello
Fire Station Avinity
4
2. LAND USE
2.1 Application Plan
The Application Plan is the governing plan that serves as the roadmap for the
development and depicts the general location of key features of the development,
which are referenced in this Code of Development.
2.2 Development Concept Plan
The Development Concept Plan is a conceptual rendition of how the property might
develop pursuant to the standards set forth in this Code of Development. It shows
roads, sidewalks, lots, structures, landscaping, recreation and amenity features and
other aspects of the development. It is provided to demonstrate how the application of
the Code of Development could result in a built environment and how key aspects of
any development, such as grading, parking, landscaping and building type and density
could look. The Development Concept Plan is not a formal part of this submission and is
not considered binding in any way.
2.3 Establishment of Blocks
In order to regulate land uses within Spring Hill Village, the project has been divided into
seven (7) blocks referred to as Blocks A through G. The blocks are defined graphically by
the Application/Block Plan. The acreages and specifics regarding the development
restrictions being adopted for each block are presented in several tables that follow.
To promote flexibility as recited in the NMD ordinance, it is recognized that a certain
degree of modification is permissible with regard to the final, platted dimensions and
land area of individual blocks. Should modifications be subsequently proposed, such
changes will be limited such that the size of any Block shall not change more than fifteen
percent (15%). For example, a Block that is approved as 1.00 acre may be subsequently
altered to be as small as 0.85 acre or as large as 1.15 acre.
Site plans and subdivision plats may be submitted and approved for any portion of an
individual block, provided that all requirements of this Code of Development and the
County Zoning Ordinance are otherwise met.
Blocks A, B and C are the only blocks where non -residential development may occur.
These blocks are adjacent to Route 20 or border the non-residential development
immediately north of the site. Like all other blocks within the community, they may also
develop residentially. Parking lots and alleys, rather than roadways may serve
development of these blocks. Block D is adjacent to the residential neighbors to the
south. This block is limited to residential use. Block D also encompasses the area
proposed to be set aside for a park. Block E, and to a lesser degree Block G, represent
the frontage development along Avon Street Extended. Here again, no non -residential
5
uses are envisioned. Block F is internal to the project and is scheduled for residential
development. All blocks have frontage on proposed public roads.
6
2.4 Permitted/Prohibited Uses By Block
TABLE 2.4 – Permitted/Prohibited Uses By Block
P = Permitted Use By Block; SP = Uses that may be applied for via Special Use Permit; Blank = Uses prohibited within
Block.
Uses Block
A B C D E F G Residential Uses Detached single-family dwellings P P P P P P P
Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings (e.g. duplexes,
triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses)
P P P P P P P
Multiple-family dwellings P P P
Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cottages P P P P P P P
Group homes and homes for developmentally-disabled persons P P P
Tourist lodging P P
Home Occupation (Class A) P P P P P P P
Home Occupation (Class B) (1) P P P P P P P
Accessory uses and buildings, including storage buildings P P P P P P P Non-Residential Uses Assisted living residential facilities P P
Administrative professional offices P P P
Animal Shelter
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops (4) P P
Auction houses P P
Automobile laundries
Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop
Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20)
Barber, beauty shops P P
Body Shop
Building materials sales
Cemeteries
Churches (4) P P
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops (4) P P
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02) (4) P P
Commercial kennels - indoor only (ref. 5.1.11)
Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement
centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls
Community center P P
Concessions for the serving of food refreshments or entertainment of club members
and guests in conjunction with swim, golf, or tennis club.
Contractors' office and equipment storage yard P
Convenience stores
Day care, child care, or nursery facility (ref. 5.1.06) P P P
Department store
Drive-in theaters
Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses SP SP
Drug store, pharmacy P P
Eating establishment (not including fast food restaurant) P P P
Educational, technical and trade schools P P
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including
poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the
Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
P P P P P P P
Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric P P
Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36) (4) P P P Non-Residential Uses Fast food restaurant
Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22) P P
Financial institutions P P
Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09)
Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service P P
7
Florist. P P
Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy,
milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops
P P P
Funeral homes, P P
Furniture and home appliances (sales and service) P P
Hardware store P P
Health club or spa P P
Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20)
Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, miter
repair and maintenance services
P P
Hospitals
Hotels, motels and inns (2) P P
Indoor athletic facilities P P
Indoor theaters
Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical P P P
Laundries, dry cleaners P P
Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours
during operation)
Libraries, museums P P
Light warehousing SP SP SP
Livestock sales
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling
Medical center (3)
P
P
P
P
P
P
Mobile home and trailer sales and service
Modular building sales
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
Musical instrument sales
New automotive parts sales
Newspaper publishing
Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops
Office and business machines sales and service
Optical goods sales
Outdoor Amphitheatre (4)
Outdoor eating establishment or cafe
Outdoor storage, display and/ or sales serving or associated with a by-right
permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a County-designated
Entrance Corridor
SP SP SP
Outdoor storage, display and/ or sales serving or associated with a by-right
permitted use not visible from a County-designated Entrance Corridor
SP SP SP
Parks, playgrounds and civic spaces P P P P P P P
Photographic goods sales P P
Private schools P P
Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical P P P
Public and private utilities and infrastructure P P P P P P P
Public uses and buildings, including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated
by local, state, or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission,
main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
P P P P P P P
Research and development activities including experimental testing P P
Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar
institution
P P
Retail sales and service establishments allowed under C. I, permitted as temporary
events (4) (5)
P P P P P P P Non-Residential Uses Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
School of special instruction P P
Septic tank sales and related services
Sporting goods sales P P
Stand-alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.4.1) (6) SP SP SP
Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat
P P P P P P P
Swim, golf, tennis or athletic facility P P
8
Tailor, seamstress P P
Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18) P P P
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8)
Tier I & Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40) P P P P P P P
Veterinary Office and Hospital (7) P P
Visual and audio appliances sales P P
Warehouse facilities net permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0) SP SP
Farm Sales or Farm Stand (4) P P
Wholesale Distribution SP SP
1. Where permitted, home occupation uses shall be regulated per Section 5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Where permitted, “Inn” shall not exceed 45 guest rooms.
3. Where permitted, this use cate gory shall allow an emergency care (i.e., First Med)
facility and/or health clinics and small medical offices .
4. Where permitted, outdoor retail sales within this category shall be limited to
temporary, seasonal and periodic events supporting the community (no more than ten
a year), including, without limitation, holiday festivals, community fairs, artisan and
public open markets, weddings, and other pedestrian -related events. During specially
permitted events streets may be blocked to vehicular traffic.
5. Where permitted, temporary retail sales events are allowed no more than 15 times
per year. In the case of weekend sales, a “sales event” may include Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday. An example of a temporary retail sales event would be a craft fair, jewelry
show or any similar event that may be sponsored by a resident, group of residents or
an organization like the girl scouts where some retail exchange may take place.
6. Stand-alone parking shall be subject to administrative review and approval by the
Director of Pl anning and the ARB to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
uses appropriateness given the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts .
7. Where permitted, this use is restricted solely to small animal care with no outdoor
kennels and for offices for off -site veterinary services, such as for vets tending to
horses off the premises.
2.5 Historic Structures and Sites
There are no historic structures or sites located on the Spring Hill Village property.
9
3. BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
3.1 Purpose
The regulations contained in this section are promulgated (i) with the intent that the
form of buildings in Spring Hill Village will foster a vibrant pedestrian-scale
neighborhood community, with architectural and landscape elements that complement
and enhance building design and (ii) to create a flexible range of density over the
designated blocks described herein.
3.2 Density Regulations
Table 3.2 establishes the parameters within which residential and non-residential shall
be developed.
For the purposes of interpreting Table 3.2, no site plan or subdivision plat shall be
approved unless it conforms to the following standards:
A. For residential uses, there shall be a minimum and maximum of residential
dwelling units for Spring Hill Village at full build-out. Within this range, the Owner may
adjust the residential unit type and density by block to meet market and design
considerations.
B. For non-residential uses, there shall be a minimum and a maximum amount of
gross floor area required/permitted. Within this range, the Owner may adjust the non-
residential use and density by block to meet market and design considerations.
Density by Block
Residential Non-Residential
Block Size Phase Min. Max. Min. Max.
A 0.6 AC. 2 04 122 05 60,000
B 1.4 AC. 2 04 483 05 60,000
C 3.3 AC. 2 04 302 05 60,000
D 4.6 AC. 1 141 402 0 0
E 1.2 AC. 1 81 162 0 0
F 0.6 AC. 1 61 162 0 0
G 1.3 AC. 1 41 122 0 0
1 Presumes development entirely as SFD units. 2 Presumes development entirely as townhouses.
3 Presumes development entirely as apartments. 4 Presumes development as non-residential use.
5 A minimum of 10,000 SF of non-residential use is being proffered for Spring Hill Village.
10
TABLE 3.2.2 – Density Regulations
Min. Residential Dwelling Units 80 Units
Max. Residential Dwelling Units 100 Units
Min. Non-Residential Gross Floor Area 10,000 SF
Max. Non-Residential Gross Floor Area 60,000 SF
3.3 Lot Regulations
TABLE 3.3 – Lot Regulations
Area and Bulk
Regulations
Setback Regulations
(no “Build To” lines proposed)
Min./Max. Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Min. Front
Setback (ft.)
Min. Side
Setback (ft.)*
Min. Rear
Setback
Single-Family
Detached
3,500 / 7,000 15 51 15
Single-Family Semi-
Detached
(two units sharing a
common wall)
3,000 / 7,000 15 51,2 15
Single-Family Attached
(townhouses)
1,000 / 5,000 5 51,2 153
Multi-Family, Non-
Residential and
Mixed-Use Buildings
NA 5 51,4 154
1Corner lots abutting two public roads shall have a 10’ setback adjacent to both streets.
2There shall be no minimum setback (i.e. zero ft.) along the side property line at the point of
attachment of two or more single-family semi-detached or attached dwelling units of any type.
3In the case of townhouses served by a rear alley, the setback shall be a minimum of 32’.
4Except where uses are adjacent to Route 20, where the setback shall be 25’.
5Accessory structures shall be setback from rear lot lines by a minimum of 5’. There shall be no
minimum setback requirement for the side yard.
11
3.4 Building Height Regulations
The maximum building heights for Spring Hill Village shall be as shown in Table 3.4.
TABLE 3.4 –Building Height Regulations
Block
Residential Non-Residential &
Mixed-Use Buildings
Min./Max. #
Stories
Maximum
Height (ft.)
Min./Max. #
Stories
Maximum
Height (ft.)
Block A 1 / 4 50 1 / 4 65
Block B 1 / 4 50 1 / 4 65
Block C 1 / 3 40 1 / 4 65
Block D 1 / 3 40
Block E 1 / 4 50
Block F 1 / 3 40
Block G 1 / 3 40 - -
12
4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
4.1 Architectural Standards
The following regulations and development guidelines shall be applied to the buildings
and lots in Spring Hill Village. This will be accomplished vis-à-vis the establishment of a
detailed set of covenants and restrictions that will apply to the property. All
development proposals within Spring Hill Village will be processed by an architectural
review committee; their goal being to guide development in such a manner that an
overall degree of consistency and quality is achieved.
Aside from the review board set up to oversee Spring Hill Village, the development of
this property shall also fall under the pu rview of the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board. Should conflicts arise between architectural standards established by the
Spring Hill Village review board and recommendations made by the Albemarle County
ARB within its defined purview, the County ARB recommendations shall prevail.
Buildings within Spring Hill Village that are subject to ARB review per the existing
regulations shall be reviewed by the ARB under the typical Certificate of
Appropriateness process.
Prior to the approval of any site plan or subdivision concerning any portion of Spring Hill
Village, the Owner shall cause to be recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of
the County a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Spring Hill Village
(the “Declaration”) that includes provisions for the following:
Procedure for creation of an “Architectural Review Committee”, which shall include
the minimum and maximum number of members and manner of appointment.
Procedure for review of proposed buildings by the Archit ectural Review Committee
for consistency with requirements of this Code of Development.
Procedure for amending or supplementing the Architectural Design Standards,
which shall include the number of property owners required to approve any such
change; provided, however, that any such amendment may not eliminate or lessen
the minimum standards of Section 4.1 of this Code of Development absent the
written consent of the Director of Community Development.
Rights of Declarant to enforce the Architectural Design Standards.
4.2 Variance
The Architectural Review Committee may authorize variances from compliance with any
of the provisions of the Architectural Design Guidelines when circumstances such as
topography, natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic, or environmental considerations
13
require, but only in accordance with duly adopted rules and regulations and only when
the variance is not in conflict with any Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the
Albemarle County ARB.
5. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
The following standards shall be applied to the buildings and structures in Spring Hill
Village. For the purposes of this Code of Development, this Section shall be defined as
the “Landscape Standards.”
5.1 General Standards
The landscape standards contained in Section 32.7.9.7 of the County Zoning Ordinance
shall apply to the Development, except as where the provisions of this Code of
Development are more stringent.
Required landscape materials planted within public areas, such as the par k system,
other common areas, where buffers are required and along public right of ways, shall be
chosen from the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. If it is desired to use
plants not included above, then information demonstrating the suitability o f the plant
materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development or designee,
who may authorize alternative plant materials.
5.2 Planting Strip and Street Tree Standards
Streetscape plantings are shown on the plans of this submittal. The general regulations
pertaining to these plantings are found on the street sections found of this submittal,
which shall be supplemented with the following:
Notwithstanding anything shown on the Application Plan to the contrary, Owner
may elect to plant the street trees in wells or grates within Blocks A and B. If tree
wells or grates are used in place of a planting strip, they shall be a minimum of
thirty-six (36) square feet.
Planting strips are not required on private travel ways and residential alleys.
Street trees shall be provided along all streets in accordance with ARB guidelines and
planted within the 6-foot wide planting strip located between the curb and sidewalk.
Trees shall be installed at an average of forty (40) feet on center. Street tree spacing
may vary due to site distance requirements, utility easements, driveway location,
important landscape architectural or architectural features, or to permit an
important vista. In residential areas, if conflicts arise between street trees and
utilities, utility easements or site distance requirements, and if it can be
demonstrated that no other economically or physically viable alternative exists, the
14
Director of Community Development or designee may allow street trees to be
placed on the residential lots as close to the street as possible as a replacement for
the street tree within the planting strip. Along private travel ways, street trees shall
either be provided behind the sidewalk in the parking setback where a parking lot
fronts the street or shall not be required where a building is attached to the
sidewalk.
5.3 Exterior Screening Standards
Within Spring Hill Village, Mixed-use and non-residential uses shall not be required to be
screened from internal residential uses.
5.4 Landscaping/Screening Areas
The perimeter areas of Spring Hill Village require landscape treatments to ensure a
reasonable transition between the proposed community and the surrounding land uses
and adjacent roadways. For example, the ARB requires extra landscape or fencing
measures be taken along entrance corridors to ensure views from the roadways are
pleasing. Route 20 and Avon Street Extended are Entrance Corridors and plantings
beyond the normal street tree requirement will apply. In addition, screening in the form
of both fencing and landscaping will be installed along the southern property boundary
to partially mitigate the visual impact of new homes being placed adjacent to the
existing residences there. County staff and the ARB approval of a landscape plan will be
required.
6. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6.1 Streetscape Standards
All streets shall be constructed to VDOT standards as well as any additional,
complementary standards included in Section 20A.10 of the NMD section of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Beyond construction of roadways, sidewalks and
utilities, the Owner reserves the right to install within or adjacent to the right of way
such items that may be deemed acceptable to VDOT such as MUTCD signing, lighting,
landscape treatments, mailboxes, low walls or other features. Streetscapes will be more
formal in nature near the central core of the community and less so in other areas. All
exterior lighting associated with streets, parking lots and common areas shall be
classified as full cut-off, and qualify as Dark Sky. They shall also comply with Albemarle
County ordinances and, where applicable, VDOT regulations. Grading of areas between
the curb and sidewalk have been proposed as flat to permit unrestricted pedestrian
access between on-street parking accommodations and the sidewalk system.
15
6.2 Street Signage
Non-standard signage may be installed throughout Spring Hill Village at no cost to the
County upon approval of a signage plan by the Director of Community Development, or
designee.
6.3 Street Materials
Street improvements may be constructed using alternative type roadway paving
materials upon approval by the Director of Community Development, or designee, or
the Virginia Department of Transportation, as applicable.
7. PARKING REGULATIONS
7.1 Regulations
The minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall govern the provision
of parking and related improvements within Spring Hill Village.
Parking in General – Required parking may be provided either on-lot, on adjacent lots as
stand-alone or shared parking, as on-street parking or a combination thereof. Structured
parking up to three stories is also permitted. All Single-Family Detached lots shall
provide two garage-based parking accommodations as well as two driveway-based
parking spots.
On-Street Parking – Spring Hill Village is likely to be a mix of public and private roads.
The main road connecting Avon Street Extended with Route 20 (Road A) and Road B,
which terminates in a cul-de-sac are currently envisioned to be public with no on-street
parking. On-street parking is intended to be permitted and provided for in areas of
Spring Hill Village along sections of public or private streets whenever the road width is
designed to accommodate it. These spaces will be arranged parallel to the travelway
when associated with a public road. When occurring adjacent to private roads they may
also be arranged as angled or perpendicular to a travelway. All required guest parking
spaces for townhomes are provided in this manner. Ten (10) spaces are propose d
adjacent to Road D next to Pocket Park #4. Additional guest parking for townhomes is
provided in a congregate parking lot currently shown in Block B . Road B is currently
shown with a width that does not accommodate on -street parking. However, this road
may be widened to provide for additional on-street parking.
7.2 Shared Parking
A shared parking plan may be submitted by the Owner at the time of submission of a
Site Plan and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Section 4.12 of
the Zoning Ordinance (a “Shared Parking Plan”).
16
7.3 Stand-Alone Parking
Non-residential uses are permitted in Blocks A, B and C. It is unlikely that this type of
development will take place in all three Blocks. Depending upon the nature of the non -
residential uses that develop in Spring Hill Village, additional area currently set aside for
residential development may have to be allocated to parking accommodations. An
example of how this might occur is reflected on the Parking Exhibit , which is can be
found on the last page of the Code. Should the development of non-residential uses
approach the maximum 60,000 SF, structured parking may be required. It should be
anticipated that the parking requirement for any non-residential use will require a
combination of on-lot, stand-along and shared parking arrangements.
7.4 Alternative parking surfaces may be approved, subject to prior review and approval by
Alternative parking surfaces may be approved, subject to prior review and approval by
the Director of Community Development, or designee.
8. OPEN SPACE & AMENITIES
8.1 Parks
The Owner has set aside 2.83 acres of the property as Amenity Space, which is 2 2% of
the total site area after a small area (0.04 acre) of the current site is dedicated to road
right-of-way. As the plan for the proposed community evolves certain elements may
change size or location in a minor way. Shifts of this nature and magnitude may result in
very minor changes in the acreages associated with Green Space and Amenity Space. In
all cases, the minimum requirements for Green and Amenity Space shall be met.
Comprising the Amenity Area is a central park of just over 1 acre and five pocket parks
located throughout the proposed community. A conceptual design for the park is
reflected within the plan submission. The main park will provide opportunities for both
active and passive recreational activities. A tot lot complex with separate areas for
dynamic and static play equipment are proposed. The play equipment to be installed
shall meet or exceeding the County requirements and will provide safe and age-
appropriate activity areas for children. A pavilion surrounded by paved surface will be a
place for gatherings, events and shaded observation of the tot lot areas. Along the
southern axis of the pavilion a large lawn panel is being set aside for organized sports.
This area will also serve as a spectator area should the pavilion host movie nights or live
performances. It is large enough to accommodate one or more tents that may be used
for special events.
The system of pocket parks is intended to offer a variety of recreational opportunities.
Pocket Park #1 is a large, rectangular area taking up most of the property frontage along
17
Route 20. It can be used for a variety of sports and an area to walk pets. Pocket P ark #2
is designed to host a communal vegetable gardening and even a dwarf fruit tree
orchard. A garden shed to house tools and a small covered shelter to provide shade are
also proposed. Pocket Park #3 is an area adjacent to the main connector road and is a
small eddy off of the road where one can sit and relax on a bench amongst trees, shrubs
and flowers. Pocket Park #4 is across the street from #3 and is proposed to be set up as
a shady retreat within a bosque of trees. Pocket Park #5 is located at the intersection of
the connector road and Avon Street Extended. It is envisioned as a possible location for
a school bus stop. As such it will provide an alcove with landscaping and seating where
children can await the bus and parents can congregate as they wa it for kids to be
dropped off.
As the community develops and its demographics evolve the uses within these amenity
areas may also evolve. It is the Applicant’s intent that the central park be developed as
described, but that the residents of Spring Hill Village have a say in how the pocket parks
are used or further improved.
9. PUBLIC FACILITIES
9.1 Water & Sewer
Water shall be provided through a connection to the public water system located in or
along Avon Street Extended. Sanitary sewer service will be extended to the subject site
along Route 20 from its current terminus near the Kappa Sigma property. A conceptual
layout of the water and sewer systems is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.2 Stormwater
A preliminary layout of the storm sewerage system and stormwater management
concept is shown on the drawings submitted.
9.3 Dedications
Areas dedicated to the County for public use, other than streets dedicated by recorded
subdivision plat, shall be conveyed to the County only in such manner and form
approved by the County Attorney.
10. CONFORMANCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT PRINCIPLES
10.1 Pedestrian Orientation
18
The subject site lies on the outskirts of the growth area designated as Neighborhood 4. This side
of town has seen a great deal of new development and a number of projects are underway. The
southernmost section of Neighborhood 4 has yet to mature to the point where it is a true
“neighborhood.” For that reason, and partially due to the challenging terrain, the community at
large is not currently considered walkable. Noticeable gaps in infrastructure such as sidewalks
are now being filled in by new development, and soon the entire neighborhood will be linked in
such a way that the needs for pedestrian and bicycles will be fully met.
Spring Hill Village is proposing to do its part to fill in the gaps with regard to the pedestrian
issue. Area along the frontage of Avon Street Extended will be set aside for the installation of
such a connection already present in the corridor. The extension of this system will help
integrate Spring Hill Village into the fabric of the evolving neighborhood.
Within Spring Hill Village itself, a simple, intuitive system of sidewalks connects the residential
buildings to one another and directs residents toward the central community space, which
includes a number of recreational and social opportunities. Furthermore, connections between
the residential and possible commercial sections of Spring Hill Village are provided.
10.2 Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths
Spring Hill Village is served by a formal system of public streets which connect all internal
portions of the community together as well as connect Route 20 with Avon Street Extended .
Roadside sidewalks flow throughout the community. On and off-street parking are provided.
An intensive street tree program will compliment the project by providing additional ambiance,
welcome shade and serve as a visual foil between the roadways, pedestrians on the sidewalks,
and the buildings.
10.3 Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
It was difficult due to the native topography of the site, but the plan calls for providing a
vehicular connection through the property between Avon Street Extended and Route 20.
Opportunities do exist to provide interconnectivity to adjacent parcels. Some of these
properties have been developed and others remain in single-family use. An opportunity to
connect to the property(s) north of Spring Hill Village has been accommodated. The residents
south of the proposed development have expressed a desire not to have such a connection.
10.4 Parks and Open Space as Amenities
19
2.83 acres have been set aside for internal community use. It will include improvements
directed toward active, as well as passive recreational use, social gatherings and communal
gardening.
10.5 Neighborhood Centers
The “neighborhood center” for Spring Hill Village will be the park. Businesses that may choose
to locate in Blocks A or B could be of a nature that they too would serve as gathering places
within the community. In a broader context, this precinct is anchored by South Side Shopping
Center located at the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Mill Creek Drive. A large grocery
store and number of convenience-related businesses are located there. A bank, a convenience
store with fuel service, and other commercial ventures compliment the food store and retail
enterprises. A variety public services and facilities have been constructed. Included are a new
high school, a fire/rescue station and a planned branch library. Additional business activity
occurs in the Mill Creek community on the west side of Avon Street Extended. The residents of
Spring Hill Village will find the existing neighborhood center convenient and a place where they
will regularly patronize.
10.6 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
Spring Hill Village is intended to be a quality, mixed-use community. Architecture, streetscape,
and amenity spaces have been coordinated to create a comfortable and safe environment for
residents and their guests.
Buildings fronting on Avon Street Extended will have three or more stories to provide an
architectural façade to the community and to ensure that those traveling on the roadway do
not consistently look down onto rooftops. The middle of the community may have structures of
one or two-stories. Along the Route 20 frontage buildings may again increase in height in
response to their intended use. From within the development buildings will appear to diminish
in size due to the fact that they are terracing down the hillside. Due to the terrain falling
steadily away views of Carter’s Mountain will be afforded from almost every vantage point.
10.7 Relegated Parking
Most of the required parking for Spring Hill Village will occur on individual lots or in parking lots
adjacent thereto. The remaining required parking will be provided on the public roadways.
Blocks A, B and C are where most of the relegated parking is currently proposed.
10.8 Mixture of Uses and Use Types
Spring Hill Village is proposed as a NMD with an opportunity for complementary non-residential
uses to develop along the eastern and northern boundaries (Blocks A, B and C). The property
enjoys ready access to the neighborhood shopping center, schools, public services, and
Interstate 64. It is also an easy commute to downtown Charlottesville. Rather than compete
20
with this robust development, Spring Hill Village attempts to provide desirable housing in a
convenient location while also filling a need for a business location on the south side of the City.
10.9 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
Spring Hill Village will offer single-family detached and attached home sites. Apartments may be
included in Block B. Fifteen (15) percent of the residences will be designated as “affordable”
according to Albemarle County’s definition of affordable rental housing.
10.10 Redevelopment
The property is not being redeveloped.
10.11 Site Planning that Respects Terrain
The terrain of the subject property is challenging. The layout of building blocks, travelways, and
improvements in Spring Hill Village responds to the topography of the site, which will result in a
pleasing and well-organized community. Although considerable grading will take place, the lay
of the land within the project will still reflect the original topography of the site.
10.12 Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
To the west and north Spring Hill Village is bordered by commercial and industrial
development. To the east lies Route 20 which represents a clear boundary between the eastern
limits of Neighborhood 4 and the farmland designated as Rural Areas. Immediately south lie
several other single-family homes beyond which the character of the corridor changes over to a
rural setting and this also represents the southern limits of Neighborhood 4.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Michael Koslow, Senior Civil Engineer
Rev.1-3: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
Date: 17 December 2013
Rev.1: 10 Feb 2014
Rev.2: 15 Apr 2014
Rev.3: 4 June 2014
Rev.5: 16 July 2015
Subject: Spring Hill Village (ZMA201300017)
The proposed rezoning of parcel 90-28 has been reviewed. The following comments are provided for your
review:
1. Please provide more information regarding the proposed underground manufacturered 30,000 cft
Stormtrap Best Management Practice (BMP) proposed. Will need to know if conceptually this
could provide the treatment for Virginia Stormwater Management Permit (VSMP) requirements
for at least 12.99 Ac of contributing watershed area.
Rev.1: Underground facilities are not recommended in this setting. Adequate runoff capture will
be too difficult, and treatment solely by manufactured underground facilities does not appear
adequate under anticipated new water quality regulations.
Rev.2: Stormwater facilities are better situated toward the lower side of the site with this revision.
Adequate capture of runoff on at-grade inlets along a steep road may still prove unreliable.
Rev.3: No change. This is complete enough to move forward with the ZMA.
2. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes up to 12%. County
ordinances require private streets serving 6 or more lots need to follow VDOT standards. The
VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Residential and Mixed Use Subdivision Streets (GS-
SSAR) Table 1 – Curb and Gutter Section (pg. B(1)-7) indicates that for a proposed road with
traffic volume up to 2,000 ADT, 2011 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5 (Page 5-12) provides
guidance as to the maximum grade. The Green Book page indicates local residential streets should
be less than 15% (see attached guidance). However, the application proposes a range of uses for
each block. These uses could potentially generate traffic volumes greater than 2,000 ADT. Please
provide an analysis indicating the maximum anticipated traffic volume impacts for the most
intense proposed uses for each proposed private road. Please reference the ITE Trip Generation
Manual and the proposed Code of Development in the analysis.
Rev.1: The street network is not recommended for approval. Right-angled turns must be
eliminated. There is no private or public road standard which allows this. Road D requires a
turnaround. The main through-way (Road A to B) should be a public road. Alleys should be
secondary access, and not used as sole access to units, such as with 11-15.
Rev.2: The road network is much improved with this revision. The public road and Roads B and
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
C appear acceptable. Road D is conflicted. The initial portion near Avon Street Appears wide
enough, but the road turns sharply and reduces to an alley. For lots 16-26, a road is recommended,
not an alley, as this is the primary access to units. The sharp turn would not meet any road
standard.
Rev.3: Lots 16-24 have primary access through an Alley. An Alley is defined as secondary access
in the zoning ordinance. I understand the planning division is willing to accept these, justifying it
as “frontage” on the small park area. Everyone should be aware that this makes the alley serve as
the road frontage. Alley standards are not up to road standards, and pavement durability, drainage,
maneuverability, parking, addressing, emergency services, trash services, all become substandard.
Rev.5: The alley “E” has been widened and labeled as a private road in the pocket park area. This
addresses the above comment. This plan is still using an alley-type layout, with 90-degree angled
turns at either end. This is typically acceptable where an intersection of roads, or a future
intersection is provided. In this case, the intersections are hemmed by retaining walls, making
future connections less likely.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 19, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
August 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas
Loach, Bruce Dotson, Tim Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner, Megan Yaniglos, Senior
Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Amanda Burbage, Zoning Planner; David
Benish, Chief of Planning; W ayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk
to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:12 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at
8:20 p.m.
ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000002800
LOCATION: 1776 Scottsville Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of
Avon Street Extended and Route 20.
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to NMD Neighborhood Model District
zoning district which allows residential at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses. A maximum of one hundred (100) units
proposed for a density of 7.7 units per acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service
uses in Neighborhood 4 of the Development Areas. (Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation on ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village.
The applicant is requesting to rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential to Neighborhood
Model District (NMD) to create a mixed use development with a maximum of 100
residential units and 10,000 – 60,000 square feet of non-residential uses. This proposal
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
2
has frontage on Avon Street Extended and Scottsville Road. The project is divided into
7 blocks, which are labeled A-G. The proposal is inclusive of a maximum of 100
residential units that could be a mix of townhouses, apartments and/or single -family
residential units. Three of the 7 blocks could include 10,000 to 60,000 square feet of
nonresidential uses. Roads will be a mix of public and private streets as well as alleys.
A variety of open space and amenities are proposed. Located centrally in the property is
a one acre park as well as four smaller pocket parks, which are located throughout the
development.
Factors Favorable
• The rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposal contains the principles of the Neighborhood Model.
• This rezoning request would provide additional residential opportunities for
residents in this portion of the County.
Factors Unfavorable
• Technical revisions are needed to proffers, code of development, and application
plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff can recommend approval of ZMA-2013-00017, Spring Hill Village, provided the
technical revisions are made to the proffers, application plan and code of development
as described in the staff report prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph said in looking at the diagram at the southwest corner of proposed Spring
Hill Village there is a single-family housing unit closer to the property line of Mr. Johnson
and then all the way in the southeast corner there are two units if they go from the
bottom on Route 20 and unit #2 and #3 that are contiguous to Mr. Schickedanz’s
property. He asked staff for an idea of what the setbacks are on those lots. He could
not find the setback distances, but they are much closer and actually there is one other
building in the middle of Mr. Johnson’s property that is fairly close to his property line.
In other words they are not all the same distance from the property line and the
setbacks are not all the same distance. Those seem to be much closer to residents
Schickedantz and Johnson. He was curious what the setbacks were there.
Mr. Grant asked if he was referring to the proposed buildings in the development or
existing buildings.
Mr. Randolph replied that in the diagram all of the proposed single-family units to be
constructed in Spring Hill Village to the south are not the same distance from the
setback. The units basically are all configured based on the driveway or the road that is
running through Spring Hill Village. Therefore, they are the equal distance with a
driveway to that road, and therefore they have a kind of staggered distance to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
3
southern property line. He was trying to figure out those that are closest to Mr.
Schickedanz’s and Mr. Johnson’s property what the distance is there.
Mr. Benish asked if he wanted to know what the setbacks are going to be for the
southern boundary for the property. He should keep in mind what he is looking is an
illustrative. So what is approved is more of a block plan and different blocks will allow
for different types of units. However, Ms. Grant can look that up in the Code to let him
know what that is.
Mr. Randolph asked if the alley construction issues have now been fully addressed that
were brought up in attachment D.
Ms. Grant replied yes, that comment came from the county engineer and he is satisfied
at this point.
Ms. Firehock pointed out there were a whole lot of comments in attachment D. She
asked if staff was saying the county engineer was satisfied with respect to the alleys.
She asked if staff is making a blanket statement that the county engineer is happy with
every objection they noted in attachment D.
Ms. Grant replied the county engineer said that whatever is left out standing can be
worked out at the site plan stage.
Ms. Firehock asked if that included the steep slopes up to 12 percent in attachment D,
comment #2. It appears that the application proposes internal private roads with slopes
up to 12 percent. In addition, there was another request as part of #2 about the
maximum anticipated traffic. There are quite a few comments in this attachment that
she wants some assurance that they have been addressed, and if so how. The
applicant could also be the one to address this whole attachment. She was just trying
to be clear on what had been actually satisfied.
Ms. Grant explained the issues that are outstanding the county engineer feels can be
addressed during the site review process.
Ms. Firehock asked if it was “can” or “will”.
Ms. Grant said the county engineer is saying they can be addressed at that time and he
expects that they will be. Initially there were some concerns with a road, which was
originally an alley. The applicant changed the dimensions of that to meet the
dimensions for a private street. Therefore, the county engineer was satisfied with that
particular issue. This area still remains as an alley and the county engineer is satisfied
that at the time of site plan any concerns that he has will be addressed at that time.
Ms. Firehock asked if she was saying there are no concerns with the slopes in this
development at all.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
4
Ms. Grant replied no, she was not saying there were no concerns. She was saying that
they can be worked out at the site plan stage.
Mr. Benish noted there are some slope issues, which are a factor of what type of unit
gets built and what grade. So a general plan showing some general issues of grade
may need further detail once the unit type is chosen and more detailed engineering has
taken place. Usually when something is deferred to the site plan st age it is recognized
that those issues can be addressed. However, it depends on what sort of uses in the
final design occurs on that site. It is a balance between providing some flexibility and
approving a very specific plan that is very detailed. The applicant can also help respond
to that.
Mr. Dotson said in terms of conformity with the comprehensive plan the staff report
notes that the proposed plan update, which has not been adopted, recommends the
property for Office, R&D Flex uses along with residential uses. He asked do they
consider this proposal to be in conformity with that proposed, but not adopted plan, or
not.
Mr. Grant replied that it really is not consistent with that.
Mr. Keller noted the Commission might have addressed some of these issues coming
forward prior to him joining the Commission. However, he had a question about the
philosophy that is encouraging access from Route 20 as well as from Avon Street
Extended. He questioned if Route 20 is pretty much a rural road and if from this point
down do they want to be encouraging more traffic on it or not.
Mr. Benish replied staff finds that it is better overall traffic management to be able to
distribute traffic to multiple roadways. Route 20 is also a road they recommend for
upgrading. So while it is rural they would want to develop it in a rural character. They
recognize that it at least partially serves one -half of it. It is within the development area
and they would want to balance those traffic impacts along with those available
roadways instead of overtaxing any one particular road.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out Mr. Benish had been more involved in some of the
discussions at the level of MPO with the city about transportation in the southern urban
area. The real interest was in making sure they get as many interconnections that can
avoid sending traffic to the city that wants to go east/west. Therefore, having
interconnection between Avon and Route 20 as well as at some point hopefully between
Avon and Fifth Street has been a great interest for the overall networking for
transportation.
Mr. Keller noted that was helpful.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant
and for public comment. He invited the applicant to come forward and add ress the
Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
5
Mr. Vito Cetta, architect and developer, thanked Ms. Grant for doing a wonderful job.
They agree with the staff report and are prepared to comply with all of the
recommendations. He will answer a couple of those engineering questions. He can
also tell them the process of getting anything to this stage requires dozens of meetin gs.
On the pre-application they met with VDOT ten times, which is just part of the process.
They have all of these departments that they have to satisfy. That is part of the game
and they do it. The Commission can see they have a lot of support here. He explained
the proposal in a couple of drawings pointing out the left side of Avon is pretty much all
built out mostly with residential. There is a little bit of industrial. They had this gigantic
park, Biscuit Run, which will be a wonderful asset to this community and anything in the
neighborhood. He noted they had spent their time on the conceptual drawing, and the
block plan was developed from it. The site slopes 9 percent. It is a 100’ drop from Avon
down to Route 20. Therefore, the road pattern was very critical and because they have
small pieces was able to absorb the grade. It is certainly n ot a site that they want to do
any kind of large buildings because there is just too much slope.
Mr. Cetta presented a video of the proposal and noted the following:
The affordable units back up to Route 20. There is a commercial section that is
also along Route 20. There is big central park, which they are very proud. There
is a combination of single-family homes, townhouses that are front loaded, rear
loaded townhouses, surface parking, affordable townhouses, community garden,
four different parks, a bus stop, park and a small garden right off of Avon. Some
townhouses are entered from the rear and others are entered from the front. The
parking in one area will serve both the affordable units as well as the commercial
building. There is a combination of public streets and private streets. There is a
beautiful mountain view. They are trying to get VDOT to reduce the speed limit
on Route 20 to 45 miles per hour, which will help. There is a community garden.
There was a question about whether they should have a bike lane. They will
address that in a moment. The homes all have a front porch that projects out
beyond the garage door. Again, everything has sidewalks and green strip with
some parking on the road. They increased the size of the alley because they did
not have street frontage. That was an engineer concern. There is guest parking.
There is a little park with a cluster of trees. They require porches on the
townhouses as well as the single-family dwellings. There is a lot of slope, which
is a big part of this solution. There are so me front loaded garages and some and
rear loaded. Some of the buildings are three stories. There is a little walkway
going back to a community garden. He pointed out the community garden at
Parkside Village worked out very well. There is a piece land th at is adjacent to
that house they were talking about that is fairly close to the setback. There is a
bit of an opening in our site that protects him , which he thinks that was
intentional. The park is very meaningful to us.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
6
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Firehock said he was talking about a community garden similar to the one at
Parkside Village. She asked if he would actually be building raised beds for it since she
noticed that it seemed like it was on a slope.
Mr. Cetta replied that they had not thought about it. In Parkside Village essentially they
gave the land to the community and they built it themselves. However, he did not have
any plans for it yet.
Ms. Firehock said she was not suggesting that he should, but was just wo ndering
because it appeared to be on a slope. She suggested they need to terrace it or do
something to prevent it from being the community erosion problem.
Mr. Cetta noted what they did in Liberty Hall, which is now a completed Neighborhood
Model community, was have a community garden space that the neighbors decided not
to do it. In Parkside Village they did do it. In fact, they collected rain off of a garage
they left there and they use that for watering. They can certainly step it up. The grade
across that is about 9 percent, and they can certainly work that out.
Ms. Firehock said she also realized at this stage of the proposal they are not required to
show us extensive plans for storm water management. However, she would have loved
to see in that rendering bio-swales and that kind of thing. She guessed that was not the
usual thing to include in such an illustrative video.
Mr. Cetta noted a lesson they have learned is they can do conceptual plans to get
approved here, and then go into the detail. The policy has changed in that they really
are approving this block plan and not the concept plan, which they have to work it out.
However, they have very much worked it out with the engineering department and know
exactly where the storm water managem ent is located. They know what it looks like
downstream. They have that worked out because you have to and he would be happy
to show her where it was.
Ms. Firehock replied that she would like to see that.
Mr. Cetta pointed out the location of the storm water right along Route 20.
Ms. Firehock asked if that was in a bio-swale.
Mr. Cetta replied no, it is all buried and underground. Again, it is more extensive but
they have done that in most of our projects. A pond does not look particularly attractive.
Ms. Firehock pointed out it wastes valuable acreage.
Mr. Cetta pointed out there is a new standard with the county and they have to comply
with that about a bio-filter. They have not quite worked out that detail. However, they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
7
know where the water is being stored and where it is going out. In response to the
question about the engineering he noted Mr. Brooks had a question about a particular
area. What he does not like he recently changed his mind on . If they have a road and
they are coming across a right hand turn they use to accept it, but now they discourage
that. That is what they had in one area on the plan. So they have a dded a stub here
and there. They have not reviewed that with Mr. Brooks yet, but think they can work
that out.
Mr. Tim Keller noted the movie was just to give a sense of what the project looks like.
However, he thought they were getting away from snout houses, which had the garages
sticking out in front of pedestrian zones. He noticed there were several areas where
there were garages that were coming forward of the front porches and that sort of thing.
Mr. Cetta replied that the code of development requires that the porch be in the front of
the garage door.
Mr. Tim Keller said the other question he had as they are all trying to come to grips with
affordable housing was if it was a funding decision that forces a block of affordable
housing instead of affordable housing being distributed throughout. Even the way he
said it the affordable housing will be on Route 20 and that is where the high noise is.
He asked what the reason is.
Mr. Cetta replied first it is in the most prominent location on the site. They built
affordable housing across the street at Avon and they were all in one building and look
exactly the same as everything else. He understands his point as can they distribute the
affordable housing. The affordable housing units have to sell for $211,000 and they
cannot afford to put a garage in a unit like that. So they are dealing with building types
of townhouses with an alley behind them with a two-car garage and front loaded
townhouses with a one-car garage and parking on the apron. You cannot afford to build
an affordable townhouse, which is three -stories, with a garage. He would guess they
could perhaps redistribute them or distribute them around the project. But, it is a
different housing type to sit on a flat piece of land that has a rear yard. He understands
his point, but suggested that they just do the math. This is a 40 mill ion dollar project
here. The last thing a builder or developer wants to do is create something that is not
attractive. Those townhouses are located in the most important spot opposite the park
and they have to look good. They will make sure they look good.
Mr. Lafferty noted Mr. Cetta he had said he would mention bike lanes. He realized the
grade is pretty rough for a biker.
Mr. Cetta asked Mr. Mark Keller to address that.
Mr. Mark Keller, with Terra Concepts, said he had a small role in laying this project out.
He did get a little warning yesterday that this might come up and did a little analysis. He
thought at first they were talking about bike lanes and how were they going to connect
to the shopping center in Mill Creek, the schools and all of that. So he was doing an
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
8
analysis of Route 20 and Avon Street., but now understands they are talking about
internal to the site. Because the two tie together, they actually have roughly 8’ of asphalt
and in some cases as it approaches subdivision intersections it transitions the concrete
path on the west side of Avon Street as it comes all the way down to within almost 300’
of the northwest corner of this property. So they are also proposing on our side of the
street a continuation of that through the whole frontage. Now they have to work out how
one would cross the road so they can make the connection and also to maybe start
discussions with the neighbor to the north, which he thinks may be Duane Snow. The
logical thing to do would be to continue our trail up across a small portion of this
property, but they also know they need to involve VDOT in that discussion because right
there the road starts to curve. Therefore, they might have some sight distance issues.
Should this proposal be moved forward and eventually approved he would think it would
be remiss to have merely a mile of trail and 300’ of just disconnect there. So that is
something they have been encouraged to pursue and they would intent to do if they felt
like they had a winning proposal before the Commission.
Mr. Keller noted regarding the Route 20 bicycling he thinks is a little sketchy. There is
really not much shoulder there right now and the road side ditches are very close to the
edges of pavement. However, he would leave all of that to the people that do a lot of
road biking to direct us in that regard. Internal to the site there is a couple of options.
They could see using the main road that connects Avon and Route 20 and placing a
bike lane or bike lanes on that road to serve as a connection. That would be easy to do.
There is another alternative to save them from having to widen the road 3’ or 4’ on both
sides. It does not make sense in his book to have the bike lanes going productively with
the traffic and the other half potentially going counter-productive. Since they have
sidewalk on both sides and one side of this is largely parks they have a lot of room on
that side that they could actually take one of the sidewalks and make it more of a
promenade so that it accommodates both bike traffic as well as pedestrians. There is
ability to conveniently pass. One of the reasons he has been leaning in that direction is
that he did not see a lot of people on road bikes cruising through their neighborhood as
much as preschool, elementary and middle school kids wanting to ride smaller bikes.
He suggested if you are going to accommodate that it could be off the vehicular
pavement pattern and may be off set a little bit and integrate d into the park system. He
asked if anyone was interested in a discussion about the parks and pocket parks
because he was prompted that may come up as well.
Mr. Morris invited other questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked where the parking was for the commercial building shown in the video.
Mr. Cetta replied there were a couple of answers to it. One, is they would share the
parking in the front of the affordable units. They could also use the area designated as
commercial, which could be surface parking as well or structured parking. He pointed
out the last building built in Liberty Hall is live/work townhouses with commercial below
it. It has worked out well and they share a parking lot with the residential. They have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
9
businesses operate from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with the residents there at night and it works.
Sharing residential and commercial parking works in other situations.
Mr. Dotson said he was interested in the non-residential uses and the fact that the
proposed plan looks like it is primarily residential and it has some non-residential. The
plan envisions non-residential possibly with some residential. So it is kind of a flip of
emphasis from the proposed plan. However, he thinks it is useful to point out in the
permitted uses the plan says Office R & D Flex and he does have financial institutions,
a variety of business services, laboratories, medical center, professional offices,
research and development activities, and so forth. He thinks it would help him in
presenting this to emphasize that while the balance of residential and non-residential
may be different than what is in the proposed plan it does have some of it and does
allow for it. It is more a comment than a question. The question would be realistically
do you think this is going to be almost all residential.
Mr. Cetta replied he knows residential and developed commercial in California, but has
not done any here. He knows residential better. He pointed out Susan Stimart has
been a big influence and has taken us to two or three potential users. They have
designed buildings for them. It something he knows little about, frankly. In fact, it has
been quite productive. Ms. Stimart is obviously interested in getting the businesses into
this area because they think access to I-64 is good here. The last buildings they would
build in a residential area would be where they designated commercial could be. So
they will focus on the residential portion. They won’t build where the commercial will be
and they will wait to see. They can’t go out and try to sell that land because they don’t
have an approval. However, they will now and will learn something soon enough.
Frankly, he did not know. He would guess it would probably end up looking something
like this.
Mr. Dotson said he thought they were all in a learning process on that, too.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Roger O. Schickedantz said he lived in the house to the southeast corner of the site at
1858 Scottsville Road. As many of you know, he has spoken many times before the
Commission trying to prevent light industrial development on this site. So he is
welcoming this plan and feels the amount of residential is appropriate and scaled well to
the adjacent residences. Neighbors had asked for some mixed use including the
possibility of a small café in the office building portion of the de velopment. He noticed in
the current development proposal there is prohibition of any retail. He would suggest
that if that could be relaxed the neighborhood would welcome that. He has a recent
concern in that he had noticed 40 units are allowed in Block B, which currently shows
19 units. He would be concerned that if for some reason the 100 units were not all built
because the northern portion was developed as commercial instead of residential that
those 100 allowable units would be relocated on the si te and there would be no more
density than what is shown here. He supports the current plan as shown. One of his
major concerns is with the speed limit of 55 miles an hour on Route 20. Currently VDOT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
10
is saying that a very long turn lane is required, a sp eed up and speed down lane, is
requiring the widening of 20 in front of his property.
Mr. Schickedantz pointed out Mr. Cetta has offered to replace the stone stairway that
may have to be replaced if that occurs. What no one has really recognized though is
that it would require cutting back the bank further into his property. There is a very steep
bank on the front of his property that is in an easement. In order not to cut into his
property line it would probably require a retaining wall. So he is req uesting that proffer
#4 include a condition for the stairs specifically, which shows on the drawings, but to be
written in the proffer for the stair and the retaining wall to be added. He would say if
they can get the get speed limit reduced he would encourage that because they would
avoid all of this. Neighbors have also spoken of a c oncern for a traffic light at Avon and
20, which he thinks would also alleviate the problem. One of his neighbors was hit by a
car while crossing the road to get her mail. There is a family that lives on both sides of
the road right there. He did not want to see Route 20 widened at all because traffic is
going too fast through there already. The traffic on the road should be slowed and the
road not widened so the traffic can go faster. (Attachment – Letter dated August 19,
2014 from Roger O. Schickedantz to Albemarle County Planning Commission in
reference to review of ZMA-2013-00017) (Attachments available in the office of the
Clerk with minutes)
Linda O’Connor, President of the Avon Park Homeowner’s Association, pointed out that
Avon Park is actually situated across the street from Spring Hill Village. She said they
also support Roger Schickedantz heavily in opposing the re-designation of this
particular lot in the proposed comp plan to light industrial. However, they are very
pleased with the current plan, which is the Neighborhood Model plan, as opposed to
urban density that it is now zoned at. They think this is an excellent compromise. They
also like the idea that it presents a nice transition from a residential area going over to
light industrial. They would like to see that actually on bo th sides of the light industrial
area. They are quite pleased with this and thank Ms. Grant for the community meetings
as well as Mr. Cetta for having listened to us. On the point that Mr. Schickedantz
brought up about a café or having some kind of restaurant, she said if there are office
buildings there is not too many eating places around. It really is something that is
needed. The current residents would love to see it even without Springhill Village. So if
it is at all possible to allow for that in the Springhill Village they would really appreciate
that.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hea ring and the
matter was before the Planning Commission. He asked if the applicant wanted five
minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Cetta replied that he did not have a rebuttal.
Mr. Morris noted there being no rebuttal, the matter was before the Planning
Commission for discussion and action.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
11
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Ms. Firehock seconded to recommend approval of
ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village provided technical revisions are made to the
proffers, code of development, and the application plan as recomm ended by staff prior
to the Board of Supervisors meeting. In addition, a request that language be added to
proffer #4 regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon Extended that
specifically include the additional provision of a potential retaining wall be added to
avoid erosion and/or cutting further into the property of Mr. Schickedantz at 1858
Scottsville Road and secondly to urge VDOT to consider 45 mile per hour speed limit
between Mill Creek to Avon/Route 20 intersection.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Keller said he was particularly uncomfortable with two of the retaining wall formulas
that are being used consistently in our community. One is the prefabricated stacked
concrete faux stone. It is his understanding they are not engineered to last as long as
concrete or concrete that is faced with stone. He thinks the rural vocabulary on the
other side since this is rural area that they hope the line will be held on the other side of
Route 20 and that the materials of that retaining wall should reflect that vocabulary.
There are stone walls on houses down Route 20 from Charlottesville to Scottsville. He
would encourage that higher finish not just a c oncrete wall or a series of concrete
stones.
Mr. Morris agreed that was a good point. Since it is on the Entrance Corridor it is
something he thinks they ought to take up with the Architectural Review Board, too,
because they can put some teeth into it.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Architectural Review Board will review a retaining wall.
Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village would be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors with the following recommendation for approval on a date to be
determined.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would imagine that the Commission, although they did not speak
to this, would not be concerned if the applicant decided to include some level of café
like retail as a use in some of the b locks. He thinks that was suggested by the public as
something they might be interested in.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Lafferty agreed because that would keep traffic off Route 20 and Avon.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –AUGUST 19, 2014
Draft Partial MINUTES - ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Submitted to BOS
12
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Establishment of Economic Development Office
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on next steps in establishing an Economic
Development Office
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Catlin, Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The FY15 Budget includes funding for the establishment of an Economic Development Office to include a new full time
Director position and a new half time administrative support position in addition to the existing Economic Development
Facilitator position. On August 13, 2014, the Board discussed overall direction for the program, high level priorities, and
desired initial outcomes for the Office prior to beginning the hiring process for the new Director position. The Board also
directed staff to proceed with holding a stakeholders roundtable in September to obtain additional input on the high level
priorities. Feedback from the Board and from the community stakeholders has been incorporated into the revised
program component priority list, which will be presented to the Board for final direction on October 8th.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal - Economic Prosperity
DISCUSSION:
Staff provided a preliminary prioritization of major program components of the Economic Development Office for the
Office’s first two to three years to the Board on August 13, 2014. Board members provided comments, which have
been incorporated into the revised program in the following ways:
Agribusiness has been removed as a separate program component and is included under Existing Business
Retention/Expansion, specifically mentioned as part of the focus on target markets.
Real Estate Development/Redevelopment is added as a program component to create additional emphasis
on the importance of this work.
Some potential goals and strategies have been added to the program component descriptions to provide
preliminary thought as to how the Office work plan will be shaped when the new Director is in place.
Stakeholder Feedback:
A complete summary of the roundtable is provided as Attachment A. W hile there was no direction from the group that
the priority areas should be changed or the percentages adjusted, comments from the group are recorded and will be
incorporated in future planning for the Office as appropriate, including comments related to the desired skill set for the
Director.
Revised Economic Development Office Priority Program Components:
The revised program components are set forth in Attachment B. Considering the feedback of the Board and the
stakeholders roundtable, staff proposes the following allocation of emphasis (represented by the indicated
percentages) during the first 18 – 24 months after the Office is established:
Existing Business Retention/Expansion - 50% of office focus
New Business Start Ups - 25% of office focus
Workforce Development - 10% of office focus
Real Estate Development/Redevelopment - 10% of office focus
Business Attraction - 5% of office focus
AGENDA TITLE: Establishment of Economic Development Office
October 8, 2014
Page 2
Key Director Skill Sets:
As part of the initial steps of the Economic Development Director hiring process, a number of key skill sets
were identified and shared with the Board during ear lier discussions. This list is being provided for any further
guidance from the Board.
Ability to articulate clear vision for economic development that is compatible with County’s character/
priorities as established in the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan familiarity
Financial expertise including construction financing, loans, business pro formas, incentive packages,
etc.
Knowledge of and sensitivity to environmental considerations
Successful formation of public/private partnerships
Demonstrated track record in existing business retention/expansion
Significant real estate development and redevelopment experience
Familiarity with entrepreneurial environment, business start up culture
Ability to build consensus among diverse groups and individuals
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY15 Budget provides an increase of $155,000 to establish the new Economic Development Office for a total
budget amount of $262,089.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide final feedback on the recommended prioritization of the program
components and the proposed k ey Director skill sets.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Stakeholder Roundtable Summary
Attachment B – Revised Program Components
Attachment C – Economic Development Office August 13 Executive Summary
Return to agenda
Economic Development Roundtable – September 17, 2014
Participation included:
Rod Gentry, Union First Market Bank/Albemarle County Economic Development Authority(EDA)
Troy Yancey, TEAL Construction, Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
John Lowry, Albemarle County Economic Development Authority (EDA)
Jim Atkinson, Mikro Systems
John Cruickshank, Sierra Club
Dave Shreve, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP)
Anne Gardner, Charlottesville Albemarle Association of Realtors (CAAR)
Valerie Palamountain, Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
Helen Cauthen, Central VA Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED)
Adam Hastings, Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
Frank Squillace, Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce
Comments/Highlights by Category:
Business Retention Expansion/New Business Start Up
The new Economic Development Office (EDO) should carefully evaluate initiatives to avoid
cannibalizing existing business and diminishing the potential for organic growth.
EDO programming should focus on taxes and tax credits to enhance the attractiveness for an
expanding operation.
Concern about sequencing workforce development versus product development. Each area
needs flexibility to respond to the market, area to focus is on organic growth of boutique and
advanced manufacturing, moving from 20 employees to 70.
Focus on organic growth, and pay attention to the State for critical trends.
Workforce
Workforce Development should be more of a priority. Existing businesses need new skill sets.
Economic Development should include the “clearinghouse function” about sharing information,
programs and resources at our training partners, PVCC, CATEC, UVA.
The County EDO needs to keep a balance. Workforce is the most essential, product.
development is secondary. The 10% allocation should not duplicate the partners’ (PWN, PVCC,
CATEC, etc.) efforts .
Workforce training needs to be regional.
Real Estate Development/Redevelopment
The county has had 4 yrs of successful process improvement, but still needs to work on
developing sites.
Economic Development Director Skill Set
Expect position to be filled by someone with significant experience.
New Director should be experienced with broad vision and keep a healthy skepticism of what’s
achievable from local government to influence economic development activity, and to avoid the
simplistic solutions and instead focus on strategic solutions for supporting organic, existing
business growth.
The new Economic Development Director should have a strong ability to build consensus among
partners and find common ground.
General Comments
The County (EDO )should also track what’s happening at the state and federal levels, with other
associations, to bring resources back to Albemarle - should also share our local success stories.
Need to include a regional partnership focus.
The new EDO should focus on high quality employers offering high quality employment.
Albemarle economic development office needs to identify its areas of focus.
UVA can be double-edged sword; though the University supports good jobs, the EDO cannot rely
on just University based growth.
Albemarle County EDO should aspire to influence or lead the other counties in the region
For the EDO, jobs measurement should be a good yardstick.
EDO should avoid complacency, other areas are staying competitive to grow their own.
Albemarle County should be known as County that is nimble in key areas.
1
Albemarle County Economic Development Mission:
To foster and encourage responsible economic development activities that enhance the county’s
competitive position and result in quality job creation and career employment opportunities, increased
tax base and an improved quality of life for all citizens while respecting Albemarle County’s natural
resources and unique character.
Albemarle County Economic Development Guiding Principles:
Economic Diversity: Provide a diverse and vibrant economy that offers a broad range of job
opportunities across the full spectrum of skill levels while supporting the delivery of high quality
government services to our residents.
Respect for Heritage and Environment: Promote a quality of life that embraces our heritage,
preserves the environment and effectively manages and protects resources based on guidance
provided by the Comprehensive Plan.
Organizational Collaboration: Collaborate on all levels (local, region, and state) to maximize the
economic opportunities for the area in a cost-effective manner including close partnership with
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
Entrepreneurship: Create an environment that encourages, values and supports
entrepreneurship and fosters collaboration and a vibrant, creative community.
Organic Growth: Build value from within by supporting those businesses or assets who have
been a contributor to our community, with special focus on valuing existing businesses that
anchor our economy including the defense industry.
Build Awareness of Local Opportunities: Build a strong level of awareness amongst students
and young adults of the availability of local career and economic opportunities that keep young
people here in our community and support efforts that build a skilled and talented workforce.
Educational Achievement and Partnership: Recognize and support the strength of our local
educational institutions and promote lifelong learning opportunities.
Leverage Intellectual Capital: Strengthen and diversify Albemarle’s economy by leveraging our
intellectual capital to promote expansion of business interests to attract investment and
enhance the livability of our community (and not detract from it).
Support Critical Infrastructure: Support social infrastructure through business offerings that
recognize family, educational and cultural needs and that help people be successful and
productive employees and encourage physical infrastructure that supports the County’s desired
economic development activity.
Results Orientation: - Focus on being proactive and results oriented, with special emphasis on
seeking productive solutions and building positive relationships with state, local and community
stakeholders.
Major Program Components:
In order to achieve the stated mission and guiding principles, the following program components would
comprise an established, ongoing economic development function for Albemarle County. Priority
should be given to ensuring that these components support the County’s strategic focus on target
industries:
2
Existing Business Retention/Expansion
Description/Rationale:
The purpose of an existing business retention, expansion and assistance program, the heart of successful
economic development, is to promote, retain and expedite the profitable growth of targeted existing
businesses, including agribusiness. A healthy and vibrant local economy depends on the well-being of a
community's existing firms, and a comprehensive business retention, expansion and assistance program
gathers information and develops plans to help the county better support job retention, job creation,
and increased investment in the community. A proactive and aggressive contact and visitation program
is integral, along with focused activities to encourage engagement and information sharing.
New Business Start ups
Description/Rationale:
The economic development program should help create an environment conducive to the start up and
growth of new business ventures, working with community partners to develop a strong and vibrant
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Efforts should focus on helping prospective entrepreneurs and investors
access resources for available business support resources and on helping new ventures grow into long-
term, viable, competitive businesses in the Albemarle County community, including leveraging
technology transfer/commercialization possibilities associated with UVA. Support services should help
potential new business ventures consider appropriate sites, navigate the county’s approval and
permitting processes and access appropriate incentive programs.
Workforce Development
Description/Rationale:
Workforce development and the cultivation of a skilled and motivated labor force is a critical
component of economic development for the County. A robust knowledge-based economy is emerging
in Albemarle, building on our target industry sectors and driven by ideas, services and innovation. In
addition, the County is anxious to support employment in our many basic industries and businesses. In
order to compete in this fast paced workplace, and ensure continued profitability for our employers,
Albemarle County must continually build a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and worker
training. County economic development must work closely with education and other community
partners to ensure that the continuously evolving Albemarle County workforce is competitive on a
global scale. Quality education at all levels and specialized training and retraining prepares individuals
for better careers and personal enrichment, provides employers with on-demand availability of skilled
workers including those in the middle skill level, and supplies industry with a steady pipeline of talent
development.
Product Development/ Redevelopment
Description/Rationale:
Strategic, proactive identification and positioning of appropriately located and zoned land to support
business expansion and relocation is critical to the success of existing and new enterprises.
Development in urban and/or suburban areas frequently means redeveloping or repurposing land and
buildings in order to meet current market needs. Previously developed properties, especially
commercial or industrial properties, may be affected by outdated or rundown structures, environmental
contamination and other development constraints. Albemarle County recognizes the need to explore
the possibility of new site options as well as the redevelopment of brownfield sites as key parts of
furthering the County’s economy. A focus on the redevelopment potential of the County’s urban and
3
suburban areas including financing mechanisms, incentives, public private partnerships and other tools
can stimulate investment and vitality in underperforming areas in the County.
Business Attraction
Description/Rationale:
Primary leadership for business attraction/ lead generation activities lies with our regional partner, the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and at the state level with the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership. The County should be well prepared to respond to inquiries of
interest referred by state and regional partners as well as to inquiries that come directly to Albemarle
staff, and initiate recruitment possibilities that align with our target industries. The County should be
an effective single point of contact for business development information, providing data relevant to
business location decisions including economic indicators, workforce information, industrial and
commercial real estate information, development review processes and customized business
development data. This requires a close alliance with the City of Charlottesville and University of
Virginia to highlight our shared attributes for targeted industries.
Other Areas of Consideration:
Tourism
Tourism efforts must be closely aligned with economic development goals and objectives.
Communications/Marketing
Communications and marketing efforts related to economic development must be closely aligned with
the County’s overall communications program and high level goals and objectives.
Preliminary Goals and Strategies:
While the new director will be tasked with developing final goals and strategies for the new office in
consultation with the Board of Supervisors, the following are some initial thoughts for consideration.
Potential Goals
Protect and increase job opportunities with employers that offer mean or higher wages with
benefits
Keep tax rates as low as possible and pay for services for our citizens by protecting and
enhancing existing revenue streams assessed by the County
Encourage investment and reinvestment in the County
Potential Strategies
Ensure adequate infrastructure to support expanding and new business through appropriate
development and redevelopment in the urban and suburban areas
Protect and leverage growth in several critical sectors of the economy through a special focus on
tourism, agribusiness, military & military related businesses, university business and technology
transfers
Increase individual and household income of several economically challenged demographics
through a special focus on small, women and minority owned businesses
Leverage resources and enhance success supporting existing business, incubating new ventures
and attracting new businesses through partnerships with the Chamber of Commerce, the
4
Central Virginia Partnership, the Small Business Development Center and our workforce training
partnerships
Provide ombudsman services for existing and new businesses during permitting and other
processes and regulations with the County’s Community Development & Finance departments,
the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
ECOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Establishment of Economic Development Office
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion about Next Steps in Establishment of
Economic Development Office
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Catlin, Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 13, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The FY15 Budget includes funding for the establishment of an Economic Development Office to include a new full time
Director position and a new half time administrative support position in addition to the existing Economic D evelopment
Facilitator position. The purpose of the review with the Board is to discuss overall direction for the program, high level
priorities, and desired initial outcomes for the Office prior to beginning the hiring process for the new Director position.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
Major Milestones:
There has been significant work regarding the establishment of an Economic Development Office over the past
several years, including:
May, 2012 – The establishment of the Office was identified as an objective in the Board’s FY13-17 Strategic
Plan.
February, 2013 – The preliminary program concept was shared with the Board. Board members supported
the general direction of the program and directed staff to hold a roundtable of community stakeholders.
March, 2013 – A draft program concept was discussed with community stakeholders at a roundtable.
September, 2013 – The Board received the final report on the three year Economic Vitality Action Plan.
November, 2013 - The Board supported the process for considering the establishment of an Office, but
deferred the final decision until the budget process.
December, 2013 – The Board directed staff to initiate an information gathering and education process .
January, 2014 – The Board held a joint work session with the Economic Development Authority to review
research results and to hear from outside expert(s) regarding the current and future state of economic
development.
February, 2014 – The Board held a work session, which included an opportunity for public comment, to
discuss the proposed Economic Development Program framework, including mission, guiding principles, and
program components (See Attachment A).
Late February/early March, 2014 – The Board reviewed detailed cost information for establishing an Office
as part of the budget process.
April, 2014 – The Board approved funding for an Office as part of FY15 Adopted Budget.
Program Framework:
As mentioned above, an Economic Development program framework was developed in consultation with key
stakeholders and was reviewed by the Board in February, at which time there was an opportunity for public comment.
The program framework acknowledges that a program that allows the County to achieve its vision of being a thriving
county as related to economic vitality requires an effective team approach that includes continuing community
development department efforts, refocusing on strategic partnerships, and establishing an office to focus on dedicated
core functions of economic development. Roles and responsibilities for these three elements are described below:
Community Development Department – Continue focus on strategic land use planning, development
review processes, and regulatory reform across various functions of the Community Development
Department.
AGENDA TITLE: Establishment of Economic Development Office
August 13, 2014
Page 2
Strategic Partnerships - Refocus the existing Office of Community and Business Partnerships to:
1) increase efforts related to communications/marketing, tourism/agritourism, and public outreach and
engagement; and 2) provide leadership in leveraging new and existing partnerships that create opportunities
to enhance community vitality and address strategic priorities and challenges .
Economic Development - Establish an Economic Development Office to focus on core functions of
economic development not currently being adequately addressed.
The program framework outlines major program components of an ongoing program that would fulfill the County’s
mission and fit within the larger guidelines of existing County polic ies, such as the Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Development Office Priority Program Components:
Based on prior Board feedback, staff is providing an opportunity to begin the discussion on prioritizing the major
program areas for specific focus of the Economic Development Office during the first two to three years. Staff
recommends the following focus areas, focus percentages and related tasks :
Existing Business Retention/Expansion 50%
Relationship building with key partners, including assessment of opportunities and challenges
Albemarle’s Business First program targeting 150 visitations annually
Specific focus on critical and/or challenged industries – i.e. defense industry/federal contractors
Supporting existing business expansion – including sites and buildings/real estate-related work
Business assistance program for Route 29 construction
New Business Start Ups 25%
Support to small businesses in negotiating approval and permitting processes
More focused partnership with UVA to leverage technology transfer/commercialization possibilities and build
the entrepreneurial ecosystem
Workforce Development 10%
Active involvement in the Piedmont Workforce Network
Engagement with education partners at the secondary and post-secondary levels
Support workforce training programs tied to target enterprises or key sectors that build employment pipelines
for a full spectrum of skill levels
Agribusiness 10%
Work with partners to expand visibility of local products and build customer base and business profitability
Leverage state and federal grant opportunities to support agricultural and forestal industry
Promote/assist business ventures that support agricultural industry
Business Attraction 5%
Respond to inquiries that come to us directly or that are forwarded to the County by the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership
Next Steps
If the Board determines the priority focus areas during this meeting, staff suggests that the information be shared with
key stakeholders at a roundtable in early September. The Board may determine that other public comment
opportunities should be made available during this time also. Staff would then anticipate coming back to the Board for
final comments and direction at the October 1 meeting, after which time the hiring process for the Director would be
initiated.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY15 Budget provides an increase of $155,000 to establish the new Economic Development Office for a total
budget amount of $262,089.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) provide feedback on the priority of the economic development program
components; and 2) direct to staff to hold a roundtable of key stakeholders in early September to solicit input and to
provide any other opportunities for public comment the Board deems appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Economic Development Program Framework
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ivy MUC Transfer Station Viability
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider retaining a consultant to evaluate the economic
viability of using the Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Walker, Davis, Graham
PRESENTER (S): Doug Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its regular meeting on August 6, 2014, the Board considered three possible scenarios regarding the near-term
continued use of the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) for waste disposal (Attachment A). One of those scenarios,
requiring the transfer of property control from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to the County, was eliminated
from further consideration by the Board at that time. The remaining two scenarios left open the question of whether the Ivy
MUC would continue to be operated as a transfer station or would instead be converted to a convenience center. A
significant distinction between the two options is that a transfer station requires a permit from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) while the operation of a convenience center does not.
The current transfer station is operated by the RSWA under a permit issued by the DEQ. The facility is out of compliance
with regulations governing transfer stations and DEQ has directed RSWA to either bring the facility into compliance by July
1, 2015 or otherwise submit to DEQ for review and approval a written plan detailing how the RSWA (and/or the County)
intends to achieve compliance with respect to all relevant solid waste regulations. Such plan must be submitted to DEQ
no later than April 1, 2015.
In April, 2014, the Board created a Long Term Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee and established its Charge
(Attachment B). While the Charge is broad in nature, it expressly excludes the Committee’s consideration of current
disposal practices at the Ivy MUC.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and improves the capacity
to serve community needs
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on September 23, 2014, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee approved the
following motions:
The Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee requests that County staff develop a draft Scope
of Work for consulting services necessary to support the Committee in satisfying the Charge approved by the
Board of Supervisors. It is the intent of the Committee to review and approve a draft Scope of Work before
sending it to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and action.
The Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee requests that County staff develop a draft Scope
of Work for consulting services to support staff and the Committee in the identification of possible locations for
a future Transfer Station and/or Clean Material Reclamation Facility in the County and/or region. The
evaluation of potential locations should focus on the cost/benefit to haulers, the tipping fee assumed
necessary for the facility to be self-supporting, the tipping fee assumed necessary to compete effectively for
material volume (tonnage) within the region, and other appropriate considerations of compelling importance. It
is the intent of the Committee to review and approve a draft Scope of Work before sending it to the Board of
Supervisors for consideration and action.
AGENDA TITLE: Ivy MUC Transfer Station Viability
October 8, 2014
Page 2
Because the Committee would require some time to develop and recommend draft scopes of work as requested in its
two motions, and with the approaching April 1, 2015 deadline for RSWA to submit to DEQ a plan for regulatory
compliance, the Board’s liaison to the Committee has indicated an interest in expediting an evaluation of the economic
viability of operating an upgraded transfer station at the Ivy MUC specifically and identifying the primary factors that
must be considered in the evaluation. This evaluation could help the Board decide whether to continue the operation
of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station or convert the facility for use as a convenience center. A scope of work has been
provided by Draper Aden Associations for consideration by the County. (Attachment C).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the proposal provided, it is anticipated that the work would not exceed $4,500. If approved, funding for
this project would come from the Ivy Landfill Remediation project in the Capital Program Fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board supports the use of a consultant for the purposes set forth in the attached scope of work or as otherwise
modified, staff recommends that Draper Aden Associates (DAA) be retained as the consultant to perform the work.
DAA is already engaged with the County and possesses considerable relevant information necessary to complete the
work efficiently.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – August 6, 2014 Executive Summary w/Attachments
Attachment B – Long Term Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee Charge
Attachment C – Draper Aden Associates Engineering Services Scope of Work dated 9/30/14
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste
Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of near-term solid waste services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman, Reges
PRESENTER(S): Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 6 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2014, the Board considered solid waste options and provided three directions :
Consensus that staff prepare and provide at a future meeting additional information and options regarding
costs for construction and operation at Ivy, as well as services to be provided, to assist the Board in
determining which approach is the most desirable.
Consensus that staff bring back to the Board for further consideration viable alternatives for providing
increased recycling opportunities for County residents in the near term, to include cooperation with public,
private and regional entities.
APPOINTED, by a vote of 5:0:1(Boyd-abstained), the County appointees to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Citizens Committee to a separate advisory committee to the Board to do initial work on long-term
solutions for solid waste.
This executive summary is presented to address the first two directions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Solid Waste Services at Ivy MUC
Staff has focused on providing near-term solid waste options that assure a continuation of important solid waste
services while enhancing current recycling efforts. The expectation is that the Board will adopt more permanent solid
waste solutions following recommendations from the Albemarle Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee. Staff estimates that the near-term services will be needed for a period of three to five years, beginning on
July 1, 2015, which is the anticipated closure date of the Materials Utilization Center’s (MUC) transfer station. Staff
has focused on continuing to use the MUC site as directed by the Board, recognizing time.
Staff has determined that two levels of service can be provided at the MUC site through the following operations: 1) a
transfer station, which would largely continue current services; or 2) a convenience center, which would reduce the
current service level primarily to commercial haulers, but would provide as much service as possible without triggering
the need for a DEQ transfer station permit. The distinction between these two operations is key and is described in
detail as part of a report from Draper Aden Associates (DAA) in Attachment A. It is important to note that as part of
this report, DEQ addressed the distinction between a transfer station and a convenience center specifically in the
context of the Ivy MUC site. This DAA report further provides three options regarding the utilization of the site as a
convenience center including advantages and disadvantages with each option. This report provides for better
evaluation overall of the service opportunities and challenges related to the Ivy site. In addition, staff has identified
two possible management structures for the operation of the facility: 1) RSWA operation or 2) County operation by
overseeing the management itself or by contract with a third party. Note that the County operation of the existing
transfer station is deemed non-viable at this time, due in-part to the fact that the DEQ permit is currently held by the
RSWA and any material change would require DEQ permit modification, modification of internal agreements, and
additional environmental liability.
AGENDA TITLE: Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste Service Options
August 6, 2014
Page 2
Consequently, staff has identified three scenarios for consideration to determine a preference for the continued
operation of a transfer station or the conversion of the transfer station to a convenience center to be operate d by
either the RSWA or the County in Attachment B, which provides a comparison of these three scenarios, including
assumed favorable and unfavorable factors, cost comparisons and qualitative aspects of each.
Enhanced Recycling
Staff has identified some specific areas in which the County’s overall recycling efforts may be enhanced in the near
term. First and foremost, with any of the three scenarios above, additional or enhanced recycling services can be
incorporated. Second, the County’s current program with the RSWA, in which the County pays for the collection of
paper at three different locations in the County, can be modified in order to implement a pilot project intended to
expand materials collected at a reduced cost. However, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee
has requested more time and opportunity to consider and evaluate “enhanced” recycling options, including any pilot
programs, so that any proposed changes can best inform their work in advising the Board next Spring/Summer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts depend on the selection of a preferred option as described in Attachment A and Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to pursue the conversion of the existing Ivy transfer station to a
convenience center operated by the RSWA as summarized in Scenario 2 above for the following primary reasons:
1) Maximizes levels of service for residences and businesses with an emphasis on re -use and recycling without
the need for a transfer station permit (note that under this scenario the transfer station permit is terminated).
2) Maintains operational efficiency associated with the compaction of bulky material using the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system , thereby reducing cost. Alternatives for any required replacement
equipment for this type of convenience center would be less expensive due to the type of equipment needed
to handle such a small amount of municipal solid waste (MSW ).
3) Reduces up-front capital investment and specifically eliminates the need to upgrade the current transfer
station to meet DEQ requirements while taking advantage of existing leachate/stormwater facilities on site.
4) Avoids additional liability/risk tied to control (ownership/lease) of a portion of the former Ivy landfill pro perty.
5) Continues high quality service with a proven partner in the RSWA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draper Aden Associates Letter Report dated July 30, 2014 (with 7 attachments)
Attachment B – Summary Comparison of Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Summary
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 is a transfer station operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes an upgrade to the current facility
such that it meets DEQ permit requirements. In doing so, significant capital investment in the facility would be
necessary which may not be reasonable in a near term planning horizon. However, this would enable the RSWA
to retain its transfer station permit and would enable continued use of the facility by commercial haulers and
others bringing in waste from more than one property. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a
contract for hauling and disposal. Other valuable re-use and recycling services such as the disposal of clean fill
and large load vegetative waste and mulching would continue. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the
use of the facility in a manner similar to current practice.
Factors assumed favorable:
With approval of amended DEQ permit, retains ability to operate a transfer station in the County at this
specific location
Continues to allow waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Factors assumed unfavorable:
Transfer station permit amendment required by DEQ
Estimated cost of capital investment needed is between $580,000 and $615,000
Estimated annual operating cost to County is estimated at $394,947
Commercially hauled waste is declining as a percentage of total MSW
Timing of Next Steps
A decision to continue use of Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station to be operated by RSWA would require:
Formal request by County to RSWA in December, 2014 to extend Operating Agreement for a transfer
station for a specific time period
Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015 by RSWA and County
Design of facility improvements and procurement for one-time capital by RSWA
Consideration of budget amendment/appropriation for capital investment by RSWA and County
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is a convenience center operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes the facility is converted from a
transfer station such that a DEQ permit is not required for operation. In doing so, the facility would not accept
any waste from commercial haulers, others hauling in waste from multiple properties, or d ead animals. Many
of the current re-use and recycling services would be continued including the disposal of clean fill material and
large load vegetative waste. It is also understood that residential waste and commercial waste from a single
property would be accepted at such a facility. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the use of the
facility in a manner similar to current practice except that fees would not be charge for any source-separated
household recycling. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal.
This scenario takes full advantage of the proven high-quality service delivery performed over time by the RSWA
and the positive relationships established with neighbors and customers. This scenario requires some up -front
capital investment and relies heavily on the ability to continue to use the hopper/conveyor/compactor system
to accommodate unloading and compacting of bulky material for efficient handling and transport. This
scenario was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 1 and Option 2
Factors assumed favorable:
Does not require a DEQ permit
Continues most current services including waste from individual residential and commercial properties,
clean fill, large load vegetative waste, mulching, white goods, tires
Estimated initial development cost, estimated between $209,000 and $386,000, is less than transfer
station scenario
Estimated annual operating cost of $328,000 is slightly less than transfer station
Maintains continuity of operation
Maximizes existing positive relations with customers and neighbors
Enables continued use of current stormwater/leachate collection system
Factors assumed unfavorable
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
Timing of next steps
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center to be operated by RSWA can be
authorized immediately
County/RSWA would commence work on the following:
o Amendment of Operating Agreement for BoS and RSWA Board Action by December, 2014
o Identification of budget amendments/appropriations as necessary for capital and operations
o Design of facility improvements and procurement of one-time capital by the RSWA
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement prior to April 1, 2015
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is a convenience center operated by the County. In this scenario, the County will assume control of a
small portion of property at the Ivy MUC facility to allow for optimal operation of a convenience center.
Services would be limited to what is more typically seen at a convenience centers including source-separated
household recycling, bagged trash and open-top bins for bulky waste. Such a facility could still allow waste
from residential and commercial individual properties but would not be ab le to take advantage of the grade-
separated hopper/conveyor/compactor system for convenience and operating efficiencies. This scenario
would exclude specifically the disposal of clean fill material, large load vegetative waste and mulching. This
scenario may allow for other types of recycling such as white goods and tires if space and resources are
available. Similar to Scenario 2, such a facility would exclude waste from commercial haulers, others bringing
in waste from multiple properties and dead anim als. This scenario assumes that the County would operate the
facility with its own forces or contract the operation to a third party. In either case, this scenario would require
County staff resources not currently available for management and oversight at minimum. This scenario would
require the County to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal. An important aspect of this scenario is that
any control of property at Ivy MUC by the County by any means would create additional liability/risk for the
County. This scenario was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 2 and Option 3.
Factors assumed favorable
Does not require a DEQ permit
May be less expensive to operate. Competitive procurement of contract services would be necessary
to determine costs.
Factors assumed unfavorable
Initial development costs estimated at $585,000
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
May exclude other current services provided by the RSWA such as clean fill, large load vegetative
waste, mulching, pallets, white goods
Requires County control of property via lease or purchase
Creates additional liability/risk to County due to property control
Requires staffing or operations and/or management and supervision
Limits full utilization of facility as allowed by DEQ for a convenience center including the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system
Requires specific amendments to the RSWA Agreement related to property control and costs (i.e. lease
terms)
Timing of Next Steps:
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center operated by County would require:
County would commence work on the following:
o Issuance of RFP for contract services by October, 2014 for Board consideration/action by
December, 2014
o Determination to proceed with County forces or contract operations
o Development of a contract for services to operate facility if needed\
o Recruitment/hiring of operational staff if/as needed
o Identification/filling of resources to provide County management and oversight as needed
o Negotiation/execution of Lease between RSWA/County and other amendments to the RSWA
Agreement
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015
Solid Waste Scenarios
Cost Comparisons (estimated)
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Estimated Development
Costs
$580,000 - $615,000(1) $209,000 - $386,000 (2) $585,000 (2)
Estimated Operating
Costs to County (net
expenses over revenues)
$394,947 (2) $328,000 (3) Undetermined (competitive
pricing and specific
modifications to RSWA
Agreement required)
Notes:
(1) Draper Aden Associates estimate - 2012
(2) Draper Aden Associates estimate – 2014
(3) RSWA Staff estimate – 2014
Solid Waste Scenarios
Other Decision Factors
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Other Factors
Location/Site Continue at current location
with major modifications
Continue at current location
with minor to moderate
modifications
Continue at current location
with moderate to major
modifications
Commercial
haulers/others
Allows continued use by
commercial haulers, waste
from multiple properties, dead
animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple properties,
dead animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple haulers,
dead animals
Other Services Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days
Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days. Excludes waste as
indicated above.
Eliminates current vegetative
waste/mulching and clean fill
services. May eliminate other
services depending on
contracted service arrangement
Recycling Services Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Provides for typical household
type recycling services. May
provide for enhanced recycling
such as tires, batteries,
oil/antifreeze, etc. depending
on contract services. Excludes
clean fill, pallets, large load
vegetative waste, mulching
Timing Detailed plan for continued
operation of transfer station
beyond July 1, 2015 submitted
to DEQ no later than April 1,
2015
County commitment needed by
December 2014
RFP issued no later than
October, 2014 for
consideration in November and
decision in December.
Coordination No issues, RSWA provides all
services
No issues, RSWA provides all
services
Significant issues, requires
coordination with RSWA.
Lease and county resources to
be put in place.
Intangibles RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens and commercial
waste haulers, regularly
engages and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens, regularly engages
and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
County either elects to provide
services directly which would
require staffing, management
and internal support, or
contracts with a private third
party in which the relationship
is unproven. Supervision
required in either scenario.
Liability No additional liability with
continued RSWA operation.
No additional liability or risk,
continues current operation
Significant additional
liability/risk. Property control
via lease or purchase puts
County in ownership chain if
problems later found on facility
that predates regulations.
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Charge Statement, Membership, and Organization
ALBEMARLE COUNTY LONG RANGE SOLID WASTE SOLUTIONS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Established April 2, 2014
Charge
The Albemarle County Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee is an advisory
committee formed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to study solid waste
management as a public policy issue and to identify best practices for the management of solid
waste in the County now and in the future including the possibility of regional cooperation. The
committee will recommend a thoughtful, deliberate, and comprehensive process for
developing solid waste policy for the County based on consensus, cooperation, and economic
analysis.
This policy will include public engagement in determining goals and strategies based on the
best currently available data. It is not within the committee’s charge to evaluate existing
disposal practices at the Ivy MUC but to more fully investigate waste management practices
that might impact the development of future waste management infrastructure for the County
as a whole.
The advisory committee shall work directly with the County’s project team including staff and
any consultants. Its work shall be coordinated with the County’s overall efforts to improve solid
waste services and maintain compliance with state and federal regulatory mandates.
General Timeframe
The Advisory Committee will conclude its work when a final recommendation is made to the
Board of Supervisors no later than October 30, 2015 in order to be included in the County’s Five
Year Plan. The Committee shall provide periodic updates to the Board on the progress of their
work as appropriate. The following are anticipated milestones for this work:
2
July 2, 2014: Board approves formal Committee charge, goals, membership and
organization structure
July 9, 2014: Board appoints three additional members as identified on June 4th
September 2014: Board considers additional appointments to expand committee
membership
October 2014: Board considers and endorses public engagement plan
September-December 2014: Committee develops understanding of issues and possible
recommendations
January 2015-April 2015: Committee develops recommendations
May-July 2015: Committee report completed
August 2015: Committee report delivered to Board
Goals
Local Goals:
Identify necessary data and compile facts on the regional waste management system,
including market demand, facilities, services provided, and gaps in services or market
failure.
Document the participation of citizens, institutions and local industries in discussion of
solid waste policy, and indentify public engagement actions which are necessary to
inform public decisions.
Identify methods to incorporate input from the community to advise the Board of
Supervisors on solid waste practices.
Develop working relationships with local government, citizen, institutional and industry
resources to accomplish these recommended goals for the county.
Define specific solid waste management objectives for the County government
consistent with the public interest, the Board’s strategic plan and the County
Comprehensive Plan.
3
Establish specific milestones, responsibilities, and performance indicators for meeting
solid waste management objectives, noting the distinct roles of local government, state
agencies, private industry, institutions, residents, and community groups.
Regional, State, and Federal Goals:
Investigate regional, state and federal program involvement in waste reduction, market
development and financial support and seek ways to incorporate the proven
approaches to waste management of these governmental levels into the Albemarle
County program if deemed appropriate.
The defined objectives and milestones may include recommended changes to state and
federal law or administrative procedure. The group will recommend linkages to existing
advocacy coalitions for Board approval.
Membership
The committee shall consist of approximately twelve (12) voting members appointed by the
Board of Supervisors. Appointments will be based on Board and staff recommendations,
nominations from community and business groups and individual applications. The committee
will initially be composed of the four duly authorized Albemarle County members of the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Community Advisory Committee. Members may be added t o
this committee as its members or the Board of Supervisors sees fit , through the normal Board
appointment process.
While the membership of this committee and RSWA Community Advisory Committee may
overlap, the charge and scope of the groups differs, and the Albemarle County Long Range Solid
Waste Solutions Advisory Committee will not investigate current facilities or management of
the RSWA.
Membership Selection Criteria
The Long Term Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee will be composed, at a minimum, of
the following representatives:
The four duly authorized Albemarle County members of the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Community Advisory Committee
One member of the Board of Supervisors to serve as a liaison
One member of the Planning Commission to serve as a liaison
4
One representative from an environmental protection organization
One representative from the small business communit y
One representative from the solid waste commercial hauling industry
One representative from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
One representative from a rural area
One representative from a major institutional employer
One representative from the University of Virginia
Two representatives from the general public
The Board of Supervisors will appoint members based on their qualifications and interest in
serving on the Committee. An individual may be appointed to represent more than one of the
above referenced groups. The Board will strive to appoint an overall membership that is diverse
in age, abilities, experiences, professions, interests, etc.
Member qualifications include:
Experience working within a consensus-driven decision-making process, and a
commitment to such a process in fulfilling the Committee's responsibilities as outlined in
the charge statement;
Willingness to work within established County procedures and processes;
Ability to be open-minded; to listen and be respectful of the values, views and opinions
of other representatives;
Ability to share information with, and receive information from the community at large;
Ability to meet twice a month and possibly more often over the next year; and
Being a resident of Albemarle County (while every effort should be made to include
County residents, this may not be appropriate in all cases)
Advisory Committee Organization
The Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice-chair. County staff and any consultant team shall
serve as technical representatives and will support the group by assembling and compiling all
5
information and reports necessary for the Committee's work to progress, including meeting
notes.
Meetings will be held approximately twice a month or as otherwise agreed to by the
Committee. The date and time of Committee meetings shall be established at the first meeting;
additional meetings may be called by the Chair. All meetings will be open work sessions, where
the general public is invited to attend to listen and observe, unless public participation is
deemed appropriate by the Chair. Active participation will be extended to the general public at
open houses, workshops, and public hearings, per the public participation to be established by
the committee. In addition to the Advisory Committee, the project will include a public
engagement program for the public at large to include active participation at open houses,
workshops, and other appropriate venues, per the public participation to be established by the
committee.
No quorum shall be necessary to conduct business, but no vote will be taken unless a quorum is
present. A majority of the voting members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum.
Decisions shall be made, if possible, by an indication of general consensus among the
Committee members present. Staff (other than appointed members) will not participate as
decision makers. When this method does not serve to establish a clear direction, the chair shall
call for a roll-call vote. When an agreement cannot be achieved on an issue, business shall
proceed and County staff shall document and present minority positions for future Board of
Supervisor consideration.
Facilitation will be provided in those instances when it is considered beneficial in helping the
Committee achieve its stated purposes.