The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-4-20Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E APRIL 20, 2011 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 4:30 P.M., OLD ALBEMARLE COUNTY JAIL 409 EAST HIGH STREET 1. Call to Order. 2. Tour of Old Jail Facility. 3. Recess. 6:00 P.M., REGULAR NIGHT MEETING 4. Call to Order. 5. Pledge of Allegiance. 6. Moment of Silence. 7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 9. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 10. Consideration of the adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Albemarle County Code to adopt and reordain an amended Article I, Coordinated Fire and Rescue System. The ordinance would establish a coordinated fire and rescue system, consisting of the County’s volunteer fire companies and rescue squads and the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue, under the general direction of the County’s fire and rescue chief. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. PROJECT: SP-2008-00029. South Plains Presbyterian Church (Signs #92&93). PROPOSAL: Amend existing special use permit to allow removal of 19th century manse. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08000000011600. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110420/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:34:26 PM] Tentative 12. PROJECT: SP-2010-00032. Avon Street Ross AT&T CV376 Tier III PWSF. PROPOSAL: A one hundred and eleven (111) foot AT&T treetop Personal Wireless Service Facility in an avoidance area (Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District). ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas-; agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 527 Woodchuck Lane off of Scottsville Road [State Route 20]. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000-00-00-014B2. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. 13. PROJECT: ZMA-2010-00001. Pantops Ridge. (Signs #13,14&15). PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 37.5 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center, which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to R-15 Residential zoning district which allows single family attached/ detached uses and multifamily residential uses up to 15 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 399 for a density of 11 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/ DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, Intersection of US Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain Road. Access is proposed from a relocated Hansens Mountain Road and through 106 Viewmont Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 53; Tax Map 78B-A-4 is not included in the rezoning. It will be used for the road relocation. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. 14. PROJECT: ZMA-2010-00012. King Property (Sign #91). PROPOSAL: Rezone .85 acre of a 1.775 acre parcel from Rural Areas (RA) zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Light Industrial (LI) zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). Remainder of the parcel is zoned Light Industrial. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 352 Rio Road W (Rt. 631) at intersection with Four Seasons Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000025A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 16. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Schedule public hearing to amend Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110420/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:34:26 PM] Tentative the Old Crozet School. 6.2 Request approval of Thurman ACE appraisal and authorize an invitation to sell a conservation easement. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110420/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:34:26 PM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to the Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to schedule a public hearing to increase the square footage in the lease agreement between the County and the Field School of Charlottesville for part of the Old Crozet School STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and Freitas LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County currently leases the Old Crozet School to two tenants. The Field School of Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases 10,943 square feet. The Field School’s lease will automatically renew on July 1, 2011 unless notice is given by the County or the Field School. The second tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 4,826 square feet. The OCSA’s lease will renew on August 1, 2011 unless notice is given by the County or the OCSA. DISCUSSION: The Field School has identified a need for additional space to be used as a school library. Specifically, it would like to add 417 square feet of basement space that is in the older section of the facility and currently un-leased. The Field School would like to begin leasing this additional square footage concurrent with its lease renewal on July 1, 2011. The lease would be amended to add this additional space and to clarify the rental rate to be charged for the added space. Use of this space by the Field School has no foreseeable impact on the OCSA’s operations. BUDGET IMPACT: The approval of this lease amendment would result in an increase in annual revenue of at least $1,588.77. The exact amount will be determined once the May 2011 CPI is published, as specified in the lease. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on May 11, 2011 to receive public comment on the proposed lease amendment (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS A – Field School Lease Amendment Return to consent Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Accept completed Thurman Appraisals; Approve extending an invitation to sell a conservation easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Thurman ACE appraisal and authorize an invitation to sell a conservation easement STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs., Foley, Elliott, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On January 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to have the four remaining properties from the Round 10 (FY 2009-10) applicant pool (the Thurman, Rives, Rushia, and Nash/Violette properties) appraised (see Attachment “A”). All higher-ranked easements have either been acquired (Pugh/Stanerson) or withdrawn from consideration (Lively and Barksdale). Under County Code section A.1-111(A), "[T]he board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool established under section A.1-111(B)." DISCUSSION: The Thurman appraisal has been completed and was officially approved by the Appraisal Review Committee (see Attachment “B”) on April 12. The VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation is offering additional funds of $17,000 – 50,000 on the Thurman property if this purchase is closed by May 27, 2011. Based on this compressed timeline, The ACE Committee recommends that the Board accept the completed Thurman appraisal and authorize an invitation to Ms. Thurman to sell a conservation easement at the amount indicated in the approved appraisal. Acquisition of this easement would provide the following benefi ts and resource protection:  Protection of 108 acres of farm and forestland  Elimination of 6 development rights  2,650 feet of state road frontage  3,000 feet of riparian buffer  55 acres of “prime” farm and forestland  Property which is currently a family run farm BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement comes from the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409). RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are provided for action by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: 1) Accept the completed Thurman appraisal (see Attachment “B”). 2) Approve extending an invitation to submit an offer to sell to Ms. Thurman based on this appraisal. ATTACHMENTS A - Ranking Order of ACE Applicants for Round 10 – FY2009-10 B - ACE Budget for Round 10 & Thurman Easement Acquisition Cost Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment “A” Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10) (20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding) Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Status Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points yes new (Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres Total 296.670 acres Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points yes new (Ivy) Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 29.66 points yes re-enrollee (Walnut Creek) Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no re-enrollee (Milton) Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes re-enrollee (Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres Total 71.701 acres Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes re-enrollee (Crozet) Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 22.06 points yes new (Greenwood) William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points no new - ineligible (Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres Total 40.025 acres _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Totals 8 applicants 862.926 acres Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection. Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10) (20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding) Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Status Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points rejected ACE offer (Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres Total 296.670 acres Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points acquired on 2.14.2011 (Ivy) Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 28.71 points rejected ACE offer (Walnut Creek) Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points hope to acquire (Milton) Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points hope to acquire (Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres Total 71.701 acres Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points hope to acquire (Crozet) Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 21.06 points hope to acquire (Greenwood) William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points ineligible (Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres Total 40.025 acres _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Lively, Julius Property: TM 93, Parcel 53 ( 90.950 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s TM 93, Parcel 53C ( 10.650 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s TM 93, Parcel 53D ( 10.500 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s TM 93, Parcel 54 (184.570 acres) 8 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 12 DR’s Total (296.670 acres) 11 DivR’s + 19 DevR’s = 30 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Limestone Farm plats/County overlay maps 2.00 Criteria A.2 296.670 acres RE Assessor’s Office 5.93 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 24 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 12.00 Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00 Criteria C.3 1,340 feet on Route 53 County tax map/plats 4.23 (Entrance Corridor) Criteria C.4 yes - in Monticello viewshed PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 2.00 Criteria C.5 yes - Henderson habitat zone DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00 Criteria C.6 102 acres “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 2.04 Criteria C.7 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River County overlay maps 4.10 Criteria C.8 yes - Rivanna River plat/survey/County overlay maps 2.05 Criteria C.9 35 foot buffer on Rivanna River landowner 4.10 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00 Point Total 48.45 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District. ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Ethel R. Pugh/Bettie Stanerson Property: TM 56, Parcel 25C (96.220 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 1,900 feet on TM 72-20A plats/County overlay maps 8.72 1,450 feet on TM 56-113 Criteria A.2 96.220 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.92 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 yes (retired, medical issues) landowner 3.00 Criteria B.3 5 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.50 Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00 Criteria C.3 370’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.21 600’ on SR 683 Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 yes (w/in ¼ mile) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00 Criteria C.6 49 acres County Soil Survey 0.98 Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 4,029’ on Stockton Mill Creek landowner 4.03 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00 Point Total 33.36 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Barksdale, John Property: TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 7 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 10 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 1,076 feet on Walnut Creek Park plats/County overlay maps 9.77 2,810 feet on C. Hudson Criteria A.2 153.010 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.06 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50 Criteria C.1 yes - 40 acres in Gay Mtn. MOD County overlay map 0.95 3 acres in RAB Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00 Criteria C.3 1,076 feet on SR 631 County tax map/plats 3.08 Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 mafic outcrops w/ rare plants? DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00 Criteria C.6 105 acres County Soil Survey 2.10 Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 88% funding Based on income grid 1.20 Point Total 29.66 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Thurman, Thelma Property: TM 94, Parcel 20A (108.400 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Limestone Farm County overlay map 2.00 Criteria A.2 108.400 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.17 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00 Criteria B.3 6 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 3.00 Criteria C.1 no County overlay map 0.00 Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00 Criteria C.3 2,647’ on SR 623 County overlay map 4.65 Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 Criteria C.6 55 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.10 Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00 Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00 Criteria C.9 2,958’ w/ 50-100’ wide buffers landowner 4.44 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00 Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00 Criteria D.1 n/a VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 Point Total 25.36 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Rives, Barclay Property: TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” ( 1.250 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” (15.950 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR’s + 17 DevR’s = 18 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 783 feet on Mirza (TM 65 -93) plats/County overlay maps 3.57 Criteria A.2 71.701 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.43 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 16 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.00 Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00 Criteria C.3 470 feet on Route 231 County tax map/plats 2.92 144 feet on SR 740 Criteria C.4 yes - SWMHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00 Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 Criteria C.6 33 acres County Soil Survey 0.66 Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 yes (Kinloch Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00 Point Total 24.58 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District. ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Rushia, Ed & Christina Property: TM 39, Parcel 27 (86.700 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 990 feet on Henley plats/County overlay maps 11.54 1,922 feet on Shaw 1,856 feet on Pietsch Criteria A.2 86.700 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.73 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00 Criteria C.1 61 acres in MOD County overlay maps 2.97 35 acres in RAB Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00 Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 Criteria C.6 8 acres County Soil Survey 0.19 Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00 Point Total 22.43 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Margaret Nash/Martin Violette Property: TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00 Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00 Criteria C.3 730’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.87 654’ on SR 824 Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 yes - snail on Stockton Creek DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00 Criteria C.6 28 acres County Soil Survey 0.56 Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 1,834’ - 1 side Stockton Mill Creek landowner 1.83 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00 Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00 Point Total 22.06 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Traylor, William Property: TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s Total 40.025 acres 0 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 10 DR’s Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Gunn (TM 48-47C) plats/County overlay maps 2.00 Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80 Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50 Criteria C.1 yes - 34 acres in MOD County overlay maps 0.68 Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00 Criteria C.3 right-of-way County tax map/plats 0.00 Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 Criteria C.6 39 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.78 Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.9 756’ on perennial, internal stream landowner 1.51 Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00 Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00 Criteria D.1 yes - wants to donate some portion Based on income grid ???? Point Total 10.27 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria. In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal. A. Open-space resources. 1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one additional (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile, but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points. 2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres. B. Threat of conversion to developed use. 1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points. 2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points. 3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-right divisions of both 2-acre lots and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a single dwelling. C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources. 1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for each twenty (20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” mean s the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain overlay district elevation maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria, the Deed of Easement shall prohibit all construction within the MOD. No farm building or agricultural structure may be allowed unless prior written approval is obtained from each Grantee”. 2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3) points if one family member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the land use tax program. 3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. If the landowner elects to use points in the ranking criteria for frontage on a Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new dwelling shall have a 250’ setback from said roadway or shall not be visible in any season of the year from the scenic road on a site approved by the Grantee. Otherwise, one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage. 4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of archaeological or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria for artifacts or sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the Deed of Easement shall require the permanent protection of these resources as designed by Department of Historic Resources. 5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or a qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the ACE Program and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two (2) points. 6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points. 7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River, North Fork Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. 8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from the river so as to maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river. 9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to establish or maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than fifty (50) feet but not more than one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the above-referenced points may also be awarded. 10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county- sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point. 11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points. 12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry. D. County Fund Leveraging. 1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied. Attachment “B” 1. ACE Budget for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) Applicant Pool County Funds Available from FY09-10 Appropriation $ 1,008,917.69 Funds Reduced by BOS from FY09-10 Allocation - 470,000.00 Current County Funds Available from FY09-10 Appropriation $ 538,917.69 Funds from 2009 Farmland Preservation Grant 49,900.00 Funds from 2010 Farmland Preservation Grant 93,932.19 Funds from 2011 Farmland Preservation Grant 12,500.00 Funds Available for FY09-10 Easements $ 695,249.88 Acquisition Cost of ACE Easements: Easement Acquisition - Pugh/Stanerson $ 162,500.00 Appraisals 9,000.00 Title Insurance 1,500.00 Net Easement Acquisition Cost $ 173,000.00 Funds Available for Remaining Properties in FY09-10 $ 522,249.88 2. Appraisal & Acquisition Cost for Thurman - Round 10 (FY 2009-10) Applicant Total Appraised FMV Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV) Thurman $ 1,030,000 $ 230,000 (23%) $ 230,000 (100%) (Milton) FMV = Fair Market Value EV = Easement Value COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: An ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 6, Fire Protection, to establish a coordinated and integrated fire and rescue system composed of volunteer fire companies and rescue squads and the Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston, and Ms. Kim LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Between September and November, 2010, an ad hoc committee made up of volunteer chiefs and Board members Ann Mallek and Rodney Thomas met several times to draft revisions to the ordinance considered by the Board at an August 11, 2010 public hearing. The Board affirmed at its November 3, 2010 meeting that it remained committed to an ordinance based on a collaborative fire chief organizational model rather than a commission model. At the committee’s invitation, staff from the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue (“ACFR”) and the County Attorney’s Office met with the ad hoc committee six times between December, 2010 and February, 2011 to work on revisions to the August 11th ordinance. The County Attorney’s Office generated four drafts of the ordinance for the committee’s review and comments. Following the committee’s final meeting on February 1, 2011, the County Attorney’s Office produced a final draft ordinance dated February 1, 2011. At its February 23, 2011 meeting, the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (“ACFRAB”) voted to advance to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration at its March 3, 2011 work session an alternative version of a draft ordinance dated November 1, 2010 prepared by its ad-hoc working committee. On March 3, 2011, the Board held a work session with members of ACFRAB and staff to hear comments related to the draft ordinances (See Attachment B for the March 3, 2011 executive summary). At the conclusion of the work session, the Board directed the County Attorney’s Office to revise the February 1, 2011 draft ordinance to include the Fire Chief as a member of the FEMS Board for purposes of participation, along with any reconciling changes required as a result, and authorized the Clerk to advertise a notice of its intent to adopt the revised ordinance at its meeting on April 20, 2011. All changes made to the August 11, 2010 proposed ordinance since August 11th are shown in the working document found at Attachment C and have been incorporated into the proposed March 14, 2011 draft ordinance. DISCUSSION: The County Attorney’s Office revised the February 1, 2011 draft ordinance to include the changes the Board requested on March 3, 2011. The final draft ordinance, dated March 14, 2011, is attached (Attachment A). The March 14, 2011 draft ordinance was distributed to ACFRAB members so that they could review it with their membership and community board members. Supervisor Mallek and Chief Eggleston were invited by and met with some fire and rescue departments to discuss the draft ordinance and address questions from the members. BUDGET IMPACT: Although there is no immediate budget impact associated with the proposed fire rescue structure, the amount of staff time to support the FEMS Board and the Executive Committee will need to be evaluated over time to determine if a sustained amount of support can be provided with existing staff. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS A – March 14, 2011 Draft Ordinance B – March 3, 2011 Executive Summary (w/o attachments) C – Working document showing changes since August 11, 2010 Return to regular agenda Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 11-6(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 6, Fire Protection, Article I, In General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding: Sec. 6-100 Purpose Sec. 6-101 Definitions Sec. 6-102 Establishment and composition of the coordinated fire and rescue system Sec. 6-103 Responsibilities of the coordinated fire and rescue system Sec. 6-104 Fire and Rescue Chief Sec. 6-105 Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads; volunteer chiefs Sec. 6-106 Establishment and composition of FEMS Board Sec. 6-107 Responsibilities of the FEMS Board Sec. 6-108 Executive committee of the FEMS Board Sec. 6-109 Procedure for developing policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system Sec. 6-110 Noncompliance with system policies By Amending and Renumbering: Sec. 6-100 Office of the fire marshal created; appointment, oath and powers of the fire marshal and his duties to Sec. 6-111 Office of the Fire Marshal Sec. 6-102 Junior Firefighter Programs to Sec. 6-112 Junior Firefighters Program By Deleting: Sec. 6-101 General precautions to prevent spread of fire; penalties ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL ARTICLE I. COORDINATED FIRE AND RESCUE SYSTEM DIVISION I. IN GENERAL Sec. 6-100. Purpose. The board of supervisors, determined to provide for the public safety, health and welfare of Albemarle County citizens and communities, hereby establishes a coordinated and integrated fire and emergency medical service system currently composed of the following, volunteer fire companies, volunteer rescue squads and the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue: Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad Crozet Volunteer Fire Department Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company Western Albemarle Rescue Squad In taking this measure to assure the most efficient and effective service possible and to meet the challenges of the growth and development of the jurisdiction, the board of supervisors specifically Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 2 recognizes the essential and historical contributions of volunteers and the necessity of continuing and expanding volunteer participation, without which the county could not discharge its responsibilities. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall work to develop an integrated and seamless systems approach to the provision of emergency services; promote the interests and welfare of county citizenry and communities; perform with maximum cost -effectiveness consistent with safety objectives; account for service delivery and resource utilization; and communicate and consider all views regarding the system. Sec. 6-101. Definitions. For the purposes of this article and, unless otherwise required by the context, the following words and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue means the county agency responsible for delivering fire, rescue and emergency medical services in partnership with the volunteer organizations within the coordinated fire and rescue system. Board or board of supervisors means the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. Company means a volunteer fire company or department located in Albemarle County. Each individual fire-fighting organization within the county shall be defined as a ―fire compa ny,‖ as provided in Virginia Code §27-8.1. County employees or County staff means employees of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue who provide fire, rescue, and emergency medical services as members of the coordinated fire and rescue syst em. County volunteers mean volunteers of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue who provide fire, rescue and emergency medical services as members of the coordinated fire and rescue system. County volunteers are not members of incorporated fire companies or rescue squads. Executive Committee means a committee of the FEMS Board as provided in section 6-108. Fire EMS Board or FEMS Board means the Albemarle County Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Board, formerly known as the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board, which advises the fire and rescue chief and performs additional functions as provided in sections 6 -106 and 6-107. Fire and rescue chief or chief means the director of the Albemarle County Coordinated Fire and Rescue System, as established in section 6-104. Policies mean the rules and regulations of the coordinated fire and rescue system, including standard operating guidelines and standard administrative procedures. Rescue squad means a volunteer rescue squad or emergency medical services organization, as described by Virginia Code §32.1-111.1 et seq, that is located in Albemarle County, as well as the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, which has its principal place of business in the City of Charlottesville. Volunteers mean non-employee volunteer members of the several fire companies and rescue squads set forth in section 6-100. State law reference—Definitions, Virginia Code § 32.1-111.1 Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 3 DIVISION II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COORDINATED FIRE AND RESCUE SYSTEM Sec. 6-102. Establishment and composition of the coordinated fire and rescue system. (a) The Albemarle County Coordinated Fire and Rescue System (―the system‖ or ―the coordinated fire and rescue system‖) is hereby established pursuant to Virginia Code §27 -6.1. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall provide comprehensive fire, rescue, and emergency medical services throughout the county in accordance with state la ws, county ordinances, and duly adopted policies issued by the system. (b) The coordinated fire and rescue system shall be a combined force of non -employee volunteer members of the several fire companies and rescue squads, county employees, and county volunteers of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue. The following volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, and any others that may be duly established in the future, along with county volunteers, constitute an indispensable part of the publi c safety program for the county: Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, and Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-6.1, 27-8.1 Sec. 6-103. Responsibilities of the coordinated fire and rescue system. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall: (1) Manage the delivery of prehospital emergency patient care and services through policy development and implementation consistent with state emergency medical services regulations and the guidance of each organization’s operational medical director. (2) Manage the provision of system-wide fire prevention, protection, investigation, suppression, education and rescue services, and services relating to hazardous materials and other hazards posing a threat to life and property, through policy development and implementation. (3) Provide any additional, related, system-wide services that are essential for the provision of high-quality fire and emergency medical services. (4) Perform and deliver services consistent with state laws, county ordinances, and duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-7, 27-14, and 32.1-111.14 Sec. 6-104. Fire and Rescue Chief. The director of the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be known as the fire and rescue chief, who shall be appointed by the board of supervisors upon recommendation by the county executive following a selection process that includes representation from both the fire and emergency medical services membership as designated by the FEMS Board. The fire and rescue chief shall: (1) Provide general oversight and management of the system’s functions through: a. Strategy development, in collaboration with the FEMS Board, for the retention and expansion of the volunteer base within the system to ensure that the health of the volunteer system remains a high priority for the fire and rescue chief. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 4 b. Policy development, in collaboration with the FEMS Board, of system-wide policies that are essential to the effective and equitable provision of high-quality, countywide fire and rescue services, and overseeing the implementation of those system-level policies. All policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be developed through the collaborative policy procedures established by section 6-109 and shall include, but not be limited to: i. Standard operating guidelines for the system’s delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services; ii. System performance standards, such as minimum staffing and response goals; iii. A seamless command structure and incident command system that complies with federal and state incident management standards; iv. Minimum personnel, training, licensure, and reporting requirements for the welfare of county and volunteer personnel and the delivery of high-quality fire and rescue services; v. System fleet size, deployment, and functions; vi. Minimum standards regarding apparatus and equipment; vii. System funding by the county and system budget matters; and viii. A process for setting and maintaining first due areas, response districts and apparatus response orders. (2) Make day-to-day operational decisions necessary for the coordinated system on matters not specifically addressed by system-wide policies. Prior to any significant decision affecting the coordinated system, however, the fire and rescue chief shall consult with the executive committee and consider all reasonable recommendations from the executive committee to the maximum extent possible. If exigent circumstances do not permit such prior consultation with the executive committee, the fire and rescue chief shall advise the executive committee as soon as practicable after the decision is made and seek its recommendations for future actions. The FEMS Board may at any time discus s and review significant system-wide decisions made by the fire and rescue chief without its prior consultation. (3) Serve as the executive of the system to support the FEMS Board by leading and facilitating the executive committee; participating fully in FEMS Board meetings, communications, programs and activities; providing and managing county staff support, as needed, for the FEMS Board and executive committee; and overseeing the preparation of FEMS Board and executive committee agendas and meeting documents. The fire and rescue chief shall also be a full voting member of the FEMS Board. In no way shall this subsection diminish the authority of the county executive to supervise the fire and rescue chief. (4) Provide general management, planning, preparation, response and recovery for any disaster relating to fires, hazardous materials, rescues or emergency medical services that may occur in the county. (5) Assume responsibility, under the authority of the county executive, for actions necessary to implement and carry out agreements for mutual aid, disaster preparedness and the provision of services related to hazardous materials, rescues, fire suppression, Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 5 investigation, medical services or other emergency response services deemed necessary in the judgment of the fire and rescue chief in events exceeding the capabilities of an individual locality or government agency. (6) Exercise all powers authorized by state law as necessary for the provision of fire and emergency medical services. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-6.1, 27-7. Sec. 6-105. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads; volunteer chiefs. (a) General; authority to create by-laws. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads may be formed, named and dissolved in accordance with state law and board approval. They shall operate in conformity with state laws, county ordinances, and the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. Boards and governing authorities of volunt eer companies and squads shall have full authority to adopt policies, guidelines and protocols for the governance of their stations, except where specifically constrained by state law, county ordinances, or policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system as they are duly adopted. Nothing in this article is intended, nor shall it be construed, to make any member of a volunteer company or squad an employee of the county. (b) Responsibilities. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads shall have all the powers and duties granted to them by state law. They shall also execute the following responsibilities in conformity with their respective organizational by-laws, chains of command, and the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue syst em: 1. Managing performance by the company or squad, including directing station activity and operations as needed; 2. Assuming or delegating the role of incident commander within the system’s integrated incident command structure; 3. Providing management of response districts and apparatus response orders; 4. Selecting and promoting officers and other personnel; 5. Recruiting, retaining and advocating on behalf of volunteer members; 6. Managing officers and personnel, including disciplining, training, and keeping records; 7. Preparing their annual budgets for submission to the county, and managing their budgets; 8. Fundraising and managing all funds and assets that derive from private or non-county sources; 9. Collecting and forwarding to the fire and rescue chief such data, statistics and other information as may be necessary to assure the efficient and economical operation of the coordinated fire and rescue system; 10. Caring for and maintaining station facilities, apparatus and equipment; and 11. Managing station procurement of supplies and coordinating station procurement and stewardship of county-supported apparatus, equipment, and tools. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 6 (c) Chiefs. The operational head of each volunteer fire company and rescue squad within the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be selected according to the by-laws of the company or squad and shall be known as the chief. Volunteer chiefs shall exercise the authority granted to them by state law and the by-laws of their organizations, so long as their actions do not conflict with the provisions of this article or the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. State law reference – Virginia Code §§15.2-955, 27-9, 27-10, and 32.1-111.14 Sec. 6-106. Establishment and composition of FEMS Board. (a) The Albemarle County Fire and EMS Board (―FEMS Board‖) is hereby established to accomplish the following: 1. Collaborate with and advise the fire and rescue chief concerning the delivery of fire, rescue and emergency medical services as representatives of the volunteer companies and squads and as described by this article; 2. Facilitate communication and collaboration between the volunteer and c ounty- employed members of the coordinated fire and rescue system; and 3. Communicate issues of importance to the fire and rescue chief concerning individual volunteer organizations or the coordinated fire and rescue system. Nothing in this article abridges the First Amendment rights of private citizens to communicate directly with the county executive or the board of supervisors. (b) The FEMS Board shall be composed of the highest ranking operational leader of each of the volunteer organizations listed in section 6-102 of this article and the fire and rescue chief, who shall also serve as the executive of the system in accordance with section 6 -104. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the FEMS Board from adopting by-laws concerning voting rights and the delegation of duties. Sec. 6-107. Responsibilities of the FEMS Board. The FEMS Board shall perform the following duties: (1) Adopt by-laws for its operation consistent with this article, including, but not limited to, by-laws concerning the voting rights of members and the delegation of member responsibilities. (2) Review all proposed policies affecting the coordinated fire and rescue system and provide comments and advice to the fire and rescue chief through the collaborative procedures established in section 6-109 and ensure the communication of duly adopted system-level policies to all companies and squads. (3) Appoint a committee or committees to meet regularly with the fire and rescue chief, county staff and, if appropriate, county volunteers, in order to consider concerns and provide input regarding: a. Incident management; b. Non-conformance with duly adopted system policies; and c. Assurance of quality in the delivery of emergency services. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 7 (4) Appoint such additional committees as may be necessary, as well as committees that may be useful to facilitate communication regarding matters of importance to the coordinated fire and rescue system in the performance of its essential mission, including county staff and county volunteers in such committees, as appropriate. (5) Appoint an executive committee to perform the responsibilities outlined in section 6 -108. (6) Review and provide input and recommendations to the fire and rescue chief regarding new initiatives for the system’s operating and capital improvement budgets. (7) Develop, in collaboration with the fire and rescue chief, a broadly supported grievance procedure for chiefs of volunteer organizations to contest decisions of the fire chief to the county executive or his designee in matters affecting individual volunteers, who are not employees of the county, in accordance with section 6-109. The general management and discipline of volunteers shall be a station-level responsibility, as provided in section 6-107. (8) Meet on a regular basis in order to perform its responsibilities under this section, and present a report at least annually to the board of supervisors regarding the health and welfare of the volunteer system. Nothing in this article abridges the First Amendment rights of private citizens to communica te directly with the county executive or the board of supervisors. Sec. 6-108. Executive committee of the FEMS Board. (a) Composition. The executive committee of the FEMS Board shall be composed of the chair and vice-chair of the FEMS Board, a fire r epresentative selected by the FEMS Board in accordance with its by-laws, and a rescue representative selected by the FEMS Board in accordance with its by -laws The fire and rescue chief shall lead and facilitate the executive committee. Executive committee members must be active members in good standing with their respective volunteer companies and squads. (b) Terms of service. The FEMS Board shall determine the terms of service for committee members, who shall serve at the pleasure of the FEMS Board. (c) Responsibilities. The executive committee shall advise the fire and rescue chief in a timely manner on all proposed policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system and on any other system matter for which the fire and rescue chief requests input and advice. In addition, the executive committee shall perform other functions delegated by the FEMS Board in accordance wit h this article and FEMS Board by-laws. The executive committee shall meet as frequently as needed to discharge these responsibilities. Sec. 6-109. Procedure for developing policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. (a) Purpose. In adopting this article the board of supervisors recognizes that, to have full effect, policies must be developed through a collaborative process and enjoy the support of a majority of the elements of the coordinated fire and rescue system. The procedures in this section are intended to assist the fire and rescue chief, the FEMS Board, and the executive committee in the collaborative and careful development of policies for the system. These procedures may be changed at any time by agreement of the fire and rescue c hief and the FEMS Board by a majority vote. In addition, the fire and rescue chief may at any time seek more input and advice from the executive committee or FEMS Board than this section requires. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 8 (b) Initiative and Drafting. Any member of the coordinated fire and rescue system may suggest new policies or policy amendments to the fire and rescue chief and the FEMS Board through the member’s chain of command. In cooperation with the executive committee, the fire and rescue chief shall oversee the preparation of new system-level policies and the review of all existing system-level policies. Policies that affect only county employees or county volunteers will not be considered by the executive committee. Draft policies, prepared by the fire and rescue chief, shall be submitted to the executive committee for joint consideration and collaborative development. The draft will be accompanied by a written report summarizing the rationale for the policy and the impacts, if any, on volunteer budgets and volunteer members’ time. (c) Executive Committee Role in Policy Development. The executive committee shall review and evaluate all draft policies proposed by the fire and rescue chief or others in light of the following standard: whether the policy is essential to the effective and equitable provision of high-quality, countywide fire and rescue services (hereinafter, ―system policy standard‖). Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the initial draft policy, barring unforeseen circumstances, the execu tive committee shall review the draft and decide to: support the policy as worded; support the policy with specific revisions; or decline to support the policy. The committee may accompany its decision with a written explanation of its position, although it must provide a written explanation in the event it declines to support the policy. The fire and rescue chief shall consider the comments and recommendations of the executive committee and shall incorporate such recommendations for revision which, in his judgment, meet the system policy standard. The fire and rescue chief shall then re-submit the draft, with any revisions, to the executive committee for additional review and comment, repeating this process until he is satisfied that the resulting draft meets the system policy standard and addresses the reasonable concerns of the executive committee. Should the chief decline to accept any material recommendation for revision from the executive committee, he shall provide a written explanation of his decision to the executive committee and attempt to reach a consensus with the committee prior to submitting the proposed policy to the FEMS Board. During the collaborative process described above, the executive committee shall brief other members of the FEMS Board on the progress of its work with the fire and rescue chief and solicit from the FEMS Board any questions, concerns and suggestions for introduction to the chief. (d) FEMS Board Deliberations. After completing collaborative consultations with t he executive committee as described above, the fire and rescue chief shall submit the proposed policy, along with any annotations he considers necessary, to the full FEMS Board for its review. If, after following the collaborative process described above, the executive committee wishes to advance a policy which the fire and rescue chief has declined to issue, as evidenced in written notice to the executive committee, the executive committee shall submit the policy to the FEMS Board for its review. The fire and rescue chief may submit an alternative policy or a written summary of the reasons for his decision to decline issuance with the executive committee’s policy for simultaneous review by the FEMS Board. If both the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee submit policies for simultaneous review by the FEMS Board, the FEMS Board shall consider and vote on both policies at the same meeting. Provided that the proposed policy is submitted to the FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) calendar days before any monthly meeting, the FEMS Board shall take action on the policy at that meeting unless the FEMS Board decides, by a majority vote, to require a second reading of the policy at the following meeting. After considering the draft policy in light of the system policy standard defined in §6-109(c), the FEMS Board shall take one of the following actions by majority vote, which shall be reflected fully in the minutes of the FEMS Board: 1. Accept the draft policy as worded. 2. Support the policy in principle, but with specific revisions. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 9 3. Decline to accept the policy. If the FEMS Board subsequently votes to appeal the policy, it must provide a clear explanation for its vote at that meeting, and may, at its discretion, follow with a written explanation of the reasons for its opposition. After the FEMS Board votes to take an action described in numbers 2 or 3 above on a policy proposed by the fire and rescue chief, the chief shall reconsider the draft policy in light of the system policy standard defined in §6-109(c) and incorporate such revisions from the FEMS Board which, in his judgment, meet that standard. The chief shall then submit any revised draft policy to the FEMS Board or the executive committee for additional review and consider any further recommenda tions, repeating this process until he is satisfied that the resulting draft policy meets the system policy standard and addresses the reasonable concerns of the FEMS Board. The chief shall submit his final draft policy to the FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) calendar days before their next meeting for final consideration. (e) Adoption of Policies. The fire and rescue chief shall be authorized to adopt and issue a policy of the coordinated fire and rescue system immediately after a vote by the FEMS Board to support the policy as worded. Should the FEMS Board vote to support the policy with revisions, or to decline to support the policy, the chief shall be authorized to, but need not, issue the proposed policy as submitted after providing written notic e to the FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next FEMS Board meeting. In that event, the policy shall take effect the day after the next FEMS Board meeting or later, if the policy specifies a later effective date. Any vote by the FEMS Boar d to appeal a policy shall immediately suspend the adoption and issuance of the policy. (f) Appeals of Policies. Appeals of proposed policies will be taken in accordance with this section. The FEMS Board may vote to appeal either a proposed policy of the fire and rescue chief, or to appeal the chief’s decision to decline issuance of the executive committee’s proposed policy, by a majority vote taken no later than the next meeting following the introduction of the policy to the FEMS Board or the meeting following the second reading of the policy, if a second reading has been required by the FEMS Board. The minutes of the FEMS Board shall reflect the vote to appeal and a summary of all statements made during the deliberation of the policy. Within seven (7) calendar days of any vote to appeal, the chairman of the FEMS Board shall submit a written notice of appeal, including a statement of the basis for the appeal, to the county executive. If the appeal arises from the chief’s decision to decline to issue the executive committee’s proposed policy, both the executive committee’s proposed policy and any alternative proposed policy of the fire and rescue chief shall be submitted for joint review throughout the appeal process. Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the notice of appeal, the county executive or his designee shall provide a written decision to the FEMS Board and the fire and rescue chief. Decisions shall be based on whether the proposed policy or policies meet the system policy standard as defined in §6-109(c). A decision that the appeal has merit may also provide guidance to the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee regarding further work to be undertaken on the disputed policy. A decision that the appeal is without merit may be appealed to the board of supervisors by a majority vote of the FEMS Board at its next meeting. Within seven (7) calendar days of the vote to appeal to the board of supervisors, the chairman of the FEMS Board shall submit a written notice of appeal, including a statement of the basis for the appeal, to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The written notice of appeal will be accompanied by a packet, compiled by county staff, containing a copy of the following: all documents submitted by the FEMS Board, fire and rescue chief, and the county executive as part of the appeal process; the proposed policy or policies; and the minutes, if any, reflecting FEMS Board deliberations on the proposed policy or policies. Any party may include such other document s it believes would be helpful for the board of supervisors to consider by providing them to the clerk of the board of supervisors prior to the expiration of the seven (7) calendar days described above. The board of supervisors shall consider the appeal a t a subsequent meeting and issue a decision that the appeal should be sustained or not sustained, in whole or Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 10 in part. The basis for the decision shall be whether the proposed policy or policies meet the system policy standard as defined by §6-109(c). Sec. 6-110. Noncompliance with system policies. (a) Purpose. A peer-accountability procedure for enforcing duly-adopted system policies applicable to volunteer fire companies and rescue squads is hereby established to accomplish the following: 1. full and consistent adherence to system policies by all member organizations; 2. fair, equitable, and objective consideration of all potential material noncompliance violations in accordance with this section; 3. management of discipline and compliance remediation efforts by the chief of the noncompliant organization to the greatest extent possible; and 4. promotion of open and ongoing communication by and between member organizations about policy compliance matters. (b) Definition of Material Noncompliance. ―Material noncompliance‖ or ―materially noncomplying‖ with system policies means a failure to adhere to a system policy adopted in accordance with section 6-109 which: (i) is committed on two or more separate occasions, or on a single occasion if the alleged conduct involves either civil legal violations or actions by multiple members of the organization’s leadership, or is committed intentionally after notice that the conduct would violate system policy; and (ii) does one or more of the following: 1. threatens the health, safety or welfare of county citizens, volunteers or county staff; 2. impairs the operational readiness of the coordinated fire and rescue system to deliver fire and emergency medical services; 3. violates any applicable civil federal, state or local law; or 4. involves the violation of a policy provision regarding public funds. (c) Informal Resolution of Concerns. 1. The chiefs of all member organizations and the fire and rescue chief shall be entitled to communicate concerns about noncompliance with system policies to the chiefs of those organizations believed to be noncompliant. 2. For all noncompliance concerns that rise to the level of ―material noncompliance,‖ as defined by this section, the complaining chief must first notify the chief of the noncompliant organization and make reasonable efforts to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution, consistent with system policies and this article, with that chief prior to initiating the procedures for formal resolution of material noncompliance. The complaining chief shall also apprise the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief of the compliance concern and resolution efforts, and may seek assistance from the fire and rescue chief for such efforts. 3. Should such efforts to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution of material noncompliance fail, the complaining chief shall initiate a formal procedure for material noncompliance in accordance with subsection (d). (d) Formal Resolution of Material Noncompliance Complaints. 1. Initiating Complaint. After completing the informal resolution process established in subsection (c), the chief of any member organization or th e fire and rescue chief may initiate a formal Complaint of Material Noncompliance with System Policy (―Complaint‖) Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 11 by submitting the Complaint in writing to the executive committee. The Complaint must state, at a minimum, which policy or policies has been violated, and a summary of the facts supporting the violation. 2. Investigation of the Complaint. As soon as practicable after receiving the Complaint, the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief shall consider the Complaint and determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that the charged organization has materially noncomplied with a system policy. If the executive committee decides, by a majority vote, that reasonable cause exists, the executive committee shall undertake a formal investigation of the Complaint or appoint a committee to conduct the investigation. The investigation shall be concluded as soon as practicable and no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receiving the charge to investigate the Complaint, unless extraordi nary circumstances justify the need for a longer investigative period. Should the fire and rescue chief disagree with the majority vote of the executive committee as to whether reasonable cause exists, the investigation shall be conducted as described in this section. 3. Determination of Material Noncompliance. The executive committee, or the committee appointed by the executive committee to conduct the investigation, shall prepare a written report summarizing the investigation and its factual conclusions and submit the report to the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief no later than ten (10) calendar days following the conclusion of the investigation. As soon as practicable following receipt of the report, the executive committee shall determine whether the charged organization has materially noncomplied with system policy. If the executive committee determines, by majority vote, that the charged organization has materially noncomplied with system policy, with the concurrence of the fire and rescue chief, the steps described in subsection (d)(iv) (Remediation) shall be followed. Should the fire and rescue chief disagree with the majority vote of the executive committee, the chief shall be authorized to take, but need not take, any actio n permitted by subsection (g) (Authority Reserved for Immediate Action) as needed to act in the best interest of the system. 4. Remediation. As soon as practicable following a determination of material noncompliance, the executive committee shall, in consultation with the fire and rescue chief, design a plan for remediating the noncompliance. The executive committee shall communicate the plan to the charged organization and oversee implementation of the plan. Should the charged organization substantially fail to implement the plan, the fire and rescue chief may modify the plan, discontinue the plan, implement an alternative plan, and/or take other action as needed. Prior to taking these steps, however, the fire and rescue chief must consult the execut ive committee about his intended action and consider its recommendations except when immediate action under subsection (g) is required, in which case he shall consult with the executive committee as soon as practicable after such action. 5. Referral for Dissolution or Reduction in Funding. If the executive committee and fire and rescue chief determine that the nature of the material noncompliance is so serious as to merit consideration of dissolution of the organization or reduction in its funding by t he board of supervisors, they shall apprise the FEMS Board of the investigation and their recommendation for such action. After such apprisal, a recommendation may be made by the fire and rescue chief to the county executive for referral to the board of supervisors, which shall retain at all times the sole authority to dissolve a fire or rescue organization, pursuant to Virginia Code §27 - 10, and to determine annual appropriations. (e) Appeal Procedure for Determinations of Material Noncompliance. 1. Filing of Appeal. Once the determination of material noncompliance has been made and the plan of remediation has been issued to the charged organization, the charged organization may appeal, in writing, the determination of material noncompliance, the plan of Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 12 remediation, or both, to the county executive within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the plan of remediation. The appeal must state the decision being appealed and the basis for the appeal. The charged organization may be assisted in its appeal by any member of the FEMS Board or by any individual. 2. FEMS Board Review. At the request of the charged organization, the FEMS Board shall review and discuss the Complaint, investigation report, determination of material noncompliance, and plan of remediation at its next meeting. After such consideration, the FEMS Board may, but need not, decide by a majority vote to provide a recommendation to the fire and rescue chief and to the county executive concerning the appeal. 3. County Executive’s Decision. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a timely appeal from a charged organization, the county executive or his designee shall issue a written decision to the charged organization, the fire and rescue chief, and the FEMS Board. A decision that the appeal has merit may also provide guidance to the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee regarding the determination of material noncompliance, the plan for remediation, or both. The decision of the county executive shall end the appeal process. (f) Disqualification from Voting. No representative of an organization charged with material noncompliance may participate in the investigation of any Complaint or vote as provided in this section concerning its organization. In the event that a member of the executive committee belongs to a charged organization, the executive committee shall appoint a substitute member from an organization within the system to discharge all executive committee responsibilities of that member which are required by this section. (g) Authority Reserved for Immediate Action. Notwithstanding the provisions in this section, the fire and rescue chief shall be authorized at all times to take immediate action to prevent or mitigate imminent harm to the health, safety, or welfare of county citizens, volunteers or county staff; to ensure operational readiness of the coordinated fire and rescue system to deliver fire and emergency medical services; to comply with all applicable laws; and to exercise any authority otherwise provided in section 6-104. Such immediate action may be taken concurrently with the procedures for informal resolution, formal resolution and appeal described in this section. Sec. 6-100 111 Office of the Fire Marshal fire marshal created; appointment, oath and powers of the fire marshal and his duties. A.(a) Pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-30, the Office of the County Fire Marshal is hereby established. The board of supervisors shall appoint the fire marshal and such assistant fire marshals as the board deems necessary. B.(b) The fire marshal and his assistants shall, before entering upon their duties, take an oath, before any officer authorized to administer oaths, to faithfully discharge the duties of their offices. C.(c) The fire marshal and his assistants, in addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, shall be authorized to exercise all of the powers authorized by Title 27, Chapter 3 of the Virginia Code granted pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1. D. While any fire department or fire company is in the process of answering an alarm or operating at an emergency incident where there is imminent danger or the actual occurrence of fire or explosion, or the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials that threaten life or property, or in ot her emergency situations, the fire marshal and his assistants, or other officer in charge of such fire department or company at that time, shall have the authority to: 1. maintain order at such emergency incident or in its vicinity; Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 13 2. notwithstanding the provisions of Virginia Code § 46.2-890, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance from the incident and emergency equipment; 3. facilitate the speedy movement and operation of emergency equipment and firefighters; 4. cause an investigation to be made into the origin and cause of the incident; and 5. until the arrival of a police officer, direct and control traffic, in person or by deputy, and facilitate the movement of traffic. The fire marshal or other officer in charge shall display his firefighter’s badge or other proper means of identification. E. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority granted by this section shall extend to the activation of traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of emergency equipment at a fire station. F. Any person refusing to obey the orders of the fire marshal or his assistants, or other officer in charge at that time, shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. The fire marshal and his assistants, or other officer in charge, shall have the authority to make arrests for violation of the provisions of this section. G. The authority granted under the provisions of this section may not be exercised to inhibit or obstruct members of law-enforcement agencies or rescue squads from performing their normal duties when operating at such emergency incident. Personnel from the news media, when engaged in news - gathering activities, may enter at their own risk into the incident area only when the officer in charg e has deemed the area safe and only into those areas of the incident that do not, in the opinion of the fire marshal or his assistants, or other officer in charge, interfere with the fire department or rescue workers dealing with such emergencies, in which case the fire marshal his assistants, or other officer in charge, may order such persons from the scene of the emergency incident. (Code 1988, § 9-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-30, et seq. Sec. 6-102 112 Junior Firefighters Programs. Persons sixteen years of age or older are authorized to participate in a volunteer fire company duly authorized to operate within the County of Albemarle under the following conditions. Any person sixteen years of age or older may work with or is authorized to participate fully in all activities of a voluntary volunteer fire company duly authorized to operate in the county after he or she, provided that, if such person is less than eighteen years of age, such person shall first : (a) Becomes a member of the volunteer fire company; A.(b) Supply Supplies to the chief fire officer of the volunteer fire company written confirmation that such person is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia and has parental or guardian approval; and B.(c) Attain Attains certification under National Fire Protection Association 1001, level one, fire fighter standards as administered by the Department of Fire Programs. Draft: March 14, 2011 Attachment A 14 (Ord. 01-6(2), 12-05-01) State law reference -- Virginia Code § 40.1-79.1. Sec. 6-101 General precautions to prevent spread of fire; penalties. A. It shall be unlawful for any owner or lessee of land to set fire to, or to procure another to set fire to, any woods, brush, logs, leaves, grass, debris or other inflammable material upon such land unless he previously shall have taken all reasonable care and precaution, by having cut and piled the same or carefully cleared around the same, to prevent the spread of such fire to land other than those owned or leased by him. It shall be unlawful for any employee, agent, representative or licensee of any such owner or lessee of land to set fire to or to procure another to set fire to any woods, brush, logs, leaves, grass, debris or other inflammable material upon such land unless he shall have taken similar precautions to prevent the spread of such fire to any other land. B. During the period beginning February 15 and ending April 30 of each year, even though the precautions required by this section have been taken, it shall be unlawful for any person to set fire to, or to procure another to set fire to, an y brush, leaves, grass, debris or field containing dry grass or other inflammable material capable of spreading fire, located in or within five hundred (500) feet of any woodland, brushland or field containing dry grass or other flammable material, except between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 12.00 midnight. C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to fires which may be set within the corporate limits of any incorporated town, nor to fires set on rights -of-way of railroad companies by their duly authorized employees. D. Any person violating any provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor for each separate offense. In addition, such person shall be liable for the full amount of all expenses incurred in fighting the fire. (Code 1988, § 9-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For similar state law, see Va. Code § 10.1-1142. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ Attachment B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: W ork session to consider a proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 6, Fire Protection, to better clarify roles, responsibilities, and authority for managing the County’s coordinated fire & rescue system. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston, and Ms. Kim LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 3, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Prior Ordinance Development At its October 24, 2008 work session, the Board directed staff to work collaboratively with members of the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) and Board liaisons Ken Boyd and Ann Mallek to develop an ordinance establishing an organizational structure for the combined volunteer and career fire and rescue system. The ordinance committee’s work culminated in a draft ordinance presented for first and second readings to the ACFRAB in February and March, 2009. Feedback from ACFRAB was incorporated in additional revisions to the draft ordinance. In the spring of 2009 the Board decided to delay holding a public hearing on the draft ordinance in order to focus its efforts on implementing an EMS Cost Recovery program. In April 2010, the Board asked that the ordinance committee be reconvened to review the draft ordinance and to provide the ACFRAB an opportunity to provide additional comments and suggestions. The committee met on June 23, 2010 and further revisions to the ordinance were made based on the volunteer chiefs’ comments. The final draft included revisions to § 6-104 to clarify the role of the fire and rescue chief and to specifically require the chief to consult first with the volunteer executive committee before making significant decisions affecting the coordinated system. On August 11, 2010, the Board held a public hearing to consider adoption of the ordinance. The ordinance failed to pass pursuant to a 3 to 3 vote. Ordinance Development after August 11, 2010 Between September and November, 2010, an ad hoc committee made up of volunteer chiefs and Board members Ann Mallek and Rodney Thomas met several times to draft revisions to the August 11th ordinance. The Board affirmed at its November 3, 2010 meeting that it remained committed to an ordinance based on a collaborative fire chief organizational model rather than a commission model. At the committee’s invitation, staff from the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue (“ACFR”) and the County Attorney’s Office met with the ad hoc committee six times from December through February, 2011 to work on revisions to the August 11th ordinance. The County Attorney’s Office generated four drafts of the ordinance for the committee’s review and comments. Although many changes to the August 11th ordinance were made with the consensus of the full committee, the volunteer and County members continue to disagree about whether the fire and rescue chief should be a member of the Fire and EMS Board (FEMS Board), the proposed new name for the ACFRAB. Volunteer chiefs prefer to include the fire and rescue chief as a FEMS Board member while County staff advocates that the chief serve as an executive supporting the FEMS Board and as chair of the FEMS Board’s Executive Committee. Following the committee’s final meeting on February 1, 2011, the County Attorney’s Office produced a final draft ordinance dated February 1, 2011 (Attachment A). This draft was circulated by the ACFRAB chair to all ACFRAB members in early February. This document shows proposed changes to the August 11, 2010 ordinance in redline format. The two areas highlighted in yellow, within sections 6-104(3) and 6-106(b), represent the areas of disagreement between the County and volunteer committee representatives concerning the fire and rescue chief’s role in the FEMS Board. AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Ordinance March 3, 2011 Page 2 Staff has prepared a brief summary document (Attachment B) to illustrate the proposed roles and responsibilities of the fire and rescue chief and the FEMS Board. This document reflects the chief serving as an executive supporting the FEMS Board, rather than as a member of the FEMS Board. On February 9, 2011, the Board adopted a schedule for consideration of the draft ordinance. (Attachment C). Pursuant to this schedule, ACFRAB members met on February 15th to discuss the draft ordinance with the ad hoc committee members, including County staff and Board members. Opportunities for additional ACFRAB review and Board direction have been scheduled to occur after the Board’s March 3rd work session. DISCUSSION: The following summary highlights the substantive changes proposed to the August 11th ordinance as shown in the February 1, 2011 draft ordinance. Except as otherwise stated, all changes reflect initiatives and requests made by the volunteer representatives of the committee:  § 6-101 - Definitions: ACFRAB has been renamed the “Fire and EMS Board” or “FEMS Board,” and a definition of “volunteers” has been added.  § 6-104 - Fire and Rescue Chief: o New provision that two representatives designated by the FEMS Board must be part of the selection process for a fire and rescue chief. o Subsection (1): Language modified to make it more evident that the chief’s general oversight and management authority in this subsection is not open-ended, but constrained by policy and strategy development. o Subsection (2): Language added to clarify that the FEMS Board may always discuss and consider actions taken by the chief made in areas not covered by policy. o Subsection (3): Language proposed by staff to summarize the chief’s role and duties with respect to the FEMS Board and its Executive Committee. The volunteer representatives agree with these functions, but believe the chief should serve as a member of the FEMS Board. o Subsection (4): Language deleted in order to add this as a FEMS Board responsibility under §6-107.  § 6-106 – Establishment and composition of FEMS Board: Language proposed by staff to reflect the chief’s role as an executive of the system to support the FEMS Board. The volunteer representatives believe the chief should serve as a member of the FEMS Board.  § 6-107 – Responsibilities of the FEMS Board: Several clarifications added, based on the volunteers’ draft ordinance, to explain the FEMS Board’s communications and committee functions. Subsection (7) added as a new responsibility of the FEMS Board to develop, in collaboration with the fire and rescue chief, a grievance procedure for individual volunteers.  § 6-108 – Executive Committee of the FEMS Board: Changes made to the composition of the Executive Committee and to clarify that it may perform delegated functions of the FEMS Board.  § 6-109 – Procedure for developing policies: o New provision allows the Executive Committee to submit a proposed policy for FEMS Board consideration, even if the fire and rescue chief disagrees with the proposed policy and allows competing policies proposed by the Executive Committee and the chief to be considered by the FEMS Board. The chief’s decision not to issue the Executive Committee’ policy may be appealed by the FEMS Board to the County Executive, then to the Board of Supervisors. AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Ordinance March 3, 2011 Page 3 o Clarification made that all appealed policies will be suspended, and not implemented, during the period of any appeal. o New provisions added by staff to streamline the appeal process by eliminating the informal appeal process. o Provisions added to make policy appeals more convenient for the FEMS Board by stating requirements about meeting minutes and staff support. o Clarifications made by staff about minor logistical matters regarding procedure.  § 6-110 – Noncompliance with system policies: o New section created to provide a peer-accountability procedure for the volunteer organizations in cases of “material” noncompliance with system policies. The original draft developed by the volunteer chiefs tracked language nearly verbatim from the Prince William County ordinance. o Staff revised language from the Prince William ordinance with the input of the volunteer representatives. Highlights include: providing a distinct role for the chief separate from the Executive Committee and creating avenues for appeal and emergency action in the event that the chief and the Executive Committee disagree; creation of a mandatory informal resolution process prior to any formal complaint of material noncompliance; defining “material noncompliance;” and eliminating company “hearings” in favor of direct communication between the Executive Committee and the noncompliant organization to implement a plan of remediation. o Appeals of material noncompliance determinations or plans of remediation may be made by the noncompliant volunteer agency and would be heard by the County Executive or his designee. All matters regarding the dissolution of an agency or reduction in funding would be reserved for the Board. At its February 23, 2011 meeting, ACFRAB voted to advance to the Board of Supervisors an alternative version of the proposed Ordinance as drafted by its ad-hoc working committee as of November 1, 2010. ACFRAB requested that staff provide this version as an attachment to this Executive Summary (Attachment D). It should be noted that subsequent to November 1, 2010 staff joined the ad-hoc working committee and the February 1, 2011 version (Attachment A) represents the work of the committee as of that date. Attachment E provides an unedited version of the Ordinance considered by the Board on August 11, 2010. BUDGET IMPACT: Although there is no immediate budget impact associated with the proposed fire rescue structure, the amount of staff time to support the FEMS Board and the Executive Committee will need to be evaluated over time to determine if a sustained amount of support can be provided with existing staff. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the work session, staff recommends that the Board authorize the Clerk to advertise for action by the Board at its April 20, 2011 meeting, an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 6, Fire Protection, that incorporates the proposed changes to the August 11, 2010 draft ordinance as shown in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS A – Working-Draft Ordinance dated February 1, 2011 showing changes from August 11, 2010 Draft Ordinance B – System Level Roles and Responsibilities of the Fire and Rescue Chief and the FEMS Board C – Recommended Process for Fire/Rescue Ordinance Consideration D - Ad-hoc Committee Draft Ordinance, October 2010 E – Draft Ordinance considered by the Board on August 11, 2010 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 1 ARTICLE I. COORDINATED FIRE AND RESCUE SYSTEM DIVISION I. IN GENERAL Sec. 6-100. Purpose. The board of supervisors, determined to provide for the public safety, health and welfare of Albemarle County citizens and communities, hereby establishes a coordinated and integrated fire and emergency medical service system currently composed of the following, volunteer fire companies, volunteer rescue squads and the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue: Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad Crozet Volunteer Fire Department Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company Western Albemarle Rescue Squad In taking this measure to assure the most efficient and effective service possible and to meet the challenges of the growth and development of the jurisdiction, the board of supervisors specifically recognizes the essential and historical contributions of volunteers and the necessity of continuing and expanding volunteer participation, without which the county could not discharge its responsibilities. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall work to develop an integrated and seamless systems approach to the provision of emergency services; promote the interests and welfare of County citizenry and communities; perform with maximum cost-effectiveness consistent with safety objectives; account for service delivery and resource utilization; and communicate and consider all views regarding the system. Sec. 6-101. Definitions. For the purposes of this article and, unless otherwise required by the context, the following words and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: Advisory Board means the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board. KEY TO THE CHANGES Gray font: Section has not changed since presentation to the BoS in 08/10 Red font: Deleted text Blue font: Added text Aqua: CHANGES MADE SINCE 3/3/11 WORK SESSION 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 2 Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue means the county agency responsible for delivering fire, rescue and emergency medical services in partnership with the volunteer organizations within the coordinated fire and rescue system. Board or board of supervisors means the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. Company means a volunteer fire company or department located in Albemarle County. Each individual fire-fighting organization within the county shall be defined as a “fire company,” as provided in Virginia Code §27-8.1. County employees or County staff means employees of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue who provide fire, rescue, and emergency medical services as members of the coordinated fire and rescue system. County volunteers mean volunteers of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue who provide fire, rescue and emergency medical services as members of the coordinated fire and rescue system. County volunteers are not members of incorporated fire companies or rescue squads. Executive Committee means a committee of the advisory board FEMS Board as provided in section 6-108. Fire EMS Board or FEMS Board means the Albemarle County Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Board, formerly known as the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board, which advises the fire and rescue chief and performs additional functions as provided in sections 6-106 and 6-107. Fire and rescue chief or chief means the director of the Albemarle County Coordinated Fire and Rescue System, as established in section 6-104. Policies mean the rules and regulations of the coordinated fire and rescue system, including standard operating guidelines and standard administrative procedures. Rescue squad means a volunteer rescue squad or emergency medical services organization, as described by Virginia Code §32.1-111.1 et seq, that is located in Albemarle County, as well as the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, which has its principal place of business in the City of Charlottesville. Volunteers mean non-employee volunteer members of the several fire companies and rescue squads set forth in section 6-100. State law reference—Definitions, Virginia Code § 32.1-111.1 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 3 DIVISION II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COORDINATED FIRE AND RESCUE SYSTEM Sec. 6-102. Establishment and composition of the coordinated fire and rescue system. (a)The Albemarle County Coordinated Fire and Rescue System (“the system” or “the coordinated fire and rescue system”) is hereby established pursuant to Virginia Code §27-6.1. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall provide comprehensive fire, rescue, and emergency medical services throughout the county in accordance with state laws, county ordinances, and duly adopted policies issued by the system. (b)The coordinated fire and rescue system shall be a combined force of non-employee volunteer members of the several fire companies and rescue squads, county employees, and county volunteers of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue. The following volunteer fire companies and rescue squads, and any others that may be duly established in the future, along with county volunteers, constitute an indispensable part of the public safety program for the county: Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, and Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-6.1, 27-8.1 Sec. 6-103. Responsibilities of the coordinated fire and rescue system. The coordinated fire and rescue system shall: (1) Manage the delivery of prehospital emergency patient care and services through policy development and implementation consistent with state emergency medical services regulations and the guidance of each organization’s operational medical director. (2) Manage the provision of system-wide fire prevention, protection, investigation, suppression, education and rescue services, and services relating to hazardous materials and other hazards posing a threat to life and property, through policy development and implementation. (3) Provide any additional, related, system-wide services that are essential for the provision of high-quality fire and emergency medical services. (4) Perform and deliver services consistent with state laws, county ordinances, and duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-7, 27-14, and 32.1-111.14 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 4 Sec. 6-104. Fire and Rescue Chief. The director of the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be known as the fire and rescue chief, who shall be appointed by the board of supervisors upon recommendation by the county executive following a selection process that includes representation from both the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue Advisory Board fire and emergency medical services membership as designated by the FEMS Board. The fire and rescue chief shall: (1) Provide general oversight and management of the system’s functions throughby: a. Strategy Ddevelopmenting, in collaboration with the advisory board FEMS Board, strategies for the retention and expansion of the volunteer base within the system to ensure that the health of the volunteer system remains a high priority for the fire and rescue chief. b. Policy Ddevelopmenting, in collaboration with the advisory board FEMS Board, of system-wide policies that are essential to the effective and equitable provision of high-quality, countywide fire and rescue services, and overseeing the implementation of those system-level policies. All policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be developed through the collaborative policy procedures established by section 6-109 and shall include, but not be limited to: i. Standard operating guidelines for the system’s delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services; ii. System performance standards, such as minimum staffing and response goals; iii. A seamless command structure and incident command system that complies with federal and state incident management standards; iv. Minimum personnel, training, licensure, and reporting requirements for the welfare of county and volunteer personnel and the delivery of high- quality fire and rescue services; v. System fleet size, deployment, and functions; vi. Minimum standards regarding apparatus and equipment; vii. System funding by the County and system budget matters; and viii. A process for setting and maintaining first due areas, response districts and apparatus response orders. (2) Make day-to-day operational decisions necessary for the coordinated system on matters not specifically addressed by system-wide policies. Prior to any 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 5 significant decision affecting the coordinated system, however, the fire and rescue chief shall consult with the executive committee and consider all reasonable recommendations from the executive committee to the maximum extent possible. If exigent circumstances do not permit such prior consultation with the executive committee, the fire and rescue chief shall advise the executive committee as soon as practicable after the decision is made and seek its recommendations for future actions. The FEMS Board may at any time discuss and review significant system- wide decisions made by the fire and rescue chief without its prior consultation. (3) Serve as the executive of the system to support the FEMS Board, by leading and facilitating the executive committee; participating fully in FEMS Board meetings, communications, programs and activities; providing and managing county staff support, as needed, for the FEMS Board and executive committee; and overseeing the preparation of FEMS Board and executive committee agendas and meeting documents. The fire and rescue chief shall also be a full voting member of the FEMS Board. In no way shall this subsection diminish the authority of the county executive to supervise the fire and rescue chief. (4) Provide general management, planning, preparation, response and recovery for any disaster relating to fires, hazardous materials, rescues or emergency medical services that may occur in the county. (4) Develop a broadly supported procedure for chiefs of volunteer organizations to contest decisions of the fire and rescue chief to the county executive or his designee in matters affecting individual volunteers, who are not employees of the County. The general management and discipline of volunteers shall be a station level responsibility, as provided in section 6-105(b)(6). (5) Assume responsibility, under the authority of the county executive, for actions necessary to implement and carry out agreements for mutual aid, disaster preparedness and the provision of services related to hazardous materials, rescues, fire suppression, investigation, medical services or other emergency response services deemed necessary in the judgment of the fire and rescue chief in events exceeding the capabilities of an individual locality or government agency. (6) Exercise all powers authorized by state law as necessary for the provision of fire and emergency medical services. State law reference – Virginia Code §§27-6.1, 27-7. Sec. 6-105. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads; volunteer chiefs. (a) General; authority to create by-laws. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads may be formed, named and dissolved in accordance with state law and board approval. They shall operate in conformity with state laws, county ordinances, and the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. Boards and governing authorities of volunteer companies and squads shall have full authority to adopt policies, guidelines and protocols for the governance of their stations, except where specifically constrained by state law, county 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 6 ordinances, or policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system as they are duly adopted. Nothing in this article is intended, nor shall it be construed, to make any member of a volunteer company or squad an employee of the county. (b) Responsibilities. Volunteer fire companies and rescue squads shall have all the powers and duties granted to them by state law. They shall also execute the following responsibilities in conformity with their respective organizational by-laws, chains of command, and the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system: 1. Managing performance by the company or squad, including directing station activity and operations as needed; 2. Assuming or delegating the role of incident commander within the system’s integrated incident command structure; 3. Providing management of response districts and apparatus response orders; 4. Selecting and promoting officers and other personnel; 5. Recruiting, retaining and advocating on behalf of volunteer members; 6. Managing officers and personnel, including disciplining, training, and keeping records; 7. Preparing their annual budgets for submission to the county, and managing their budgets; 8. Fundraising and managing all funds and assets that derive from private or non-County sources; 9. Collecting and forwarding to the fire and rescue chief such data, statistics and other information as may be necessary to assure the efficient and economical operation of the coordinated fire and rescue system; 10. Caring for and maintaining station facilities, apparatus and equipment; and 11. Managing station procurement of supplies and coordinating station procurement and stewardship of county-supported apparatus, equipment, and tools. (c) Chiefs. The operational head of each volunteer fire company and rescue squad within the coordinated fire and rescue system shall be selected according to the by-laws of the company or squad and shall be known as the chief. Volunteer chiefs shall exercise the authority granted to them by state law and the by-laws of their organizations, so long as their actions do not conflict with the provisions of this article or the duly adopted policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. State law reference – Virginia Code §§15.2-955, 27-9, 27-10, and 32.1-111.14 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 7 Sec. 6-106. Establishment and composition of advisory boardFEMS Board. (a) The Albemarle County Fire and EMS Board (“FEMS Board”) is hereby established to accomplish the following: 1. Collaborate with and advise the fire and rescue chief concerning the delivery of fire, rescue and emergency medical services as representatives of the volunteer companies and squads and as described by this article; 2. Facilitate communication and collaboration between the volunteer and county- employed members of the coordinated fire and rescue system; and 3. Communicate issues of importance to the fire and rescue chief concerning individual volunteer organizations or the coordinated fire and rescue system. Nothing in this article abridges the First Amendment rights of private citizens to communicate directly with the county executive or the board of supervisors. (b) The advisory board FEMS Board shall be composed of the highest ranking operational leader of each of the volunteer organizations listed in section 6-102 of this article and the fire and rescue chief, who shall also serve as the executive of the system in accordance with section 6-104. The fire and rescue chief shall attend meetings of the advisory board, but shall not be a member of the advisory board. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the FEMS Board from adopting by-laws concerning voting rights and the delegation of duties. Sec. 6-107. Responsibilities of the advisory board FEMS Board. The advisory board FEMS Board shall perform the following duties: (1) Adopt by-laws for its operation consistent with this article, including, but not limited to, by-laws concerning the voting rights of members and the delegation of member responsibilities. (2) Review all proposed policies affecting the coordinated fire and rescue system and provide comments and advice to the fire and rescue chief through the collaborative procedures established in section 6-109 and ensure the communication of duly adopted system-level policies to all companies and squads. (3) Appoint a committee or committees to meet regularly with the fire and rescue chief, county staff and, if appropriate, county volunteers, in order to consider concerns and provide input regarding: a. Incident management; 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 8 b. Non-conformance with duly adopted system policies; and c. Assurance of quality in the delivery of emergency services. (4) Appoint such additional committees as may be necessary, as well as committees that may be useful to facilitate communication regarding matters of importance to the coordinated fire and rescue system in the performance of its essential mission, including county staff and county volunteers in such committees, as appropriate. (5) Appoint an executive committee to perform the responsibilities outlined in section 6-108. (6) Review and provide input and recommendations to the fire and rescue chief regarding new initiatives for the system’s operating and capital improvement budgets. (7) Develop, in collaboration with the fire and rescue chief, a broadly supported grievance procedure for chiefs of volunteer organizations to contest decisions of the fire chief to the county executive or his designee in matters affecting individual volunteers, who are not employees of the county, in accordance with section 6-109. The general management and discipline of volunteers shall be a station-level responsibility, as provided in section 6-107. (6)(8) Meet on a regular basis in order to perform its responsibilities under this section, and present a report at least annually to the board of supervisors regarding the health and welfare of the volunteer system. Nothing in this article abridges the First Amendment rights of private citizens to communicate directly with the county executive or the board of supervisors. Sec. 6-108. Executive committee of the advisory board FEMS Board. (a) Composition. The executive committee of the FEMS Board shall be composed of at least three members of the advisory board the chair and vice-chair of the FEMS Board, a fire representative selected by the advisory board FEMS Board in accordance with its by-laws, and a rescue representative selected by the FEMS Board in accordance with its by-laws. and with the goal of providing equal representation for the fire companies and rescue squads. The fire and rescue chief shall lead and facilitate the executive committee. Executive committee members must be active members in good standing with their respective volunteer companies and squads. (b) Terms of service. The FEMS Board shall determine the terms of service for committee members, who shall serve at the pleasure of the FEMS Board. (c) Responsibilities. The executive committee shall advise the fire and rescue chief in a timely manner on all proposed policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system and on any other system matter for which the fire and rescue chief requests input and advice. In addition, the executive committee shall perform other functions delegated by the FEMS Board in 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 9 accordance with this article and FEMS Board by-laws. The executive committee shall meet as frequently as needed to discharge these responsibilities. Sec. 6-109. Procedure for developing policies of the coordinated fire and rescue system. (a) Purpose. In adopting this ordinance the board of supervisors recognizes that, to have full effect, policies must be developed through a collaborative process and enjoy the support of a majority of the elements of the coordinated fire and rescue system. The procedures in this section are intended to assist the fire and rescue chief, the advisory board FEMS Board, and the executive committee in the collaborative and careful development of policies for the system. These procedures may be changed at any time by agreement of the fire and rescue chief and the advisory board FEMS Board by a majority vote. In addition, the fire and rescue chief may at any time seek more input and advice from the executive committee or advisory board FEMS Board than this section requires. (b) Initiative and Drafting. Any member of the coordinated fire and rescue system may suggest new policies or policy amendments to the fire and rescue chief and the advisory board FEMS Board through the member’s chain of command. In cooperation with the executive committee, the fire and rescue chief shall oversee the preparation of new system-level policies and the review of all existing system-level policies. Policies that affect only county employees or county volunteers will not be considered by the executive committee. Draft policies, prepared by the fire and rescue chief, shall be submitted to the executive committee for joint consideration and collaborative development. The draft will be accompanied by a written report summarizing the rationale for the policy and the impacts, if any, on volunteer budgets and volunteer members’ time. (c) Executive Committee Role in Policy Development. The executive committee shall review and evaluate all draft policies proposed by the fire and rescue chief or others in light of the following standard: whether the policy is essential to the effective and equitable provision of high-quality, countywide fire and rescue services (hereinafter, “system policy standard”). Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the initial draft policy, barring unforeseen circumstances, the executive committee shall review the draft and decide to: support the policy as worded; support the policy with specific revisions; or decline to support the policy. The committee may accompany its decision with a written explanation of its position, although it must provide a written explanation in the event it declines to support the policy. The fire and rescue chief shall consider the comments and recommendations of the executive committee and shall incorporate such recommendations for revision which, in his judgment, meet the system policy standard. The fire and rescue chief shall then re-submit the draft, with any revisions, to the executive committee for additional review and comment, repeating this process until he is satisfied that the resulting draft meets the system policy standard and addresses the reasonable concerns of the executive committee. Should the chief decline to accept any material recommendation for revision from the executive committee, he shall provide a written explanation of his decision to the executive committee and attempt to 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 10 reach a consensus with the committee prior to submitting the proposed policy to the advisory board FEMS Board. During the collaborative process described above, the executive committee shall brief other members of the advisory board FEMS Board on the progress of its work with the fire and rescue chief and solicit from the advisory board FEMS Board any questions, concerns and suggestions for introduction to the chief. (d) Advisory Board FEMS Board Deliberations. After completing collaborative consultations with the executive committee as described above, the fire and rescue chief shall submit the proposed policy, along with any annotations he considers necessary, to the full advisory board FEMS Board for its review. If, after following the collaborative process described above, the executive committee wishes to advance a policy which the fire and rescue chief has declined to issue, as evidenced in written notice to the executive committee, the executive committee shall submit the policy to the FEMS Board for its review. The fire and rescue chief may submit an alternative policy or a written summary of the reasons for his decision to decline issuance with the executive committee’s policy for simultaneous review by the FEMS Board. If both the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee submit policies for simultaneous review by the FEMS Board, the FEMS Board shall consider and vote on both policies at the same meeting. Provided that the proposed policy is submitted to the advisory board FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) calendar days before any monthly meeting, the advisory board FEMS Board shall take action on the policy at that meeting unless the FEMS Board decides, by a majority vote, to require a second reading of the policy at the following meeting. After considering the draft policy in light of the system policy standard defined in §6-109(c), the advisory board FEMS Board shall take one of the following actions by majority vote, which shall be reflected fully in the minutes of the FEMS Board: 1. Accept the draft policy as worded, following which the policy shall be considered adopted. 2. Support the policy in principle, but with specific revisions. 3. Decline to accept the policy. If the advisory board FEMS Board subsequently votes to appeal the policy, it must provide a clear explanation for its vote at that meeting, and may, at its discretion, follow with a written explanation of the reasons for its opposition. After the advisory board FEMS Board votes to take an action described in numbers 2 or 3 above on a policy proposed by the fire and rescue chief, tThe chief shall reconsider the draft policy in light of the system policy standard defined in §6-109(c) and incorporate such revisions from the advisory board FEMS Board which, in his judgment, meet that standard. The chief shall then submit any revised draft policy to the advisory board FEMS Board or the executive committee for additional review and consider any further recommendations, repeating this process until he is satisfied that the resulting draft policy meets the system policy standard and addresses the reasonable concerns of the advisory board FEMS Board. The chief shall submit 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 11 his final draft policy to the advisory board FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) calendar days before their next meeting for final consideration. (e) Adoption of Policies. The fire and rescue chief shall be authorized to adopt and issue a policy of the coordinated fire and rescue system immediately after a vote by the advisory board FEMS Board to support the policy as worded. Should the advisory board FEMS Board vote to support the policy with revisions, or to oppose decline to support the policy, the chief shall be authorized to, but need not, issue the proposed policy as submitted after providing written notice to the FEMS Board at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next FEMS Board meetingmay nonetheless notify the advisory board that he intends to issue the proposed policy as submitted. In that event, the policy shall take effect the day after the next advisory board meeting, unless otherwise specified within the policy, or unless the advisory board votes to contest the policy at that meeting. FEMS Board meeting or later, if the policy specifies a later effective date. Any vote by the FEMS Board to appeal a policy shall immediately suspend the adoption and issuance of the policy. Informal Contest of Policies. Should the advisory board vote to contest the policy, written statements from the fire and rescue chief and the advisory board, explaining their positions for and against the policy, shall be submitted to the county executive no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the meeting. The county executive or his designee shall either: (1) refer the policy back to the parties for further consideration and collaboration; or (2) determine that the policy meets the system policy standard as defined in §6-109(c). Following the county executive’s decision, the advisory board shall vote at its next meeting regarding whether to file a formal appeal of the policy. (f) Appeals of Policies. Appeals of proposed policies will be taken in accordance with this section. The FEMS Board may vote to appeal either a proposed policy of the fire and rescue chief, or to appeal the chief’s decision to decline issuance of the executive committee’s proposed policy, by a majority vote taken no later than the next meeting following the introduction of the policy to the FEMS Board or the meeting following the second reading of the policy, if a second reading has been required by the FEMS Board. The minutes of the FEMS Board shall reflect the vote to appeal and a summary of all statements made during the deliberation of the policy. Within seven (7) calendar days of any vote to appeal, the chairman of the advisory board FEMS Board shall submit a written notice of appeal, including a statement of the basis for the appeal, to the county executive. If the appeal arises from the chief’s decision to decline to issue the executive committee’s proposed policy, both the executive committee’s proposed policy and any alternative proposed policy of the fire and rescue chief shall be submitted for joint review throughout the appeal process. Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the notice of appeal, the county executive or his designee shall provide a written decision to the advisory board FEMS Board and the fire and rescue chief. Decisions shall be based on whether the proposed policy or policies meet the system policy standard as defined in §6-109(c). A decision that the appeal has merit may also provide guidance to the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee regarding further work to be undertaken on the disputed policy. A decision that the appeal is without merit may be appealed to the board of supervisors by a majority vote of the advisory board FEMS Board at its next meeting. 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 12 Within seven (7) calendar days of the vote to appeal to the board of supervisors, the chairman of the advisory board FEMS Board shall submit a written notice of appeal, including a statement of the basis for the appeal, to the clerk of the board of supervisors. The written notice of appeal will be accompanied by a packet, compiled by county staff, containing a copy of the following: all documents submitted by the advisory board FEMS Board, fire and rescue chief, and the Ccounty eExecutive as part of the appeal process; the proposed policy or policies; and the minutes, if any, reflecting advisory board FEMS Board deliberations on the proposed policy or policies. Any party may include such other documents it believes would be helpful for the board of supervisors to consider by providing them to the clerk of the board of supervisors prior to the expiration of the seven (7) calendar days described above. The board of supervisors shall consider the appeal at a subsequent meeting and issue a decision that the appeal should be sustained or not sustained, in whole or in part. The basis for the decision shall be whether the proposed policy or policies meet the system policy standard as defined by §6-109(c). Sec. 6-110. Noncompliance with system policies. (a) Purpose. A peer-accountability procedure for enforcing duly-adopted system policies applicable to volunteer fire companies and rescue squads is hereby established to accomplish the following: 1. full and consistent adherence to system policies by all member organizations; 2. fair, equitable, and objective consideration of all potential material noncompliance violations in accordance with this section; 3. management of discipline and compliance remediation efforts by the chief of the noncompliant organization to the greatest extent possible; and 4. promotion of open and ongoing communication by and between member organizations about policy compliance matters. (b) Definition of Material Noncompliance. “Material noncompliance” or “materially noncomplying” with system policies means a failure to adhere to a system policy adopted in accordance with section 6-109 which: (i) is committed on two or more separate occasions, or on a single occasion if the alleged conduct involves either civil legal violations or actions by multiple members of the organization’s leadership, or is committed intentionally after notice that the conduct would violate system policy; and (ii) does one or more of the following: 1. threatens the health, safety or welfare of county citizens, volunteers or county staff; 2. impairs the operational readiness of the coordinated fire and rescue system to deliver fire and emergency medical services; 3. violates any applicable civil federal, state or local law; or 4. involves the violation of a policy provision regarding public funds. (c) Informal Resolution of Concerns. 1. The chiefs of all member organizations and the fire and rescue chief shall be entitled to communicate concerns about noncompliance with system policies to the chiefs of those organizations believed to be noncompliant. 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 13 2. For all noncompliance concerns that rise to the level of “material noncompliance,” as defined by this section, the complaining chief must first notify the chief of the noncompliant organization and make reasonable efforts to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution, consistent with system policies and this article, with that chief prior to initiating the procedures for formal resolution of material noncompliance. The complaining chief shall also apprise the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief of the compliance concern and resolution efforts, and may seek assistance from the fire and rescue chief for such efforts. 3. Should such efforts to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution of material noncompliance fail, the complaining chief shall initiate a formal procedure for material noncompliance in accordance with subsection (d). (d) Formal Resolution of Material Noncompliance Complaints. 1. Initiating Complaint. After completing the informal resolution process established in subsection (c), the chief of any member organization or the fire and rescue chief may initiate a formal Complaint of Material Noncompliance with System Policy (“Complaint”) by submitting the Complaint in writing to the executive committee. The Complaint must state, at a minimum, which policy or policies has been violated, and a summary of the facts supporting the violation. 2. Investigation of the Complaint. As soon as practicable after receiving the Complaint, the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief shall consider the Complaint and determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that the charged organization has materially noncomplied with a system policy. If the executive committee decides, by a majority vote, that reasonable cause exists, the executive committee shall undertake a formal investigation of the Complaint or appoint a committee to conduct the investigation. The investigation shall be concluded as soon as practicable and no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receiving the charge to investigate the Complaint, unless extraordinary circumstances justify the need for a longer investigative period. Should the fire and rescue chief disagree with the majority vote of the executive committee as to whether reasonable cause exists, the investigation shall be conducted as described in this section. 3. Determination of Material Noncompliance. The executive committee, or the committee appointed by the executive committee to conduct the investigation, shall prepare a written report summarizing the investigation and its factual conclusions and submit the report to the executive committee and the fire and rescue chief no later than ten (10) calendar days following the conclusion of the investigation. As soon as practicable following receipt of the report, the executive committee shall determine whether the charged organization has materially noncomplied with system policy. If the executive committee determines, by majority vote, that the charged organization has materially noncomplied with system policy, with the concurrence of the fire and rescue chief, the steps described in subsection (d)(iv) (Remediation) shall be followed. Should the fire and rescue chief disagree with the majority vote of the executive committee, the chief shall be authorized to take, but need not take, any action permitted by subsection (g) (Authority Reserved for Immediate Action) as needed to act in the best interest of the system. 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 14 4. Remediation. As soon as practicable following a determination of material noncompliance, the executive committee shall, in consultation with the fire and rescue chief, design a plan for remediating the noncompliance. The executive committee shall communicate the plan to the charged organization and oversee implementation of the plan. Should the charged organization substantially fail to implement the plan, the fire and rescue chief may modify the plan, discontinue the plan, implement an alternative plan, and/or take other action as needed. Prior to taking these steps, however, the fire and rescue chief must consult the executive committee about his intended action and consider its recommendations except when immediate action under subsection (g) is required, in which case he shall consult with the executive committee as soon as practicable after such action. 5. Referral for Dissolution or Reduction in Funding. If the executive committee and fire and rescue chief determine that the nature of the material noncompliance is so serious as to merit consideration of dissolution of the organization or reduction in its funding by the board of supervisors, they shall apprise the FEMS Board of the investigation and their recommendation for such action. After such apprisal, a recommendation may be made by the fire and rescue chief to the County Executive for referral to the board of supervisors, which shall retain at all times the sole authority to dissolve a fire or rescue organization, pursuant to Virginia Code §27-10, and to determine annual appropriations. (e) Appeal Procedure for Determinations of Material Noncompliance. 1. Filing of Appeal. Once the determination of material noncompliance has been made and the plan of remediation has been issued to the charged organization, the charged organization may appeal, in writing, the determination of material noncompliance, the plan of remediation, or both, to the county executive within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the plan of remediation. The appeal must state the decision being appealed and the basis for the appeal. The charged organization may be assisted in its appeal by any member of the FEMS Board or by any individual. 2. FEMS Board Review. At the request of the charged organization, the FEMS Board shall review and discuss the Complaint, investigation report, determination of material noncompliance, and plan of remediation at its next meeting. After such consideration, the FEMS Board may, but need not, decide by a majority vote to provide a recommendation to the fire and rescue chief and to the county executive concerning the appeal. 3. County Executive’s Decision. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a timely appeal from a charged organization, the county executive or his designee shall issue a written decision to the charged organization, the fire and rescue chief, and the FEMS Board. A decision that the appeal has merit may also provide guidance to the fire and rescue chief and the executive committee regarding the determination of material noncompliance, the plan for remediation, or both. The decision of the county executive shall end the appeal process. (f) Disqualification from Voting. No representative of an organization charged with material noncompliance may participate in the investigation of any Complaint or vote as provided in this section concerning its organization. In the event that a member of the executive committee belongs to a charged organization, the executive committee shall appoint a substitute 3/10/11 Proposed Ordinance Language showing changes since August 11, 2010 included in March 14, 2011 draft ordinance 15 member from an organization within the system to discharge all executive committee responsibilities of that member which are required by this section. (g) Authority Reserved for Immediate Action. Notwithstanding the provisions in this section, the fire and rescue chief shall be authorized at all times to take immediate action to prevent or mitigate imminent harm to the health, safety, or welfare of county citizens, volunteers or county staff; to ensure operational readiness of the coordinated fire and rescue system to deliver fire and emergency medical services; to comply with all applicable laws; and to exercise any authority otherwise provided in section 6-104. Such immediate action may be taken concurrently with the procedures for informal resolution, formal resolution and appeal described in this section. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP2010-53, South Plains Presbyterian Church SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend existing special use permit to allow removal of 19th century manse STAFF CONTACT(S): Wayne Cilimberg; Eryn Brennan LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved SP2008-29 to allow for the construction of a new fellowship hall (Phase 1) and sanctuary (Phase 2) on the parcel directly in front of the 19th century historic manse and approximately 20 feet west of the original church. A site plan was subsequently approved for Phase 1 of the development on April 1, 2010. The applicant is now seeking to amend Special Use Permit SP2008-29 to allow demolition of the manse. On March 15, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff. DISCUSSION: In order to show the context of the existing site, the applicant submitted the approved site plan as part of this special use permit, which did not include the Phase 2 portion of the concept plan referenced in condition 1 by the Board of Supervisors approval of SP2008-29. The applicant is requesting that the same concept plan, minus the manse proposed to be demolished, be referenced as part of this special use permit as outlined in condition 1 below. Attachment A is that plan. Please note, based on recommendations from their landscape architect regarding species, minor modifications to the landscape plan have been made since the previously approved concept plan. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of SP2010-53, South Plains Presbyterian Church with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as amended to reference the attached concept plan (Attachment A). SP-2010-00053 South Plains Church - Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated February 4, 2011 March 25, 2011, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Site Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown with tree protection fencing. 2. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces; 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas; 4. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use; 5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems; 7. All 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 their designee for approval; 8. Documentation of the manse, including detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevation with measurements, shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; 9. The screening trees (58) shown on the Conceptual Site Plan along the rear property line shall be planted prior to demolition of the manse. (i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American Nurseryman’s Association; (ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value. ATTACHMENTS A – Concept Plan, dated March 25, 2011 View PC actions letter View staff report and attachments View PC minutes of March 15 and March 24, 2011 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 April 4, 2011 William Atwood 250 W Main St., # 100 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP201000053 South Plains Presbyterian Church TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08000000011600 Dear Mr. Atwood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 15, 2011, by a vote of 6:0:1 recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated February 4, 2011, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Site Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown with tree protection fencing. 2. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces; 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas; 4. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use; 5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems; 7. All 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 their designee for approval; 8. Documentation of the manse, including detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevation with measurements, shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a demolition perm it; 9. The screening trees (58) shown on the Conceptual Site Plan along the rear property line shall be planted prior to demolition of the manse. (i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American Nurseryman’s Association; (ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 20, 2011. 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, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner Planning Division CC: David K. Garth, Pastor, South Plains Presbyterian Church of Keswick Virginia Inc P.O. Box 277 410 Black Cat Rd. Keswick, VA 22947 Go to next attachment Return to exec summary SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP201000053 South Plains Presbyterian Church Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: March 15, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To be determined Owner: South Plains Church Applicant: South Plains Church Acreage: 4.95 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery TMP: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116 Location: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22) Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas: agricultural, forestral, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A Proposal: Amend an existing special use permit to allow removal of the 19th century manse. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestral, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre) Character of Property: Historic church site on rural highway. Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is primarily characterized by wooded parcels and rolling terrain, with scattered residential lots and farmland. Factors Favorable: 1. Removal of the manse would not require removal of additional trees. Factors Unfavorable: 1. Removal of the manse is contrary to the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan regarding protecting historic resources in the rural areas. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions. SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: March 15, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD SP2010-53 South Plains Presbyterian Church Petition: PROJECT: SP201000053 South Plains Presbyterian Church PROPOSED: Amend existing special use permit to allow removal of 19th century manse ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemete ry COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22) TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Character of the Area: The area is characterized by large farms on the east side of the Southwest Mountains, as well as some smaller residential parcels. The surrounding land is largely open, with scattered patches of wooded areas. The church site is included in the Southwest Mou ntains Rural Historic District (Attachment A). The church is located at the corner of R oute 22 and Route 616, approximately 150 feet south of the intersection. Route 22 is a designated Entrance Corridor and Virginia Byway. The church’s date of construction cannot be verified—some sources state it was built in the early 19th century, while others state it was built in the 1870s. The church is an excellent example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture. The manse was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory, which had burned (Attachment B). Both structures are designated as contributing in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District National Register nomination. Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant is seeking to amend Special Use Permit SP2008-29 to allow demolition of the 19th century historic manse. Although a structural analysis of the building has not been submitted for review, the applicant states the building is deteriorated beyond repair. Planning and Zoning History: On May 13, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor s approved SP2008-29 to allow for the construction of a new fellowship hall and san ctuary on the site directly in front of the manse and approximately 20 feet west of the original church (Attachment C). A site plan was subsequently approved for the development on April 1, 2010. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources. SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan’s ―Vision for Rural Albemarle County‖ says that one important feature of the Rural Areas is: Protected historic structures, archeological sites, and other cultural resources; The guiding principles of the Rural Area chapter also state that historic resources an d scenic resources are among the defining components of the Rural Areas and should be protected. The manse is designated as a contributing structure in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District; therefore, it is a historic building and cultural resource that warrants protection. However, the new fellowship hall, while sensitive in scale and design to the historic church, obscures a significant portion of the manse from public view. The new building also changes the contextual relationship between the manse and church because of its proximity to the manse. Regulatory Context: This application is subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key provision of RLUIPA states: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government dem onstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution – (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (italics added) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1) treat a religious assembly or institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions; (2) not discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious assemblies, or unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b). STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: 31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The manse, built on the site in the 1870s, has been a fixture on the property and in the area for nearly 140 years. Although removal of the manse would be conspicuous to the neighbors south of the site, it would be only minimally perceptible from the Entrance Corridor because the new fellowship hall already obscures much of it from view. One adjacent property owner has expressed concern over removal of the manse, stating that it is a contributing resource worthy of protection (Attachment D). The property owner also noted that the manse served to buffer the view of the new fellowship hall from his property. However, given the distance of the new fellowship from the property owner’s home, in addition to the existing wooded area in the southern rear portion of the lot, staff believes the view of the fellowship hall is substantially mitigated from the neighbor’s property (Attachment E). The row of evergreen trees SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 4 proposed along the shared southern property line would further mitigate the view of the fellowship hall from adjacent properties to the south, and staff has proposed C ondition 9 to ensure the evergreen trees are planted prior to the demolition of the manse if the special use permit application is approved. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and Zoning and Current Development, the County En gineer, Building Inspections, Fire and Rescue, and Architectural Review Board staff have reviewed the application and have no objection. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) also reviewed the application and provided comments outlined in Attachment F. In response to HPC comments, the applicant has indicated that attempts to seek an alternate site for the building have been unsuccessful. The applicant is also amenable to documenting the building. The size and proximity of the new fellowship hall has already compromised the historic value and integrity of the manse. Given this condition, combined with the fact that no trees are proposed to be removed and tree protection fencing is shown around existing trees, staff believes removal of the manse would not change the character of the district. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands a nd activities, to protect the water supply, to limit service to rural areas, and to conserve the natural, scenic, and historic resources of the County. Although the manse is a historic resource, its value and integrity has already been compromised by the construction of a much larger fellowship hall in such close proximity. Therefore, removal of the manse would not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. with uses permitted by right in the district, Demolition of the manse is permitted by right in the district. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations associated with this application. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. VDOT and the Virginia Department of Health have no objection to this application. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application: 2. Removal of the manse would not require removal of additional trees. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. Removal of the manse is contrary to the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan regarding protecting historic resources in the rural areas. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends appro val of SP201000053 South Plains Presbyterian Church subject to the following conditions (please note strikethroughs indicate language that has been removed from the conditions approved for SP2008 -29 and highlighted text indicates language added to the cond itions): 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the ―Conceptual Site Plan‖ (page SP 4) prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated January 19, 2009 February 4, 2011, as determined by the Director of Planning and the SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 5 Zoning Administrator. In addition, To be in general accord with the Conceptual Site Plan, the development the following elements shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: be in strict accord with and conform to the Conceptual Site Plan: (Change to the standard language.) the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown with tree protection fencing; on "Tree Survey, Trees to be Removed" (page SP 3). Plantings between the parking lot shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan" and Routes 22 and 616 shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board as part of the site plan approval; (This condition has been met.) 2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed three thousand five hundred fifty (3,550) square feet. The footprint of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed five thousand seven hundred fifty (5,750) square feet; (This condition has been met.) 3. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces; 4. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas; 5. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use; 6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a se parate special use permit; 7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems; 8. All 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 their designee for approval; 9. Documentation of the manse, including detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevation with measurements, shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; 10. A tree conservation plan in accordance with the "Tree Survey, Trees to be Removed" (page SP 3), prepared by a certified arborist, shall b e submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Development of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree conservation plan; and (This condition has been met.) 11. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the f inal site plan for this use. The landscape plan shall provide a planting of trees along the property line of the Rintels’ property with the following requirements: (This condition has been met.) The screening trees (58) shown on the Conceptual Site Plan al ong the rear property line and the nine (9) evergreens that have been removed since construction of the fellowship hall began shall be planted prior to demolition of the manse. (i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American Nurseryman’s Association; (ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value; and (iii) The nine (9) evergreen trees to be replaced shall be a minimum of five (5) f eet tall. The trees will run along the property line and will be planted on Mr. Rintels’ property provided that the property owner agrees to permit the landscaping to be planted and maintained on that property. (This condition has been met.) RECOMMENDED MOTION: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: SP 2010-53 PC March 15, 2011 Staff Report Page 6 Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-53 South Plains Presbyterian Church 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 SP 2010-53 South Plains Presbyterian Church. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Character of Area Attachment B – Images of the Site Attachment C – BOS Action Letter and Approved Concept Plan Attachment D – Mr. Rintels Letter Attachment E – Images from the Adjacent Property to the South Attachment F – Historic Preservation Committee Comments Return to exec summary GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Tax Map Grid Overview Roads Primary Roads Secondary Roads Overview Roads - City Road Bridges Railroad Bridges Road Centerlines Road Centerlines - City Roads Roads - City Railroads Buildings Buildings - City Driveways Parcels Lakes and Reservoirs Ponds Major Streams Other Streams Albemarle Boundary Charlottesville Boundary Scottsville Boundary Y2010 1 m Orthophotography South Plains Presbyterian Church Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 2, 2011 Top left: The historic manse and new fellowship hall. Top right: The historic church and manse, and the new fellowship hall. Bottom left: Image showing the proximity of the new fellowship hall to the historic manse. These images show views of the church, manse, and new fellowship hall from various vantage points from the Rintels property. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: File: SP-2010-53: South Plains Presbyterian Church FROM: Eryn Brennan RE: Historic Preservation Comments DATE: January 28, 2011 I have reviewed the plan submitted for the above-referenced proposal (Sheet C1.1 dated 12/17/10) and I have the following historic preservation comments. The 1870s rectory is a contributing resource to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and, therefore, it should not be demolished. However, the large Fellowship Hall addition approved on May 24, 2009 obscures the view of the rectory from important locations on the site, and it changes the relationship of the rectory to the historic church and the site. Consequently, the value of the building as a contributing resource has been diminished. The Historic Preservation Committee has provided the following comments: “The manse shoul d be documented before it is demolished. Documentation should include digital photographs and drawings of the floor plans and elevations with measurements.” Given the proximity of mature trees to the manse, it also should be clarified as to whether demolition of the manse would require removal of any additional trees on the site. With this additional information, more comments may be provided. Alternatives are as follows, in order of preference. 1. Relocate the rectory to an alternate location on the sit e. 2. Relocate the rectory to an off-site location. 3. Document the building and offer any available materials for salvage prior to demolition. The applicant has indicated that there is no alternate location available on site for the manse and that the building was made available for moving, but the offer was not accepted. Recommendations are as follows: 1. Provide documentation detailing the efforts made to offer the manse for moving. 2. Document the manse. Documentation should be undertaken by a qualified architectural historian. Documentation should include, at a minimum, detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevations with measurements. Copies of the documentation should be provided to the County. Following receipt of the documentation by the County, a demolition permit may be approved. 3. If trees are damaged or destroyed by the demolition of the manse, replacement trees shall be required. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission March 15, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items: SP-2010-000053 South Plains Church PROPOSED: Amend existing special use permit to allow removal of 19th century manse ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22) TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Eryn Brennan) Mr. Zobrist noted he was not disqualifying himself since he was not representing South Plains Church on this item tonight nor has he advised them with respect to it. He had done work for the church in the past, but not before this body. County counsel has advised him that he can participate in this item. Therefore, he would participate and invited staff to present the staff report. Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. On May 13, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved SP-2008-29 to allow for the construction of a new fellowship hall and sanctuary on the site directly in front of the manse and about 20’ west of the origi nal church. A site plan was subsequently approved in April 2010. The area is primarily characterized by wooded parcels and rolling terrain, with scattered residential lots and farmland. The church site is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The church’s date of construction cannot be verified—some sources state it was built in the early 19th century, while others state it was built in the 1870s. The church is an excellent example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture. The manse was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory, which had burned. Both structures are designated as contributing in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District National Register nomination. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 2 The applicant is seeking to amend Special Use Permit SP-2008-29 to allow demolition of the 19th century historic manse. Although a structural analysis of the building has not been submitted for review, the applicant states the building is deteriorated beyond repair . The images showed the proximity of the manse to the new fellowship hall, which consists roughly a 8’ distance. The proposed concept plan showed the removal of the manse with the addition of 9 evergreen trees along the rear property line. The land uses supported by the rural areas chap ter of the Comprehensive plan emphasize the preservation and protection of natural historic and scenic resources and states that historic resources should be protected. The manse is designated as a contributing structure in the historic district. Therefore, it is an historic building and culture resource that warrants protection. However, in this case the new fellowship hall, while sensitive in scale and design to the historic church, obscures a significant portion of the manse from public view and changes the contextual relationship between the manse and the church. The size and proximity of the new fellowship hall has already compromised the historic value and integrity of the manse. Given this condition, combined with the fact that no trees are proposed to be removed and tree protection fencing is shown around existing trees, staff believes removal of the manse would not have an adverse impact on the historic site nor the character of the district. One adjacent property owner has expressed concern over the removal of the manse stating that it is a contributing resource worthy of protection. The property owner also noted that the manse served a buffer of the view of the new fellowship hall from his property. However, given the distance of the new fellowship hall from his property in addition to the existing wooded area in the southern portion and a row of evergreen trees planted along the shared southern property, all of these factors would mitigate the view of the fellowship hall from all adjacent properties to the south. Staff proposed condition 9 to ensure that the evergreen trees would be planted prior to the demolish of the manse if the special use permit application is approved. Staff understands that row of trees has gone in this past week end. Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP -2010-00053 South Plains Presbyterian Church subject to the following conditions (please note strikethroughs indicate language that has been removed from the conditions approved for SP-2008-29 and highlighted text indicates language added to the conditions): 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the ―Conceptual Site Plan‖ (page SP 4) prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Archit ects, Inc., dated January 19, 2009 February 4, 2011, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator . In addition, To be in general accord with the Conceptual Site Plan, the development the following elements shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: be in strict accord with and conform to the Conceptual Site Plan: (Change to the standard language.) the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown with tree protection fencing; on "Tree Survey, Trees to be Removed" (page SP 3). Plantings between the parking lot shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan" and Routes 22 and 616 shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board as part of the site plan approval; (This condition has been met.) 2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed three thousand five hundred fifty (3,550) square feet. The footprint of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed five thousand seven hundred fifty (5,750) square feet; (This condition has been met.) 3. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces; 4. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas; 5. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use; 6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 3 7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems; 8. All 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 their designee for approval; 9. Documentation of the manse, including detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevation with measurements, shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; 10. A tree conservation plan in accordance with the "Tree Survey, Trees to be Removed" (page SP 3), prepared by a certified arborist, shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Development of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree conservation plan; and (This condition has been met.) 11. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. The landscape plan shall provide a planting of trees along the property line of the Rintels’ property with the following requirements: (This condition has been met.) The screening trees (58) shown on the Conceptual Site Plan along the rear property line and the nine (9) evergreens that have been removed since construction of the fellowship hall began shall be planted prior to demolition of the manse. (i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American Nurseryman’s Association; (ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value; and (iii) The nine (9) evergreen trees to be replaced shall be a minimum of five (5) feet tall . The trees will run along the property line and will be planted on Mr. Rintels’ property provided that the property owner agrees to permit the landscaping to be planted and maintained on that property. (This condition has been met.) Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Bill Atwood, Architect, and Ashley Cooper, with Cooper Planning, representatives for South Plains Church, presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the church’s request. Together they have worked with South Plains Church for over four years to accomplish the plan that they are through a vision are representing tonight. This is Keswick’s post card. It is a church that has no bathrooms. It is a church for 180 years these people have protected and have made it an intimate part of the culture of Keswick. In all of their discussions with the neighbors, they have learned a lot about rural area churches. Many of the social gatherings of churches like this are in the front yard and not the back. In their designs for over a period of 3 years, they modified the master plan to accommodate the ―front yard‖ culture. Parallel to that they identified some of the finest hardwoods in the County. They have worked with the construction, with about three weeks for completion, for the protection of those hardwoods. A church is made up of the people. Given a tiny church, the people become more important. He has worked with this church for 12 years and has become very close to this particular collection of people as they have tried to meet the needs of their neighbors, meet the needs patiently of their congregation, and move to create a new future. Their master plan was submitted and approved about a year ago created a dynamic that reflected respect for the sanctuary. That was the number one priority. In all of their public meetings, the sanctuary was clearly a huge challenge because it is so small. They had a need for a fellowship hall next to ultimately a bigger sanctuary for the future. In their initial discussions and design suggestions, which he referred to in a sketch, they showed in their beginning design process. It began to scale down the mass of Kurt Hall, the fellowship hall, as it related to the sanctuary. After multiple meetings with the ARB, it was changed drastically and even toned down more. It is so far down in the ground there actually has to be a handrail on the sidewalk to get down into the front door. Therefore, the goal to minimize this building as it sits with the historic sanctuary they think has been accomplished. Their initial design architectural review board submission was changed to reflect where they are today. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 4 Through multiple meetings, they changed their submission to make the building much simpler. It became a building with smaller openings in it to reflect the simplicity to reflect a building that has been there for over 180 years. After they put Kurt Hall in place in a design sense, they started to discuss with the Architectural Review Board how they would connect it to the manse they were forced to tear the front porch of the manse off. After the discussions with the ARB they began to contemplate that the manse does not work that well. They has plenty of space and in their minds, the manse was in their minds a design liability after many meetings with the ARB. That is why their staff is thinking parallel to what they are thinking. Actually, there was some sense that this was a by-right demolition. He thought that is what the slides show. With the massive green canopy with the very simple parking lot and cemetery along with the critical slope consideration, it drove them to this one spot for this building. During the discussions at that time everybody agreed that they literally only had one spot for the building. It was not their first solution, but that moved them to the ultimate solution. It was said they did have a solution to take manse down. The church at that time rejected that thought themselves for two reasons. One, the only bathrooms for some distance were in the manse. Therefore, they could not take the manse down at that time. More importantly, the view shed out of the sanctuary would have been changed forever by placing the building in that position. They reconsidered that after about three years. They went away and came back. Ashley Cooper, Assistant to Mr. Atwood, continued the PowerPoint presentation and made the following comments. From that point on, they had established the basic location of the fellowship hall knowing they wanted it to come forward slightly from the existing chapel. However, they did not want to overwhelm it. To take them back to the site conditions she noted that one of the trees in the tree survey was a 51‖ White Oak. That is one of many massive trees on the site. That is the one place where they would not impact those trees. Their second priority was to look at the tree cover and see how best to address that. That plan included an extensive amount of parking, which was required at the time. Because of it would have ended up wiping out the whole back of the site they found it to be unacceptable. They started looking at other solutions. They wanted to respect all of the qualities of the site. They looked around and noticed other churches had creative solutions for parking with some parking in the front. It was not that big of a deal and they could preserve the trees and the hist oric nature of the site. They moved to a new solution that brought the parking to the front and allowed the preservation of almost all of the trees on the site. It maintained the buffer on the rear of the sites. Because of the push and pull of these fac tors on the site that gave the exact location of where the fellowship hall was going to go , which was right in front of the original manse. Mr. Atwood said one should love your neighbors. He thought that they have learned a major community lesson in the process of this particular development of a plan. They planted almost 60 trees along the border to minimize today their impact from a neighbor ’s property so that in less than two to three years, it was probably going to create 40’ to 50’ trees. During the ARB meeting, there was a neighbor across the street that wanted specific changes made to plant types and placement of the landscape. They made major gestures to the neighbors. They have never done 60 trees to buffer a church. He thought that they have done their best as community church members to be sensitive to the bigger community. There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment Marion Thompson said she has been the person designated as the historian for South Plain s Church for the last decade. She has had the privilege of looking at many books of minutes of meetings and previous histories provided. From these and her own experience she has learned that remembering what happened and who did what and when it happened next can teach us a lot about human nature. The facts that are important to one person are not so meaningful to another . Her first impressions of the history of South Plains Church filled her with admiration for the faithful souls whose zeal and faith continue to seek to fulfill the mission for which South Plains was brought. The house on the grounds has served many purposes. At first it was to serve the pastor of the church. The pastor of the church was also pastor of three or four other churches. It has also served as a home for people who needed a home ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 5 when there was no pastor to use the house. They helped to maintain the grounds. South Plains is well aware of the important history that they cherish as their own. But, they must remember the mis sion of the church like all other Christian churches to be faithful to the mission for which they were put in that particular place at a particular time. Remember the song about the church is not the building and open the door and there are the people. T onight some of their people will share their feelings about South Plains and about the blessing that the manse has been to the church and how that blessing they can say farewell to with thanks and great love for the opportunity. William Orr said that he had been attending South Plains for the past 25 years. He noted they had made many attempts to try to find a home for the new manse. Because of the manse’s state, they have not been able to find a new home for it. During the past 25 years, the membership has more than doubled. They now have 162 members and the old church will only seat 85. During this time, they have acquired their first two full time ministers. There has developed there a dream for some day the church having its own fellowship hall, bathrooms, and Sunday school rooms. The manse has been there for about 100 years. In the last few years, it has served many uses for the church office, Sunday school rooms, Pastor’s study, and a unisex bathroom. About 4 years ago, the building fund developed to the point where they thought they could make plans to start building the fellowship halls, Sunday school rooms, and bathrooms. About 3 years ago, they had a meeting to discuss these plans and what they hoped to do with the manse. Some of the members wanted to try to save the manse if at all possible. Our hope was that they could find someone who would take the manse and move it to their own property. He did not think there was anyone there who felt they would have a purpose for the manse once th e new building was built. As time has gone on, he did not think any members wanted to save the manse since it has served its purpose. They had one party that wanted to try to move the manse and use it as a farm house. When they found out it would cost between $30,000 to $40,000 move it and would require permits to move it, they looked under the manse and decided they did not want it. Little Keswick School did not answer their letter when they offered it to them. He had a contractor look at the manse an d he felt that it would not stay altogether when moved. Therefore, he gave up on that idea. They went to salvage companies to see if someone could salvage it. There is a company in Richmond that were not interested and did not have use for it. There is a nice gentleman in Orange who said he could use the mantles, staircases, and trim around the doors. There was no other materials that he could use. He asked the Commission to take down the manse, salvage what they can, and demolish the rest. Layman Drake noted that Mr. Orr had taken everything that he was going to say. He said that he recently finished his tour on the session on South Plains. He was responsible for building and grounds. He spent a lot of time around the church shoveling those sidewalks and maintaining the buildings. He asked to explain how they plan to take the building down. After they get the permit granted, they will send a crew of people into the manse and dismantle what they have to reuse in the new Kurt Hall. That has all b een done ahead of time. They know exactly where this stuff is going to go. It has all been color coded. The remaining items will be sent to the land fill or recycled. The second thing is they will have a salvage expert come in and salvage things like air conditioners, ceiling fans, door trim, window trim, and mantles. They have talked to two contractors about dismantling the building. The use of heavy equipment in taking that building down is not advisable because it is less than 8’ away. They have a contractor who is willing to take the building down, but he is going to take a lot of time because he wants the timbers in the buildings. That is the way they are probably going to go. They have a certificate stating that they have not asbestos in the building. They have a four page spec design that any contractor that comes in will have to use in order to work according to their rules. Rick Bowie, resident in the Scottsville District, said prior to last rezoning their home was in the Rivanna District where he had the honor of serving these fine people for eight years on the Board of Supervisors. His other reason for being present was that South Plains is his church. He and his wife, Barbara, are members. He has never been in a more beautifully p eaceful sanctuary. It means a lot to them. He felt that everything that needs to be said has been said. It was an excellent staff report. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their time and efforts on behalf of the County because they are the ones who protect our rural area. Within the next few weeks, the church will be moving items out of the manse as already stated into Kurt Hall. They have two choices to either respectfully dismantling it protecting the trees and other environments or they can let it rot or sit there and fall apart. They much prefer the former choice to take the manse down. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 6 Frank Kiplinger said that he and his wife moved to Albemarle County 17 years ago. Prior to that, they had lived in Northern Virginia and had a large landscaping business. He served on the Northern Virginia Nursery Association and also in the Town of Leesburg served on the environmental commission for 2 years. His background is in landscaping. After coming here for 16 years, he worked with the ARB in Glenmore as a consultant for landscaping. His background is in landscaping. The row of trees they put in along the back is in place right now. This Commission did not recommend that row of trees. It was brought up at the Board of Supervisors meeting at a later date. In the process of that, some other trees had to be removed, which had been asked to be replaced. The trees required to go in are already there. He asking that they don’t have to put those trees in. They were Loblolly pines to start wi th, which make good pulp wood but are rarely used in the landscaping situation. The crowding will be an issue as the trees grows, which will cause disease and crowding out as they grow. That would be stressful situation where the trees would be killing e ach other. The manse has been there for a long time. The document in Albemarle County show that 5 acres to be used as a church. They think that is a conforming use for that 5 acres. The buildings built and those taken down is not much different than a f armer putting up a barn in their yard or taking down a building in their yard as well. What they are doing with that issue is in conformance with what that property has been used for. Kellee Eastwood noted that since the last time she met on this issue she had been married in this church and had been elected as an elder. They appreciate all the Commission’s consideration in support of their proposal to build this wonderful building. The congregation has grown by almost another dozen. They have had the birth of several new children over the last year. They are very hopeful, thankful, and joyful about having this new facility to meet the needs of their congregation. If there are any doubts about the need to take down the manse, on behalf of the Fellowship Committee she invites each and every one to join them this coming Sunday at the service at 11 and then for fellowship in the manse at 12 . They would be able to see the conditions in which they have been joining as a congregation over the last few years and the need for the facility and to take down the manse. Travis Taylor said he lived in the Boyd Tavern area with his wife and two small children. From a parent’s view, he had great concern over the structural soundness of the manse. In the nursery are a as many as 12 kids will gather. The floors are like a trampoline since the building is not particularly well built. He realized it was in the historic district, but he did not think the house was historic particularly with the vinyl siding. He did not think it added any value as a historic structure. In addition to the floor sag there is a bathroom consideration for the children. The nursery bathroom serves as a closet for cleaning supplies as well. The church has not further use for this building. Bob Tracinski, resident of Keswick and member of South Plains for 4 years, noted that he was on the long range planning team and one of several teachers in the adult Sunday school class. The Sunday school is looking forward to the opening of Kurt Hall b ecause there will be a room designed for meetings rather than dining. Right now in the old manse, they must meet in a dining room off the kitchen because it is the only space available. The manse has no modern amenities available. Kurt Hall will have those things available and will help them provide service and programs to meet the needs of the area. He asked the Commission to approve their request to remove the manse. Chad Wayner noted that his wife, children, and he lived near Woodbrook Elementary. He is an Elder at South Plains and a member or almost 7 years. The primary reason they are here this evening is to ask permission to remove the manse. Their original special use permit was approved without the removal of the manse because they needed to use that facility during construction to support their current activities and programs. He asked the Commission to support the removal of the manse. Their request to take down the manse compares favorably to similar requests that the Commission has approved in the past. In 2005, Wilton Grove Baptist Church near Gordonsville asked for approval for demolition of a fellowship hall on their site, which was in an historic district with the building in poor condition. In that case, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the demolition of the fellowship hall. In that case, the Planning Commission required the church to comply to one condition prior to demolition, which stated, ―The church shall make the property available for documentation by an architectural historian or other person approved by staff.‖ Staff’s recommendation for South Plains appears to be more onerous. Not only has staff required the church to provide drawings of the manse ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 7 with elevations they also have recommended additional changes to their landscaping plans both as a prerequisite for approval of the building. If these condition are required, the church willfully comply. It is surprising that these requirements are more onerous than the ones for Wilton Gro ve given the similarities. The church has already planted 58 trees along the property line at a significant cost solely for the benefit of their neighbor. In their deliberations, he asked the Commission to consider the staff’s recommendation carefully on these two issues and to approve their special use permit. Eleanor Dickerman noted that most of the things she was going to talk about were already covered. She understands there is a neighbor who is concerned about noise in the courtyard behind the chur ch. She thought it was too conservative to have that kind of thing and also it was awfully close to the cemetery . Now they have the new fellowship hall to hold events. She was not a member of South Plains, but the church has allowed her the privilege of serving as one of the two organists. They are delighted to have a music room to gather all of their various items associated with the church chorus in one place. During the past 8 years she had been playing at the church, she did not realize there was a house on the adjacent property until just recently. There is a stand of trees in front of that house that has kept her seeing that house. She questioned if she could not see the house from the church how could they see the church from the house. She felt that the variation in the brick work softens it so that it goes with the old sanctuary brick. Jonathan Rintels, adjacent property owner, said if they come over to his property today, they would see the manse, the new building and the church very easily from almost all perspectives on the property. His wife, two children, and he live on 16 acres behind the applicant in a farmhouse build 100 years ago. Overgrown and run down 20 years ago when they bought it they invested considerable sums restoring the property’s rural and historical qualities as a contributing structure in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. He previously asked that the manse be saved. However, he has heard the arguments tonight and he was persuaded. He thinks the manse should be removed. He felt that the impact of its removal on his property should be mitigated. Mr. Rintels noted that nearly two years ago both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors recognized that the construction of the applicant’s new building would cause a substantial detriment to their property and that mitigation was necessary. This Commission recommended condition 1 and the Board of Supervisors agreed that construction be in strict accord with the preservation of all existing trees on the applicant’s property unless construction required approval. As the staff report notes 9 pine trees were cut down in violation of that condition. Those pines were next to the ones shown in a photograph he referred in a higher area that would have buffered the impact of the building. There is plenty of room for these 9 trees. The Board had a second condition that a row of trees be planted along their border. Those trees were planted a week ago. The trees look great and he appreciates it. However, the boundary is in a low area and it will take a decade or more, not 2 or 3 years, for these 6’ to 8’ trees to grow to 50’ or to grow enough to provide mitigation. These 2 conditions were attached even though the manse, which blocked most of their view of the rear building, was to be preserved. If the manse is now removed for many years they will have a head on view of what from the rear presents itself as a contemporary brick building that is out of character with our rural and historic district. It will result in an additional substantial detriment to their property far beyond what was addressed by the conditions attached two years ago. Therefore, they ask that prior to the manse’s removal the applicant first replace the trees cut down in violation of condition 1 with similar trees, fast growing pines, 8’ tall or taller. In addition, Mr. Rintels said they believe a condition should be attached requiring new plantings of ornamental trees, shrubs, and bushes in the manse footprint and along the building’s border. Some Commissioners noted two years ago planting, buffering, vegetation in the higher elevation near the new building would provide intermediate mitigation, but the manse was then in the way. Now it won’t be so there is no reason not to plan those plants. The need for added protection was highlighted for them on a recent afternoon when a bride, groom, and wedding party walked from the church’s property through the hole where the trees were cut down to pose for wedding pictures in their front field. Being a sucker for romance, he did not intrude, but it does confirm that these trees need to be replaced. They ask that outdoor sound systems be prohibited. He could hear conversations on his driveway, which is much farther than 100’ from the property line of construction workers working on the building. It seems obviously amplification would violate the County’s Noise Ordinance, as he understands it. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 8 Pastor David Garth said that he had been the Pastor of South Plains Church for the past 4 ½ years. They would be happy to look again at the trees. It was their understanding that the trees that were cut down was done in order to try to reach their field and keep it mowed. He thought it was very much in the same location where the trees were just planted. However, they will be glad to look at that again. The congregation is very appreciative of having had the use of the manse over these years. In the time he has been there the excitement of moving into a new building with the possibility of esca ping some of the liabilities of the old manse certainly have outweighed any desire to keep the manse. He felt that keeping the manse would present somewhat of a hazard both for the church and the community. Trying to maintain it will be a burden. It is impossible for the church to restore it. He hoped they would approve their application and allow the removal of the manse. Mr. Rintels asked to pass around three photos. Mr. Zobrist replied that he could pass the three photos around. There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Atwood if he would like to respond, and Mr. Atwood replied no. Mr. Morris noted he had been involved with this for a number of years and the congregation is absolutely delightful. Dr. Orr has been very helpful throughout the whole thing, as has the architect. He has truly been amazed at the desire for more and more plantings right on the border because it is at a low spot. He did not have his house right next door to the church. However, it just seems that the screening is going to take forever and no one in this room will probably be alive by the time it becomes a screen. However, the Architectural Review Board has spoken. He would be reluctant to make this a condition. If any additional planting is to be made in the future when funds become available to the congregation, it should be up in the back of Kurt Hall where the manse is now. Ms. Porterfield said the congregation invited her over. She was there the first time the Commission heard this. She did go back about a week ago and got a tour of the new building. They were painting at the time. She also walked through the manse and numerous areas. She actually gave staff the pictures. She was not a trained historian as Ms. Brennan. However, she has overseen a number of remodels of houses that she and her husband have owned around the country. Truly speaking it needs a lot of work. She was down in the crawl space and one of the pictures showed that area. She can see exactly what they are saying that it is unfortunately not a usable building for them at this stage. She is a believer that there has to be a use for something and that just being old is not enough. She would like to see the Commission allow the demolish permit for the church. They have done a really good job as far as trying to find a place for the manse and just can’t do it. They do have some people that can actually salvage pieces of it. They are going to make every effort to tear it down in a very good way so that they are not destroying anything else that is on the property. Mr. Loach asked what are the rules on the amplified noise since it is not a winery. Mr. Zobrist noted that was not in front of the Commission tonight. Mr. Kamptner said ordinarily if it were treated as a land use, it would be subject to the 60 and 55 decibel standards in the rural areas. If it fell under the general noise standards there would be a n audibility standard. They will be going back to clean up the general noise regulations. He would check for any exceptions as it was for agricultural activities. There is an exception for c hurch bells or chimes. Ordinarily this will be regulated by the general decibel standards. Mr. Monteith noted she had a couple of questions. One is the process for documentation. She would like to understand a little better what the process is because that really has not been discussed except in the case of somebody not being very supportive of the process. The other question that has not been answered directly is whether any trees will be impacted by the demolition of the manse. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 9 Ms. Brennan replied that the process of documentation of the manse was based on a rec ommendation from the Historic Preservation Committee for the County. Documentation of a building before demolition is standard procedure where staff looks at the demolition permits even if it is just for a photographic documentation. In the case of the m anse because it is approximately 100 years old the committee felt that a little bit more extensive documentation would be helpful in terms of at least if the building is gone they have for prosperity detailed documents. Measured drawings from quite a bit of experience are pretty easy to come by especially if there is an architect on hand who has a lot of information about the manse as is given that the original proposal required the new fellowship hall to be attached to the manse. Therefore, she knows just from having reviewed this application from the ARB standpoint that the side elevations are already pretty much done. Measured drawings can be done in the field. It can take about an hour to do an elevation and floor plan. She thought that was what the committee recommendation was. She did not think the committee intended that the church spend a significant amount of money to produce professional level CAD drawings. She thought that field documentation with measured drawings would suffice, as she understands from conversations with committee members. It would also include photographs of the interior and exterior including any character defining features of the building. Mr. Morris asked that Dr. Orr come forward and address this question. Mr. Zobrist noted that Ms. Monteith was not done yet. Ms. Monteith noted that the second question was whether any trees would be affected by the demolition of the manse. Ms. Brennan replied that was something staff looked into, and no the trees will not be affected by the manse. After the initial review, staff asked that tree protection fencing be specifically shown on the concept plan around those trees closest to the manse to ensure that neither the trees nor their root systems underneath the tree canopy would be impacted by demolition. Those revisions and changes were made. In regards to the 58 trees in the rear of the property and the 9 additional trees, zoning made a determination that there was a net loss of 9 trees. They asked the applicant if they would be interested in putting the 9 back in that general location. At that time, they said yes. That was a long time ago and before the 58 trees had been put in. There are 58 trees currently back there. However, it was something the applicant said they would be willing to do. Staff thought it might be a nice neighborly gesture. Staff is not wedded to that particular condition that is outlined in the staff report. In terms of additional tree plantings in the back of the new fellowship hall in the location of where the footprint of the manse would have once been, Ms. Brennan noted they considered that as well. However, the idea of landscaping is that it is not to hide new development, but integrate it into a landscape. If the church should want to plant in the back of their church, certainly that would be welcomed. However, in terms of requiring that as a condition of approval for the special use permit , staff did not feel that was necessary. Staff considered that option as well. Mr. Zobrist invited Dr. Orr to address the question about the manse. Dr. Orr noted that it was all about the manse. They thought it would be appropriate to wait until the furniture, the minister’s bookcase, and those various things are out of the manse and then take pictures of all four walls in each of the rooms. They would put the photographs on a disc and document it. He thought it would be more accurate if they did it after they got the stuff out of there before taking anything else down. Mr. Zobrist noted that staff was comfortable and did not want to change that condition. Motion: Mr. Morris moved to recommend approval of SP-2010-00053 South Plains Presbyterian Church subject to the conditions as recommended by staff Mr. Franco asked for consideration of a friendly a mendment to eliminate the requirement for the nine additional trees. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 15, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church - Submitted for Approval 10 Mr. Kamptner noted the change was in the main clause for conditions #11 and iii. Mr. Morris accepted the amendment to the motion offered by Mr. Franco. Mr. Kamptner noted the amendment would be in condition 9. Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0:1. (Mr. Zobrist abstained.) Mr. Zobrist noted SP-2010-00053, South Plains Presbyterian Church would be forwarded to the Board with a recommendation for approval subject to staff’s recommended conditions, amended as follows: 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the ―Conceptual Site Plan‖ prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated February 4, 2011, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Site Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the developm ent: the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown with tree protection fencing. 2. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces; 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas; 4. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use; 5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems; 7. All 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 their designee for approv al; 8. Documentation of the manse, including detailed digital photographs of both the interior and exterior, and drawings of the floor plans and elevation with measurements, shall be submitted to the County prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; 9. The screening trees (58) shown on the Conceptual Site Plan along the rear property line shall be planted prior to demolition of the manse. (i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American Nurseryman’s Association; (ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:09 p.m. Go to next set of minutes Return to exec summary ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission March 24, 2009 Public Hearing Item SP-2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church PROPOSED: Addition of new fellowship hall and sanctuary to existing church. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22) TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Scott Clark) Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See staff report and PowerPoint presentation) This is a request for a special use permit is to allow the addition of a new fellowship hall and sanctuary to an existing 19th century church. There is a wooded area at the southwest end of the parcel. There is a stream buffer. There are two distinct aspects to this review—the general health, safety, and welfare impact of the use, and the impact of this particular design on historic preservation and the Entrance Corridor. Staff feels that the use as proposed at this location is acceptable in terms of general health, safety, and welfare considerations. The entrance is adequately sited and staff has no concern with that. However, staff still has significant concerns about the design of the addition, and feels that design review should be carried out by the Architectural Review Board at the site -plan stage without the limitations of a conceptual plan. The parking area is larger due to the increase in size of the church. The parking area is very visible because it wraps around to the front of the property along the entrance corridor. The landscaping will be covered in more detail at the site plan phase. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. There are no known significant physical limitations that would prevent this expansion. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The proposed design has significant impacts on the historic character of the existing church and site, as well as the Entrance Corridor. Staff is concerned with what happens to the manse. The manse is 19th century and when attached to the new building will not be visible. Staff‘s recommendation is somewhat different than the way they have treated other churches in the past. Rather than recommending approval of a particular conceptual plan acknowledging that the scale of the enlargement of the church can be accommodated on the site staff is recommending approval of a church of that scale with a fellowship hall as proposed with about a ten percent addition to accommodate later changes. However, staff is not recommending approval based on this specific plan because there are still a lot of issues to be worked out. Therefore staff would leave the review of the exact arrangement of the buildings to the Architectural Review Board during the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 2 site plan process rather than approving a plan that D esign Planning staff has a lot of concerns with and then severally limiting the review of the ARB. Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church with the following conditions. The first condition limits the sizes of the buildings to ten percent more than is currently proposed and the 75 spaces as proposed. Most of the remainder of these conditions is standard conditions for churches, except for condition #5 which calls for the open area to the rear of the property to be filled in with trees and shrubs essentially in order to increase the screening of the property from neighboring properties. 1. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed 3,550 square feet. The footpr int of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed 5,750 square feet. 2. Provided parking shall not exceed 75 spaces. 3. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas. 4. Stormwater facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. 5. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to consist of a naturalistic pattern of multi-species trees and shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled ―Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,‖ published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report . These plantings are to be arranged in a density that would mitigate views of the new church facilities, with a spacing allowing the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recognized. 6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems. 8. All 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 their designee for approval. Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission. Mr. Morris noted that this was the first time that he had seen the recommendation on the screen. The staff report says based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church with the conditions listed in the staff report, which does not include Architectural Review Board approval as part of the recommendation. Mr. Clark replied that he addressed that issue in the body of the report and it was not part of the conditions. This explanation is just an attempt to sum up and explain the process at the end of the presentation. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the fact there is no condition on a conceptual pla n included among the eight conditions would result in the site plan determining how the site is laid out and the ARB having its review. On this slide staff is telling the Commission what would happen with the results of the conditions. Mr. Morris pointed out that all he was saying was that it was not in the recommendations or the conditions. Mr. Clark said that the ARB review is a standard part of the site plan process. Staff does not include elements that are already required in the conditions. Ms. Porterfield noted that comments and concerns have been expressed by area and adjacent residents as well as members of the congregation. By staff‘s recommendation it would take away the ability to be completely open about how this site is going to be planned. She questioned why staff is doing that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 3 Mr. Clark replied that the Architectural Review Board is a public process. Ms. Porterfield noted that the Architectural Review Board is not sitting here listening to everybody who is going to come up and talk. She asked if there was a way the Commission through a motion could at least provide to the ARB some knowledge as to where things need to be placed and then let them make a decision if they like or dislike that. Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Commission so determines that they want to give the ARB further guidance than has been recommended then they certainly can. The Commission could go so far as to recommend that the Board include the conceptual plan that the applicant has offered as one of the con ditions, which would then tell the ARB that is the way it needs to be. The Commission has to decide in their majority vote how they want to recommend that to the Board. Staff has given the recommendation that reflects the input from the Design Planner, which is not necessarily what all of the people have said that they want to see. So it is a decision left up to the Commission whether to recommend more than what staff has suggested in the conditions. The Commission could go so far as going back to the s tandard condition that has been used in the past including the conceptual plan if they feel comfortable with it. Mr. Loach questioned the parking that says 75 spaces. In the specifics of the proposal it says class room size for 126 seats and the largest sanctuary with 225 seats. How does the number of seats correlate to the number of parking spaces required? Mr. Clark replied that usually staff asks the church to do a parking study to determine what their own needs are rather than applying a single standard. In this case they went with the former standard that they use to apply, which was one parking space per three (3) seats in the area of assembly. That is the way parking is usually calculated and not from the class rooms. Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Bill Atwood said he was present with Ashley Cooper and members of the South Plains Church. He presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposal for the historic church. They concur with the comment that this is the postcard of the community. Actually his relationship with this building started in 1995 when the Japanese government asked them to do a village in Hiroshima. A delegation came to Albemarle County and selected this church as their symbol of Christian faith. They built a replicate in Hiroshima as part of that village. So they know this church very well. It is more than a postcard. This is a community of caring people who are taking care of their fam ily and have been good neighbors. They have been folks that have taken care of this particular historic church for 190 years without bathrooms in the church itself. They define this as a three part church scheme – the church itself with people that play in the front yard; to the cemetery that is historic to the century which is the large 51‖ Red Oak and its twin the 48‖ wide oak behind the manse. They did a tree study on the trees as they relate to the site. The site is two-thirds covered with the trees on the site, a 27,000 square foot cemetery, an 18,000 square foot parking lot and the building. There is a small strip of critical slopes . Four years ago they created a plan that pulled the building back but took down the manse. That was not their primary concern. It became apparent as they got adjacent to the old sanctuary itself with the low clear windows that they were actually violating the view shed. Placing a building in this position it was their opinion that it would actually be one of the most offensive things that could happen to the scale of the church itself. It would only be worse if actually touching the church. They submitted a scheme that placed the parking behind the church supplemented by parking that is actually on the existing parking lot. They took this scheme to a town hall meeting in September. With this he felt that they got a very positive response from the attendees. He thought that the neighbors, Mr. Rintels and his wife along with Peter Hallock, actually had some surprise of the scheme and did register a concern for the hardwood edge as it relates to their property. They agreed to meet with them again and did. They indicated that the parking lot takes out some of the trees. The two century trees are very much in doubt because of the narrowness of the 40‘ separation between the tree and the cemetery. They then attempted a scheme where they took more spaces and went with spaces in ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 4 the front and back out of the buffer. They discussed that and some other alternatives with t he Rintels and the conclusion with the trees was pretty much the same that they were taking out a large number of trees. It became apparent in the conversation that it became apparent in the conversation that the problem of taking a driveway on the back s ide of that church was going to take out two of the biggest trees in that part of the county. He noted that this drawing was shown to the community with many of the questions answered. They really don‘t see anywhere else that the sanctuary could go other than down the hill. They feel that the sanctuary should step forward because it is the new major element to the site and has a certain scale to it. They decided to do a parking study to attempt to get the numbers down to see if they could actually take some of the parking away from the Rintels‘ side. They started studying buildings in the area. Staff called their solution kind of suburban. He noted several examples of other churches where the parking is predominantly in front of the church, others o n the side and pretty much all over the place. They actually came up the current parking scheme. The social viability for a church was found to be at the front door and parking. People tend to spill out the front. It would be a disservice to the Rintels to have that pouring out in the back. They decided to go with the grass paved scenario with a gravel paved road. All of that other than the road is green or a substitute material that would be approved by the county. All of the large trees between the church and the Rintels would be protected. There are really only two trees in the parking area that will be at risk. They are committed to save the red oak that is in question with staff. If they have to they will move the new sanctuary back, which wil l not be built for another five years. But they are committed to saving that tree, also. One of the suggestions that came out of the town hall meeting was to build a stone wall like the one across the street. They decided to trim out the parking area wit h the stone wall all the way around the parking area. This is in the Architectural Review Board venue. But they feel that in this scenario if they take the portico scale and the gothic formula and scale and begin to create almost like a Jeffersonian pavilion look for the fellowship hall the large footprint can be broken down in elements that makes sense with this church. But it makes total sense architecturally to step forward allowing the trellis, which will be stepped back away from the church, to create a main street that goes right through the church by the manse. It is their main street in. It gives those people who are challenged access to the church in a short distance. They feel quite comfortably that the appropriate thing to do is to create a family of forms in which the original sanctuary is part of that family. There will be no ridge in this scenario that will be higher than the sanctuary. They feel that it is appropriate. The sanctuary will be tucked somewhat behind the trees. It will really be a pretty low impact building. He requested approval of phase one tonight which would allow them to go ahead in the first five years to construct the building and use the existing parking lot that has been used for years. He presented their proposed final site plan, which was their final dream. He asked the community to support their dream. Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant. Ms. Joseph noticed on site plan it shows an area labeled the septic location for phase 1. She asked if they have a septic location for phase 2 when that goes in. Mr. Atwood replied that it is the same. They are committing on phase one to use the existing parking lot, renew the septic system and build Kirk Hall. Ms. Joseph asked if the septic system that is sho wn will serve the ultimate build out, and Mr. Atwood replied yes. Ms. Joseph understood that engineering will not approve the grass pavers at this point in time that they are proposing. They are looking at other means of pavement, but they will probably have some storm water run off from the roof tops of these things. Mr. Atwood said that they are proposing a water catchment. Every building they do now has a water catchment. They will use that water to take care of toilets and other aspects and are com mitted to that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 5 cause. The calculations in phase one literally with the existing parking staying the way it is will be presented during site plan approval. Mr. Morris asked that he refresh his memory from the Town Hall meeting in September about relegated parking. One of the proposals mentioned in the briefing was relegated parking and Mr. Edgerton was very concerned about the relegated parking in the rear. He asked if the reason they were giving up the relegated parking in the rear was due to a number of problems for the neighbors including the trees. Mr. Atwood replied that they could not create a road surface in the rear that would guarantee saving the big trees. Therefore, this entrance needs to be turned towards the front to make peace for the ne ighbors. He felt that the grass pavers would create a minimal impact in creating a parking scenario on the busy side of the street with a stone edge which would minimize the visual considerations. That was the beginning of their discussions with the Rint els about that area in the back. He felt that the best solution would be to leave it alone. Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. David Garth, Pastor of South Plains Presbyterian Church, thanked the Commission and planning staff for the efforts put into the consideration of the church plans. They are coming before the Commission tonight not to start a new business on the corner of Black Cat Road and Route 22, but to come as people who have really sacrificed for 190 years to maintain that building with a lot of sweat equity and a lot of hard cash as the years have gone by. They have always been more than an artifact of the past. That is important to emphasize here. They are a living breathing part of the Keswick community. They do support area food banks, the ministry at the Winter Haven Nursing Home and other similar type of activities in the area. They feel that they make a contribution to the community. At times they have seen this church survive by the grace of God. They have gotten to a place that they feel with a modest expansion in membership that they can be a healthy self supporting church. They don‘t want to crowd out the present sanctuary. They are very much committed to the beauty of that area. They feel that plan presented tonight accomplishes all of those things within the parameters of the county. Therefore, they ask for the Commission‘s support. Marian Thompson, resident of Lake Monticello, spoke in support of the request. She wrote a history of the church in 1994. She explained the history noting that South Plains Church became the fifth Presbyterian Church in the county. Her heart was touched by all of the faithful service that she read about when she studied the history of the church and she pra yed that the Commission would consider their need for growth and to further the Christian gospel in Charlottesville, Albemarle County and Lake Monticello. Travis Taylor, an Elder at South Plains Church, said that his family, which included his wife and so n, has been members since 2004. They live in the Boyd Tavern area of eastern Albemarle not too far from the church. He was employed an engineer in Albemarle County. The strong tradition of community involvement and warm friendship of the fellowship and community attracted his family to this church. As a family with a young child they have found the congregation of this church to have a loving and supportive fellowship. They want their family to grow up in a strong faith community with facilities and pr ograms that foster good citizenship and a caring life. In order to achieve these goals the church needs the following basic needs: adequate classroom and nursery space, a room where the whole congregation can gather for meals and fellowship and a safe clean restroom. Their dream is not for a large church, but only for church facilities adequate for the programs and activities that will nurture their families. They feel that the building plans presented are entirely in keeping with the historic Keswick community of which South Plains is a vital part. Abby Brown said she has been going to South Plains Church for ten yeas. Many people have joined since she was born. They need a new building because they are crowded and need more room for classrooms and activities. It will be very helpful. Carl Buck, resident of the old Boyd Tavern structure, said that his family chose to live in this area because they were big believers of preserving history. When they lived in North Carolina they joined the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 6 National Trust Society and have been contributors to that cause for quite some time. It has not been easy refurbishing the old Boyd Tavern structure because there have been many challenges. They became members of the South Plains Presbyterian Church in 2005. One o f the crucial factors in choosing to worship at the church was the congregation‘s commitment to continue to honor its historic positions in the area as well as its classic 19th century sanctuary. Jeff Buck, son of Carl Buck, pointed out that he and his br other were the only two in their class for the teen Sunday school. Their classroom is also a storage room. It is really cramped. The re are number of things crammed in the storage room such as a television, a ladder and clothes. He was a lso part of a new youth group with this church and two other churches. They have not been able to have any youth groups meetings at their church due to the size of each room. He hoped that the Commission would allow them to build Kurt Hall in order to make more room for everybody and everything to have its own place. Carl Buck noted that as Jeff said the church is simply out of room. The feel that it is difficult for the church to continue the next generation of Presbyterians in this area is simply because they don‘t have the facilities to welcome other people aboard. He emphasized that they were working with other local churches to continue community involvement with the youth in the community. Their church accepts its responsibility to treasure the history that it pr ovides to the Keswick area. He hoped that the Commission would take into consideration their request to add Kurt Hall to be a valuable part of the community. Joanna Hadata, an area resident, noted that she and her husband retired to the area 15 years ago and loves the area and its wonderful historic background. She comes from the Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow that was built in 1685, which is famous in Washington Irving‘s legion. Th ere is really a church and she use to belong to it. That church still stands with 3‘ thick walls without electricity, heat or any modern things. However the congregation had to move because there was no place next to it to build a church house. A church needs to have facilities. She was a m ember of the choir. Their church choir goes to the old manse, which about 25 yards from the sanctuary. They have to go down there, robe up and then come rain, snow, hail or sleet they dash from there up to the sanctuary. They really need to have a facility that will be closer and will give them the opportunity to robe up and to go to the sanctuary with the worshipful attitude that one really should enter the sanctuary for worship in. They really need this facility, which will be very historically in character. Mary Howard, a retired federal employee and resident of Westminster Canterbury, said that she had been a member of South Plains Church since 1987. For those who attend South Plains and live at Westminster Canterbury the church is very convenient. It is close by and does not take very long to get to in heavy traffic. The friendly attitude at South Plains has made members very welcome as members of the church family. However, South Plains needs meeting space and rest rooms that are on the same level as the present sanctuary. At least one-half of their members are 65 or older. Those who rely on a cane or a walker have a difficult time going down the uneven sloping sidewalk from the present sidewalk down to the old manse. Once inside there are the uneven floors. Those who can‘t do stairs are confined to the four rooms downstairs. Those four rooms are the Church office, a nursery, a kitchen and one meeting room. So the older folks would like to see their Kurt Hall built and become a reality while they are still around to enjoy it. Marge Hampton, a 77 year old Elder at South Plains Church, said ten years ago she came to the church emotionally and physically challenged. The church welcomed her with open arms and put her to work. She did volunteer work and became the Chair Person for the Fellowship Committee. The old manse is a wonderful place, but is old and inadequate for what the church needs. She agreed with the previous speakers. Three years ago they decided to step out on faith and raise funds for Kirk Hall. They have managed to raise $700,000 to put into Kirk Hall. The church has seen three miracles over the past year and she is requesting the fourth miracle tonight in her request for approval of Kirk Hall. They want to have the building in the ground by next December when the next snow flies. She invited everyone one at a time to visit South Plains Church. William Orr, resident in the neighborhood for 30 years, said that the church has been there for 30 years. In recent years the church has really been a source of a lot of support for his family. His son was buried ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 7 in the church cemetery. He was an urologist which dealt with problems associated with being able to go to the bathroom in a timely manner. He pointed out that the church surely needs that and make this a very reasonable request. They would like to have something similar to the church located just down the road, Grace Episcopal Church. He hoped that the Commission would see fit to approve their request for the parking as proposed on the sketch. On the bottom of the sketch is a triangular piece of land that is an open field that Mr. Rintel has been having hair cut on it although it belongs to the church. They went through a good bit of time and expense to offer to trade him that triangle for some land along the cemetery where they could eventually expand the cemetery. It is a long way from the church and there is already one row of trees. Therefore, he saw no logic in requiring the church to fill that field in with tree planting. He felt that it ties their hands and keeps the church from using it as a playground, picnic area or possibly to enlarge the cemetery. It seems it would be better to have a border of trees rather than asking to fill the whole area in with trees. Ken Edwards, Pastor of Union Grove Baptist Church since 1999, said that their church was about 200 yards from South Plains Church on Black Cat Road. For generations both churches have enjoyed friendships and have supported each others ministries. Once a year the two congregations visit each others services. They have vacation bible school together each summer in order to serve the needs for Christian education not only for their children from the two congregations but also for other families in the area that are interested. This is about more than meets the eye. This is about something much smaller. South Plains Church is not a mega church. They are not talking about Liberty University or Kenneth Copeland Ministries where thousands attend. They are talking about in comparison a little South Plains Presbyterian Church with a membership around 150 people building a little bitty building on land that they purchased before anyone in this building were even born. They believe that strong churches make a strong community. Therefore, Union Grove Baptist Church support the plan South Plains Presbyterian Church has submitted to expand their ministry and serve the community. Frank Kiplinger said that he and his wife came to Keswick 15 years ago and joined South Plains Church about 14 years ago. Their congregation was aging. Many others have discussed what the church has done in the community and around the world. The requested facility would give their aging congregation the opportunity to bring in younger children in our community and to start training them and bringing them up to continue this work around the world. That is why they are asking for this space. This process started five or six years ago when Bill Atwood came in and started the plan. At that time they met with their neighbor. Through that time they have met with staff and worked towards the plan which they are requesting approval on tonight. They pray that the Commission can approve that plan as shown on wall Jay Cronnester, resident of Fluvanna County and Elder, said that he and his wife have been members of South Plains Church since 1994. He serves as Trustee of the Chairman of the Long Range Planning. For the past four years he has been actively involved with the plan, which the congregation adopted. In the spring of 2007 the church held a capital fund campaign and raised the bulk of the money they need to construct this facility. They don‘t aspire to be a large church, but a church that meets the need of their congregation, community and neighbors. One of the major considerations that he sees in the questions that have been raised is where Kirk Hall is located in relation to the manse. The reason that manse is there is they can‘t take it down and build Kirk Hall. The construction is about a year project. They need offices, class rooms and fellow ship area, which the manse provides. They also need the restrooms too. A number of the folks have talked about the age of their congregation. One of their concerns is being able to respond to the needs of all of the congregation members including the children that need adequate space for class rooms. Therefore, the manse is critical to the church right now and they can‘t tear it down to move Kirk Hall. To use portable facilities would be difficult on the senior me mbers of the congregation. On behalf of the Long Range Planning Committee who looked at where the church can best place facilities on the limited space the plan that Bill Atwood has worked with the congregation, staff and the neighbors is the best they can come up with. Their commitment is to preserve the historic nature of that area. When they build new buildings the old sanctuary is still going to be the focus of their ministry. They have a lot of pride and have spent a lot of money on keeping it up to date so they can use it. They have worked to make their church assessable with the new Kirk Hall and eventually the new sanctuary. The big issue right now is the new Kirk Hall. They were hoping to be building it now because they need it now. They have inadequate classrooms in the manse and cannot add to the manse. They are requesting approval of a site plan and a building plan that will allow the church to continue to meet the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 8 obligation that they have to the original donator of the property, Margaret Rogers who on June 15, 1871 deeded the property. Minister Linda Battle said that she grew up in the Keswick community and remembers as a child coming past South Plains Presbyterian Church and always wondering what kind of fellowship they had. She was thankful because in the last three years she has had the opportunity to fellowship with them being the Associate Minister at Union Grove Baptist Church. She prayed that with the help of God and the Planning Commission that they will support them in expanding their building. She prayed that the Commission would help them meet their needs. There are a lot of elderly people in the church and it is hard for them to walk down the hill to the manse to get to the restrooms. She asked that the Commission support the request. Cynthia Step, a member of the congregation of South Plains Church, said that the church has been in the community since she was a child. She feels the love of the people at the church. The church has been a place of peace and she feels that the plan should be approved to allow the church to continue serving the community. It is for the benefit for the church , congregation and those in the community. She asked that they not hinder the church‘s service or work. If they have a heart or prayerful mind it should be approved and the church has given adequate reasons why it should be so. The Planning Commission took a seven minutes break at 7:23 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Peter Taylor, part owner of Ben-Coolyn Farm, which is immediately to the church, said that his driveway intersects on Route 22 and Black Cat Road. He has the good fortunate of being able to look at this beautiful church for the past 10 to 12 years. It is truly a magnificent site. He absolutely supports the expansion of the church. It is clear while it is a post card of Keswick it is clearly small and does not have the facilities that any reasonable church would need in this day and age. He knows that it was an exciting moment when Grace Church, which is up the road and he is a member, added to the Hall. He app lauds the church on their initiative and supports it. That being said he thought that they have a responsibility as a community because this is a scenic by way and one of the main thoroughfares into C harlottesville and Monticello to get this right. While he thought that the plans have come a long ways and he really likes them and Mr. Atwood has been very communicative with the neighbors on some of the changes they have requested and he thanks him for that, he thinks that it is important to get this right. Within the context of supporting the request he would ask two things. He did not understand fully staff‘s recommendation to approve this and then turn it over to the Architectural Review Board. He w ould ask that the Planning Commission be careful to ensure that the details of this are consistent with the historic nature of the neighborhood. The second item he would ask because time has a way of changing things is to approve what is going to be built now and not approve a number of open ended items that could change over time. Within the context of that he fully supports it and he wished the congregation the best of luck. Tony Vander walker, a Keswick citizen, said that he lived about a mile down the road from the church. He asked to tell the Commission a little story. This is really not about a dispute between a neighborhood and a church. It is really about the devotion of a neighborhood to its character. When he first bought the farm in Keswick a neighbor called him up and said welcome to the neighborhood and asked could a number of people come over and discuss a problem they have with his property. He agreed to allow them to come. Six people showed up at his door the next day and said that they had a problem with his driveway entrance. He was told that he had azaleas planted along both sides of the driveway entrance and in the spring most of the azaleas are magenta, but there is one azalea that is orange. The previous owner would not get rid of the orange azalea. So they asked if he would please consider getting rid of the orange azalea because it really bothered them. He agreed and took the orange azalea. It just shows you the kind of commitment, compassion and devotion that the neighborhood has about every rock, fence and building in the neighborhood. That is why most of the land in the Southwest Mountains Historic District is protected with conservation easements. People have gone far enough to give the right to develop their property because they believe in it. That is really what is going on here. Mr. Orr mentioned Grace Episcopal Church and the way its historic structure relates to its new fellowship. In talking with Mr. Atwood at the break he said that if this church could approach Grace Episcopal segregation of the new ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 9 building to the old building the neighborhood would be much appreciative. They openly embrace Grace Episcopal in the way they handled that new building. If this church could do the same thing they would all be on the same page. Jonathan Rintels noted that he had cut hay on the property as noted with the permission of the pastor. He made the following comments. For 18 years he and his wife have owned an adjacent farm which borders the church on two sides. They have the utmost respect for the church and its members. Over those years they have meet from time with them not to prevent their expansion but to facilitate it. As proof of their ability to work with their neighbors they have a landscaping agreement from two years ago when the Little Keswick School built its dormitory on their western border. They worked with the school very closely when they sought that special use. When they saw the harm that their expansion would do to their property they stepped up and agreed to buffer its impact for which he was very grateful. Last fall they meet with Bill Atwood, the church‘s architect, to suggest some reasonable suggestions that would make its expansion plan acceptable to us. They have made some changes. The new sanctuary now faces forward, the parking is in front and more trees are preserved. They are very grateful for those changes to the church and thank them for making them. Unfortunately, those changes don‘t go far enough. They agree with the county staff and the nearly 60 other members of the Keswick community including nearly every resident that lived within walking distance or close proximity of the church who have sign their joint letter to the Commission. There still remain too many aspects of this particular expansion plan that are too damaging not just to his property but to the wider Keswick and Albemarle County communities. As heard the church is often called Keswick‘s post card. The church stands in the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District where many local residents have donated valuable permanent conservation easements. Of all places where sensitivity is required it is in this Rural Historic District on a State and Scenic By Way. The plan can easily be improved to become acceptable to the community at little expense to the church in time, money or square footage with a few reasonable changes. They agree with the staff that the two buildings are not designed of a rural scale and should be pushed back. They think that the manse should be t aken down and the hall built on its footprint. A landscaping plan with far more vegetative buffering is required. The staff‘s recommendation of plantings in the open area and the new field is welcomed but will not mitigate their views because that field is so much lower than the new building‘s elevation. They need significant evergreen trees planted during phase one on the church‘s side of the existing rear tree line. The Keswick School‘s landscaping plan agreement could be a precedent for that. The do agree with the church that the parking should be in front of the building. However, those spaces could be much better integrated among the site‘s existing trees as at Grace Episcopal Church that is on the same Entrance Corridor. For two hours on Sunday m orning when there is almost no traffic on the Entrance Corridor having the parking in front is hardly a burden. Placing the parking in the rear will advertently affect a wet land and a stream that waters horses on their and others properties and will require the removal of the trees that screen the church and significantly reduce the value of their property as a rural farm. Requiring these reasonable changes will avoid needlessly damaging for decades not just their farm but one of their communities‘ signature rural and historic treasures while also allowing the church to expand as it wishes. Mark Columbus, Head Master of Little Keswick School, said that he was in a unique position because he was on both sides of the fence. About two years ago since the school borders Mr. Rintel‘s property the school went through a special use permit for a school expansion to meet their needs. In thinking about what has been said and looking at Bill Atwood‘s drawings he noted that there have been things that have changed since the first time he saw the plans at the church. There are some things that are inherent when one takes the responsibility of having a special use permit in which they take on the burden to meet the need of the neighbor or community. In doing so with their relationship with Mr. Rintels and what they have done through the whole process, and he thought that the church has made an effort to do this as well, is to keep them informed. But when they realized they infringed on his view and with property values and taxes the school went above and beyond meeting the need of that neighbor. In doing so the school planted over 100 trees in the height of anywhere from 10‘ to 20‘ and even got permission to plant ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 10 trees on his property. When looking at Mr. Atwood‘s plan he felt that in actuality there was not much of a screen at all. That is something that should be taken into consideration by the Commission. The other concern the school has is in the lower left hand corner of this area is more or less where the st ream comes through is a bog. He was pleased that the parking lot was moved to the front. There is still a danger which was in the details and getting right first in doing all of the planning before they allowed it to go out of the barn. That area would significantly impact the watershed of a creek that feeds their horses and goes on to Keswick Hall. Jim Balheim, area resident, said that he had lived within one mile from the church for 30 years. One of the things he noticed was that the membership goes up and down. There have been many times when there were ten or fifteen cars in the parking lot on Sunday morning. He suggested that maybe the current situation is on the up swing. Maybe they don‘t have to plan as things will keep going upwards. He suspects that many of the newer members of the church probably pick the church because they drove by and it is pretty and a nice area. He and his wife did the same thing 30 years ago when the y moved here. In 1985 they put an easement on their farm. He had the feeling that what is going on right now. He took issue with the request. They put an easement on their farm in 1985 and since then thousands of acres in the area have been done. At least three properties contingent to the church have done this. They can‘t change their mind about the easement if the community changes. Part of doing something like this they would expect the county to go along with their regulations and uphold these. There has been much said about the integrity of the building, which is more dependent on the building on the site than the building per say. He did not think they could make something so much larger and say they are concerned about the integrity of the building. At the meeting last fall he asked the architect if he had looked at expanding the current building and the answer was no. He found that very odd and nobody from the church spoke to it either. The bathrooms are not the issues here because bathrooms could be added onto the building and the people in the neighborhood would say great. Craig Ellis, a neighbor across the street, noted that there was a basic argument here for the need for a bigger church and the need to protect Keswick. Being that they are debating 190 years of history and character the neighbors have invested significant time and money in permanently protecting a lot of that character. He proposed sending it back to planning and doing more work on this to get something that they all can be proud of. They can enhance the character of Keswick that future generations will be proud of. Hattie Douglas, resident of Keswick on Black Cat Road, said that the church had a positive effect on the community. She asked that the Commission take the church‘s need for expansion into consideration Louise Butler, Youth Director of Union Grove Church, suggested that everyone pull together and allow the church what they need in order to expand the church. She felt that they need to look out for the needs of the elderly and youth. She asked that the Commission approve th e request and allow the church expansion. Natasha Wood, member of Union Grove Church, expressed support for the plans for expansion of South Plains Church. Peter Hallock, of Ben-Coolyn Farm, suggested that would be helpful if they can volunteer to give things to get the special use permit to agree if the woods along the creek and side would be a permanently do not disturb area and just let it grow up. If they don‘t want to plant anything in that area cedar trees will come in which will create a buffer. That is truly what the Rintels need. That is what they did with the school. If they put in some evergreens in time the trees would grow up and cut out what can be seen of the manse right now from Mr. Rintels front porch. This is a church and a needed building, but they have to realize this is a rural area and this is a special use permit. So they should at least listen to the neighbors, which they have. He gave Bill Atwood some credit and was pleased to see that there was nothing connected to the little church. He complimented him today for coming up with the idea that the view out of the church is important. All of this needs to be worked out. It would be very nice to put in a permanently do not disturb area of the trees along the bank, critical slopes and around in the back. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 11 Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental County, noted that he recently had gotten off the council of St. Marks Lutheran Church and had sincere respect for the efforts of the congregation of South Plains. He knew how hard all of this work is. The PEC has a very special relationship with the Southwest Mountain. In the past they worked with residents to establish the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. It is on the State and National Register. The Com mission is aware of the importance of that entire landscape and not just a single site within it. The integrity of the whole is what is important in a district. Their primary concern was the entrance off Black Cat Road, which appeared to be resolved. He asked to insert into the Commission‘s considerations that some more tree protection provisions be applied for the site as a whole. For example, in the parking area tree protection provisions such as what they have in the cell tower regulations that stipulate how the trees will be protected during construction and not just put a piece of tape on it. That tape does not stop a bull dozer from going in. Some specific provisions that protect those trees would be useful. In the staff report it mentions that the storm water facilities have not been designed. So that puts at risk some trees and vegetation which has not been identified in this plan. He suggested that the Commission flush out how important and critical the vegetation and trees are so that when staff reviews it later that they know what is protected. Laurie Campbell, member of South Plains Church for eight years, spoke in support of the request. She asked for consideration for their church so that it goes on for the future of the children. Lisa Clymer, member of the church since 1997, spoke in support of the request so that they can fulfill the needs of the community. Edgar Lee, resident of Keswick, asked the Commission to allow the church‘s expansion request particularly for the youth‘s need for Christian education. Vince Hockett, resident of Keswick community, supported the request so that the church and community can grow in a positive way. He felt that the plan before the Commission does not take into account maybe all of the concerns that have been raised. He asked if there was a way that the Commission could as stewards of the community can bring the parties together by staying involved and approving something that they have seen and understand what the concept is prior to handing it o ff to another forum, the ARB that is maybe a little less public to help the community in Keswick arrive at a plan that is positive for the church and the community. He felt that is the Commission‘s role and asked them to fulfill that to help the community continue to grow in a very positive way. Betty McClenahan, a member of South Plains, spoke in support of the request because the church is accomplishing some wonderful thing in their mission work. Chad Wiener, member of South Plains for four years with his wife and child, spoke in support of the request. He asked that the Commission reconsider condition #5, which requires that the church fill the open grassy field with a screen or buffer of trees and shrubs. Condition #5 will be difficult to satisfy as one of the neighbors wants to assure that the church is not seen from their property. In a letter to Mr. Clark they specifically request that large evergreens be planted in the open grassy field. This specific request is troubling for if the Commission approves condition #5 the church will effectively be required to plan a long dense wall of evergreen vegetation along the southeast property line. In his view it is not desirable that the county encourage its residents to plant dense evergreens to separa te each others property. Not only would that detract from the rural beauty it suggests that the proper way to live along side each other is to not be seen. Second, he worried that by approving condition #5 the Planning Commission is effectively encouraging its resident who do not like to see their neighbors to submit letters to do their bidding. This is not a neighborly way to handle these matters and not a respectful use of the Commission‘s time. Condition #5 addresses one resident of the county. It will not make the property more beautiful from those passing by as such buffer is set back from the road and not visible from Route 22 or Black Cat Road. He believes that the church has been responsive to staff‘s concerns throughout this process and displayed its willingness to change its plans for the broader benefit of the county. However, condition #5 does not benefit the county more broadly and is only aimed to satisfy one property owner. He suggested that if the neighbor does not like to see the churc h they could have planted large evergreens along the property long ago. He asked the Commission to reconsider condition #5 and approve the special use permit tonight. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 12 Kelly Mosque Golding, a member of South Plains Church, spoke in support of the request and asked for approval of the request. First Presbyterian, Meadows and Westminster Presbyterian took the youth fellowship from South Plains Presbyterian into their group because of their small historic church and not having adequate space for the youth meeting. South Plains Church is growing and needs the additional space. Jeff Battle Sr. resident of Keswick and member of Union Grove Church, prayed that the Commission will take into consideration some of what the homeowners have to say, but to allow this church to do what they need to do. Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Morris pointed out that this is his district and he had the pleasure of meeting with these lovely people. He acknowledged the plans presented tonight are different from seven months ago and that they have been doing an awful lot of work to address many concerns. What they are looking at is that a sanctuary is made for a community of believers. T hat community of believers changes going up and down as they have heard. Unlike many churches in the US and throughout the world are going up while others are failing. He wanted to do everything that he could to increase the growth that they are experiencing. But to really experience that growth the church needs room, particularly for the youth. He believed that these folks over last four years and seven months have bended over backwards to listen to staff and the neighbors. It is the Commission‘s turn to step up to the plate and accept their responsibility to move forward and approve or disapprove this. But as of this evening they need to know where they stand. That it does not go back for architectural review, but moves forward. He agreed that condition is an obstruction. This particular piece of land is below where the neighbor‘s house is. He did not think that anyone here would live long enough for the trees to grow high enough to really create a buffer in that particular area. He fully supports this based upon what they have in front of them that says they will recommend approval of SP-2008 09 with the 7 not 8 conditions and definitely that it does not go back to the Architectural Review Board.. Mr. Strucko agreed and wanted to grant the special use permit. One speaker said this church is not an artifact and if they can preserve history while accommodating contemporary needs he thought that is a solution and would probably benefit all sides of the argument. His only concern is that he is not sure what they are granting a special use permit for. It seems that they are adding 9,300 square feet to this facility and not looking at design. He hoped they can have some discussion on that. He was confused by the role of the ARB in what is proposed here. Ms. Joseph suggested the Commission request Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, to come forward and address the ARB concern. Mr. Strucko asked Ms. Maliszewski to come forward and address the Commission. Margaret Maliszewsk i, Design Planner, said the project has not been before the ARB and so it can‘t go back to them because it has not been there yet. The ARB review would be part of the site plan review process. Ms. Joseph noted that there are some issues still outstanding concerning the placement and size. She asked why this request did not come before the Commission as a work session. The Commission takes comments from the public in work sessions. It is very helpful in working these types of issues out. Right now what they have is a recommendation from staff to just approve the square footage and then allow the ARB to determine the placement. That makes her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Maliszewski replied that there was a recommendation that there be a work session. That was not the option that was chosen. Therefore, it was staff‘s recommendation just as a means to try to move things forward to bring it to the Planning Commission and make a recommendation. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 13 Mr. Strucko noted that he misread the staff report that said that the plan had been reviewed b y the Architectural Review Board staff or Design Planner. Ms. Joseph pointed out that the ARB would have to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness in the site review process. There is no way for this project to avoid going before the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg noted that without a plan condition here the ARB would not be obligated to desig n based on that plan. In a more typical case where a conceptual plan would be one of the conditions then the ARB would be obligated to review but the applicant would have the plan or basis layout already established by the Board of Supervisors. The ARB would have less discretion on how they would recommend building location and such because it would have to conform to the conceptual plan. He noted that the back area would be outside of the ARB review. Ms. Porterfield asked if the Commission could specify where the parking is to be. If the Commission is comfortable with the parking in the front yard she felt that they should keep it. She felt that the ARB would want the parking in the rear. The Commission would not want that to become an issue. There are reasons for both but that seems to be something they need to decide here. She asked if the Commission could say that the footprint should stay where it is or needs to move. Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission could say anything they want to. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission should probably go ahead and have the condition for the conceptual plan if the footprint of the buildings and the location of the parking area are stipulated because not much else will really be affected. Mr. Edgerton said that if he was hearing correctly if they go with staff‘s recommendation they will be delegating the responsibly for not only the aesthetics that would be impacting the corridor that the ARB is responsible but they would also be delegating to them the responsibility of the plan. He was uncomfortable with that. He felt that the Commission has the responsibility to give the ARB a plan that they are comfortable with so the ARB can apply their review in the more traditional way where they do accept a schematic plan. He has been listening hard to the concerns and to the efforts that the architect has made here. He was looking at a site that has some absolutely spectacular trees that the design has gone to great lengths to try to preserve. He thought that there was one tree that Mr. Clark had mentioned in the staff report that he was concerned about, but he believed he heard the architect is committed to trying to save that. If the tree can‘t be preserved, then the architect is going to try to amend the placement of the future sanctuary. From a massing point of view he thought that the architect has been incredibly sensitive in placing that future sanctuary into the hillsid e so that it can actually be lower than the historic structure. He did not see a way of getting this scale of an addition to the church, which he thought that they have heard loud and clear was needed, without doing more damage to the site. If the facility is located anywhere else on the site several of the really magnificent trees will be destroyed. Those trees have been on the site for several hundred years. He supported Mr. Atwood‘s proposal and suggested that they approve the schematic plan as shown. In the past he had always argued for relegated parking, but in this particular situation out of concern for the specifics of the site he thought that this is the time that this parking should be in the front. He appreciates the effort of the architect and the church in trying to soften the impact with the porous pavers and the stone wall which will minimize the visual impact. He thought that they have really gone the extra mile and supported the request. Mr. Strucko asked what his view was of the open area. Mr. Edgerton said that heard two points about the open area. If the church was asked to increase the vegetation on the open area to provide a buffer it will certainly benefit the property owner to the southeast. But at the same time it will take away an area that he thought some members of the church say that they use for activities. He thought that would be unfortunate. If the neighbor is concerned about his impact he certainly has plenty of land that he can plant trees on that would provide a better buffer than what would go in that lower site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 14 Ms. Porterfield agreed. She observed that the meadow is very low from having been on the site today. If someone stands on the Rintels property and look s across they are going to look over these trees even if it was a 20‘ tree. The applicant indicated that they are going to plant a garden between the historic church and the manse. She suggested that the church submit a landscape plan that shows what they intend to do since they should be able to soften the building with a variety of things that certainly in the winter time the Rintels will see. In addition the church could bring that softening around the large church they intend to eventually build. Mr. Edgerton noted the option of taking down the m anse, which one could argue that it has some historic value as well, and allowing Kirk Hall to be moved back is a problematic option. The church right now cannot exist without the facilities that are currently in the manse. This plan as proposed actually will allow them not to have to touch the manse until after the facility is built. Then the church can go in and retrofit it so the manse will still be useful during the constructive stage and available to the church to use. That is responsive to the practical needs of the church. For that reason he was comfortable with the plan that is before the Commission tonight. Mr. Strucko noted that staff‘s recommendation says that the special use permit would only address the size of the expansion. Mr. Edgerton said that he was totally opposed to staff‘s point of view and thought that they need to designate and approve this plan. Mr. Strucko said that was the point that he wanted to make. He was moving past the staff‘s recommendation and looking at this concept ual site. Mr. Edgerton said that he felt that the Commission has a responsibility for the site. The ARB has another responsibility and the request has to go through that process. Certainly in the final site plan there will be adjustments made. But rather than just picking a square footage and hoping that they get it right later he supported the plan before the Commission because it was their best chance to address a lot of the environmental issues on the site and address the church‘s needs for expansion. Mr. Morris asked if that was a motion and if that includes condition #5 of the 8 conditions. Mr. Edgerton moved for approval of SP-2008-00029 extracting condition #5. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Cilimberg noted that would require that they add the typical condition referencing this plan. Mr. Edgerton agreed. Mr. Kamptner said for staff‘s benefit the condition will read the development shall be in general accord with this conceptual site plan. What they have been doing recently with the con ceptual site plan is asking that the key elements shown on that conceptual site plan be identified so that staff has better direction as to determining whether or not ultimate development is in accord. He had heard the location of the parking area up near the front, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall. He asked if it was that exact location or no closer to Route 22 that is important. It may be where it is shown because any movement in any direction looks like it will affect trees. Mr. Edgerton said that if they move it back they were going to destroy the manse and the 100-year old tree. The location is responsive to the site and he was comfortable with what he sees before them. Mr. Kamptner said just for the ARB‘s benefit the Commission is making this recommendation with this additional condition in order to be satisfied that the applicant has addressed the element that the character of the district will not be changed, which was the one element that was out there. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 15 Mr. Edgerton noted that he was glad Mr. Kamptner brought that up. Mr. Kamptner educated the Commission this last week in anticipation of this discussion in some of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Person‘s Act of 2000. That really gives them some serous responsibili ty here. He did not know how many of the Commissioners have a copy of what Mr. Kamptner sent them, but on page 6 under section 21.510 in determining whether features is a religious exercise, in some of the red bold type, ―In conducting its review, an ARB is advised to heed the following passage from First United Methodist Church v. Hearing Examiner for the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. This was a precedent in the 1996. In this case the judgment reads, ―While preserving aesthetic and historic structures may be of value the locality, ‗the possible loss of significant architectural elements‘ is a price we must accept to guarantee the paramount right of religious freedom.‖ He asked if that language was part of the ruling. Mr. Kamptner replied yes that it was part of the public benefit. This application is different from most of the special use permit applications that they receive because they have to consider the First Amendment to the US Constitution in a federal act, which is called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person‘s Act that applies only to prisoners and specific land use applications. But they have to consider that as part of our analysis as well. It changes the analysis a little bit. But certainly they have to be sensitive to the legislature. Mr. Edgerton said that it was directly applicable to this particular request. They have the so call ed postcard of Keswick before the Commission, which is a 180 plus year old sanctuary that is no longer functioning in the way that it needs to function for this congregation. He thought that they have to be respectful. Per the information supplied to the Commission he was not sure if they have the right to turn the request down if they wanted to. But he would leave that to Mr. Kamptner since he was not an attorney. Mr. Kamptner said that he would not have to make that call because he was hearing a favorable recommendation. But there are a couple of issues that are raised with this application, which do raise the red flag. One is that they have a church that needs to expand on this site. Compounding that issue is that this is a church that has been there for almost 190 years. To expect them to go and find another place of worship he thought could be problematic. The other issues ra ised with this are just the physical elements of the ultimate church buildings and the extent to which the ARB will decide what its outward appearance is and if there are any architectural elements that are religious in nature that are beyond the scope of the county‘s review. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff does a lot of consulting with Mr. Kamptner when they are dealing with church issues. In the last couple of years in several reviews the size has been an issue. This one was due to the questions of design. In consulting with Mr. Kamptner staff did not feel that they could make a recommendation for denial and didn‘t. Mr. Kamptner suggested that if there were concerns about the presented plan that could be simply addressed as part of the site plan process with the ARB. That is why staff recommended in this way because of the concern with the plan. He thought what the Commission has said tonight is they are not concerned with the plan and that most of the Commissioners feel comfortable with the plan. Therefore, conditioning that is the alternative that staff would have recommended if the plan was not an issue. Mr. Strucko noted that there was a motion on the table and had been seconded. He reiterated that the motion was for this conceptual site p lan before us and 7 of the 8 conditions that are in the staff report with condition #5 removed regarding the landscape plan. Ms. Porterfield noted plus the added condition that it was going to be in general accord with this conceptual site plan. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Kamptner identified two elements that were important, building location and parking location. He heard in the conversation among some of the people who spoke that the preservation of trees was identified as something the Commission wanted to achieve. He asked if the Commission would consider that as an element that is important in this plan for the preservation of trees. Mr. Edgerton agreed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 16 Mr. Morris agreed noting that it was a good point. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there was one thought he had about that. The applicant suggested that right now they are only considering phase one. Unfortunately, the drawing shows both phase one and the addition of the future sanctuary. Unless he misheard the impact on the third beautiful t ree over near the wooded area he thought that the thread of the future sanctuary is really the issue there. He suggested that maybe they should consider approving it in phases. He asked how the rest of the Commissioners felt about that. Ms. Porterfield said that they were giving the church the opportunity to slide the new sanctuary back. If they slide the sanctuary back it does not affect that tree towards the road. The other big tree is behind the manse. Mr. Cilimberg said that it becomes a little difficult to design on the run so to speak. Ms. Porterfield said that she would rather see them have the ability to stick as close to this design and if in the future they have to slide it around she was sure that they were not going to move it that far . Mr. Morris said if they keep it that way then they know what they are approving. Mr. Franco said with the approach of making the concept plan the plan that they are following do they need conditions 1 through 4 since they are basically shown on the sit e plan. He noted that at least conditions 1 through 3 would be reflective in the plan. Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was the number of parking spaces and building square footages. He referred the question to the review staff. Mr. Clark noted that 75 spaces are shown on the plan. Therefore, that would be covered. Condition 4 would need to remain because it would be requiring a later approval. Mr. Franco said that conditions 1 – 3 are reflective in the plan and so are redundant. Mr. Kamptner noted that zoning staff may appreciate the specificity of these conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said that it does not hurt to keep them in because it further defines the plan. Ms. Joseph said that she did not agree with taking out condition #5. She thought that it was important to note that churches have a different function in a rural and residential area. When a church is adjacent to residential properties it was just good neighbors to have some sort of barrier between the two. She did not think that they need a brick wall. She did not think that there was anything wrong in allowing some vegetation back there to grow and did not agree with taking out condition #5. She was also a little bit concerned about the landscaping shown across Route 22 where the parking area is going. She would like to see something that is more natural. The staff report says that it looks like a suburban church. She was concerned with the massing and the rural character in that area. T hose are two things that make it difficult to support, but she understands the need and that it is a tiny little church. But there is still something about the size of it. She knew that Mr. Atwood has done a good job in using the architectural forms to make it look integrated. It is unfortunate but what will happen with the plan is that the existing church is going to be subordinate to the new big church. She thought that was what staff was talking about. So she still has a little problem with that. She understands Mr. Atwood‘s concept that if they smash that building right against the other that when one looks out they are going to see a brick wall or the other building rather than the rural country side. She was hoping what the ARB would do is help this thing settle into the landscape and allow the existi ng church to still be the primary structure on the property. Mr. Loach asked if condition #6 should say that there shall be no full time day care center assuming that the church may want to set aside part of their building for daycare. . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 17 Mr. Clark replied that day care is a separate use by special use permit. Mr. Loach asked if the church would be prohibited from having daycare area during the services, and Mr. Cilimberg replied that was not part of it. Mr. Loach asked if bible school would be considere d as part of the private school, and Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was not. Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Morris on condition #5 because he did not see a need for it. The plan is a good one. From what he had heard from the congregation ther e is a commitment to respect the past and the architecture was going to be consistent with the church . Therefore he saw no reason to shield it. As Mr. Edgerton said the adjacent owner could put shielding on their land if they want to. He was supportive of the proposal as outlined. Mr. Cilimberg asked to make a comment about Ms. Joseph‘s comment about plantings along Route 22 since he did not think the Commission identified it as a key element. Therefore, he thought that the ARB can exercise some discretion in how they ask that the plantings be treated to the extent that they have the room to deal with it. Mr. Strucko asked to be clear that after the Commission takes action tonight that this matter does go to the Board of Supervisors and then at the site plan phase it will go to the ARB. He asked for a role call. The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Ms. Joseph voted nay) Mr. Strucko noted that SP-2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church would go to the Board of Supervisors on May 13 with a recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission’s motion and conditions are reiterated and summarized below: Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2008-00029, South Plains Presbyterian Church with staff‘s recommended cond itions, as amended extracting condition #5 and that the development shall be in general accord with this conceptual site plan. The key elements shown on the conceptual site plan were identified as follows: the location of the parking area up near the fro nt and the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall. 1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the ―Conceptual Site Plan‖ prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated January 19, 2009. In addition, the following elements shall be in strict accord with and or conform to the Conceptual Site Plan: the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees. 2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed 3,550 square feet. The footprint of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed 5,750 square feet. 3. Provided parking shall not exceed 75 spaces. 4. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas. 5. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. 6. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use. Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to consist of a naturalistic pattern of multi-species trees and shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled ―Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,‖ published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report . These plantings are to be arranged in a density th at would mitigate views of the new church facilities, with a spacing allowing the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recognized. 7. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 24, 2009 18 special use permit; 8. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems. 9. All 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 their designee for approval. The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Joseph voted nay) Mr. Strucko noted that SP-2008-00029 South Plains Presbyterian Church would go to the Board of Supervisors on May 13 with a recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:57 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 March 23, 2011 Katherine M. Carmichael 321 E. Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP201000032 Avon Street / Ross AT&T CV376 (Sign #9) Tax Map 90 Parcel 14B2 Dear Ms. Carmichael, The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 1, 2011 recommended approval of the above noted petition to the Board of Supervisors by a vote of 7:0. Please note that this recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed personal wireless service facility must be developed in general accord with the plan prepared by SAI Communications with a revision date of 12-2-2010, and a certified engineer’s seal and signature dated 12-02-2010. 2. Additional condition to be added requiring the applicant to keep the runoff off the neighboring property. (Language to be finalized prior to this item going before the Bo ard of Supervisors. The goal is not to try to keep all runoff from the adjacent site, but to reduce the impact of the increased runoff resulting from the tower. If you have questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to contact me at (434) 296-5832 ext 3385. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to agenda Sincerely, Gerald Gatobu Principal Planner Current Development Division /ch Cc: Gerry Sharpe 430 Hawley Drive Salem, VA 22902 Ross, Walter B & Marion W 527 Woodchuck Lane Charlottesville VA 22902 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2010-32 Avon Street/Ross Property AT&T Tier III PWSF Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Eryn Brennan Planning Commission Public Hearing: March 1st , 2011 Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD 2011 Owners: Ross, Walter B & Marion W Applicant: Gerry Sharpe Acreage: 12.77 (Lease Area: 1050 square feet) Rezone from: Not applicable Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District TMP: Tax Map 90, Parcel 14B2 Location: 527 Woodchuck Lane off of Scottsville Road [State Route 20] By-right use: RA, Rural Areas; and EC, Entrance Corridor Zoning; Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: Yes Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: A one hundred and eleven (111) foot AT&T treetop Personal Wireless Service Facility in an avoidance area (Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District) Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 4. Rural Areas – Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) Character of Property: The proposed site is located on a parcel with an entrance off Scottsville Road [State Route 20]. The lease area is wooded and there is an existing single family home on the property. Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family Residential homes Factors Favorable: The monopole and antennas are highly mitigated. The tower will not be visible from the entrance corridor Factors Unfavorable: The residential structure located on the property is identified as a contributing resource to the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District. Staff Recommendation: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with the condition outlined in the staff report. 2 STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu; Eryn Brennan PLANNING COMMISSION: March 1st 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: SP 2010-32: Avon Street/Ross Property – AT&T Tier III PROPERTY OWNER: Ross, Walter B & Marion W APPLICANT: Gerry Sharpe PROPOSAL: Install a one hundred and eleven (111) foot AT&T treetop Personal Wireless Service Facility in an avoidance area (Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area in Rural Area 4. Rural Areas – Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located on a parcel with an entrance off Scottsville Road [State Route 20]. The lease area is wooded and there is an existing single family home on the property. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: No prior planning and zoning history was found for this tax map and parcel number. DISCUSSION: This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The proposed tower is a tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within a historical district. If this property was not located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District, this personal wireless service facility application would have been processed as a Tier II facility. The tower will be located on property that is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District. Historic districts are identified as “avoidance areas” by the zoning ordinance. Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway or by-way. (Added 10-13-04) 3 Tier III personal wireless service facility or Tier III facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or the board of supervisors as a Tier II facility. The proposed facility consists of an 111-foot tall wood monopole to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown, which is a color that has been previously approved as an appropriate color for Tier II and Tier III facilities at other sites in Albemarle County. The top elevation of the monopole is 810 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree. The monopole will be equipped with three (3) flush-mounted antennas, a two (2) foot long lightning rod, and coaxial cables that will be run in the monopole’s interior. Supporting ground equipment will be contained within a proposed 35’x 30’ AT&T wood fence and lease area. Access to the facility will be provided off an existing gravel access road off State Route 20 [Scottsville Road] and Woodchuck Lane (Private) that currently provides access to the property. The gravel access road runs parallel to the tree line of the wooded area surrounding the location of the proposed tower. The personal wireless service facility will be located approximately 112’ feet and 136’ feet from the nearest side property lines, and approximately 166’ feet away from the existing house. A balloon test was conducted on November 10th, 2010. The balloon was raised to the same height as the proposed pole, 10’ above the reference tree. The balloon was minimally visible to almost invisible from various sections of the entrance corridor. Visibility of the proposed monopole at ten feet above the tallest tree is not expected to have any negative impacts on the State Route 20 (entrance corridor). The ground equipment is not expected to be visible due to the vegetation existing between the state road and the facility. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? Based on the antenna’s location and the results of the balloon test, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower will have minimal visual impact to adjacent properties and the equipment shelter will be screened from adjacent properties by existing trees. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The site of the proposed facility will require little to no additional land disturbance. The addition of the personal wireless service facility at this location will not adversely impact the visual character of the area. . Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved through the special use permit process are appropriate in the location requested. This request is consistent with both sections. 4 Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The addition of the personal wireless facility will not adversely impact the visual character of the area, and will not restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural Areas district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The use will comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0. A detailed analysis of section 5.1.40 is provided below. Additionally, In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with all Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines that are intended to protect the public health and safety from high levels of radio frequency emissions and electromagnetic fields that are associated with wireless broadcasting and telecommunications facilities. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved through the special use permit process are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give AT&T the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows. Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilites. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.2.4 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics] Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. AT&T’s equipment shelter will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other 5 area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications [Attachment A] have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. The facility will only have one outdoor light fixture attached to the proposed shelter and it will only be used by AT&T's technical operations staff during times when night-time maintenance of the site is necessary. The proposed light fixture shall be shielded in accordance with the Albemarle County lighting ordinance requirements and operated by motion sensor. The proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security purposes only. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. The proposed antennae configuration will consist of three sectors each with a panel antenna. The antennas will not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches. These antennas will be installed using 2 and 3/8 “pipe-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of down-tilting without exceeding the Count y’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antenna). All antennas will be painted to match the color of the tower. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for 6 the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. AT&T must/will provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. AT&T must/will provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. Should use of the antenna site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, AT&T and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. After the proposed personal wireless service facility has been installed, AT&T must submit annual reports updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility within the required time period. 7 Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. The installation of this facility and accessory uses does not create slopes steeper than 2:1or greater. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. A chain link fence to enclose a proposed shelter, and landscaping to screen the shelter from Rio Road were approved with SP2008-12. The existing fence and landscaping is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or the character of the area. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 111 feet above ground level (AGL) or 810’ feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 800’ feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 25 feet from the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on November 10, 2010 [Attachment D]. During the site visit, the balloon was launched close to the proposed monopole location. The balloon was raised to the same elevation as the proposed pole, ten (10) feet above the reference tree. Scottsville Road [State Routes 20] was traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was only visible for a very short distance at the entrance off State Route 20. The monopole at the proposed elevation of ten (10) feet above the reference tree is not expected to have an adverse impact on the State Route 20 entrance corridor due to its limited visibility. It is also anticipated that the limited visibility of the monopole will be noticeably reduced when the trees are in full foliage. The ground equipment will not be visible from the entrance corridor. The remaining trees and the “Java Brown” color of the monopole and antennas are expected to further limit views of the facility. 8 Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the installation of the tower. The property [Tax Map 90 Parcel 14B2] is in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District. This tower will not impact any adjacent properties, and there will be no significant loss of historical resources related to the installation of the tower. The lead architectural and historical review senior planner has offered the following comments: ‘The proposed site for the facility is located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, and the residential structure located on the property is identified as a contributing resource to the district. The facility is proposed approximately 150 feet southeast of the residence, and would be easily visible from the residence. This degree of visibility would have a negative impact on the resource. However, the balloon was not visible from other locations visited within the district, and the heavily wooded site and wooded, mountainous surroundings sufficiently reduce visibility of the facility from important public views and adjacent properties in the district. Although the individual property would be impacted, the proposal is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the historic district in general”. The monopole at the requested height of 10’ above the reference tree is not expected to have a detrimental impact on important public views or historic landscapes because it would not visually overwhelm its surroundings, dominate the setting, or create a focal point. It is not anticipated that the public will be visually aware of the proposal, allowing their enjoyment of the rural historic district to remain undisrupted; hence, adverse impacts on the scenic quality of the district are not anticipated. The county’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility, facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact avoidance areas (including Entrance Corridors and Historic Resources). The proposed pole is not expected to be visible when traveling on State Route 20 [entrance corridor]. As mentioned above, the degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the entrance corridor, or the historical district. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval; therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the limited visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact entrance corridor or historic district resources. A tree conservation plan and a certified arborist report with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees will be submitted prior to building permit application/issuance. Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not 9 a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12). The proposed monopole will have a height of approximately 810’ feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 800’ feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. The height approved by the Planning Commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed 10 feet above the tallest tree. Based on the balloon test mentioned above, staff determined that there would be little or no material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height of seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street. The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The propos ed tower and equipment cabinet are to be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown to match existing surroundings. Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4): Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any additional information regarding 10 the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna mounting at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW: Factors favorable: Staff has identified the following favorable factors: 1. New ground equipment cabinet will not be visible from the entrance corridor and neighboring properties. 2. Minimal clearing and tree removal is necessary for the placement of the monopole, antennas, and equipment. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has identified the following factors as unfavorable to this request: 1. The residential structure located on the property is identified as a contributing resource to the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed personal wireless service facility must be developed in general accord with the plan prepared by SAI Communications with a revision date of 12-2-2010, and a certified engineer’s seal and signature dated 12-02-2010. ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan B. Aerial Map C. Architectural Review Board Staff Comments D. Balloon Test Photographs Return to PC actions letter 11 Motion: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP2010-32) is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend approval of SP 2010-32 Avon Street/Ross Property AT&T Tier III PWSF with the condition and outlined in the staff report. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend denial of SP 2010-32 Avon Street/Ross Property AT&T Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 1 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) Albemarle County Planning Commission March 1, 2011 SP-2010-00032 Avon Street Ross AT&T CV376 Tier III PWSF PROPOSED: A one hundred and eleven (111) foot AT&T treetop Personal Wireless Service Facility in an avoidance area (Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District) ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas-; agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES LOCATION: 527 Woodchuck Lane off Scottsville Road [State Route 20] TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000-00-00-014B2 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Gerald Gatobu) Mr. Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit, SP-2010-32 for a Tier III personal wireless facility, which is proposed for Route 20. A balloon test was conducted in November 2010. The balloon was flown at 10 feet above the reference tree. In photographs of the area he noted the balloon was hidden from the road. The most important principle for siting wireless facilities is visibility. The Architectural Review Board said the proposed tower is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the historic district in general. The only reason this is a Tier III is its location in the historical district. Apart from that, everything else would have been a Tier II. The ground equipment would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor and the monopole and antenna would be highly mitigated. This is located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historical District, which is why it is a Tier III. There would be no material difference in visibility between seven feet and ten feet above the reference tree. Staff recommends approval at ten feet above the reference tree with the one condition listed in the staff report. He has received calls from several people saying they actually welcome having this improved coverage or service along Route 20. It appears that there is a big need for the cell phone service in that area. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Lafferty asked if the residents living on the site are in agreement with the proposal. Mr. Gatobu responded yes. He spoke with a next door neighbor whose issue related to the runoff from the tower. He talked with engineering staff today to make sure that is done in due diligence. Their first consideration is the disturbance of critical slopes. In this case the tower would not be in critical slopes. The second consideration is the amount of grading needed for ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 2 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) access. In this case, the amount of grading would not exceed 10,000 square feet. If the disturbance gets to 10,000 square feet, it would trigger an erosion and sediment control application to be done so staff can look at the E & S measures that need to be put in place. That is basically the two biggest things. However, in this case he talked with the neighbor and applicant to try to make sure during construction they try to reroute the sheet flow to go away from the access. They really don’t have any way to mitigate any of those factors right now. Mr. Lafferty asked if the only objection would be in the grading and not in the actual tower itself. Mr. Gatobu replied that was correct in that staff would look at the grading. In this case, it is a matter of sheet flow once they put the tower and ground equipment in. What they do is bore holes and there will be a fence. It generates some amount of runoff, but not much. “Per the ordinance and per engineering, they really don’t have any way to mitigate any of those factors.” As per the neighbor the run off goes down towards the access. It will mostly be up to AT&T to see if they can work with the applicant at least to help run the water out somewhere and not just runoff into the access. Mr. Zobrist asked why it couldn’t be required of the applicant in the approval of the construction plan that they are directing the water away from the neighbors. Mr. Gatobu responded that since this is a special use permit there could be a condition that there be some runoff control. Mr. Zobrist asked staff to draft some language to add to the conditions. Mr. Gatobu replied yes, staff could work something out to see if they can get that into one of the conditions. Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Kathryn Carmichael, representative for AT&T, pointed out that the landowner, the Ross’ are here tonight. She presented a PowerPoint presentation to provide a general overview of the area and explain the improvement in coverage. The goal with this tower is to establish better coverage in this area. Their first approach is to look for existing buildings, water towers and other structures for location. If those can’t be found, they look for landowners. In this case, this is a great land location because the property is narrow, but it goes up the side of a mountain. When looking at it from Route 20 the visibility is heavily mitigated because it is a significantly wooded area. However, it also has a backdrop of the mountains that provides mitigation for the visibility. They would use the existing driveway with an access road built back to the actual tower location. She presented photo simulations of the area taken from the intersection of Woodchuck Lane and Route 20. The tower cannot be seen from that location or other surrounding areas. The reference tree is 97 feet tall. The proposed tower is at 111 feet with a change in elevation. Because of the heavily wooded lot and the change in elevation, they are ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 3 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) able to locate the tower in this area with the significant tree cover. Although they are not able to see it, it will still work. Because of the slope and the tree coverage, the visibility is heavily mitigated. There are several other tall trees in the area. The reference tree is 97’ tall. The nice fact about this site is it has a natural clearing, which resulted in not having to remove as many trees as they would have had to before. They would place the pole in the natural clearing area. For the access they are going to cut off the existing driveway so they will not have to remove many trees at all. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Loach asked what the coverage percentage difference would be between seven and ten feet. Ms. Carmichael responded that the additional 3’ height makes a fairly significant difference to achieve coverage objectives, but she can’t provide a specific percentage. Mr. Smith asked if the two areas mesh together in coverage. Ms. Carmichael replied that the two areas work together to provide coverage in this area. That is why the two towers are so close to one another. Mr. Zobrist asked how many more towers would be needed to provide coverage all the way to Scottsville. Ms. Carmichael replied that it depends on how far they want to go along Route 20. Obviously, this is an important area that they are trying to build up a network. The County probably has a significant amount of applications that are pending right now to try to make this road covered. Mr. Zobrist asked if each tower gives about 3 to 4 miles of coverage. Ms. Carmichael replied that it depends on the topography as to how much coverage can be achieved. Route 20 is an important area that they are focusing on right now. Mr. Zobrist asked if AT&T has any problem with the condition to direct water runoff away from the neighboring property. Ms. Carmichael responded that the access for the neighbor Mr. Gatobu mentioned runs parallel to where AT&T’s access would be. AT&T needs to be able to get to that site. If there is an issue with drainage, they will need to ensure the stability of that road as well for their own purposes. Obviously, they will do their best with the construction to make sure that the drainage issue is taken care of. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Porterfield moved for approval of SP-2010-00032 Avon Street Ross AT&T ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 4 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) CV376 Tier III at ten feet above the reference tree with the condition presented by staff and an additional condition requiring the applicant to keep the runoff off the neighboring property. Mr. Kamptner noted that he would finalize the language for the new condition prior to this item going to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Porterfield added that she would like it noted to the Board that even though this is in a historic district, both the ARB and Commission agreed that the only effect would be on the property it would be sited on. Mr. Loach seconded the motion. Mr. Franco pointed out the goal is not to try to keep all runoff from the adjacent site, but to reduce the impact of the increased runoff resulting from the tower. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7:0 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed personal wireless service facility must be developed in general accord with the plan prepared by SAI Communications with a revision date of 12-2-2010, and a certified engineer’s seal and signature dated 12-02-2010. 2. Additional condition to be added requiring the applicant to keep the runoff off the neighboring property. (Language to be finalized prior to this item going before the Board of Supervisors. The goal is not to try to keep all runoff from the adjacent site, but to reduce the impact of the increased runoff resulting from the tower. Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00032 Avon Street Ross AT&T CV376 Tier III personal wireless service facility was approved at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree with staff’s recommended conditions, as amended to reduce the impact of the increased runoff resulting from the tower on the adjacent property. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2010-01 Pantops Ridge SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezone approximately 37.5 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center to R-15 Residential zoning district to allow 399 residential units for a density of 11 units/acre. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Graham, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Davis, Ms. Echols, and Ms. Grant LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On January 11, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Ridge rezoning request. The Commission, by a vote of 5:1, recommended denial of ZMA 2010-00001, Pantops Ridge. In response to the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant submitted revised proffers. DISCUSSION: The denial recommendation was based on the nine factors identified in the staff report as unfavorable, with comments revised and made during the Planning Commission discussion. The factors unfavorable are listed below followed by the current status in italics: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: Factors Unfavorable: (Current status follows in italics) 1. The proposed density exceeds the density recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. The Pantops Master Plan suggests that approximately 300 units should be built on the areas within the Project designated as urban density and neighborhood density. The revised proffers propose 399 units, which is a reduction from the 562 units originally proposed. However, the density exceeds the density recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. The applicant modified the wording of Proffer 7 which relates to Green Space; however, no commitment has been made to provide a Central Green and Green Space along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. 3. Because a plan of development was not submitted for the Project, there is insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Mater Plan, would be met by this rezoning. A plan of development has still not been provided. As part of their deliberation after the public hearing, the Commission determined that, although a plan of development is not expressly required for an application for R-15 zoning, the failure of the applicant to submit a plan of development was an unfavorable factor because, without a plan, there was insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, would be met by this rezoning. The relevant goals are environmental protection, design around a Central Green, the provision of amenities, the location of the mix of housing types and a pedestrian orientation. Proffer 3 provides for a mixture of housing types with a minimum amount of certain housing types being required at full build-out. 4. No updated traffic study has been provided for this application; however a significantly lessened traffic count was computed due to the change in use from shopping center to R-15. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. (Traffic count computed by W/W Associates per Exhibit A of the proffers) The applicant has not provided a traffic study. Instead, he has proffered to conduct one as part of the first site plan or subdivision plat. Proffer 1.f. is not adequate and is not a substitute for the analysis and assessment of impacts for the Commission, Board and VDOT to review. A complete traffic study would identify issues or impacts not addressed by the list of items provided in the proffer and may contain information that requires additional decisions by the Commission, Board and VDOT regarding transportation impacts and improvements. Proffer 1.f. is in need off substantive and technical changes. (See Attachment B) AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2010-01 Pantops Ridge April 20, 2011 Page 2 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applican t to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. Proffers 1a, b and c have been revised to no longer obligate VDOT to acquire needed land for relocation, and now require the applicant to seek to acquire any needed right-of-way and associated easements. These proffers are also revised to require the Owner to pay the County’s costs of acquisition or condemnation if the applicant is unable to purchase the right-of-way. No measure is provided for the County to assess whether the applicant has exhausted all resources before asking the County to condemn. The Commission recommended that the need for the County to condemn should be used as a last alternative or last resort at the applicant’s expense (See Action Letter). 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. Proffer 9 now provides for a bus stop turnoff with a bench. There remains no commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to provide affordable housing. There is still no commitment to provide affordable housing. Based on the County’s Affordable Housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan that states 15% of the residential units should be affordable, 59.85 affordable units would be needed at full buildout. In the alternative, the applicant may provide cash in lieu of built units, which, based on past practice, could be allocated as each market-rate unit is constructed. 8. There is no commitment to address the development’s impacts on public facilities as provided in the Comprehensive Plan. The County is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new residential development. As stated in Appendix B (Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities) to the Land Use Plan Section to the Comprehensive Plan, when land is rezoned for residential uses, “It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property.” The public facilities that can be addressed by a cash contribution under the Policy are schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The Policy also allows the impacts to these facilities to be addressed through in-kind improvements and other means, and entitles an applicant to credits for not only in-kind improvements but for other reasons as well. The proposed relocation and construction of Hansens Mountain Road may be one such in-kind improvement that addresses, at least in part, the impacts of this rezoning on transportation. The Commission believed the proffer to relocate Hansens Mountain Road should be a credit in determining the cash proffer obligation. However, the applicant has otherwise not proffered to offset the development’s impact to transportation, schools, parks, libraries and public safety through cash proffers as per the County policy or other means in lieu of cash. Discussion of the project’s impact on transportation is provided in #4 above. The project will have the direct impact of generating approximately 52 elementary school pupils, 24 middle school pupils, and 21 high school pupils if fully developed. These numbers are based on 25 single family detached units, 225 single family attached units, and 149 apartment units as proposed by the applicant. The public facilities closest to this development that it’s new residents will most directly impact are the Darden Towe Park, the downtown library, and the fire/rescue stations located in the City off of the 250 Bypass (and the future Pantops Fire Station) as well as the County Police Department on Fifth Street. Cash Proffer Amounts per dwelling unit Single Family Detached (SFD) = $18,700.00; $467,500 Single Family Attached/Townhouse (SFA/TH) = $12,700.00; $2,857,500 and Multifamily (MF) = $13,200.00; $1,966,800 Total: $5,291,800 (These cash proffer figures are based on the 2010 data. Staff is working on updating these figures with the 2011 data, which is not available yet.) 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Staff and the County Attorney’s office have reviewed the attached proffers and recommend that the revised proffers remain in need of substantive and technical changes. Although the applicant has not addressed all of the unfavorable factors, the applicant has requested that the Board hear this proposal and act. See Attachment B for a summary of recommended changes to the proffers. AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2010-01 Pantops Ridge April 20, 2011 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board deny ZMA 2010-00001 with the attached proffers (Attachment A). ATTACHMENT: Attachment A: Proffers, dated March 23, 2011 Attachment B: Summary of recommended changes to the proffers Attachment C: Planning Commission Action Memo Attachment D: Staff Report for the Planning Commission Dated January 11, 2011 Attachment E: PC Minutes Return to Agenda Attachment B ZMA 2010-00001 – Pantops Ridge Board of Supervisors Public Hearing April 20, 2011 Summary of Changes •Proffer 1 (e): Landscaping-The latest revision allowing the owners to select the plant species is helpful; although, the applicant has not addressed how $5,000 of landscaping per lot will achieve the intended purpose. •Proffer 1(f): We recommend that the proffer identify the minimum standards and scope that would apply to the traffic study, i.e., whether it will be a TIA that meets the VDOT requirements for a TIA at the site plan/subdivision plat stage or something else. The first sentence of Proffer 1(f) states that the TIA will be conducted “for such plat or plan.” This is somewhat confusing. Does this mean that the TIA will analyze only the impacts from that plat or plan? However, the proffer later states that the TIA would determine which improvements are “necessitated by the construction of the Relocated Road and/or the development of the Project,” the “for such plat or plan” clause appears to define the scope of the TIA and therefore, arguably, creates an ambiguity. According to the proposed use and ITE trip generation, this site will generate 3,290 vehicles per day (VPD) and 319 vehicles per hour (VPH) for the peak hour of the day. These projections meet the threshold for a Chapter 527 TIA study as required by Virginia Administrative Code 24 VAC 30-155. The previous traffic study submitted by Draper Aden Associates dated May 18, 2006 does not meet the minimum requirements of the cod e for the reasons listed in the VDOT comments sent to Albemarle County from VDOT by e -mail dated April 21, 2010. Section 15.2- 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia requires localities to submit traffic impact statements to VDOT that will substantially affect transportation on state-controlled highways with rezoning requests. Section 24 VAC 30-155-40 of the Virginia Administrative code lists the thresholds for rezoning requests that are considered to substantially affect transportation of state -controlled highways. The request for a traffic impact study was requested by VDOT in a previous letter to Albemarle County in response to the February 2010 rezoning requests. The submitted exhibit A with the proffer revisions is not a road plan and lacks engineering drawings or analysis that are needed to determine that the proposed improvements are adequate. These concerns were sent to Mr. Richard Spurzem by e -mail dated June 24, 2008 and later sent to Albemarle County on April 21, 2010. Items that may be necessary for the plan that are excluded or unclear from exhibit A are the following: a. There is no vertical alignment or limits of construction for the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road. b. A capacity and LOS analysis of the intersection at Glenorchy Dr. and Route 250 has not been submitted. The layout of proposed Glenorchy Dr. cannot be adequately reviewed for capacity of lane storage. Left, through or right turn lane storage lengths may need to be increased based on capacity needs. c. The proposed right turn lane from Route 250 west into Glenorchy should show the limits of construction to ensure the improvement can be made within the right of way. d. The proposed additional left turn lane from Route 250 eastbound to Glenorchy doe s not have any dimensions shown and its storage and deceleration lengths need to be determined by an intersection analysis. The addition of the lane into the median will require a modification to the existing graded median and the existing ditch. e. Th e proposed 350 foot acceleration lane on Route 250 west will need additional right of way. Traffic signal modifications will be necessary to accommodate the additional lanes. These improvements are not addressed in Exhibit A or in the proposed proffers. A lso, additional signal heads will be necessary with the widening of Route 250 and Glenorchy Dr. In addition, proffer 1(f) does not contemplate a phasing of the development, or possible revisions to the development or the study, which are likely. Lastly, it references the same terms for possible off-site improvements as the Hansens Mountain road relocation, which staff does not recommend. •Proffer 1(g): This comment is related to the last comment to Proffer 1(f) above – It is possible that VDOT could determine some other off -site road or traffic improvement that is needed to get an entrance permit? For example, if VDOT required, for example, that a slope be shaved, however slightly, to address a sight distance issue for the entrance permit, the obligat ion to construct the Relocated Road would disappear. •Proffer 3: What is “full build out”? Is full build -out when building permits for 399 dwelling units have been issued or when site plans or subdivision plats covering the entire developable portion of the project have been approved? For example, if it’s the former, then the proffer doesn’t apply if only 398 building permits are obtained/units are built on the site. Also, while the revision addresses the mix, it does not addres s the allocation or phasing, if that is important. So for example, the applicant could build all the single family attached (or detached) at first. •Proffer 4: Architectural Standards –This proffer does not explain if or who will review or enforce this for the County. In addition, the language is overly broad and would be difficult to enforce. •Proffer 5: Trail Easement – Using the revised 201th unit as one of the end-point triggers is significantly later than staff recommends. Even though the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.16.3.3 requires completion of recreational facilities no later than when 50% of the units have rece ived a certificate of occupancy, this requirement would still apply and is not being requested for waiver/modification. We suggest revising the proffer to refer to this Ordinance section (as completion no later than). Section 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. •Proffer 7: Green Space –This reference is not applicable for a conventional R15 rezoning. In addition, assuming the applicant will be doing cluster development – the minimum requirement will be for 25% open space, not 15%. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 4, 2011 Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen 321 East Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA201000001 Pantops Ridge Tax Map 78, Parcel 53 & Tax Map 78B, Section A, Parcel 4 Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 5:1, recommended denial of ZMA-2010-00001, Pantops Ridge based on the fol lowing:  The nine factors listed in the staff report as unfavorable with the comments revised and made during the discussion.  The factors identified in the staff report as favorable with the addition of a fourth being the reduction in the traffic generated by the project; and Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goa ls from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No updated traffic study has been provided for this application, however a significant lessened traffic count was computed due to the change in use from shopping center to R -15. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple prope rty owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Factors Favorable: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and c an address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. 4. The reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use. Additional clarification included the following:  There was discussion regarding R-15 submission not requiring a plan of development. But, the failure of the applicant to submit a plan of development was an unfavorable factor because, without a plan, there was insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, were met. In addition, there should be credit for the off -site road in determining the cash proffer obligation. The road upgrade to the site would also contribute towards that or the cost to the road.  The need to condemn to be used as a last alternative or last resort at the applicant’s expense. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on a date to be determined. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division cc: Richard T. Spurzem P.O. Drawer R Charlottesville, Va 22903 File View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to Executive Summary ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00001 Pantops Ridge Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: January 11, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To be determined Owners: Richard T. Spurzem Applicant: Richard T. Spurzem, represented by Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen Acreage: 37.5 acres Rezone from: Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) to R-15 Residential zoning district. TMP: TMP 07800000005300 & TMP 078B0000A00400 (See Attachments A & B) Existing Zoning and By-right use: By-right use is for a Shopping Center (Gazebo Plaza) has been approved with a 183,000 sq. ft. shopping center. (See Attachment C) Location: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, near intersection of U.S. Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain Road. Proffers: Yes Magisterial District: Rivanna Requested # of Dwelling Units: 562 DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 3 – Pantops Comprehensive Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small- scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace. Character of Property: Primarily undeveloped with a 1920’s stone house. Use of Surrounding Properties: Primarily single family detached dwellings and some vacant, undeveloped land. Factor Favorable: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. Factor Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Greenspace shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 2 traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for any public transit services. 7. There is no contribution to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “ County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the factors noted as unfavorable, staff recommends denial of this rezoning. ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 3 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: January 11, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined ZMA 2010-001 Pantops Ridge PETITION PROJECT: PANTOPS RIDGE (ZMA 2010-01) PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 37.5 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center, which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to R-15 Residential zoning district which allows single family attached/detached uses and multifamily residential uses up to 15 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 562 for a density of 15 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, Intersection of US Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain Road. Access is proposed from a relocated Hansens Mountain Road and through 106 Viewmont Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 53; Tax Map 78B-A-4 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (The actual acreage for this project is 37.5 acres, which yields a proposed 562 un its for a density of 15 units/acre. In some instances the acreage was rounded up to 38 acres, which yields a proposed 566 units for a density of 15 units/acre. The staff report refers to the actual 37.5 acres and proposed 562 units.) CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The 37.5 acre site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 64 and U.S. Route 250. The site is located on a hill and is primarily undeveloped except for an existing house. The Glenorchy residential development is located to the west and Ashcroft is located to the north of the development. Both residential neighborhoods are adjacent to this site. Office, retail and other commercial uses, including the site for the Martha Jefferson Hospital are located nearby. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a rezoning from PDSC to R-15 residential. There is no plan of development offered; however, the applicant has proffered to build no more than 562 dwelling units. He would also upgrade Glenorchy Drive, to make it the main entrance to the development by extending Viewmont Court to a relocated Hansens Mountain Road. The existing entrance to Hansens Mountain Road would be closed. (See Exhibit A of Attachment E) A relocated Hansens Mountain Road would allow vehicles from the subject property and the Ashcroft neighborhood access to U.S. Route 250 through Glenorchy at an existing signalized intersection at Peter Jefferson Place. The current vehicular access for this site and Ashcroft is an unsignalized intersection at Hansens Mountain Road and U.S. Route 250. The proposed transportation improvements would be dependent on the County’s acquisition of right-of-way from property owners in Glenorchy where there is likely insufficient right-of-way for the improvements. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has an approved final site plan for a 183,000 square foot shopping center. (See Attachment I.)While the proposed shopping center could be built by-right, the applicant feels that ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 4 down zoning the property to residential instead of commercial uses will not only decrease the level of intensity of development on this site, but also provide the potential for less traffic and improved safety measures to the transportation network. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY This property has the following relevant history: SDP 80 – 44 – site plan approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1980. County Comprehensive Rezoning, December 10, 1980 – property rezoned from B-1, Business to PDSC, with the approved site plan serving as the application plan. ZMA 98-07 – Proposal to rezone the property from PDSC to R-10 for 375 apartment units was withdrawn prior to any action or recommendation. ZMA 02 -11 and SPs 02-52, 53, 54 and 55 – Proposal for mixed use development of residential and commercial along with a parking structure was withdrawn after a Planning Commission work session on July 15, 2003. SDP 04-074 – Preliminary site plan approved September 13, 2005. SDP 06-030 – Final site plan approved December 26, 2007. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The properties are located in Neighborhood Three, also known as Pantops, in the Land Use Plan. The Pantops Master Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan, does not recommend a shopping center at this location as it is currently zoned. Instead, it designates the property as Urban Density Residential around a Central Green, Neighborhood Density Residential adjacent to the existing Glenorchy subdivision and Greenspace along the eastern property line. The majority of the property is shown for Neighborhood Density which is intended to have between 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Single family detached and attached units would be expected as the primary building type. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acres under a planned development approach. The Pantops Master Plan, suggests that approximately 300 units should be built on the areas designated as urban density and neighborhood density. Over the gross acreage of the site, this would translate to 8 units per acre. Fifteen units per acre is the proposed density in this rezoning. Attachment D, the Comparison Maps, show that the green space on the Land Use Plan Map was incorporated to protect the steep slopes near Culpeper Branch along the east and northern edges of the site. It is possible that some development could occur in portions of the property that are shown as Greenspace but have less steep slopes. These areas are near the edges of the neighborhood density and urban density boundaries. The property subject to this proposal is located in a residential area as described in the master plan. The Pantops Master Plan recommends maintaining the residential character in these areas while providing appropriately scaled uses for goods and services within walking distance of residential areas and more natural greenspace. (See Insert below) ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 5 The following recommendations are from the Pantops Master Plan for the property: • The dwelling and accessory structures on the Gazebo Plaza property appear to be fifty years old or older and may be considered historic and should be evaluated and documented. The applicant has agreed to survey the existing building(s) on the property and provide documentation prior to demolition. • When development occurs on the undeveloped property (Gazebo Plaza site) provide a Civic Green Center surrounded by Urban Density Residential in the general area shown on the Framework Plan. No commitment has been made regarding the provision for a Civic Green Center. • Develop public or semi public park/green space on the northern half of the Gazebo Plaza site and provide trail connections. No commitment has been made regarding the development of public or semi public park/green space on the northern half of the site. However, the applicant has proffered to provide a trail on the site. • Respect the Monticello view shed by retaining land in open space. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation during the site development process to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the Master Plan. Proffers have been provided regarding architectural standards. • Replant trees that have been removed during grading to help create a wooded canopy, as part of viewshed protection for Monticello. The applicant has not provided any specific commitment regarding replanting of trees that are removed during grading. However, as described in the previous bullet, the applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation during the site development process to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the Master Plan. • Connect this neighborhood to the more intensive land use centers to the west with a multi- purpose path that leads into the planned sidewalk system. Although the applicant has proffered to provide a trail on the site, no plan has been provided that shows connectivity between this neighborhood and the more intensive land use centers to the west with a multi-purpose path that leads into the planned sidewalk system. • Create and preserve a vegetated buffer along Route 250 East through this neighborhood and at the Rural Area boundary to this neighborhood to help retain a residential and rural character in this part of Pantops. The creation and preservation of a vegetated buffer along Route 250 East through this neighborhood and at the Rural Area boundary to this neighborhood to help retain a residential ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 6 and rural character in this part of Pantops has not been provided. A proffer is provided for a buffer along Culpeper Branch. Principles of the Neighborhood Model As mentioned earlier, the applicant has not provided a plan of development and without a plan, staff is unable to fully evaluate the proposal for conformity with the 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model. The following assessment is based on the information that has been provided. Pedestrian Orientation The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks and street trees for new streets in single-family developments. The R-15 zoning allows for townhouse and multi-family development. Sidewalks and street trees are not mandatory in these developments. To meet the principle, additional commitments are needed. This principle has not been adequately addressed. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths The applicant has proffered to provide a trail. However, the location and type of trail (paved or unpaved) has not been provided. The proffer is in need of technical and substantive revisions. This principle has not been adequately addressed. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks The proposed extension of Viewmont Court and relocation of Hansens Mountain Road is recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. The proffer to relocate Hansens Mountain Road requires the County or VDOT to acquire land for right-of-way with no obligation on the part of the applicant to first seek to acquire the needed land. While the applicant has proffered a certain level of funding for these acquisitions, the proffer leaves the onus on the County or VDOT to deal with multiple property owners for the acquisitions in order to accomplish this interconnection. Substantive revisions to the proffer are needed to assure this principle can be met. Parks and Open Space The Pantops Master Plan designates a Central Green and recommends Greenspace along the eastern property line to protect environmental features of the site. No commitment has been made to provide these areas recommended in the Master Plan. This principle has not been addressed. Neighborhood Centers The Pantops Master Plan recommends a Central Green within this property. No such center is provided. This principle is not met. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale No commitments have been made related to building scale, form and massing. Therefore, this principle cannot be evaluated for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. The ARB will review site plans for conformity with the Entrance Corridor Guidelines where development is visible from Richmond Road and I-64. Relegated Parking Due to absence of a plan, this principle cannot be evaluated for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. Mixture of Uses The site is not recommended for mixed use in the Master Plan and the applicant is proposing a residential development only. This principle is not applicable. ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 7 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability Proffer 3 provides for a mix of housing types, however, this proffer has no mechanism for enforcement. There are no commitments to make single family dwellings the predominant unit type or commitments to locate multifamily units in the area shown for urban density on the Pantops Master Plan. No proffer has been made for affordable housing. This principle is not met. Redevelopment Demolition of the house is expected and further development of the site will occur if the rezoning is approved. This principle is met. Site Planning that Respects Terrain The Pantops Master Plan recommends that the natural topography of the site be preserved with the designated Greenspace on the Master Plan. No information has been provided on proposed grading. This principle is not met. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas The property is on the edge of the Development Area and the Pantops Master Plan recommends the creation and preservation of a vegetated buffer along Route 250 East through this neighborhood and at the Rural Area boundary to this neighborhood to help retain a residential and rural character in this part of Pantops. Although, the applicant has proffered a buffer along Culpeper Branch, clarity is needed in terms of what is being proposed. In addition, the buffer does not relate to the Development Area and Rural Area boundaries. This principle is not met. Economic Development Policy While changing a commercially zoned area to a residential district might be considered contrary to small business development, retention, and job creation, the Economic Vitality Action Plan, adopted in August 2010 to further implement the Comprehensive Plan’s Economic Development Policy, states that the Action Plan is intended to work within the guidelines and stated goals and objectives of all relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan. As the Land use Plan recommends residential use at this location, staff finds the proposal does not conflict with the County’s Economic Development Policy. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The intent of the R-15 district is to allow for compact high-density residential development with a variety of housing types, which may be clustered. The district also promotes the provision of locational, environmental and development amenities. The applicant is requesting approval for a fairly dense residential development with 562 units. At 15 units per acre, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the R-15 Zoning District. The site plan requirements ensure that some amenities will be provided. However, it is unknown with the information provided for this rezoning how or if any environmental features will be preserved. It is unusual for a development of this size and type to be requested without a plan of development. Either a proffered plan for R-15 or a PRD would be appropriate for a residential development if density is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. The applicant believes that the exchange of commercially zoned land for residentially zoned land at 15 dwellings per acre is sufficient grounds for not providing a plan of development. Public need and justification for the change: With the pending move of the Martha Jefferson Hospital to the Pantops area, the applicant sees a need for additional housing that is conveniently located in this part of the County. The applicant feels the change of use from a shopping center to a residential development will be less intense on the surrounding community. Staff agrees that a residential development will be a less intensive use of the property, but, that the density should be in conformity with the Pantops Master Plan. The ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 8 relocation of Hansens Mountain Road as proposed would help to improve the overall road system and safety. This improvement is in keeping with the recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: Environmental - A stream known as the Culpeper Branch is located along the eastern boundary of this property. As previously mentioned in this report, the applicant has proffered a buffer for this area. However, staff questions what is to be preserved since a WPO permit has been approved for this portion of the site and disturbance in this area has already occurred. Other important environmental features to protect in the Greenspace area include critical slopes, and some wooded areas. Staff believes development of the site should avoid these features. To do this, the applicant would need to provide a plan showing the areas to be preserved and make commitments to avoid development of the site in the northern wooded portions north of the power line easement. (See Attachment D) Cultural/Historic Resources - No known cultural or historic resources exist on the site; however, the applicant has committed to survey the existing building on the property and provide documentation prior to demolition. Monticello Viewshed - The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the Thomas Jefferson Foundation during the site development process to address Monticello viewshed protection recommendations of the Master Plan. A proffer has been made to use neutral colors, minimize use of white materials, and use dark, non-reflective material for buildings. These proffers are general in nature and require clarification. Entrance Corridor- Richmond Road is an Entrance Corridor and subject to ARB review. The Design Planner states that a residential development on the subject parcels could be appropriately designed to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines; however, the submittal materials do not provide a level of detail that allows for any further review or comment. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets – Traffic Impact Analysis: Both the County Engineer and VDOT have requested a traffic impact analysis meeting the requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations which, to date, the applicant has declined to provide. The applicant has stated that traffic studies done in 2002 for a mixed use development and in 2006 for the shopping center should be sufficient for County review. The County Engineer and VDOT disagree for the following reasons: 1. Background traffic volume and direction has changed on Richmond Road which must be taken into account. 2. The proposal to rebuild Hansens Mountain Road does not appear able to meet VDOT requirements given the expected traffic volumes. 3. Improvements to Richmond Road to accommodate turning movements may be needed which the applicant is not providing. 4. Neither the shopping center nor the mixed-use development traffic studies adequately reflect traffic to be generated by this development, although the County Engineer and VDOT concede that it is likely less than for the shopping center. The 2006 traffic study showed generation of approximately 9500 vpd for the shopping center and 562 multi-family units will generate approximately 5100 vpd. Details are provided in Attachments G and H from VDOT and the County Engineer. ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 9 As previously mentioned in this staff report, the Hansen Mountain Road relocation is recommended in the Pantops Master Plan. The relocation would help resolve delay issues experienced by residents of Ashcroft. A relocated intersection would support the new development recommended in the Plan. Without the intersection improvement, the amount of traffic generated by the new development could not be accommodated because of the expected volume and the closeness of the intersection to the I-64 interchange. To make the improvements, the applicant has stated the County must first acquire right-of-way for those improvements and has proffered a set amount of funds to be provided for this purpose. In the past when the County has accepted proffers that involve the County’s possible acquisition of right of way, it has been expected that the applicant would first exhaust all measures to acquire the right of way before the County would step in. The proffer leaves the onus on the County or VDOT to deal with multiple property owners for the acquisitions in order to accomplish this interconnection. Transit: The Pantops Master Plan recommends the following regarding transit: Encourage new development to contribute to funding transit services to offset the cost of service and to reduce traffic impacts of development proposals. Ensure new development is transit ready. Without a plan, there is no way to assure that the development can be transit-ready. In addition, there are no proffers for transit. Schools – Children from this development would attend Stone Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School and Monticello High School. This development is expected to generate approximately 74 elementary school pupils, 35 middle school pupils, and 31 high school pupils if developed. These numbers are based on 50 single family detached units, 225 apartment units and 291 low rise residential condominium/townhouses as submitted by the applicant. Fire, Rescue, Police- The closest fire/rescue station is located in the City of Charlottesville, which serves the Pantops area. A temporary County facility is being built nearby at Peter Jefferson Place which should allow for adequate response time, if road improvements are made. The Albemarle County Fifth Street Office Building contains the County’s Police Department, although police patrol all areas of the County. At present, the County does not meet its standard of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. Utilities- The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) states that there are capacity issues for several runs of sewer pipe downstream from this project. They will have to be upgraded to accept the projected flows from the proposed 562 units. (See Attachment F for ACSA comments) Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The largest impact from the development as proposed will be increased traffic in Glenorchy from Ashcroft and the traffic generated by the new development utilizing the relocated Hansens Mountain Road. Residents along Viewmont Court will likely experience the highest level of impact. Currently, Viewmont Court is a dead end residential street in the Glenorchy development with only a few residences. The relocation of Hansen Mountain Road connecting to Viewmont Court will provide a safer road for residents of Ashcroft and Pantops Ridge, but will also add traffic on a street that currently has very little traffic. Right-of-way for the Hansen Mountain Road relocation will also be needed from some properties in Glenorchy. ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 10 PROFFERS Attachment E contains the current proffers. Of note is the absence of off-sets to the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities” and the absence of an affordable housing proffer. The County's cash proffer policy addresses public facilities that will be funded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The policy states: “It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly, the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning.” The updated cash proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, for CY 2009 consistent with the policy are as follows: Single Family Detached (SFD) _ $18,700.00; Single Family Attached/Townhouse (SFA/TH) = $12,700.00; and Multifamily (MF) = $13,200.00. The County's Affordable Housing policy recommends that, at a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County. The applicant has indicated to staff that the exchange of commercially zoned land for residentially zoned land should be sufficient to off-set impacts from the residential development. For that reason, the applicant has declined to offer affordable housing or other proffers for impacts from the development. In addition to items already described in this report, technical and substantive changes to the proffers are needed prior to any action by the Board. The specific changes can be found in Attachment J. SUMMARY Factors Favorable: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 11 Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this request: Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Recommendation: Staff believes that a residential development proposal could be made in this location that would be in keeping with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and also address impacts and meet expectations for design. However, based on the factors noted as unfavorable in this report, staff recommends denial of this rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this rezoning: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00001 subject to the following: (which, at a minimum, need to include technical changes to the proffers for them to be acceptable) B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this rezoning: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00001 based on the factors unfavorable as identified by staff or Move to recommend denial for the following reasons: ATTACHMENTS: A. ZMA 2010-00001 Pantops Ridge Tax Map and Parcel B. ZMA 2010-00001 Pantops Ridge Location Map C. ZMA 2010-00001 Pantops Ridge Zoning Map D. ZMA 2010-00001 Pantops Ridge Comparison Map E. Proffers dated October 18, 2010 F. ACSA comments provided by Gary Whelan G. VDOT comments provided by Joel DeNunzio ZMA 2010-01 Pantops Ridge PC Staff Report Page 12 H. Staff comments provided by Glenn Brooks, dated October 26, 2010 I. Approved final site plan Gazebo Plaza, dated 3-13-06 J. Technical and substantive proffer changes Return to PC actions letter ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 38 acres from PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center, which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to R-15 Residential zoning district which allows single family attached/detached uses and multifamily residential uses up to 15 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 566 for a density of 15 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small - scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Greenspace. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1998 Hansens Mountain Road, Intersection of US Route 250 East and Hansens Mountain Road. Access is proposed from a relocated Hansens Mountain Road and through 106 Viewmont Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 53; Tax Map 78B-A-4 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 37.5 acres from Planned Development Shopping Center (PD-SC) to Residential zoning district (R-15) to allow 562 dwelling units for a density of 15 units per acre. No plan of development has been provided. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. The existing entrance to Hansens Mountain Road will be closed. The proposed Hansens Mountain Road would allow vehicles from the development and the Ashcroft neighborhood access to US Route 250 through Glenorchy at an existing signalized intersection at Peter Jefferson Place. The current vehicular access for this site and Ashcroft is an un-signalized intersection at Hansens Mountain Road and Route 250. As mentioned in the staff report these proposed improvements will depend on acquisition of right-of-way from property owners in Glenorchy because currently there is not sufficient right-of -way for the improvements. A traffic study as requested by the County Engineer and VDOT has not been provided. The applicant’s approved final site plan for Gazebo Plaza has been approved for a 183,000 square foot shopping center. A lot of parking would need to be provided. Large retaining walls would also be needed. A 2006 traffic study described approximately 9,500 vehicles per day would be generated from a shopping center. The Pantops Master Plan does not recommend a shopping center at this location. The property is designated Urban Density Residential around a Central Green Neighborhood Density Residential adjacent to the existing Glenorchy Subdivision and green space along the eastern property line. Most of the property is shown as Neighborhood Density, which is intended to have between 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. Urban Density Residential areas are intended to have a density between 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre with possibilities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. As mentioned in the staff report, the Pantops Master Plan suggests approximately 300 units be built on areas designated as Urban Density and Neighborhood Density. There are 562 dwelling units proposed. This property is located in a residential area and the Master Plan recommends maintaining the residential character. As described in the staff report, the proposed residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. The proposed road improvements related to Hansen s Mountain Road relocation will be a safety improvement and the residential uses less intensive than the approved commercial use. Factors Favorable: • The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. • An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. • The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. Factors Unfavorable: • Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. • There is no commitment to retain Greenspace as shown in the Pantops Master Plan. • No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. • No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. • The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. • There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for any public transit services. • There is no contribution to providing affordable housing. • There is no commitment to off -set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities.” • Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Recommendation: Staff believes that a residential developm ent proposal could be made in a location that would be in keeping with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and also address impacts and meet expectations for design. However, based on the factors noted as unfavorable in this report, staff recommends denial of this rezoning. Staff noted that Glenn Brooks and Joel DeNunzio are present to answer questions. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Morris asked if work has begun on the shopping center site such as bulldozing, clearing and so forth for the Gazebo Plaza site. Ms. Grant replied that a WPO has been approved. Mr. Loach said when staff reviewed this application for principles under the Neighborhood Model out of the 12 according to his calculations nine are not met, two can’t be evaluated, and one leaves substantial revisions to the proffers are needed. Essentially, there is no way, shape, or form that this proposal meets any of the objectives of the Model Neighborhood. Ms. Grant replied that is correct, not at this time. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission. Valerie Long, representative for the applicant Richard Spurzem and Neighborhood Properties, presented a PowerPoint presentation to explain the proposal. - As a brief summary of the history of the project she noted the property is currently zoned Planned Development, Shopping Center. It has been zoned that way for over 30 years since the County’s comprehensive rezoning in December 1980. Prior to that it was zoned B-1, Business. There was a site plan that was approved for the property in October 1980 that was for the approved shopping center for 183,000 square feet. It was designed essentially to be a twin of the Albemarle Square Shopping Center, which is on 29 North. It is the same size footprint as that. It was not developed for many years. Mr. Spurzem acquired the property about 12 years ago and wanted to develop the property for residential uses that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at the time. - In response to Mr. Morris’ question, site work has begun for the shopping center. It is not going on at the moment, but in early 2008, there was a fair amount of site work that took place at the property. It was actually reflected in the aerial photograph that was taken at the time. It is shown in a copy of the aerial photo. This was the site plan necessary to build the shopping center and the significant amount of grading required for that. That work has ceased for now and the property has been stabilized and reseeded. She believed the owner has received portions of the site bond back. It is dormant for now, but site work did take place at one time. - Mr. Spurzum wanted to develop the property for residential dwelling uses. He is a residential apartment builder primarily. In 2003 at a time that was prior to the Pantops Master Plan being in existence the property was designated on the Comprehensive Plan for a mixture of residential uses as well. It was mostly for high density residential. They pr oposed a rezoning in 2003 if it had been approved, but it was ultimately deferred, it would have permitted up to 900 residential dwelling units for primarily townhouses and apartments. It also contemplated an independent living facility and also 50,000 square feet of commercial space. It also included at the time some proposed road extensions to relocate Hansens Mountain Road along the southern boundary of the property. That was not something that could be achieved at the time. Mr. Spurzem did not own the necessary land to make that work. There was not feasible way to do it. It was shown as a possible future connection. There was certainly no guarantee. - Another page of the plan, which was a concept plan, that was submitted at the time showed structured parking, an independent living facility, and so forth. This proposal came to the Planning Commission in 2002/2003. The problem with the project was that the application would not have permitted or VDOT would not have permitted a signal at this intersection, which is necessary to make that function well. It was too close to the existing signal and the off -ramps from the interstate. They would have had a situation where the current situation would have continued. They would have had more traffic using it. VDOT determined that it was not safe. The County did not feel it was appropriate to approve and essentially said to the owner they need to go out and fix this problem. At the time VDOT has prepared a 2003 Route 250 East Corridor Study that included a recommendation for this road relocation project to have Hansens Mountain Road to be relocated through the bottom of the Spurzum property and come out on through the Glenorchy neighborhood and come out at a signalized light at the existing signal. That was on one of their plans for 2003. There was no way to implement that concept at the time. - As a result, at that point Mr. Spurzum had one and only one option for development of the property. That was looking back to the 1980 approved shopping center. He did entertain a number of other development proposals from other interested buyers, but none of those was permitted by the zoning. The zoning is PD-SC with an approved shopping center site plan as the application plan. Without amending the application plan there was literally not a single other use that could be permitted legally on that property. There were many efforts. A local church very much wanted to build their church facility on the property. That was not consistent with the current zoning. Since that was not allowed and other options were not allowed, the large rezoning would not be approved without a solution to the traffic problem. The only legal use was to construct the 1980 shopping center. So Mr. Spurzem moved forward and ultimately after many years obtained final site plan approval for the shopping center. This is in place and the bonds have been paid, and site work has begun. There is no desire to build this project. This was the only option. - Mr. Spurzem has come back and says what he really wants to do is a residential community. That is what the Pantops Master Plan contemplates and what they understand the neighbors would prefer over a shopping center. Many of the other property owners in that area very much do not want a shopping center and would much prefer to see residential. They have been working for the past year on the residential rezoning proposal. She reviewed a rendering by the project engineers of the approved shopping center project trying to provide a little bit of a three dimensional perspective. Among other things, she pointed out the retaining walls. That is why so much site work was being done in the one area for the grading to get the retaining walls necessary to hold up the parking and so forth. - The proposed rezoning is for entirely residential units. There would be no commercial of any kind. There would be a maximum of 562 dwelling units, which is consistent with a dwelling unit average of 15 per acre. It would be a mixture of unit types of single-family detached, single- family attached or townhouses, and apartments. It would also include the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road at the applicant’s expense. They also have a number of proffers including the stream buffer; a trail that would be constructed in the northern portion of the property at the owner’s expense; and a proffer that the site plan for the shopping center would be abandoned. They have also proffered architectural standards to address the Monticello view shed issues. - She pointed out on a copy of VDOT’s Route 250 East Corridor Study the current Hansens Mountain Road alignment. It proposes to obscure the existing road bed and essentially take it up and then shows the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road through Glenorchy. On a copy of the Land Use Map in the Pantops Master Plan, which was approved a few years ago, she noted the transportation improvements. She noted the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. It was the subject of much discussion when the Board of Superv isors was considering the Master Plan several years ago. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors voted to include this as a recommended road improvement project. It is on the list of implementation plans and is recommended for construction. - If this project were approved, full blown road plans would need to be designed, prepared, reviewed, and ultimately approved by VDOT. The current plan is tempting to demonstrate that it is possible to build it and keep the same alignment. No houses would be taken. No individual lot owner would lose a single square foot of land. They have worked hard to keep the same general alignment of Viewmont Court. The curves in the road actually help slow down the vehicles. They have worked hard with VDOT to get them to agree to the speed limit being 25 miles per hour instead of 45 as VDOT originally wanted. They have included some traffic calming devices. - One of the issues in the staff report is that there is not a plan of development for this project. This is a R-15 project and the Zoning Ordinance does not require a plan of development for a R-15 project. It requires them for Planned Districts. However, technically or legally it does not require them for a R-15 project. There are a large number of apartment complexes in the County that have been zoned R-15 and were built as essentially by-right projects without any plan of development. There are many beautifully built projects, which includes Jefferson Ridge that was designed and built by the applicant. It has things like attached garages, beautiful landscaping, etc. It is a very high quality development and extremely successful project. Another R-15 development is the Woodlands of Charlottesville, which has very high quality amenities provided. Carriage Hill is another example of a R-15 development with no plan of development. - They think what is important to keep in mind with this project is the big picture issues, which staff lists as favorable factors. She did not think anyone in the County wants a shoppi ng center use. She asked for a favorable recommendation for the residential development with no commercial. They are proposing to fix a challenging road and traffic situation. They acknowledge that many residents along Viewmont Court have significant concerns about the road relocation proposal, but that issue has been decided by the Board when they approved the Pantops Master Plan. They are merely trying to implement that plan. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Stan Livecott, Resident of Ashcroft, said he was not opposed to development. However, this property has a history, which they are all aware of. He refers to the property as the white elephant. The reason they don’t have a shopping center, which he was opposed to, was that it was not doabl e. The owner was not able to unload the property after he got all of the approvals, which is why that went away. The density is lower than what he is asking for. He asked why they would even consider going to that extreme since they had all that public input. There has been no presentation about traffic as relates to the density. He asked why there is no site plan. Mr. Zobrist asked that he add things that are new items not already set forth in the staff report so the Commission can have all of the f acts when they make a decision. Jean Wibble, resident and homeowner since 1972, opposed the request. She was concerned with the project because of the traffic. It was not only the 562 houses proposed, but that houses have wives, husbands, and children. They are talking about 1,000 or more people added to the existing traffic. The lights will reflect on all the other houses and the noise generation. It would be a worse problem getting out on to Route 250. Currently they have to wait for many red lights before they can get on to Route 250 before adding all this additional traffic. They have made no provision for the upper road, which is East Haven Court where she lives. Her property is in the corner on the big map and backs up all of these houses. There is no place for people to walk on the road. The road goes straight up the mountain. After reading everything, she did not see any clear plans in anything that he had. She opposed the request since the proposal would only hurt the Glenorchy residents. Mr. Zobrist noted that Mr. Dunberg had sent in a letter. He asked if he had additional information. Ron Dunberg replied that he had additional information. - His family moved into 105 Viewmont Court on the Fourth of July in 1976. This is the third time he has appeared before this body and subsequently the Board of Supervisors to defend the integrity of Glenorchy and Viewmont Court. This is the oldest residential neighborhood in Pantops. On the issue of traffic, he would very briefly discuss it. It is in the plan to reroute Hansens Mountain road through Viewmont Court, which for all practical purposes will destroy the community. There is no way to make that safe regardless of the speed limit. - He asked to address another issue that rarely comes up when this body or the Board of Supervisors is considering commercial or residential development, which is the issue of public security. They know from the press that crime in the County is increasing. He regrets to say he can personally attest to the fact that the property crime on Viewmont Court is on the rise. He can also attest to the fact personally that the Albemarle County Police Force is inadequately staffed to respond to telephone and/or electronic reports of crimes. When he called ten days after submitting the electronic report and asked why he had not heard back as promised within 72 hours or ten days he was told because they don’t have the staff. It is a proven fact that the increase in population results inevitably in the increase in violent and property crime. He was not talking about the rate, but the number of crimes. They are talking here about a substantial increase in the population of Pantops without any effort to increase police protection. There is no doubt in his mind that the substantial increase in the population will result in an increase in violent and property crime. Where is the effort to increase police protection. It is not there. Development commercial and residential continues in pace in Albemarle County and rarely do we hear a discussion of the issue of public security. He thought it is time to do that. - He had a couple of brief points to make about the plan. It is a fiction that they are being accommodated for property lost to the entrance from the rerouting of Hansens Mountain to Viewmont Court. He will lose shrubbery and a custom built mailbox/newspaper drop. What he gets in return is dirt roughly the consistency of hardtop if not cement. That is not a fair compensation. He has not heard yet why the entrance to Viewmont Court from 106 has to be located where it is depriving him of some of his property when it could easily be moved just a little bit in the other direction. If the developer does not destroy Glenorchy, he will fundamentally change the characteristics and the character of Glenorchy. He felt he should be asked to compensate the homeowners along Viewmont Court for landscaping that would help muffle the sound of the dramatic increase in traffic that will result, if indeed it is done through Viewmont Court. There is some debate about where the Board of Supervisors stood on this issue three or four years ago. Kirk Bowers, resident of 106 George Rogers Road in Key West Subdivision, said he was a long term resident of Albemarle County. He had prepared comments this evening. He opposed the Pantops Ridge rezoning application for three 3 reasons: 1. Roads, insufficient capacity on their road systems. 2. Utility and infrastructure – Do they have the capacity for water and sewer to add this area to the development. 3. Environmental impacts – This includes the destruction of the forest, trails, and the additional impervious areas, which creates the additional runoff and storm water management issues. He would like to say that they just don’t need or want any large residential development in the Pantops community area. He was fairly confident in saying there is no one in Pantops who really supports any large developments. He suspects that most people live in the County where they don’t have to face the traffic conditions like they do in Pantops. Everyday traffic is backed up from McIntire Road to the interstate. It has been getting worse and worse. He does support the County staff recommendation to deny approval of Pantops Ridge rezoning application. Further, he would like to encourage the Commission not to support this development. It is crucial to their community. They have already been over developed and need to stop. Dennis Roethlisberger, resident of Key West, said when he moved to Charlottesvill e 15 years ago there were three stoplights between his house and I-64. He traveled the state frequently and so wanted a house close to the interstate. Now there are eight stoplights between his house and the interstate. His wife frequently resorts to cutting through the Food lion parking lot in order to circumvent the 250/20 interchange light in order to get home. This situation will only increase with the development of more residential property out beyond that point. He recommends that the board not approve this zoning permit and cancel any plans for development of that area. Haley Blake-Scott, previous resident of Crozet, said he moved to Pantops to the Ashcroft neighborhood. It does appear that Mr. Spurzem bought a piece of land zoned for a shopping center and now decries his need for a shopping center and wants to build lots of houses, which is what he does. He was not opposed to building houses, but they are talking Old Trail type density in about a tenth of the space. He reiterated that the traffic situation on Pantops is unconscionable at times. In a normal traffic pattern, it would take ten minutes to get to work and often times it takes 40 minutes for no apparent reason. They are talking in a density of this level of adding anywhere to 600 to 800 cars in a small area. They are going to be taking a bad situation and making it substantially worse. There is no plan for this. He was not opposed to residential housing in this area, but he thought at this density it is just insane. Paul Beyer represented for R L Beyer Construction who builds houses in Ashcroft and Liberty Land, the developer of Ashcroft. There were two points expressed tonight. - The main point is just to reiterate how badly they need the connection through Glenorchy. There is a reason why the connection was shown on the Pantops Master Plan. There is a dangerous intersection that comes out where Hansens Mountain Road comes out onto 250. It would fail on any safety inspection. It is a dangerous intersection where a traffic accident will occur at some point. Frankly, there is no real solution to it besides rerouting the road through Glenorchy. He fears that at some point if Mr. Spurzem was not opposing this road VDOT would have to step forth at some point and do it. It would be a major accident that would happen and then the fire would be lit and this road would be needed. At that point Mr. Spruzem has bought a house through his road is going to be rerouted. He is proposing it as part of the proffer. Ten years from now or if Mr. Spurzum goes away and someone lives in that house they are facing imminent domain in order to reroute a needed road through that subdivision. It is a sensitive issue. - He would point out there are 150 families already in Ashcroft who could fill up this auditorium. He also represents 130 homes that are going to be built in Ashcroft, which will be double what is there. It is a very pressing solution that affects a great number of families. He would asked regardless of the rest of the property that they give Mr. Spurzem an unequivocal answer that they support the location and concept of the road and then whatever else happens to the property. The road is paramount for Ashcroft and for the future residents and safety of the families. - The second point was that he felt like Mr. Zobrist. He attended the meeting last night at the Charlottesville Tomorrow. He felt that they need walkable communities and mixed use. There is a reason they have urban density and promote that. He felt like some neighborhood shops here would be great. He was sure that Mr. Spurzum was going for something easy here because it was a contentious project. Andrew Dracopoli, representative for Worrell Land and Development Company, said they sold the land to Mr. Spurzum and made the following comments. - They bought the land from Dr. Hurt for what became Peter Jefferson Place. It was a part of what Dr. Hurt owned. They knew when they bought it that the property had the Planned Development Shopping Center zoning. However, nobody ever considered that was a viable option for the property. In fact, one of the first things that he did when he came to work for Mr. Worrell was in the 1989 work on the Comprehensive Plan for the density of the property to be as a residential property. It clearly needs to be a residential property. The County encourages Urban Density in the urban growth area. It is within the water and sewer district. When they widened 250 in 1990, they extended the sewer line to the property so it could hook i nto the pump station that they have at the Peter Jefferson Place. It clearly needs to be residential. - The other part is that the road issue was a huge issue. Eventually there is going to be a major accident there that is going to force the issue. He thought that this addresses that and the only way that it is seen feasible both by VDOT and the County was through the master plan process. The other thing he would like the Commission to think about in the back of their mind is that everybody has said that nobody is going to build a shopping center. However, if that really becomes the only option somebody is going to build that shopping center. It may not be Mr. Spruzum, but somebody will. That shopping center has 60’ high retaining walls. It is a monstrosity. - He asked to think about if at the end of the process they deny Mr. Spurzum and effectively prevent him from doing any residential on this property that shopping center would be built. Then they are going to look back on it and say did they make the right decision. They will question whether they were nitpicking on their rules about having pre-approved application plans and everything like that. This is a down zoning from a Planning Development Shopping Center zoning to a residential zoning. They know that rezoning for R-15 do not require an application plan. He asked why they were requiring one for this site. He thinks they really run the risk of creating something a monstrosity that they really don’t want and which nobody in the County will thank them for. That will be the only use for this property. Richard Beyer, owner of the Ashcroft development, noted that a minor point that has not been brought up is that as far as the access in Ashcroft is this is the only place between the interstate and the top of the hill where the Liberty Gas Station is that does not have the benefit of the safety of a light. Everything else does have it one way or the other so they can get out at a light. There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Ms. Long asked for rebuttal time. She made the following comments. - This project has a long history and she wanted to make sure the Commission had the benefit of the bigger picture of it there just to reiterate some of the things and to respond to some of the comments that were made. They understand the traffic issues in the Glenorchy neighborhood would be different than they are now obviously. She would like the Commission to keep in mind that it is not a matter of the traffic now versus it can’t stay that way. If the road is relocated, which VDOT and the County have said that they want, it is a matter of the shopping center being in place with all of what Mr. Dracopoli described as the monstrosity of the retaining walls and a use that absolutely no one wants. The shopping center does not permit the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. If the shopping center is built and continued the situation that Hansens Mountain Road at the cross over at Hansens Mountain Road and Route 250 is required by the site plan approval to be closed. They will end up with a situation where Hansens Mountain Road becomes a right in right out only intersection. Which means that anybody trying to exit Hansens Mountain Road and go east towards the interstate will have to go west or towards town and go way past where they want to go and make a U-turn. The site plan requires that no U-turn signs be posted. It will be a disaster for everyone. There wil l be many U-turns going back and forth in front of Pantops. - She did not dispute the comments that were made by several of the speakers about the traffic situation at Pantops on 250 now. This will exacerbate the problem beyond everybody’s worse nightmare. They think that the proposed solution they have brought forth tonight is a reasonable one based on the circumstances. It is not ideal by any means. It is the only solution that anyone has brought forth that is viable. It is what VDOT says they want. It is what the County says they want. The owner is proposing to build that relocation at its expense entirely, which is estimated between 3 and 4 million dollars, depending on a number of variances. As stated by the Ashcroft developers, there are over 135 residents there now and over 100+ lots that are coming. There are a number of lots at the Shadwell Mountain Estates neighborhood that use Hansens Mountain Road. There will be people using Hansens Mountain Road regardless of whether this project is approved. It will be all of those residents plus the customers of the shopping center exacerbating an already difficult traffic situation. The alternative is if they will work with the applicant and approve the R-15 rezoning, there will be instead of a disastrous shopping center and all of the attendant negative impacts that come with that, there will be a residential community and there will be a relocated road at the owner’s expense. The owner is the only person who has stepped forward to solve this traffic problem. There is no one else who is willing or able to. Certainly, the County does not have the funds at the moment. VDOT does not have the money now and does not appear to have it anytime in the future. She did not believe the Ashcroft residents are interested in being assessed for the 3 to 4 million dollars it would cost to build the project. The owner is proffering to build it himself. She is asking that the Commission keep that in mind. - Again, she thought that Mr. Dracopoli’s points were very well put. Whether it is worth spending more time discussing some of the smaller issues she was not sure. She was not saying they were irrelevant, but that these issues were smaller. The proffer plan is not required. They have a list of proffers and addressed a number of those issues. They don’t think a proffer plan is necessary for the Commission to make a determination that a down zoning from a shopping center is preferable to having a plan. They think everyone can agree that a residential community, even without any proffer plan, is better for the overall community than a shopping center, especially a shopping center without the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. That is the most simple situation. - There are a number of other benefits. The grading involved to create that shopping center is substantial. The trucks required to bring that dirt in and out all day long will be a disastrous for the neighborhood. By comparison, a residential community can work with the existing grade much better. Obviously, some amount of grading will be required, but substantially less. No retaining walls. They have proffered architectural standards. They have proffered a lighting standard. They have proffered a trail. All of those that would not come with the shopping center. The shopping center will have the retaining walls. It will have lights in the shopping center parking lot that could create an adverse impact on the neighbors. There will be truck deliveries coming every single day creating noise. It will be a terrible view shed issue for both the Ashcroft residents and certainly from Monticello as well. There are many other issues she would be happy to elaborate further on. - They understand that it is not a perfect proposal. They have worked very hard over the last year to address as many of the comments from the staff as possible. That is why they revised their proffers on a number of occasions to address the issues. They went absolutely as far as they could short of proffering the plan. They think again in the big picture in the larger community the community is much better with 562 dwelling units and a relocation of Hansens Mountain Road in a way that can be done in a sensitive fashion at no cost to the County. That down zoning is far superior and it outweighs all those negative factors that are listed in the staff report. - One final point with regard to the cash proffer policy. The cash proffer policy includes a provision entitled exceptional circumstances. It is a provision that says in essence that certain projects are unique. It left a door open for the Board to accept a rezoning projects for residential use that were unique and different. She did not think this was contemplated at the time. However, it talks about unique circumstances of a proposed development that either mitigates the development’s projected impact on public facilities and creates a demonstrable reduction in capital facilities needs. In this case, the road relocation meets that test. As somebody stated, the option really becomes the road has to be fixed at some point. She would think everybody would agree. One major accident there and another major accident there and VDOT will require it. Her final point is that the mitigate the impact because they were willing to build the road now at no cost to taxpayers. If it is not built now by the owner, her understanding is that it will be built someday at significant cost to taxpayers and they believe they fit into that circumstance. Mr. Zobrist noted that the matter was now before the Commission. Mr. Morris noted this request was in his district and he agreed with a number of people, specifically Mr. Dracopoli, in that he definitely opposes a shopping center here from looking at the shopping center and the projection as to the amount of traffic that it would bring about. This is going into a right in right out operation that would be extremely dangerous with nearly 9,500 vehicle trips per day. There are a number of people in this room that helped with the Pantops Master Plan. The Pantops Master Plan clearly says that this area should be residential and a combination of both urban and neighborhood density. He believed that Ms. Grant explained exactly what that was. There is no clear measurement in this document that says how many acres of the overall plot should be urban, green space, green site, and so forth. He thought that could be worked out. He was against the R-15 overall. He thought they need a plan that gives an idea of exactly what they are looking at. There will be a neighborhood or a shopping center in this area. He thought it would behoove them to look at really how they are going to make this work. Again, if they were here and working on the plan as a lot of the people present were they saw that this was going to be problematic, but it is part of the plan. Mr. Loach said that obviously Ms. Long is incorrect in her assumption that the community is in support of this project. He finds it odd, too, that the developer would show up and define his current project as a disaster. He wondered if the first time it came before the Planning Commission and Board if it was described in similar terms, which he doubts. Ms. Long made several references in her presentation to the master plan, yet did not bother to bring in a plan that is consistent with the master plan. In regards to Mr. Beyer who came up and discussed the presentation that was given the other night at the Charlottesville Tomorrow he would point out that the essence in his ending remarks the one point that he made very specifically was that density could not occur without good design and without good design it would fail. What they are seeing here is not a design consistent with the master plan that the neighborhood had spent a considerable amount of time. He was not going to support this proposal. Mr. Smith questioned who would use the shopping center if they only had right in and right out. The road in and the road out would be very detrimental to the neighborhood. He did not know any other way to do it. He would not want it if he lived there. He would be opposed to the County having anything to do with any condemnation of property to help build the road. Ms. Porterfield pointed out that Mr. Morris and her had the abutting magisterial district s. The Scottsville Magisterial District goes out as far east as the edge of the County. Route 250 is a major problem. It is not going to get any better. It was a big consideration in putting the Village of Rivanna Master Plan. This particular area that starts basically back east about where the curve comes around where one can buy ice cream off of Route 250 and heads to the west going through Pantops is becoming a real bottle neck. She believed that the plan is that the median portion that opens to Hansens Mountain Road will be closed. When it is closed, Hansens Mountain Road basically becomes a right out and right in. Coming east, she can turn right in. But when she comes back she had to turn right going to the west, which means she will have to go down to some place where a U Turn is allowed in order to go back to the east if she wants to access the interstate or go farther out to the edge of the County. The same thing goes for when one is coming home. If the people in Ashcroft want to get back to their houses and they work downtown or on Route 29 they will have to drive past Hansen’s Mountain Road, underneath the overpass and go down to about the Comfort Inn to make the U turn. She would appreciate if they ask Joel DeNunzio come up and talk about it. Her reason for saying this is that it is very, very important that they work with this applicant. Not everything is wonderful. The ability to build Hansens Mountain Road where it can be brought out to a signaled light is very important to the people in Ashcroft, the people on the cul- de-sac that it is going to come through, the people in this new development, and the people who are coming and going through the area by I-64 and Pantops. She suggested they figure out how to work with this individual. Mr. Loach noted that was exactly what everybody just said. He asked what is the problem. Ms. Porterfield pointed out they did not support the proposal. She suggested they should work with the applicant to figure out how to keep the proposal alive and work with it. Mr. Franco noted he heard everyone saying they could not support this proposal as is, but they are not saying they can’t support any proposal. He echoed some of the comments he had heard. - With respect to the master plan this has been one of the issues he has raised all along with the master plans that he had been involved with. They need to look at what kind of threats or problems are associated with it. He thought the decision to route the road through in the direction the applicant has proposed is something that has been decided. It is going to happen at some point in time. However, the density and use is something that is a liability of the master plan because it is a shopping center. He thought that the residential is better. He could support residential there recognizing that R-15 is higher than the master plan. He was still comfortable with that from the aspect that they are getting rid of the shopping center use that he did not want to have in that location. - There is a statement they need to adhere to what the Code calls for in regards to the submittal of a plan. He resented over the years having new rules created along the way. Since R15 does not require a plan he thinks the important aspects they are looking for is som e of the buffers and trails that are being proffered. He would like to see a plan, but was comfortable not having one simply because it was not a requirement of the Code. - His biggest concerns with this development will be with respect to the proffers and trying to find the right balance that works to encourage the use and the change over of use, but to get some of the cash proffers and the proffers for affordable housing that are required. From what he has heard, the road improvements are 3 to 4 million dollars, which is the best guess. He thought the upper end of the density they are probably looking at over 7 million dollars in cash proffers in accordance with the current policy. They are not assured of that high density, but are probably somewhere between 5 to 7 million. Therefore, there is an excess in cash proffers above and beyond the road. He thought they should get credit for rerouting the road and the public improvements he is making, but it should not wipe out full expectation of the cash proffer. Mr. Zobrist suggest that they should ask the applicant to defer and come back with for a work session, which he was surprised that they did not have already. It would have taken a lot less time to come in on a work session to work with the Commission to find out what they think they can come up with. Mr. Franco said he was not sure if there was a benefit to the work session if they are looking for design aspects. Mr. Zobrist pointed out that this is fairly controversial. It has been around f or a long time. He thought that there is consensus that they are all very happy with the idea it is not going to be a shopping center so let’s have residential up there. The question is what are the components of that going to be and how do they get to that point in time. The Commission can turn this down and tell the applicant to go make another application and delay the process, or they could have a work session and work it out to see if they can come up with a consensus. He agreed with Mr. Franco that this is a good idea, but just not the way it has been proposed. Mr. Loach noted in the community master plan the County decided to use the Neighborhood Model in judging applications that come before the Planning Commission. In this request out of the 12 there are 9 not met. It has to be consistent with the Neighborhood Model, which is the way they are judging these. The growth area residents have the right to expect that. That is how these things are going to be looked at. Mr. Franco said with a zoning classification that is an option for R15. The Neighborhood Model standards were set to be tools to evaluate projects with. He did not know if it was fair. There are a number of the principles that can’t be addressed because the plan has not been proposed. That does not mean that they won’t be addressed in the future. For instance, the pedestrian connections or the walkability it says it has not been accurately addressed. Yet they are going to find that at least sidewalks in those pedestrian mode areas will be provided because the Subdivision Ordinance is going to require curb, gutter, and sidewalk in there. Granted they don’t know where it is going to be, but the orientation is going to be a little bit of a question because they are going to be using the existing setbacks. He was not sure that they are ever going to get to the bottom of that unless they start to require a plan or a different zoning classification. Mr. Zobrist noted that they have ARB to consider here, too. This is on the Entrance Corridor. He was not prepared to take any action other than to say come back for a work session or if they want a vote they will. It is entirely up to the applicant. Mr. Franco said he was not prepared to make a motion yet. It looks like the consensus here is not to move it forward with a recommendation of approval at this point in time. Before they take that action, it would be very helpful to be more specific to the applicant on what they like or don’t like about what is being proposed so that they can clearly understand where they stand. He heard some of the speakers mention the road and the rerouting of the road. If they feel that is off the table because of the master plan or other components that they have heard tonight, then he thought that they need to state that. He clarified that it was off the table in the sense that it is going to happen and they support that. It is a giv en. Then they can move on to what concerns they do have. Otherwise, the work session is not going to be productive. Mr. Morris asked if it would be of benefit to ask the applicant to come forward and get their input if they are willing to discuss this. If they are adamant on R15, then that is a deal breaker for him. Mr. Zobrist invited Ms. Long to address the Planning Commission. Ms. Long noted that the applicant at this point feels very strongly about the issue of the application plan. The current ordinance does not require an application plan for a R15 District. They are asking to be treated fairly here by the legal rules in regards to the ordinance. That is all they are asking for. They certainly appreciate the comments and feedback. It is helpful. However, at this point the applicant is not interested in discussing a plan essentially affirming Mr. Franco’s assumptions. Ms. Porterfield said she was having a real problem in why they absolutely can’t deal with it as an R15. He is proffering certain things. They could ask that he proffer a few other things that would handle some of their expectations if it were in a different classification. She opposed throwing the whole baby out with the bath water. Mr. Zobrist replied that they were not throwing it away. This is a recommendation to the Board. He was not willing to deal with it as a R15. Mr. Franco asked what is the concern and whether the 562 is too high. Mr. Zobrist replied that they have a master plan and Neighborhood Model and they ought to deal with it in terms of what is on it. He heard that the community did not want the 562 houses on the R15. The master plan does not call for it. Staff has recommended on that basis alone that it be denied. They have offered to have a discussion with the applicant and help them to get to what is best for both sides of the community. They all have to live together. If the applicant does not want to do that, then they have no choice to move it up or down. Mr. Franco said they also have all agreed that the shopping center is not what they want to see. He asked if there is a compromise or a common ground somewhere between the master plan density and what is being proposed. Mr. Loach noted that they have heard from the applicant that there is no compromise. The Commission is responding to what the applicant has presented and told them. What he saw presented was nothing that was consistent with the master plan or Neighborhood Model. The master plan has been vetted by the community, Planning Commission, and Board and they need to be consistent with them. He was judging the proposal on what merits were brought before the Commission tonight. Mr. Kamptner said what he was hearing from four Commissioners was that if there was a vote to recommend denial it could be because the proposed density is too intense for that particular site. Mr. Morris said it does not meet with the Pantops Master Plan. Mr. Zobrist noted there were other technical issues with the proffers that make it impractical without some work. Mr. Morris asked to let it be known that he would love to see residential with the road and everything else, but he feels that it needs to be in conformance with the Master Plan. Too many people worked too many years to create that and just to throw it out. That is what is happening. Ms. Porterfield asked if he was looking for the density that is in the master plan. Mr. Morris replied that was correct. He was willing to give a little, which was why he was saying that very possibly they could expand the urban density to take into consideration the green space that is there. That would give more density to the i ndividual and it can be worked out. At least it is a combination of urban and neighborhood density meeting the qualifications of the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Franco said if the applicant chose to come back with some kind of definition of how many single families and townhouses to see how much was in the higher density with a total number that was lower than the 562, it would be helpful. Mr. Morris replied that he would think that it would be. Mr. Kamptner noted if the applicant still insists on the Planning Commission taking action tonight, that can be included as part of their recommendation. The Board can evaluate whether or not the Commission would get to see the same project that they are looking at. What the Board has done with other rezonings is send it back to the Planning Commission and ask them to provide a new recommendation based on any revisions. Mr. Franco asked the Chair to invite the applicant up again. What he heard the applicant say a minute ago was they were adamant about the R15 and the application plan. He did not hear that on the density side. He was trying to craft whatever the Commission was going to do. Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to come forward and explain what they meant. Mr. Franco asked if it was the application plan, the density or both. Ms. Long replied that it was really both to be quite honest. Someone said that the applicant is not compromising. She understands their position there. The applicant feels they are compromising significantly. The by-right use permitted now is a very intensive commercial shopping center. They have compromised down from that to a R15 zoning. She fully hears what he is saying that it is more than what they would like per the Comprehensive Plan. The R15 zoning, as compared to the approved shopping center, is so much closer. It is not perfect and not there. However, it is so much closer to the Pantops Master Plan and they think it is far closer on the Neighborhood Model principles. They respectfully disagree with the staff’s analysis on the Neighborhood Model principles, but she chose not to get into those principles at this time. They are very important principles. They think the plan now complies with many of them. As Mr. Franco said, they will ultimately achieve all of them. Mr. Franco asked if their preference is they take an action tonight as opposed to not asking for a deferral. Ms. Long replied that is correct. They appreciate their willingness to offer. It is the applicant’s preference to have a vote. There has been a lot of time put into this project. Mr. Franco said he was comfortable moving forward with a vote. If it were going forward as a recommendation to the Board, it would be helpful to include a statement as part of the motion. He was not prepared to craft the language, but should they choose to approve it here are the things that need to be considered or to take care of. He thought that it would be most helpful to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the report identified factors unfavorable. The Commission might not agree with all the factors. However, it would be good to know in the motion what if any of the factors unfavorable needs to be addressed or is relevant to their recommendation to the Board. Ms. Porterfield asked if the unfavorable factors were based more on the fact that it is not following the Neighborhood Model principles and not having an application plan or were they based on the R15 zoning. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was based on staff’s evaluation of what was presented. Some actually notes the master plan and some the lack of a plan. However, it also speaks to the lack of proffers regarding the transit possibilities, and affordable housing. It has nothing to do with whether it is a Planned Development or a R15. Ms. Porterfield asked which ones could apply to R15 zoning as opposed to the ones that were indicating that it would only be if it were the other way around. They should not be unfavorable factors if they don’t apply to R15 zoning because the applicant is not asking for anything else. Mr. Cilimberg replied that #3 is the only one that the site is unfavorable due to the lack of a plan. Ms. Porterfield said that #1 really is not an unfavorable factor for R15. Mr. Cilimberg replied that was her judgment. He pointed out noted that conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 all apply to the rezoning. Mr. Zobrist said the only reason they did not proffer a plan is that they have requested R15. Therefore, they don’t have to submit a plan. If they were coming in as a Planned Development, they would need a plan. Mr. Franco pointed out what would help him move forward with a motion was to look at the summary on page 10 and the three factors that are listed as favorable. He asked if the Commissioners agreed with those points. Factors Favorable: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. It was a consensus of the Commission to agreed with the favorable factors. Mr. Franco noted on the unfavorable side it lists the following factors: Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting f rom the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off -set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Mr. Franco asked if the Commission agrees with #1 about the density not being in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. He asked if it was fair to say that there is room for some massaging of that. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that across the board it needs to be more in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. Mr. Franco said the commitment to the green space as shown on the master plan was an unfavorable factor. Ms. Porterfield said that they were giving green space. He is going to have the trail, has a section, and is doing a large buffer along the stream. It may not be exactly in the square that it was shown. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is a pretty significant area on the eastern side of the property that the master plan showed as green space as well. They are not getting that proffer. They are saying that it is just not at the level that the master plan shows. Mr. Franco noted that he was trying to craft this into a motion. It sounds like that without a lot of massaging that remains an issue for the majority of the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will be the first to admit that in the ultimate outcome it might not be the exact area as noted in the master plan. Mr. Franco noted that #2 remains an issue for the Commission. Number 3 was the fact that there was not plan. He asked if they were comfortable that there is no plan because it is R15. He asked what are the components of the plan that they are looking for. What if he came back with something that offered a certain amount of green space, but did not define where it was. He could proffer a minimum 10 or 15 percent open space, but just not tell us where it is to be. Would they require everyone to submit under the neighborhood model to rezone. Mr. Kamptner said he read factor #3 a little bit differently. In what staff is saying if a plan had been submitted it would have allowed staff to evaluate better the proposed rezoning against the Pantops Master Plan. That is all that is saying. Without a plan staff was unable to determine whether or not the goals of the Pantops Master Plan would be satisfied. Ms. Porterfield suggested that is what it should say. Mr. Zobrist noted that is what it says. Ms. Porterfield said it is a factor unfavorable, but it is a wish list that would help staff in evaluating it. It is not really unfavorable for what they are asking for because it is not required. Mr. Zobrist said it is required for staff to look at the Comprehensive Plan and see how it relates to the application plan. Mr. Kamptner noted that he was saying that it was required for a Comp Plan analysis. That kind of information would have allowed staff to determine the extent to which it complies or does not comply with the Pantops Master Plan. Mr. Franco asked if he would gain consensus by wording it closer to what they heard from the attorney to say that it would have been helpful versus what is said in the staff report. They want to be clear to the Board. Mr. Kamptner suggested there was insufficient information provided to fully evaluate. Mr. Morris said it would be fine with him especially in that he is requesting a R15. It would be helpful for staff to have something to bounce it off. Mr. Franco agreed with that. The problem in the past has been if they submit a plan that all of a sudden even though it is supposed to define some general concept, it is set in stone. Mr. Morris said that they don’t want that. Mr. Cilimberg said actually they are not asking for plans any longer that get proffered or are a part of a Planned Development that are showing a specific location for the building or buildings. They have tailored back to knowing where the critical environmental areas are that should be avoided, the roads should be located, and where the areas of building and parking would be. Then they have let the issues of density, number of dwelling units by type and location really be part of proffers or in a code of development when they do the Planned Development. Illustrative plans show a lot more details. However, that is not the plan that is proffered or a part of the zoning. Mr. Franco noted that #4 was the parking study, which remains unfavorable. Mr. Morris agreed it was definitely unfavorable and he would like to have it. Ms. Porterfield said a traffic study was done in 2006. It indicated the number of vehicles per day for the shopping center at 9,500. Then they used the normal way of calculating residential units to say that this drops down to 5,100. It is a no brainer that it was dropping. This is going to get a lot better. The question is if the money should be spent on a traffic study when the number was going down. When it is going up, she could see exactly what they mean and why it was unfavorable. It was very favorable to cut the numbers in almost in half. Mr. Franco asked if they could make that a favorable point and add that the reduction in traffic is favorable in order to address everybody’s concern. Mr. Zobrist said he was not sure if it was favorable if it was at 562 units. Mr. Franco noted it was moving in the right direction. Mr. Zobrist agreed it was moving in the right direction, but not far enough. Mr. Morris said his concern as far as the traffic study is that what they were looking at is the current Hansens Mountain Road and he would like to see what the projection of traffic would be at the new location that has a stop light. He would like to have some kind of handle on what is going to come through Glenorchy. Mr. Zobrist noted what they need to know is what is going to be the impact of the traffic. Mr. Franco pointed out the numbers in the report was taking them from 5 houses on the road and the cul - de-sac that is there, which is estimated to be 50 vehicle trips per day. It was taking it to 5,100. It is two orders of magnitude. It was putting the traffic to the intersection where they want it to come out. Mr. Morris said they also have to think about everything from Ashcroft, which has to be wei ghed in there and the other subdivision. Mr. Franco noted that was part of the study or at least the numbers that are recorded. The proffers obligate the County and VDOT to acquire land. He asked if that was a concern for the Commission. Mr. Zobrist said the County should never be required to do either one. Mr. Franco noted he goes back and forth on this. The arguments he has heard in favor of this is that it helps to execute the master plan. In order to make the road system or the network meet the master plan someone is going to have to execute it. The County can either do it as a participant or it is not going to be done. Mr. Kamptner pointed out by way of background there have been a couple of other rezonings where the County accepted proffers in a similar format to this where the applicant proffered cash where if necessary the County would use it for imminent domain. One was Albemarle Place Commercial Development and the landing issue was along Route 29. The other one was North Pointe. Mr. Zobrist said he did not have any problem with that concept. Ms. Porterfield noted that #8 was not an unfavorable factor. It was just that the County would prefer not to weigh in unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Kam ptner said the other proffers provide that the applicant would seek to acquire the property and right-of -way up front. Mr. Cilimberg noted that they don’t have that right now as a proffer in this case. That was their concern. Mr. Franco said the applicant would try to get the property first, and if it can’t then they would allow the County to execute this. Is what they are saying that they don’t have that right now. Mr. Cilimberg replied that was what he understood Mr. Kamptner to say. Mr. Smith said that would be very unfavorable to him for the County to condemn the land. Mr. Franco asked what was their consensus for a motion. Ms. Porterfield said she would love to see the proffer written such that if it becomes necessary because of the situation of needing this road that the County would have to step in. It is a definite benefit to the County to get this ability to run this road through. Mr. Zobrist agreed. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that Ms. Long corrected him. In the other examples, the proffers themselves do not put the obligation on the land owner to negotiate first. He thought there might be an understanding. However, as far as the proffers are concerns that was not spelled out in the proffers. Mr. Zobrist asked what does that mean. If this was approved with the County having to condemn and the County did not go condemn then what happens, they don’t have to build the road. Mr. Kamptner replied that the road is not constructed and the transportation impacts are not addressed. Ms. Zobrist said he was not aware of any condemnations by the County for the last 20 years. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he knew of one case where there was an off -site project that was interested in making improvements that might be necessary for rezoning, but they could not get the property owner to agree. They wanted the County or VDOT to use their money to condemn. They actually ended up putting the project in the Six Year Secondary Plan to be paid for by the developer at which time that land would be necessary. That was not part of a proffer. That was before there was a rezoning proposal made. The County Attorney’s Office can probably better address the problem. Staff felt that should be the last result so to speak. Mr. Zobrist said he thought they all agree with that. Mr. Smith said that he did not agree. He suggested that they put themselves on that subdivision street. Mr. Zobrist said that he understood. However, he also knew they have a nightmare with Hansens Mountain Road and that needs to be changed. At some point in time, the County or someone will have to step up and change it. This is the opportunity. Mr. Franco asked if they all agree on the transit being unfavorable. It was the consensus of the Commission that transit was unfavorable. Mr. Morris said he was in favor of affordable housing, but with the economy, they might not develop it. Mr. Zobrist pointed out what he was hearing from Ron White was they did not need units, they need money to get people into them. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the standard proffer allows for money in lieu of the units at the determination of the housing director. Mr. Cilimberg said he had not talked with Ron White very recently. That is something they determined that they should not decide at the proffer level, but let the proffer be flexible enough where that could be determined by the Housing Director. Mr. Franco asked if the majority feels that it is important or not. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that #7 was i mportant. Mr. Franco said that in #8 there is a lack of commitment for the development’s impact. It was basically the cash proffer policy. Mr. Zobrist noted that Ms. Long asked to waiver that because of unusual circumstances. They are getting rid of a shopping center and getting houses. She wants to waive that because of extenuating circumstances. Mr. Cilimberg said in determining the cash proffer amount received based on the units that projects such as an off -site road can be a credit against that amount. But they can’t reduce the amount of the per unit cash proffer. That is a fairly standard consideration. However, it fall under the policy. They are really just pointing to the fact that they had no commitment in accord with the policy. Mr. Zobrist said they were saying that the applicant should be given a credit for the road. Mr. Franco agreed and that it sounds great. Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Franco said that #9 stops so they don’t need to talk about it. Given the fact the applicant does not want to defer and wants to move forward. Mr. Zobrist asked Ms. Long if she wants to change her position to defer or do they vote. Ms. Long replied that she was able to follow everything and their position remains the same. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend denial of ZMA-2010-00001, Pantops Ridge based on the following: The factors identified in the staff report with the addition of a favorable factor being the reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use; and The nine factors listed in the staff report as unfavorable with the comments massaged and made during the discussion. Factors Favorable: 4. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 5. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 6. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. 7. The reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use. Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No traffic study has been provided. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations hav e not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he understood the motion, but was going to have to report this to the Board. He was hearing the motion recognizing the factors favorable and noting a fourth factor favorable as reduction in traffic. However, also recognizing for the reason of denial the factors unfavorable. What he was hearing is that rather than the plan of development being critical under #3, there was basically insufficient information to allow a determination that the goals of the Comp Plan, i ncluding the Master Plan, were being met. In addition, there should be credit for the off -site road in determining the cash proffer obligation. Mr. Morris noted that was correct. Mr. Franco noted for clarification it was not just the off -site road, but the road that is upgraded to a site would also contribute towards that or the cost to the road. Mr. Cilimberg added the road upgrade. Mr. Franco added that the condemnation issue was discussed. His motion would add that the Commission is comfortable with the need to condemn as a last alternative or a last resort at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Zobrist asked if Mr. Smith could dissent from that portion, and Mr. Franco replied yes. Mr. Zobrist asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Franco asked if staff has enough to understand the Commission’s action. Mr. Cilimberg said on the last point regarding the obligations for possible condemnation the clarification is that the County or VDOT are a last resort. The applicant has actually already agreed to pay since that is already in the proffers. Mr. Zobrist noted that it had been moved by Mr. Franco and seconded by Mr. Morris in accordance with the discussion. He asked if there was any further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Smith voted aye with reservation because it would be very unfavorable for the County or state to condemn the land.) (Ms. Porterfield voted nay for the following reasons: She believed this applicant would work with R-15 and do a good job, especially seeing some of the areas that he has already built. The applicant is willing to proffer away the approved shopping center. The applicant is willing at his expense and has already made the effort to purchase a lot so that Hansen’s Mountain Road can be relocated and extended to come out at a traffic light on Route 250. This relocation will greatly benefit the current and future residents of Ashcroft as well as all who travel Route 250 both east and west at the Shadwell I-64 Interchange.) Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2009-00001 Pantops Ridge would go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for denial, based on the favorable and unfavorable factors as amended and identified in Attachment 6. Attachment 6 ZMA-2010-00001 Pantops Ridge In summary, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5:1 (Porterfield voted nay.) (Mr. Smith voted aye with reservation) recommended denial of ZMA 2010-00001, Pantops Ridge based on the following:  The factors identified in the staff report as favorable with the addition of a fourth being the reduction in the traffic generated by the project; and  The nine factors listed in the staff report as unfavorable with the comments revised and made during the discussion. (Mr. Smith voted aye with reservation because it would be very unfavorable for the County or state to condemn the land.) (Ms. Porterfield voted nay for the following reasons: She believed this applicant would work with R-15 and do a good job, especially seeing some of the areas that he has already built. The applicant is willing to proffer away the approved shopping center. The applicant is willing at his expense and has already made the effort to purchase a lot so that Hansen’s Mountain Road can be relocated and extended to come out at a traffic light on Route 250. This relocation will greatly benefit the current and future residents of Ashcroft as well as all who travel Route 250 both east and west at the Shadwell I-64 Interchange.) Factors Favorable: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan than the approved commercial use. 2. An extension of Viewmont Court and a relocated Hansens Mountain Road will be a safety improvement for Ashcroft residents and can address many of the traffic impacts of the development. 3. The residential use is less intensive than the approved commercial use and is expected to have less of an impact on surrounding residential developments. 4. The reduction in the traffic generated by the proposed use. Factors Unfavorable: 1. Proposed density is not in keeping with the Pantops Master Plan. 2. There is no commitment to retain Green space shown on the Pantops Master Plan. 3. No plan of development that could allow determination that goals from the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, related to environmental preservation, design around a Central Green, provision of amenities, provision of a mixture of housing types, and a pedestrian orientation are met. 4. No updated traffic study has been provided for this application, however a significant lessened traffic count was computed due to the change in use from shopping center to R-15. Without a traffic study, requirements of the state’s Chapter 527 traffic study regulations have not been met and needed transportation improvements resulting from the development cannot be confirmed, including the proposed relocation of Hansens Mountain Road. 5. The proffers obligate the County or VDOT to acquire any needed land for the relocation of Hansens Mountain Road utilizing funds proffered by the applicant without a commitment by the applicant to attempt to acquire this land themselves. This puts the County or VDOT in the position of potentially needing to condemn land owned by multiple property owners in order for the proffer to be executed. 6. There is no commitment to accommodate transit in the development, nor is there a commitment of any funding for public transit services. 7. There is no commitment to providing affordable housing. 8. There is no commitment to off-set the development’s impacts on public facilities as stipulated in Appendix B of the County Land Use Plan entitled “County of Albemarle, Virginia Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities”. 9. Proffers are in need of substantive and technical changes. Additional clarification included the following:  There was discussion regarding R-15 submission not requiring a plan of development. But, the failure of the applicant to submit a plan of development was an unfavorable factor because, without a plan, there was insufficient information to determine whether the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Pantops Master Plan, were met. In addition, there should be credit for the off -site road in determining the cash proffer obligation. The road upgrade to the site would also contribute towards that or the cost to the road.  The need to condemn to be used as a last alternative or last resort at the applicant’s expense. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010 00012, King Property SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to rezone the RA portion of the parcel to LI so that both portions of the parcel have the same LI zoning. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: April 20, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the King Property rezoning. The applicant had proffered removal of one by-right use in the Light Industry (LI) zoning district: assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-site. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the removal of three additional by-right uses that were not considered to be appropriate in the location of this rezoning. The proffers will apply to the 0.85 acre portion of the 1.775 acre parcel (Tax Map 45, Parcel 25A) subject to this request to be rezoned from Rural Areas (RA) to LI. The remaining portion of the parcel is already zoned LI. Attachment A is the staff report reviewed by the Planning Commission with the previous proffers. Attachment B is the Planning Commission action memo. DISCUSSION: The applicant has made the recommended changes and submitted a set of revised proffers that now include the three additional LI uses that are to be proffered out. The first prohibited use in the list below was in the original proffer; the other three prohibited uses have been added by the applicant at the Commission’s recommendation: a. Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-site (Section 27.2.1(8)). b. Storage yard. (Amended 11-12-08) c. Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on- site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry. (Amended 10-3-01) d. Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as but not limited to: (Amended 12-2-81; 2- 20-91) - Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant. Attachment C is the revised proffers, which also incorporates minor wording changes requested by the County Attorney’s office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-012 with the revised proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A – Staff Report for the Planning Commission, dated March 1, 2011 B – Planning Commission Action Memo for March 1, 2011 C – Signed revised proffers, dated April 14, 2011 D- PC Minutes Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA2010-00012, King Property Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: March 1, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not yet scheduled. Owner: Stephen C. King Applicant: David Cooke, II, Real Estate III, acting as agent for the owner Acreage: Total parcel: 1.966 acres; 1.10 acres currently zoned RA and 0.86 acre currently zoned LI (source: GIS-Web). Rezone from: RA, Rural Areas, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to LI, Light Industrial, which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) TMP: 04500-00-00-025A0 Location: 352 West Rio Road (Rt. 631) at its intersection with Four Seasons Drive (see Attachment A) Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) LI, Light Industrial -- industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes DA (Development Area): RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Proposal: to rezone the RA portion of the parcel to LI so that both portions of the parcel have the same LI zoning. 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 parcel now has a single residence surrounded by trees and some clear areas. (See Attachment F) Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the north is industrial in nature, property to the south and east across Rio Road West is offices, and property to the west is owned by VDOT, with a residential subdivision on the other side (west) of the VDOT right- of-way. Factors Favorable: Staff has identified factor that is favorable to this application: 1. The rezoning would address the unique locational circumstances of this parcel by consolidating the zoning into one district that is consistent with the surrounding properties. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has identified three factors that are unfavorable to this application. 1. The proffers remove only one potential use from the list of by-right Light Industrial uses, so only the size of the parcel would control which uses might be located there. 2. There is insufficient commitment to protection for the water supply watershed through removal of certain uses that could negatively impact the water supply. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning unless commitments are made to limit uses to those appropriate in this location, particularly as they relate to the water supply watershed. ZMA2010-00012, King Property Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 1, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: March 1, 2011 ZMA 2010-00012, King Property PETITION PROJECT: ZMA201000012 King Property PROPOSAL: Rezone .85 acre of a 1.775 acre parcel from Rural Areas (RA) zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Light Industrial (LI) zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). Remainder of the parcel is zoned Light Industrial. PROFFERS: YES EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 352 Rio Road W (Rt. 631) at intersection with Four Seasons Drive TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000025A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA The parcel is in the Rural Areas, just across Rio Road West from the Development Areas. Approximately one-half of the subject parcel, as well as all the parcels around it, are zoned Light Industrial. These parcels are now used for warehousing, offices, and other industrial uses. The subject property has a single family detached house on it that is currently used as a residence. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL As stated by the property owner in his application: The subject property consists of +/-1.775 acres with approximately half the property zoned Light Industrial (LI) and the balance zoned Rural Areas (RA). With adjacent parcels also zoned LI, it is my request to have the RA portion of my property zoned LI. It is my intent to create a more saleable property by having the entire parcel zoned LI. This request is also in keeping with the County’s desire to create additional LI zoned property. The applicant has owned the property since 1982. He has not provided a concept plan because he does not intend to develop the property; he plans to sell it and is requesting the rezoning so that the entire parcel will have the same zoning district. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Prior to the County’s comprehensive rezoning in December 1980, a portion of the subject parcel and several parcels around it were zoned M1, an industrial district. At the time of the comprehensive rezoning, the M1 district was changed to Light Industrial. Prior to February 22, 1982, the subject parcel was split into two lots, with one lot zoned Light Industrial and the other zoned Rural Areas. At the request of the owner, the lots were combined into a single parcel in 1982, however, the zoning remained split into two districts. (See Attachment B) This is the first request to adopt the same zoning district for the entire parcel. There have been no other zoning map amendments or special use permits for this parcel. ZMA2010-00012, King Property Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 1, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources is a recognized purpose of the County’s Rural Areas. The property is located at the very edge of the Rural Areas and is directly across Rio Road West from the Development Area. Uses around the subject property are industrial in nature and more like those usually found in the Development Area. This property is in the South Fork Rivanna Water Supply Watershed, whose protection is emphasized in the Rural Areas. To address the possibility that industrial uses might have an impact on these water resources, staff requested that the applicant give careful consideration to “proffering out” by-right Light Industrial uses that might have a negative impact on the water supply watershed (See Staff Comments below). The property is within the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water only to existing structures. This means that, if a subsequent owner removed the current residence on the property, he/she would lose access to County water. In other words, because County policy is not to extend water service into the Rural Areas, future owners of this property would need to rely on a well if they remove the existing structure or request a jurisdictional area amendment. Since this parcel is surrounded by others zoned Light Industrial and is adjacent to the Development Area, staff believes this is a unique circumstance where a Light Industrial district, while not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, can be an appropriate zoning district for the portion of this property that is not already zoned Light Industrial. STAFF COMMENT: Staff normally would not recommend approval of a rezoning to a Light Industrial district for a parcel in the Rural Areas and in the water supply watershed. However, this parcel already has Light Industrial zoning on one portion and is surrounded by five other parcels that have both Light Industrial zoning and industrial uses on them. Including the Light Industrial portion of the subject property, approximately 16 acres are now zoned Light Industrial. Adding another 1.1 acres by rezoning the remaining Rural Areas portion will bring the entire parcel under the same zoning district. Staff is concerned that there is no commitment to limit the industrial uses that might be located on this property to those appropriate for this location in the water supply watershed. PROFFERS Attachment C contains the current proffers, including a letter from the owner describing his choice of uses to proffer out. Wording changes in the proffers are expected prior to the Board of Supervisor’s public hearing to address nonsubstantive issues, primarily to put the language into the standard format. To protect the water supply watershed, staff requested that the applicant consider “proffering out” any by-right Light Industrial uses that, if located on the property, might have an impact on the water supply watershed. The applicant has agreed to proffer out only one by-right use: “assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-site.” While staff agrees that this use would be inappropriate, the size of the parcel would likely preclude it. (See Attachment D) Staff also notes that the property is served by a septic system. While disposal of hazardous materials is strictly regulated, there may be other materials that, if disposed of in a septic system, might eventually reach the water supply. Staff believes other uses involving wastes incompatible with the water supply watershed would be proffered out. (Attachment E) ZMA2010-00012, King Property Planning Commission Public Hearing, March 1, 2011 Staff Report Page 4 Staff also notes that, without a proffered plan, several matters will not be addressed until the site plan stage, including, but not limited to: VDOT/County Road Requirements. VDOT will likely require a commercial entrance onto Rio Road West at the time a site plan for an industrial use is submitted to the County. Entrance Corridor. The parcel is located in the Rio Road West Entrance Corridor. Since there is no plan with the rezoning application, staff cannot comment on how well the proposal conforms to the Entrance Corridor Ordinance requirements. Development of the site industrially will require a site plan, and the ARB will comment on the proposal during review of the site plan. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application: 1. The rezoning would address the unique locational circumstances of this parcel by consolidating the zoning into one district that is consistent with the surrounding properties. Staff has identified two factors that are unfavorable to this application: 1. The proffers remove only one potential use from the list of by-right Light Industrial uses, so only the size of the parcel would control which uses might be located there. 2. There is insufficient commitment to protection for the water supply watershed through removal of certain uses that could negatively impact the water supply. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning unless commitments are made to limit uses to those appropriate in this location, particularly as they relate to the water supply watershed. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00012. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00012. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Location Map Attachment B – Zoning Map Attachment C – Proffers, dated January 3, 2011 Attachment D – List of By-Right Uses for Light Industrial District Attachment E – Map showing Comprehensive Plan Areas & Water Supply Watershed boundaries Attachment F – Aerial Map of Property Return to PC actions letter RIO RD WEARLYSVILLE RDFOUR SEASONS DRM O N T E R E Y D R L A K E F O R E S T D R TOWNWOOD DRS QUIRREL PATH¡743 ¡631 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, February 2011. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 200 400100Feet ZMA 2010-12King Property Roads Driveways Buildings Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest ± 45-25A RIO RD WEARLYSVILLE RDFOUR SEASONS DRM O N T E R E Y D R L A K E F O R E S T D R TOWNWOOD DRS QUIRREL PATH¡743 ¡631 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, February 2011. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 200 400100Feet ZMA 2010-12King Property Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest ± 45-25A Zoning_current ZONING Rural Areas Village Residential R1 Residential R2 Residential R4 Residential R6 Residential R10 Residential R15 Residential Planned Unit Development Planned Residential Development Neighborhood Model District Monticello Historic District C1 Commercial Commercial Office Highway Commercial Planned Development Shopping Center Planned Development Mixed Commercial Downtown Crozet District Light Industry Heavy Industry Planned Development Industrial Park Natural Resource Extraction Overlay Town of Scottsville 27.2 PERMITTED USES 27.2.1 BY RIGHT Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: (Amended 2-13-85, 5-5-10) 1. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as pharmaceutical. 2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 3. Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as but not limited to: (Amended 12-2-81; 2- 20-91) Artists' supplies and equipment. Business, office machines and equipment. Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet soap. Drafting supplies and equipment. Electrical lighting and wiring equipment. Electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio, telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets, phonographs. Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages, including bottling plants. Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products. Glass products made of purchased glass. Industrial controls. Jewelry, silverware. Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers and refrigerators. Musical instruments. Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary paper products, bags and containers. Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant. Rubber, metal stamps. Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal holders. Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies. Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or fireworks. Watches, clocks and similar timing devices. Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery. 4. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to newspapers, periodicals and books. 5. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving. 6. Research and development activities including experimental testing. 7. Scientific or technical education facilities. 8. Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-site. 9. Storage yard. (Amended 11-12-08) 10. Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry. (Amended 10-3-01) 11. 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. (Amended 5-12-93) 12. 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 (reference 31.2.5); 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 (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 14. Business and professional office buildings. 15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added 4-17-85) 16. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 17. Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives; pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in the event of accident. (Added 12-2-87) 18. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 19. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) 20. Farmers’ markets that will be conducted outdoors or within a temporary or existing permanent structure (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10) (§ 27.2.1, 12-10-80, 12-2-81, 2-13-85, 4-17-85, 3-5-86, 12-2-87, 11-1-89, 5-12-93; § 18-27.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10- RIO RD WEARLYSVILLE RDFOUR SEASONS DRM O N T E R E Y D R L A K E F O R E S T D R TOWNWOOD DRS QUIRREL PATH¡743 ¡631 Rivanna RiverWater Supply = N South Fork Rivanna RiverWater Supply = Y Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, February 2011. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 200 400100Feet ZMA 2010-12King Property Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest Watersheds ± 45-25A RIO RD WEARLYSVILLE RDFOUR SEASONS DRM O N T E R E Y D R L A K E F O R E S T D R TOWNWOOD DRS QUIRREL PATH¡743 ¡631 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, February 2011. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 200 400100Feet ZMA 2010-12King Property Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest ± 45-25A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 April 7, 2011 David Cooke 500 Faulconer Drive Charlottesville, Va 22903 RE: ZMA201000012 King Property Tax map 45, Parcel 25A Dear Mr. Critzer: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 1, 2011, 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: The uses of the Property permitted by right shall be all those uses allowed by right under Section 27.2.1 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, as that section is in effect on [date of rezoning action], 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, except for: Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as but not limited to: - Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant. (section 27.2.1(3)) Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off -site (section 27.2.1(8)); Storage yard (section 27.2.1(9)); Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry (section 27.2.1(10)) Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on April 20, 2011. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes 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, Judith Wiegand Senior Planner Planning Division Cc: Stephen C. King 352 West Rio Road Charlottesville, Va 22901 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 1 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) Albemarle County Planning Commission March 1, 2011 ZMA-2010-00012 King Property PROPOSAL: Rezone .85 acre of a 1.775 acre parcel from Rural Areas (RA) zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Light Industrial (LI) zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). Remainder of the parcel is zoned Light Industrial. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 352 Rio Road W (Rt. 631) at intersection with Four Seasons Drive TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000025A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Judith Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The purpose of this rezoning is to rezone a portion of a site that is now zoned Rural Areas with the other portion zoned Light Industrial, so that both portions will have the same LI zoning. She pointed out the location of the property and its proximity to Rio Road and the entrance to Four Seasons Drive. The property backs up to Squirrel Path, which is in the rural areas. Some of the property in the back was designated by VDOT for a future Western Bypass. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for Rural Area designation. This is the current zoning. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance in 1980 the property was zoned Light Industrial. The property was two separate properties at one time. The parcels were joined in 1982, but the zoning was left split. She presented an aerial photo of the property, which shows the residential property behind the property. There was significant tree coverage in the area. There is one small residence in the middle of the parcel, which is just under two acres in size. The property is located in the South Fork Rivanna water supply or watershed. Because of the water shed and other concerns related to this, the applicant has proffered to remove one of the by-right uses listed under Light Industrial. They would remove assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off site. Staff basically has no problem and were happy to recommend that both halves of the parcel be zoned Light Industrial. One reservation staff has is that this property is in the water supply and watershed. Staff is concerned about what could possibly happen on this property with various types of Light Industrial uses. Staff has considered this and has talked with the applicant about it. It is a small site. So many industrial type uses would simply not be possible here because of the size of the site. In addition, the fact that it is located in an Entrance Corridor would mean it would have to meet certain regulations. So things like storage yards might not be approvable depending on how they chose to try to lay something out. Staff also recognizes that any business that might go in that would have actual hazardous ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 2 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) material would also have a course of monitoring and tracking system. So staff is not particularly worried about that because it would be very carefully supervised. They also note that the surrounding property that is also zoned Light Industrial does not have any kind of restrictions on it in the form of proffers or other restrictions. Basically, what staff would like to do at this point is go through the list of by-right uses as attached to the staff report. There are a couple that staff wants to ask questions about. Staff is open to questions from the Commission. The uses found in the Light Industrial District by right are compounding of drugs, fire and rescue stations, and then a whole series of manufacturing, processing, and fabrication and so on of various uses. Staff sees some potential issues, but it is hard to tell from this exactly what people would be using. Again, if it were a hazardous waste, it would be tracked and monitored. Staff had some reservations about photographic equipment because the process uses chemicals. Staff was okay with most of the by right uses. Number 8 is the one the applicant has agreed to proffer out, which is the assembly and fabrication of light aircraft. The storage yard use would have to be approved by the Architectural Review Board. Staff also looked at engineering, engineering design and assembly work because it could involve materials and might generate vibrations and noise. Staff found favorable factors as the rezoning would address the unique location circumstances of the parcel, which is currently split into two zoning districts. It would also make it consistent with the surrounding property. Staff found that unfavorable factors include the proffers removing only one potential use, as stated in the staff report. Staff is concerned that there is insufficient commitment to watershed and water supply protection because only one use was proffered out. Staff doesn‟t recommend approval of this rezoning unless some commitment is made to limit the uses to those appropriate in the location, particularly relating to the water supply watershed. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Lafferty asked who owned the triangular piece of property behind the site. Ms. Wiegand responded that VDOT owns it, and confirmed that if VDOT sells it the property owner would have the first option to buy it since that piece was originally part of this property. The owner of the property is trying to rezone the property with the intention of selling it. He wanted to have one zoning on the property so someone would more likely be able to use it if sold. So there is no plan proffered as part of this nor is there a specific use being requested. She did not know if the property was sold if it would go back to this owner or another one. Mr. Lafferty commented that the previous owner would have first right of refusal to buy the property back at the price VDOT paid for it. If that is the case, he understands that VDOT has to do something very soon. He asked if they are doing “a creep down toward the reservoir” and will the applicant come back in. That would be his concern. Ms. Wiegand noted that was a question for the applicant. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 3 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) Mr. Morris commented that he went by the location today, and the parking lot on the adjacent property was full of Century Link vehicles. He asked who actually occupies the site. Ms. Wiegand responded that Century Link is in one of the buildings and the property that VDOT has acquired is in the back. Mr. Morris asked if staff would be in favor of the application if the potential uses were proffered out not to be used. Ms. Wiegand replied that staff would feel more comfortable with those removed. Mr. Loach asked why the piece of land wasn‟t included in the LI zoning that‟s all around it, and whether there were any limitations placed on the surrounding properties. Ms. Wiegand responded that she is not aware of any restrictions placed on adjacent properties. Apparently, only one of the parcels was included in the rezoning when it changed to LI. Mr. Cilimberg noted that this is somewhat like other properties the Commission has seen in projects, such as Restore „N Station – which had old zoning predating the 1980 zoning of the county, and what was done in 1980 was essentially reflecting the zoning that was in place. For whatever reason one of these parcels originally had Light Industrial zoning and then the parcels were combined. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. David Cook, representing the applicant Steve King, stated that they don‟t have anything more to add to what Ms. Wiegand has already presented. They are here to answer specific questions. There are no specific plans for the property at this time. The applicant wants to create a more saleable property b y having consistent LI zoning on the property. It just seems to make more sense. They don‟t have anyone interested in the property at this time. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Morris asked if the applicant would be willing to include the additional proffers to restrict possible uses on #8, #9, and #10. Mr. Cilimberg noted that #8 was already included. Mr. Cook said when they were trying to come up with uses to proffer it was difficult because Mr. King is not the ultimate end user. Mr. King did not want to paint himself into a corner by limiting the property. They felt that at some point whatever the next use might be, they are going to come back before the Board anyway to get a permit to operate. Mr. Zobrist noted that maybe not, which was the problem. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 4 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) Mr. King noted that in order to get a business permit to operate they are going to have to come back and go through the necessary process to get the approvals. The size will limit some uses. However, because it is so uncertain what the next use might be they are reluctant to load it up and get the LI zoning, but not be able to do anything with it. That‟s why they were hesitant to put too many proffers in there right now. Mr. Zobrist commented that it‟s difficult to rezone it when the intended use is not known, and staff is recommending against it. Mr. Cook stated that the applicant is in agreement with the four proffer restrictions that staff has presented. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski, an adjacent neighbor, supported the proposal. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, stated the question here is whether the need is there for additional concerns to the water supply watershed. He asked if Albemarle County is not checking industrial endeavors now. Right now if they place this on the property, they will have one-half of the property that has the zoning conditioned. Effectively they get it on the other side. He was not certain that a great gain is made here because he believed that through zoning clearances and other issues that the County has through a site plan, etc. to deal with these issues, that he was not sure it belongs in a rezoning discussion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission. Mr. Lafferty commented that maybe the conditions should be made on the whole property. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the rezoning applies only to the .5 acre portion of the entire parcel. The proffers would apply only to the portion being rezoned. This is an unusual type of proffer dealing with off-site impacts. That may be possible. The other option may be that it needs to go through to rezone the entire parcel, which is typical where they have land that is already rezoned and the applicant wants to amend the proffers to rezone the entire portion. It may be from LI to LI, but it is with the addition of new proffers. Mr. Zobrist asked if the applicant would have to file a new zoning application and start over again. On the other hand, could they add the balance. Mr. Zobrist replied that he would let Community Development staff answer that. They can look at the issue as to whether or not the proffer could be amended. The Commission could recommend that the proffer be amended to put the limitation on the entire parcel, “but that‟s really stretching beyond the boundaries of the land that‟s being rezoned.” Staff can take a look at that question. He pointed out this is a different situation from an applicant who is offering to build an offsite road or something like that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 5 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) Mr. Lafferty said that he shares Mr. Williamson‟s concern about the proximity to the drinking water “and it‟s all downhill” to the reservoir. Everything is going to drain right into the reservoir. Mr. Zobrist commented that Mr. Williamson was contending that there shouldn‟t be limitations put on LI. Mr. Loach stated that Mr. Williamson was saying that the conditions for the water protection would fall under the site plan review, not the proffers themselves. Mr. Zobrist asked if that was what he meant. Mr. Lafferty replied that he thought the reason the proffers came up is the protection. Ms. Porterfield pointed out during the time she has been on the Commission there have been at least two schools that have tried to go in on that side of the road. One proposal was turned down. The other proposal was a work session and did not get good feedback so it did not come back. If they are turning down schools due to watershed concerns, then she thought they have to be careful with industrial property. Mr. Loach agreed. Mr. Cilimberg noted this rezoning is for less than ½ of the total property. If they were going to develop this property industrially, it would likely be built on both sides of the line. The proffer being applied to this parted line is practically going to impose this limitation on the whole parcel. He did not know if it is a critical matter that they have to have the whole parcel under the proffer limitation. It practically, due to its size, is going to be limited if they feel like there should be a limitation. Mr. Zobrist suggested that they simplify it. He asked Mr. King if he would be willing to proffer the four conditions to apply to the whole property. Mr. King agreed that he would. Ms. Porterfield asked if that was possible. Mr. Kamptner replied that the Commission could recommend that. Staff would analyze it in between now and the Board meeting to see if that was practical. He thought what Mr. Cilimberg said was true giving the very small size of the parcel. MOTION: Mr. Lafferty moved for approval of ZMA-2010-00012 King Property with the entire parcel being subject to the four conditions as discussed. Mr. Franco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00012, would go before Board of Supervisors on a date to be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 1, 2011 6 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL (March 22, 2011) determined with a recommendation for approval subject to the proffer as recommended by staff and as amended to delete four uses and to apply such deletion to the entire parcel. Staff to determine legality of applying proffers to the entire parcel between now and the Board meeting. (Set Out Recommended Proffer Changes, as follows:) The uses of the Property permitted by right shall be all those uses allowed by right under Section 27.2.1 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, as that section is in effect on [date of rezoning action], 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, except for: Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as but not limited to: - Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant. (section 27.2.1(3)) Assembly and fabrication of light aircraft from component parts manufactured off-site (section 27.2.1(8)); Storage yard (section 27.2.1(9)); Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry (section 27.2.1(10)) Return to PC actions letter