Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-5-11Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E MAY 11, 2011 6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Amendment to the Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School. To consider increasing the square footage in the lease agreement between the County and the Field School of Charlottesville for part of the Old Crozet School 8. Grant sewer easement to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) across property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to the Scottsville Recreation Center situated on the south side of and adjoining Bird Street (TMPs 131-81A and 130A2-76). This easement is necessary to allow the ACSA to rehabilitate, maintain and operate an existing sanitary sewer line across this property. 9. Grant gas line easement to City of Charlottesville across property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to Hollymead Town Center, situated on the west side of and adjoining U.S. Route 29 (Parcel ID 04600-00- 00-005A0). This line and easement are requested to extend natural gas service to nearby properties, including portions of Hollymead Town Center. 10. Lease of Jessup House property to Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), consider the lease of the Jessup House property, jointly owned by the County and the City of Charlottesville, located at 614 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (Parcel 111 on City of Charlottesville Real Property Tax Map 53) to Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC for up to an additional five- year term, ending June 30, 2015. 11. Real Estate Tax Exemption For Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons. An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Sec. 15-702, Definitions and Sec. 15-705, Amount of exemption, regarding real estate tax exemptions for certain elderly and disabled persons. The amendment would revise the definitions of “net combined financial worth” and “total combined income” and would limit real property tax exemptions for the elderly and/or disabled to the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated, to conform to recent amendments to Virginia Code § 58.1-3212. 12. Real Estate Tax Exemption For Disabled Veterans. An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by adding Sec. 15-1603. Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption. The amendment would establish a property tax exemption for certain disabled veterans and their surviving spouses now mandated by Article X, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia and subsequently enacted state law for tax years on or after January 1, 2011. The amendment also would establish the process for eligible veterans and their surviving spouses to apply for the exemption. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110511/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:47:46 PM] Tentative 13. Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program. To receive comments on the County’s Priority List of secondary road improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget. 14. PROJECT: ZMA-2010-00016. Woolen Mills (Sign #90). PROPOSAL: Rezone .588 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to R-4, Residential zoning district which allows residential uses and 4 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 2 for a density of 2 units/acre. PROFFERS: No 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 and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Neighborhood 4. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 1911 & 1913 East Market Street TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/21F MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. 15. PROJECT: SP-2010-00010. Ivy Creek United Methodist Church (Sign# 23). PROPOSAL: Special use permit to bring church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church facility to construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re-construct parking area on a total of 2.973 acres ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (35) Church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas (RA 1) - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/residential density .5 units/acre in development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 674 Woodlands Road (Rt. 676) west of Green Meadows Lane TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04400000001400 (church/cemetery); 044000000012H0 (parsonage) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. 16. PROJECT: ZMA-2010-03. Morey Creek Professional Center (Concurrent with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure). PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.606 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 SF daycare center, and parking structure. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. Concurrent with ZMA2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): PROJECT: SP 2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03). PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures. (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 2010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC. LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to the west of Buckingham Circle. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076000000012A0 & 076000000012G0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. 17. PROJECT: SP-2011-00006. Elks Farmers Market (Sign #103). PROPOSAL: Farmers Market on 6.34 acres; no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R1 Residential (1 unit/acre). SECTION: 13.2.2.14 Farmers Market. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential which allows 6.01-34 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 389 Elk Drive approximately 265 feet from intersection of Elk Drive and Rt 20N. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 19. Adjourn. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110511/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:47:46 PM] Tentative CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 FY 11/12 Resolution of Appropriations. 6.2 Approval of Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) Grant Award and Authorization for County Executive to Request Release of the Governor’s Opportunity Fund (GOF) Grant Award and Execute Performance Agreements for MicroAire Expansion Project. 6.3 Resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign an amended Appendix A to the VDOT Project Administration Agreement and an amended Pass-Through Agreement with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. 6.4 Resolution accepting Thurman offer to sell conservation easement. 6.5 Resolution to accept road(s) in Hollymead Towncenter Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. 6.6 Resolution of Support Opposing Increases in Truck Weights and Lengths. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110511/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:47:46 PM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 11/12 Resolution of Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Approval of the Resolution of Appropriations for the Albemarle County Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 11/12 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County’s FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2011, for a total projected amount of $304,473,215. On April 28, 2011, the School Board officially adopted the School Fund and the School Self-Sustaining Fund budgets. The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2011 provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1, 2010. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive resolution appropriates the total County budget, including both general government and school operating and capital funds, School Self-Sustaining and initial Special Revenue Fund appropriations in a single resolution. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 11/12 (Attachment A) that allocates a total of $304,394,001 to various General Government and School Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 11/12. The FY 11/12 total budget recommended for appropriation is $79,214 less than the budget formally adopted by the Board on April 6, 2011 due to changes in the School Fund and School Self -Sustaining Funds. The appropriated budget reflects the School Fund and School Self -Sustaining Funds that were approved by the School Board at its April 28, 2011 meeting. This appropriation is made up of the following major funds: General Fund $215,581,818 School Fund 144,491,184 School Self-Sustaining 20,545,906 Special Revenue 14,263,381 Capital Projects 18,649,535 Debt Service 17,352,676 TOTAL $430,884,500 Less Inter-fund Transfers ($126,490,499) GRAND TOTAL $304,394,001 In accordance with the Capital Budget, staff also recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing (Attachment B). This would allow the County to use up to $23,772,286 in bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget for expenditures as indicated in Attachment B Exhibit A. ATTACHMENTS A: Annual Resolution of Appropriations B: Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS: Refunds and Abatements $173,500 Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT Board of Supervisors $577,562 County Attorney $911,527 County Executive $960,995 Department of Finance $4,117,239 Department of Human Resources $662,770 Department of Information Technology $2,487,297 Management and Budget $290,222 Voter Registration/ Elections $547,543 $10,555,155 Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL Circuit Court $110,945 Clerk of the Circuit Court $669,016 Commonwealth's Attorney $910,408 General District Court $23,894 Juvenile Court $119,229 Magistrate $4,425 Sheriff's Office $2,013,438 $3,851,355 Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department $6,807,669 Building Codes and Inspections $1,060,583 Community Attention Home $60,149 Department of Police $13,051,415 Emergency Communications Center $2,066,831 Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville)$845,638 Fire/Rescue Tax Credit $59,500 Forest Fire Extinguishment $23,786 Juvenile Detention Center $710,900 Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)$156,936 Regional Jail Authority $3,378,990 SPCA Contract $477,440 Thomas Jefferson EMS Council $19,257 VJCCCA $52,231 Volunteer Fire Departments $1,343,877 Volunteer Rescue Squads $432,910 $30,548,112 Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS Facilities Development Department $866,608 General Services $3,174,503 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority $350,000 $4,391,111 Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: Page 1 Attachment A AIDS Support Group $4,762 Arc of the Piedmont Infant Development Program $8,969 Boys and Girls Club $13,044 Bright Stars Transfer $757,287 BRMC - Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,225 Charlottesville Free Clinic $112,310 Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)$95,550 Commission on Children & Families (CCF)$96,591 Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $2,510,747 Computers4Kids $14,876 Department of Social Services $11,397,968 Health Department $551,444 JAUNT $922,025 Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)$283,283 Jefferson Area CHIP $316,539 Legal Aid Justice Center $36,935 Madison House $10,369 Music Resource Center $5,759 Piedmont CASA $8,924 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)$22,524 Piedmont Workforce Network $13,943 Region Ten Community Services $575,226 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)$22,220 Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)$88,875 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $1,000,000 United Way $117,081 $18,992,476 Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE African American Festival $2,727 Ash-Lawn Highland $9,239 Darden Towe Park Transfer $152,262 Department of Parks & Recreation $2,194,476 Hatton Ferry $5,000 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Regional $1,006,082 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Charlottesville-Albemarle $1,616,949 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Crozet Library $245,815 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Scottsville Library $160,976 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Extension Services $190,461 Literacy Volunteers $25,287 Municipal Band $16,535 Piedmont Council of the Arts $11,676 Virginia Discovery Museum $11,115 Virginia Festival of the Book $10,872 Virginia Film Festival $14,889 Visitors Bureau $557,604 WHTJ Public Television $2,484 WVPT Public Television $2,484 $6,236,933 Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)$399,467 Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation $6,237 Central Virginia Small Business Development Center $7,878 Charlottesville Transit Service $648,004 Department of Community Development $3,865,534 Housing Office $516,952 Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)$115,645 Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)$38,268 Planning District Commission (TJPDC)$109,375 Soil and Water Conservation $96,355 Stream Watch $10,378 VPI Extension Service $203,859 $6,017,952 Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund - Recurring $134,081 Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund - One-Time $484,222 Page 2 Attachment A Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $88,779 Transfer to Storm Water Fund $104,500 $811,582 Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT Revenue Sharing Agreement $18,089,812 Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS Economic Development Fund $25,000 Reserve for Contingencies $723,631 Salary Contingency - Reclassifications $225,000 Transfer to General Government Debt Service $3,909,047 Transfer to School Division Debt Service $12,956,228 Transfer to School Fund - Recurring $97,245,582 Transfer to Vehicle Replacement Fund $141,500 VERIP Program $687,842 $115,913,830 Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$215,581,818 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $185,255,457 Revenue from Local Sources - Transfers $2,700,794 Revenue from the Commonwealth $22,952,060 Revenue from the Federal Government $4,673,507 Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$215,581,818 Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND Administration, Attendance & Health $6,564,048 Facilities Construction/ Modification $162,100 Facilities Operation/ Maintenance $13,927,921 Instruction $109,063,641 Pupil Transportation Services $8,608,670 Technology $2,247,256 Other Uses of Funds $3,917,548 Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$144,491,184 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$97,245,582 Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,060,705 Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over, Transfers $3,227,034 Revenue from the Commonwealth $39,756,487 Revenue from the Federal Government $3,201,376 Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$144,491,184 SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND (Fund 2000) SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: Page 3 Attachment A Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES (Fund 3000) Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias $5,136,803 Summer Feeding $300,500 Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,437,303 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $3,486,619 Revenue from the Commonwealth $76,000 Revenue from the Federal Government $1,874,684 Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,437,303 Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3205) Special Ed Pre-School Program $64,233 Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $64,233 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $64,233 Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$64,233 Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND (Fund 3501) Payment to County Schools $10,000 Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$10,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000 Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$10,000 Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM C. B. I. P. Severe (Fund 3201)$1,102,769 E. D. Program (Fund 3202)$787,986 Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,890,755 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees $1,890,755 Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,890,755 Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS Adult Education (Fund 3115)$126,500 Carl Perkins (Fund 3207)$150,000 Chapter I (Fund 3101)$1,600,000 Migrant Education (Fund 3103)$147,000 Title II (Fund 3203)$490,000 English Literacy/Civics (Fund 3221)$166,500 Economically Dislocated Workers (Fund 3116)$60,000 Title III (Fund 3215)$126,000 21st Century Grant (Fund 3219)$163,177 Technology Challenge Grant (Fund 3131)$15,776 Race to GED (Fund 3309)$60,000 Page 4 Attachment A Families in Crisis (Fund 3304)$75,000 Safe Schools (Fund 3316)$778,766 Healthy Students (3317)$704,360 ARRA (Fund 3162)$1,314,905 TITLE I 1003A-GREER ELEM (3172)$175,608 MIGRNT CONSORT INCNTV GRT $24,733 Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$6,178,325 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $80,000 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$50,000 Revenue from the Federal Government $6,048,325 Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year June 30, 2012:$6,178,325 Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3300) Community Education $1,619,213 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,619,213 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$1,619,213 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,619,213 Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL (Fund 3310) Summer School $460,561 Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$460,561 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$149,621 Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$171,440 Miscellaneous Revenues $2,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $137,500 Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$460,561 Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT (Fund 3905) School Bus Replacement $985,270 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$985,270 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$985,270 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$985,270 Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND (Fund 3145) AIMR Summer Rental $446,010 Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$446,010 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (rental)$446,010Page 5 Attachment A Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$446,010 Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 3910) Vehicle Maintenance 918,437 Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$918,437 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Charges)$918,437 Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$918,437 Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3133) General Adult Education $15,000 Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$15,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $5,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $10,000 Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$15,000 Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND (Fund 3305) Drivers Safety Fund $435,600 Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$435,600 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$375,100 Revenue from the Commonwealth $60,500 Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$435,600 Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND (Fund 3306) Open Doors Fund $123,000 Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$123,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$119,000 Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)$4,000 Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$123,000 Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS Special Education Jail Program (Fund 3212)$152,024 Algebra Readiness (Fund 3152)$33,063 Individualized Student Alternative Education (Fund 3142)$23,576 Teacher Mentor Program (Fund 3151)$11,865 Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$220,528 To be provided as follows: Page 6 Attachment A Revenue from the Commonwealth $220,528 Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$220,528 Paragraph Fifteen: COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL Community Charter School (Fund 3380)$95,671 Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$95,671 Page 7 Attachment A To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $95,671 Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$95,671 Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 3907) Computer Equipment Replacement Fund $1,000,000 Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,000,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$1,000,000 Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,000,000 Paragraph Seventeen KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY (Fund 3157) Kluge-Club Yancey $30,000 Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$30,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $30,000 Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$30,000 Paragraph Eighteen: FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE (Fund 3502) Foundation for Excellence $12,000 Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE appropriations for fiscal year ending $12,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Miscellaneous)$12,000 Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$12,000 Paragraph Nineteen: Textbook Replacement Fund Textbook Replacement $500,000 Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer)$500,000 Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$500,000 Paragraph Twenty: American History Grant American History $104,000 Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $104,000 Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$104,000Page 8 Attachment A GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS $20,545,906 Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND (Fund 1551) Comprehensive Services Act Program Expenditures $6,752,793 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$6,752,793 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$2,510,747 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$763,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $3,180,981 Revenue from Fund Balance $298,065 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$6,752,793 Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND (Fund 1553) Bright Stars Program $1,085,545 Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,085,545 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$757,287 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$95,535 Revenue from the Commonwealth $232,723 Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,085,545 Paragraph Three: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND (Fund 4200) Darden Towe Memorial Park $243,030 Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$243,030 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from the General Fund)$152,262 Revenue from Other Local Sources $90,768 Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$243,030 Paragraph Four: MJ HEALTH GRANT (Fund 1563) MJ Health Grant $5,000 TOTAL MJ HEALTH GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources $5,000 Total MJ HEALTH GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,000 Paragraph Five: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 9150) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Page 9 Attachment A Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $41,621 TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$41,621 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $41,621 Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$41,621 Paragraph Six: TOURISM FUND (Fund 1810) Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund)$1,312,500 Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,312,500 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $1,312,500 Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$1,312,500 Paragraph Seven: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND (Fund 1520) Criminal Justice Grant Programs $751,590 Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$751,590 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $35,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$716,590 Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$751,590 Paragraph Eight: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND (Fund 1225) Victim-Witness Program $110,606 Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$110,606 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$27,757 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$82,849 Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$110,606 Paragraph Nine: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND (Fund 1208) Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding $12,000 Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$12,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant)$9,600 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$1,200 Local Funds (Transfer from the General Fund)$1,200 Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$12,000 Paragraph Ten: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND (Fund 1227) Page 10 Attachment A Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to General Fund)$296,000 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments $2,706,000 Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$3,002,000 Page 11 Attachment A To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $3,002,000 Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$3,002,000 Paragraph Eleven: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 9200) Vehicle Replacement $824,760 Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$824,760 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$823,610 Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,150 Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$824,760 Paragraph Twelve: OAK HILL REHABILITATION (Fund 1219) Transfer to General Fund $33,510 Total OAK HILL REHABILITATION appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$33,510 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Fund Balance $33,510 Total OAK HILL REHABILITATION resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$33,510 Paragraph Thirteen: ENERGY BLOCK GRANT (Fund 1583) Transfer to General Fund $27,625 Total ENERGY BLOCK GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$27,625 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Federal Sources (Grant)$27,625 Total ENERGY BLOCK GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$27,625 Paragraph Fourteen: OLD CROZET SCHOOL (Fund 8610) Old Crozet School Operations $60,801 Total OLD CROZET SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$60,801 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $60,801 Total OLD CROZET SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$60,801 GRAND TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $14,263,381 SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:Page 12 Attachment A Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATION Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal $470,250 Voting Machine Replacement $223,630 $693,880 Paragraph Two: COURTS Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $231,990 J&DR Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects $17,765 Old Jail Facility Maintenance $16,720 $266,475 Paragraph Three: PUBLIC SAFETY ECC CAD $571,760 Ivy Fire Station $1,907,439 Police Mobile Data Computers $329,175 Police Patrol Video Cameras $78,312 VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement $1,385,148 $4,271,834 Paragraph Four: PUBLIC WORKS County Facilities - Maintenance/Replacement $337,535 COB McIntire Brick Mortar/Repointing $982,300 Ivy Landfill Remediation $546,535 Moores Creek Septage Receiving $114,366 Storage Facility Lease $54,000 $2,034,736 Paragraph Five: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Revenue Sharing Roads Program $484,222 Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE Parks - Maintenance/Replacement $442,035 $442,035 Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES Northside Library Repair/Maintenance $15,675 Scottsville Library Repair/Maintenance $5,225 $20,900 Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $407,550 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$8,621,632 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$618,303 Other Local Sources (including Proffers)$437,109 Loan Proceeds $3,711,640 Use of Fund Balance $3,854,580 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$8,621,632 Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000) Page 13 Attachment A Administrative Technology $191,235 Greer Addition Renovation $4,084,675 Instructional Technology $600,875 Local Area Network Upgrade $522,500 Schools Maintenance/Replacement $3,594,278 Storage Facility Lease $144,000 Technology Grant $785,840 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$9,923,403 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$88,779 Other Local Sources (including Proffers)$20,000 State Technology Grant $752,000 VPSA Bonds $6,838,280 Fund Balance $2,224,344 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$9,923,403 Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS Storm Water Control Program $104,500 Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$104,500 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$104,500 Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9900) Debt Service Payments - School Division $13,160,451 Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$13,160,451 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$12,956,228 Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)$204,223 Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$13,160,451 Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9910) Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt Service Payment $826,556 Debt Service Payments - General Government $3,351,877 Bond Issuance Cost $13,792 That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$104,500 That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: SECTION VII: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100) Page 14 Attachment A Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$4,192,225 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $283,178 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$3,909,047 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$4,192,225 GRAND TOTAL - DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $17,352,676 Appropriations: Section I General Fund $215,581,818 Section II School Fund $144,491,184 Section III Other School Funds $20,545,906 Section IV Other Special Revenue Funds $14,263,381 Section V General Government Capital Improvements Fund $8,621,632 Section VI School Division Capital Improvements Fund $9,923,403 Section VII Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $104,500 Section VIII Debt Service $17,352,676 $430,884,500 Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($126,490,499) GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $304,394,001 Paragraph One: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND Emergency Communications Center $5,124,558 Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,124,558 To be provided as follows: Albemarle County $2,066,028 City of Charlottesville $1,744,996 University of Virginia $536,337 Revenue from Other Local Sources $284,051 Revenue from the Commonwealth $480,000 Revenue from the Federal Government $13,146 Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:$5,124,558 SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2012 RECAPITULATION: SECTION IX: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution. SECTION IX TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN Page 15 Attachment A Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on May 11, 2011. realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Acting Director of Finance (R. Edward Koonce, III) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts. Paragraph One Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional, and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Five Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the rate established by the County Executive for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time. This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and eleven. All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Six All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven Page 16 Attachment A Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow Mr. Thomas Page 17 Attachment B RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that: 1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $23,772,286. 2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt. 3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower. 4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years. 5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on May 11, 2011. _________________________________ Clerk, County Board of Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ___ ___ Mr. Dorrier ___ ___ Ms. Mallek ___ ___ Mr. Rooker ___ ___ Mr. Snow ___ ___ Mr. Thomas ___ ___ Attachment B Exhibit A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED PROJECTS FY 2011/12 Schools Amount 1. Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovation $ 3,908,780 2. School Maintenance Projects 2,929,500 Schools Subtotal $ 6,838,280 General Fund Amount 1. Voting Machine Replacement $ 214,000 2. Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal 450,000 3. Police Mobile Data Computers 315,000 4. ECC CAD 547,140 5. VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement 1,325,500 6. COB McIntire Brick Mortar/Repointing 470,000 7. County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade 390,000 General Fund Subtotal $ 3,711,640 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2011/12 PROJECTS $10,549,920 PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BONDED General Fund Amount 1. Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Renovations $ 3,740,552 3. Ivy Fire Station $250,000 4. Fire Rescue Apparatus $3,606,794 5. Crozet Ladder Truck $ 1,167,800 6. Hollymead Fire Apparatus $ 457,777 7. Crozet Streetscapes Phase II* $1,890,839 8. Crozet Library* $1,600,000 9. County IT Infrastructure/Server Upgrade $ 508,603 General Fund Subtotal $13,222,366 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $23,772,286 *Project previously anticipated to be funded or partially funded with cash. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: MicroAire Expansion Project SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) Grant Award and Authorization for County Executive to Request Release of the Governor’s Opportunity Fund (GOF) Grant Award and Execute Performance Agreements for MicroAire Expansion Project STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Ms. Catlin, and Ms. Stimart. LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 1995, MicroAire moved its headquarters from Valencia, California to Albemarle County, Virginia. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Colsen Group and has over 1,500 catalogue items that are sold worldwide. The company's cost-containment pricing and quality craftsmanship have kept MicroAire positioned as a top manufacturer in the medical device industry. Their headquarters are located in the UVA Research Park, on the only parcel not owned by the Real Estate Foundation. The company currently has approximately 132 employees. MicroAire recently acquired several new products lines that require additional space beyond what is available in their facility in the Research Park, and following a site selection search the company purchased a second facility in Albemarle County – the vacant U. S. Postal Services facility at 3590 Grand Forks Boulevard. The expansion project qualified for and was awarded a Governor’s Opportunity Fund (GOF) grant and also qualifies for an Albemarle County Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) grant due to the level of capital investment and the number and average wage level of the new jobs to be created. Both of these grant awards are conditioned upon performance agreements between the County, the Albemarle Economic Development Authority (EDA), and MicroAire. Staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve a $150,000 Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) award and authorize County Executive Tom Foley to request release of the GOF grant award and to execute the performance agreements on behalf of Albemarle County. DISCUSSION: State Incentives Package The GOF has a minimum threshold of $5 million in capital investment and 50 jobs created at higher than prevailing average annual wages that must be met or exceeded before a project can qualify. The MicroAire expansion project received a $100,000 GOF grant award based on the company’s commitment to $8 million in capital investment ($6 million to purchase the building and an additional $2 million in building renovation and upfit) and to the creation of 51 new jobs at an average annual salary of $56,937, which is well above the County average of $44,564. The job descriptions range from janitorial to engineer, CNC machinist, regional manager regulatory manager, cost accountant. This expansion will create a variety of career ladder job opportunities with full benefits. In addition to the GOF grant, the state’s incentives package will include $51,000 in Jobs Investment Grant funding from the Department of Business Assistance. The GOF grant is conditioned upon a performance agreement between Albemarle County, the Albemarle County EDA, and MicroAire. The agreement stipulates, among other conditions, that: MicroAire will develop and operate the new facility with a capital investment of at least $8,000,000 and maintain at least 51 new jobs at the facility, all as of the performance date of May 1, 20 14. If the County, in consultation with the EDA and VEDP, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made to achieve the targets, the County may agree to extend the performance date by up to 15 months. AGENDA TITLE: MicroAire Expansion Project May 11, 2011 Page 2 VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break-even point” by the performance date of May 1, 2014. The break-even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility with the Commonwealth’s expenditures on incentives, including but not limited to the GOF Grant. MicroAire is responsible for repayment obligations if certain requirements are not met, with details of those obligations depending on the percentage of the target that is achieved. Albemarle County Economic Opportunity Fund Albemarle County established an Economic Opportunity Fund in 2007 to “address unemployment and underemployment of County residents by assisting County businesses in providing higher wage permanent jobs by providing matching funding to federal or state economic development projects”. The MicroAire expansion project meets the EOF minimum requirements for consideration, which stipulate that the project meet or exceed the minimum GOF thresholds of $5 million in investment and 50 new jobs created. The MicroAire expansion project also fulfills all EOF evaluation criteria which include high wage jobs, local workforce recruitment and development , matching funds, tangible benefits to the community, and consistency with county goals and objectives. Based on the appropriateness of the MicroAire project for EOF funding, the Board is requested to approve a $150,000 EOF grant award for the project. The EOF grant is also conditioned upon a performance agreement between Albemarle County, the Albemarle County EDA, and MicroAire. The agreement stipulates, among other conditions, that: MicroAire will develop and operate the new facility with a capital investment of at least $8,000,000 and maintain at least 51 new jobs at the facility, all as of the performance date of May 1, 2014. If the County, in consultation with the EDA and MicroAire, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made to achieve the targets, the County may agree to extend the performance date by up to 15 months. The County is estimated to reach its “break-even point”, which compares new revenues generated by the facility with the amount of the EOF grant, by May 1, 2015. MicroAire is responsible for repayment obligations if certain requirements are not met, with details of those obligations depending on the percentage of the target that is achieved. Next Steps Following the Board’s authorization, County Executive Tom Foley will sign both performance agreements on behalf of the County. The performance agreements must also be approved by the EDA and signed by representatives of the EDA and MicroAire. Once the performance agreements are fully executed, Mr. Foley will submit the signed GOF performance agreement and a request for the disbursement of the GOF grant to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. When the County receives the GOF grant funds, staff will request that the Board of Supervisors reappropriate the GOF funds and the EOF funds to the EDA. The EDA, pursuant to the performance agreement, will then disburse the funds to MicroAire. BUDGET IMPACT: This action will authorize a reallocation of $150,000 from the Economic Opportunity Fund. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the $150,000 EOF grant award and authorize County Executive Tom Foley to request release of the $100,000 Governor’s Opportunity Fund grant for MicroAire from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and to sign the required performance agreements on behalf of Albemarle County. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – GOF Performance Agreement Attachment B – EOF Performance Agreement Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 1 Attachment A GOVERNOR’S DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this ____ day of May, 2011, by and among the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “Locality”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Commonwealth”), MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware limited liability company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, and the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the “Authority”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Locality has received a grant of and expects to receive $100,000 from the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund (a “GOF Grant”) through the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority (“VEDP”) for the purpose of inducing the Company to purchase and improve an existing facility in the Locality for manufacturing space (the “Facility”), thereby making a significant Capital Investment, as hereinafter defined, and creating a significant number of New Jobs, as hereinafter defined; WHEREAS, the Locality is willing to provide the funds to the Authority with the expectation that the Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets certain criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs; WHEREAS, the Locality, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and agreement as to the payout of the GOF Grant, the use of the GOF Grant proceeds, the obligations of the Company regarding Capital Investment and New Job creation, and the repayment by the Company of all or part of the GOF Grant under certain circumstances; WHEREAS, the purchase, improvement and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure of approximately $8,000,000, of which approximately $1,000,000 will be invested in fixtures and equipment, approximately $6,000,000 will be invested in the purchase of an existing building and approximately $1,000,000 will be invested in the up-fit of the building, and will further entail the creation of 51 New Jobs in the Locality; and WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated by the Capital Investment and New Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is the animating purpose for the GOF Grant: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows. GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 2 Section 1. Disbursement of GOF Grant. The GOF Grant in the amount of $100,000 will be paid to the Locality, upon its request. Within 30 days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Locality will disburse the GOF Grant proceeds to the Authority. Within 30 days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Authority will disburse the GOF Grant proceeds to the Company as an inducement to the Company to achieve the Targets, as hereinafter defined, at the Facility. The Company will use the GOF Grant proceeds for the build out of a privately-owned building, as permitted by Section 2.2-115(C) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”). By no later than June 1, 2011, the Locality will request the disbursement to it of the GOF Grant. If not so requested by the Locality by June 1, 2011, this Agreement will terminate. The Locality and the Company will be entitled to reapply for a GOF Grant thereafter, based upon the terms, conditions and availability of funds at that time. Section 2. Targets; Definitions. The Company will develop and operate the Facility in the Locality, make a Capital Investment of at least $8,000,000, and create and Maintain, as hereinafter defined, at least 51 New Jobs at the Facility, all as of the Performance Date, as hereinafter defined. The average annual wage of the New Jobs of at least $56,937 is more than the prevailing average annual wage in the Locality of $45,999. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions: “Capital Investment” means a capital expenditure in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal property, or both, at the Facility. The total capital expenditure of $8,000,000 is referred to in this Agreement as the “Capital Investment.” “Maintain” means that the New Jobs created pursuant to the GOF Grant will continue without interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. Positions for the New Jobs will be treated as Maintained during periods in which such positions are not filled due to temporary reductions in the Company’s employment levels in connection with recruitment for open positions or strikes and other work stoppages. “New Job” means new permanent full-time employment of an indefinite duration at the Facility or at the Company’s existing facilities in the Locality for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company for the employee, and for which the Company pays an average annual wage of at least $56,937. Each New Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee’s time per week for the entire normal year of the Company’s operations, which “normal year” must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours per year. Seasona l or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing location in the Commonwealth outside the Locality, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 3 suppliers and similar multiplier or spin-off jobs shall not qualify as New Jobs. The New Jobs must be in addition to the Company’s 120 full-time jobs in the Locality as of December 1, 2010. “Performance Date” means May 1, 2014. If the Locality, in consultation with the Authority and VEDP, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Company to achieve the Targets, the Locality may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months. If the Performance Date is extended, the Locality shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority, the Company and VEDP and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the “Performance Date” for the purposes of this Agreement. “Targets” means the Company’s obligations to make Capital Investments at the Facility of at least $8,000,000 and to create at least 51 New Jobs in the Locality, all as of the Performance Date. Section 3. Break-Even Point; State and Local Incentives. VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break-even point” by the Performance Date. The break-even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility with the Commonwealth’s expenditures on incentives, including but not limited to the GOF Grant. With regard to the Facility, the Commonwealth expects to provide incentives in the following amounts: Category of Incentive: Total Amount GOF Grant $100,000 Virginia Jobs Investment Program (“VJIP”) (Estimated) 51,000 The Locality has committed to provide the following incentives, as matching grants or otherwise, for the Facility: Category of Incentive: Total Amount Local Economic Opportunity Fund Grant $150,000 The proceeds of the GOF Grant shall be used for the purposes described in Section 1. The VJIP grant proceeds shall be used by the Company to pay or reimburse itself for recruitment and training costs. The proceeds of the Locality’s Economic Opportunity Fund Grant may be used by the Company for the purchase of and improvements to the Facility. Section 4. Repayment Obligation. (a) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Not Met: Section 2.2-115 of the Virginia Code requires that the Company make a Capital Investment of at least $5,000,000 in the Facility and create at least 50 New Jobs at the Facility in order to be eligible for the GOF Grant. Failure by the Company to meet either of these eligibility requirements by the Performance Date shall GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 4 constitute a breach of this Agreement and the entire GOF Grant must be repaid by the Company to the Authority. (b) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Met: For purposes of repayment, the GOF Grant is to be allocated as $50,000 (50%) for the Company’s Capital Investment Target and $50,000 (50%) for its New Jobs Target. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90%) of its Capital Investment Target created and Maintained at least 50 New Jobs at the Performance Date, then and thereafter the Company is no longer obligated to repay any portion the GOF Grant. If the Company has not met at least ninety percent (90%) of its Capital Investment Target, the Company shall repay to the Authority that part of the GOF Grant that is proportional to that shortfall. For example, if at the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only $6,000,000 and at least 50 New Jobs have been created, the Company shall refund to the Authority twenty five percent (25%) of the moneys allocated to the Capital Investment Target ($12,500). There is no repayment necessary as to that portion of the GOF Grant allocable to the New Jobs Target if the Company has created at least 50 of the 51 promised New Jobs. As noted in subsection (a), the entire $100,000 GOF Grant must be repaid if the Company fails to create and Maintain at least 50 New Jobs. (c) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the Locality and VEDP shall determine at any time prior to the Performance Date (a “Determination Date”) that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the Locality or VEDP shall have promptly notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire GOF Grant to the Authority. (d) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Locality within thirty days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, as applicable. Any moneys repaid by the Company to the Authority hereunder shall be repaid by the Authority to the Locality and shall be repaid by the Locality promptly to VEDP for redeposit into the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund. The Locality shall use its best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for breach of this Agreement. The Locality shall have no responsibility for the repayment of any sums hereunder unless said sums have been received by the Authority from the Company. Section 5. Company Reporting. The Company shall provide, at the Company’s expense, detailed verification reasonably satisfactory to the Locality, the Authority and VEDP of the Company’s progress on the Targets. Such progress reports will be provided annually, starting at May 1, 2012, covering progress made during the previous calendar year and at such other times as the Locality, the Authority or VEDP may require. Section 6. Notices. Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 5 States Mail by certified mail, postage fully pre-paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier package not accepted by the addressee): if to the Company, to: with a copy to: MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC 1641 Edlich Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 Attention: Melissa Y. Payton MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC 1641 Edlich Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 Attention: George Saiz if to the Locality, to: with a copy to: Albemarle County Executive’s Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: Thomas C. Foley Albemarle County Finance Dept. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: R. Edward Koonce if to the Authority, to: with a copy to: Economic Development Authority Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: John Lowry Economic Development Authority Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: Ella Jordan if to VEDP, to: with a copy to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, 19th Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: President & CEO Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, 19th Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: General Counsel Section 7. Miscellaneous. (a) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto as to the GOF Grant and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Locality, the Authority and VEDP. (b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 6 Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] GOF Performance Agreement – MicroAire Surgical - 04282011 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By Name: Thomas C. Foley Title: County Executive Date: _______________________________ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Name: John Lowry Title: Chairman Date: _______________________________ MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC By Name: George Saiz Title: President Date: _______________________________ Draft: 05/03/11 1 Attachment B ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this ____ day of May, 2011, by and among the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “County”) a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the “Commonwealth”), MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware limited liability company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, and the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the “Authority”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County has received a grant of and expects to receive $100,000.00 from the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund (a “GOF Grant”) through the Virginia Economic Development Partnership Authority (“VEDP”) for the purpose of inducing the Company to expand and improve a manufacturing facility in Albemarle County (the “Facility”), thereby making a significant Capital Investment, as hereinafter defined, and creating a significant number of New Jobs, as hereinafter defined; WHEREAS, the County is willing to provide the GOF Grant funds to the Authority with the expectation that the Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets certain criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs; WHEREAS, the County also is willing to provide funds to the Authority from its Economic Opportunity Fund (the “EOF Grant”) as its local match to the GOF Grant with the expectation that the Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets certain criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs; WHEREAS, the County, the Authority and the Company have entered into a similar Performance Agreement pertaining to the parties rights and obligations related to the GOF Grant, and that agreement is entitled the “Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund Performance Agreement”; WHEREAS, the County, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and agreement as to the payout of the EOF Grant, the use of the EOF Grant proceeds, the obligations of the Company regarding Capital Investment and New Job creation, and the repayment by th e Company of all or part of the EOF Grant under certain circumstances; WHEREAS, the expansion and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure of approximately $8,000,000.00, of which approximately $1,000,000.00 will be invested in machinery and equipment, approximately $6,000,000 .00will be invested in the purchase of an existing building and approximately $1,000,000.00 will be invested in the up-fit of the building, and will further entail the creation of 51 New Jobs in the County; WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated Draft: 05/03/11 2 by the Capital Investment and New Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is the animating purpose for the EOF Grant: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows. Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions: “Capital Investment” means a capital expenditure in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal property, or both, at the Facility. The total capital expenditure of $8,000,000.00 is referred to in this Agreement as the “Capital Investment.” “Maintain” means that the New Jobs created pursuant to the GOF Grant and the EOF Grant will continue without interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. Positions for the New Jobs will be treated as Maintained during periods in which such positions are not filled due to temporary reductions in the Company’s employment levels in connection with recruitment for open positions or strikes and other work stoppages. “New Job” means new permanent full-time employment of an indefinite duration at the Facility or at the Company’s existing facilities in the County for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company for the employee, and for which the Company pays an average annual wage of at least $56,937.00. Each New Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee’s time per week for the entire normal year of the Company’s operations, which “normal year” must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours per year. Seasonal or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing location in the Commonwealth, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, suppliers, and similar multiplier or spin-off jobs, shall not qualify as New Jobs. The New Jobs must be in addition to the 120 full-time jobs at the Facility as of December 1, 2010. “Performance Date” means May 1, 2014. If the County, in consultation with the Authority and VEDP, deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Company to achieve the Targets, the County may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months. If the Performance Date is extended, the County shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority, the Company and VEDP and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the “Performance Date” for the purposes of this Agreement. “Targets” means the Company’s obligations to make Capital Investments at the Facility of at least $8,000,000.00 and to create at least 51 New Jobs in the County, all as of the Performance Date. Section 2. Targets. The Company will develop and operate the Facility in Albemarle County, make a Capital Investment of at least $8,000,000.00, and create and Maintain at least 51 New Jobs at the Facility, all as of the Performance Date. Draft: 05/03/11 3 The average annual wage of the New Jobs of at least $56.937.00 is more than the prevailing average annual wage in the County of $45,999.00. Section 3. Disbursement of EOF Grant. The EOF Grant in the amount of $150,000.00 will be disbursed to the Authority at or about the same time the GOF Grant funds are disbursed to the Authority. Within 30 days of its receipt of the EOF Grant proceeds, the Authority shall disburse the EOF Grant proceeds to the Company as an inducement to the Company to achieve the Targets at the Facility. Section 4. Break-Even Point; State and Local Incentives. VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break-even point” by the Performance Date. The County has estimated that it will reach its “break-even point” by May 1, 2015. The County’s break-even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility with the County’s EOF Grant. With regard to the Facility, the Commonwealth will provide incentives in the following amounts: Category of Incentive: Total Amount GOF Grant $100,000.00 Virginia Jobs Investment Program (“VJIP”) $51,000.00 The County has committed to provide the following incentives, as matching grants or otherwise, for the Facility: Category of Incentive: Total Amount Economic Opportunity Fund Grant $150,000.00 Section 5. Repayment Obligation. (a) If Minimum Requirements are Not Met: Failure by the Company to make a Capital Investment of at least $5,000,000.00 in the Facility and create at least 50 New Jobs at the Facility by the Performance Date shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the entire EOF Grant must be repaid by the Company to the Authority. (b) If Minimum Requirements are Met: For purposes of repayment, the EOF Grant is to be allocated as $75,000.00 (50%) for the Company’s Capital Investment Target and $75,000.00 (50%) for its New Jobs Target. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90%) of both of the Targets at the Performance Date, then and thereafter the Company is no longer obligated to repay any portion the EOF Grant. If the Company has not met at least ninety percent (90%) of either or both of its Targets, the Company shall repay to the Authority that part of the EOF Grant that is proportional to the Target or Targets for which there is a shortfall. For example, if at the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only $4,000,000.00 and 50 New Jobs have been created, the Company shall refund to the Authority fifty percent (50%) of the moneys allocated to the Capital Investment Target ($37,500.00). No repayment Draft: 05/03/11 4 would be necessary as to that portion of the EOF Grant allocable to the New Jobs Target if the Company created at least 50 of the 51 New Jobs. (c) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the County or VEDP shall determine at any time prior to the Performance Date (a “Determination Date”) that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the County or VEDP shall have promptly notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire EOF Grant to the Authority. (d) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Authority within thirty (30) days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, as applicable. Any moneys repaid by the Company to the Authority hereunder shall be repaid by the Authority to the County. The County and the Authority shall use their best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for breach of this Agreement. The Authority shall have no responsibility for the repayment of any sums hereunder unless said sums have been received by the Authority from the Company. Section 6. Company Reporting. The Company shall provide, at the Company’s expense, detailed verification reasonably satisfactory to the County and the Authority of the Company’s progress on the Targets, which may be the same verification provided under the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund Performance Agreement. Such progress reports will be provided annually, starting at May 1, 2012, and at such other times as the County or the Authority may require. Section 7. Notices. Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United States Mail by certified mail, postage fully pre-paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier package not accepted by the addressee): If to the Company, to: With a copy to: MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC 1641 Edlich Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 Attention: Melissa Y. Payton MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC 1641 Edlich Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 Attention: George Saiz If to the County, to: With a copy to: Albemarle County Executive’s Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: Thomas C. Foley Albemarle County Finance Dept. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: R. Edward Koonce Draft: 05/03/11 5 If to the Authority, to: With a copy to: Economic Development Authority Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: John Lowry Economic Development Authority Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attention: Ella Jordan Section 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto as to the EOF Grant and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the County and the Authority. (b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Draft: 05/03/11 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By Thomas C. Foley, County Executive Date: _______________________________ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By John C. Lowry, Chairman Date: _______________________________ MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC By George Saiz, President Date: _______________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF _________________________: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 2011 by George Saiz, President, MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC. ______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: Registration number: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Lewis and Clark Enhancement Project SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign an amended Appendix A to the VDOT Project Administration Agreement and an amended Pass- Through Agreement with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia (“LCEC”) applied for a $300,000 Transportation Enhancement Funds grant from the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT Enhancement Program”) in 2007, and was awarded $150,000. This grant award was proposed to be combined with other funds to construct a 2,500 square foot visitor’s center, develop a system of interpretive hiking trails, and create a ferry boat crossing to allow pedestrian passage across the Rivanna River to the greenbelt trails in Pen Park (the “Project”). The LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT. Additionally, the County had to assure VDOT that a 20 percent local match would be paid, that the Project would meet all VDOT requirements, and that the Count y would reimburse VDOT for any costs expended by VDOT if the Project were not completed. On January 10, 2007 the Board adopted a resolution supporting the LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement Program and providing the necessary assurances required by VDOT for approval of the VDOT Enhancement Program. On June 4, 2008, the Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the County Executive to sign the Project Agreement and the Pass-Through Agreement. The Project Agreement between VDOT and the County contains VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility. The Pass-Through Agreement, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under the VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC. The LCEC also agreed to hold the County harmless from any liabilities created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program. It has taken several years for the LCEC to go through the planning process for the Project. The total Project cost, which was estimated at $1,140,100 in 2007, is now estimated at $1,213,510. Project costs and financing information is set forth on Appendix A of the Project Agreement. The LCEC applied for additional VDOT Enhancement Program grants for this Project in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and was awarded an additional $300,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in 2010, bringing the total grant funds from VDOT for this Project to $800,000. In addition, the LCEC has secured over $700,000 in additional grant funds from various private foundations and donors and from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. DISCUSSION: In order to receive the additional VDOT grant funding, the VDOT Enhancement Program requires the County to execute an amended Appendix A (Attachment A) to the Project Agreement. This assures VDOT that a 20 percent local match would be paid, that the Project would meet all VDOT requirements, and that the County would reimburse VDOT for any VDOT grant funds expended by the LCEC if the Project were not completed. In addition, it is necessary that an amended Pass-Through Agreement (Attachment B) be executed to assure the LCEC is responsible for all VDOT requirements and any County liabilities. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Project must be completed by March 11, 2012 or the Project may be subject to de-allocation. The County has requested that VDOT extend this completion deadline given the delay in the construction schedule that the LCEC has incurred due to a delay in the selection of a contractor. Pursuant to the Pass-Through Agreement, the LCEC is responsible for completing the Project by the VDOT Project completion date. AGENDA TITLE: Lewis and Clark Enhancement Project May 11, 2011 Page 2 In other VDOT Project and Pass-Through Agreements, the County has required the cooperating entity to post a bond for the amount of the grant. Such a bond assures that funds are available from the cooperating entity for the County to repay VDOT the amount of the grant if required to do so by VDOT . Because of the relatively small amount initially involved, and County/City ownership of the underlying property, the County did not initially require the grant to be bonded. The LCEC will be required to have a construction bond in place to assure the completion of the improvements by the contractor. The improvements include a paved access road, a 2,500 square foot building and a trail to the Rivanna River. While staff still is not recommending that bonding be required, the County is assuming potential liability for a refund of the $800,000 to VDOT if the Project does not meet all VDOT requirements. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed and otherwise approved the amended Appendix A and Pass-Through Agreement. Appendix A will need to be further amended to provide an extended Project completion date. The Pass-Through Agreement will need to be further amended to provide that the LCEC will reimburse the County for its Project management costs. The County’s Office of Facilities Development will provide a Project manager to monitor this Project to assure the County’s obligations to VDOT are met. BUDGET IMPACT: There will be some costs associated with administering the Pass-Through Agreement between the County and the LCEC and for a Project manager to monitor the Project. The LCEC will reimburse the County for these costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C), which authorizes the County Executive to sign both the amended Appendix A (Attachment A) and the amended Pass-Through Agreement (Attachment B) in furtherance of the County’s support for the Project and the VDOT Enhancement Program upon approval by the County Attorney as to content and form with any necessary amendments, including the extended Project completion date in Appendix A and the Project oversight reimbursement provision in the Pass -Through Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: A – Amended Appendix A B – Amended Pass-Through Agreement C – Resolution Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda 1 AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate this _______ day of ____ _________, 2011, between the LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the “Center”, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the “County”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the “Department” has approved a Transportation Enhancement Project for the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center and Trails identified in the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as Project EN07-002-114, P101, R201, C501, UPC87015 and referred to hereinafter as the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the Project is $1,213,510, which includes $800,000 of Enhancement Program Funds and $413,510 in contributions to the Project by the Center; and WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to assist in the construction of the Project and have entered into an Agreement in which the County agrees to have the Project completed by March 11, 2012 as a condition for receiving the $800,000 Enhancement allocation; WHEREAS, the Center desires to undertake certain responsibilities and duties of the County as an incentive for the County to undertake the Project and to complete it as expeditiously as possible; and WHEREAS, the parties previously entered a certain “Agreement for Development and Administration of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia,” dated June 6, 2008; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to modify their prior agreement to reflect additional funds now available. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Center shall: a. Pay all project costs. b. Be responsible for all activities necessary to complete the noted phase of each Project shown in Appendix A, except the performance of the State Environmental Review Process (SERP), and coordinate with the Department for all reviews, approvals, and environmental actions and decisions, as required. Each phase of the Project will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards or supplementary standards approved by the Department. c. Receive prior written authorization from the Department to proceed with preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and construction phases of the Project. d. Maintain accurate and complete records of the Project’s development and documentation of all expenditures and make such information available for inspection or auditing by the County or the Department. Records and documentation for items for which reimbursement will be requested shall be maintained for no less than three (3) years following acceptance of the final voucher on the Project, or all such records and documentation may be turned over to the Department in a manner acceptable to the Department. e. No more frequently than monthly, submit invoices with supporting documentation to the Department in the form prescribed by the Department. The supporting documentation shall include copies of related vendor invoices paid by the Center and a to-date Project summary schedule tracking payment requests and adjustments. A request for reimbursement shall be made within 90 days after any eligible Project expenses are incurred by the Center. For federally funded projects and pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulation Title 3 49, Section 18.43, violations of the provision may result in the imposition of sanctions including possible denial or delay of payment of all or a part of the costs associated with the activity or action not in compliance. f. Reimburse the County or the Department for all Project expenses incurred by the County or the Department if, due to action or inaction by the Center, federally funded Project expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), or reimbursements are required to be returned to the FHWA, or in the event the reimbursement provisions of Section 33.1-44 or Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or other applicable provisions of federal, state or local law or regulations require such reimbursement. g. If matching funds are required, pay the Department the County’s match for eligible Project expenses incurred by the Department in the performance of the SERP and guidance relative to the coordination of environmental commitments that result from the SERP, necessary coordination with the FHWA, and approval of plans, specifications, advertisement documents, and contract awards as determined to be necessary by the Department. h. Administer the Project in accordance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. i. Provide certification by an official acceptable to the Department that all administered Project activities have been performed in accordance with all federal, state, or local laws and regulations. If expenditures exceed $500,000 annually in federal funding, such certification shall include a copy of the single program audit in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. j. If legal services other than that provided by the County are required, consult the Department to obtain an attorney from the list of outside counsel approved by the Office of the Attorney General. 4 k. Maintain any property improved as part of the Project which is not accepted for maintenance by the Department. The minimum level of maintenance shall be a reasonable standard of care as determined by the Department. l. If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department, submit each phase of the work to the County or the Department for review and approval as the Project develops and allow County or Department personnel to inspect all phases of the Project at all times. m. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. n. Submit any change orders to construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer and the Department’s Resident Engineer for approval prior to the authorization of the change order. o. Receive County and Department approval of any claims arising from construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested prior to settlement. p. Meet all County site plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements and obtain all necessary permits for the Project. q. Not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, national origin or other non-merit factors provided they are qualified and meet physical requirements established for the positions. r. After construction of the Project, or any part thereof, not permit any changes or alterations to the Project, as approved and completed, without the prior written approval of the Department. s. Indemnify the County and hold it, and its officers, agents, representati ves and employees harmless from any and all claims, damages, costs, including attorney’s fees, and liabilities of any kind arising out of or resulting from the Center’s or its agents’ negligent 5 performance of its obligations under this Agreement or any failure by the Center to meet any obligation required to complete the Project. t. Maintain during the entire term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and general public liability insurance with adequate limits to protect both the Center and the County from liability, such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Center will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing the insurance coverage required herein. 2. The County will coordinate and cooperate with and assist the Center in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to: a. Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the Center. b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Department, FHWA and other appropriate federal and state agencies. c. Process payments to the Center of reimbursements received from the Department for Project expenditures. d. Cooperate with the Center and the Department in the audit of all project costs and records as required by the FHWA. e. Take all reasonable actions required to obtain funding for the Project pursuant to the Enhancement Program in the Department’s Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum amount of federal funds available pursuant to this Agreement for this Project is $800,000. 3. All applicable federal, state and local regulations shall apply to all work performed on the Project including consultant services contracts and construction contracts. 4. Appendix A outlines the phases of work and general items to be administered by the Center. There may be additional elements that, once identified, shall be addressed by the parties hereto in writing, which may require an amendment to this Agreement. 6 5. If designated by the Department, the Center is authorized to act as the Department’s agent for the purpose of conducting survey work pursuant to Section 33.1-94 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the parties hereto to expend or provide any funds in excess of funds agreed upon in this Agreement or as shall have been appropriated. In the event the cost of the Project is anticipated to exceed the allocation shown for the Project on Appendix A, both parties agree to cooperate in providing additional funding for the Project or to terminate the Project before its costs exceed the allocated amount, however, the Department and the County shall not be obligated to provide additional funds beyond those appropriated and allocated. 7. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto. 8. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the County’s or the Commonwealth of Virginia’s sovereign immunity. 9. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and upon notification by the County that the Department approvals have been received, the Center will be authorized to commence with the Project. 10. This Agreement may be modified by written agreement with the mutual consent of the Center and the County. 11. This Agreement may be terminated by the County upon 30 days advance written notice. Eligible Project expenses incurred by the County through the date of termination shall be reimbursed by the Center. Upon termination, the Department shall retain ownership of plans, specifications, and right of way, unless all state and federal funds provided for the Project have 7 been reimbursed to the Department by the Center, in which case the Center will have ownership of the plans, specifications, and right of way, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon in writing. 12. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns. 13. This Agreement replaces and supersedes the parties’ “Agreement for Development and Administration of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia,” dated June 6, 2008. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. ATTEST: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE _____________________________ ____________________________________ COUNTY CLERK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Approved as to form: BY:_____________________________ County Attorney WITNESS: LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA _______________________________ BY: ________________________________ Attachment C RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia (LCEC) is an educational center for visitors of all ages commemorating the Lewis and Clark Expedition; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have demonstrated their support of LCEC’s mission by granting a long-term lease of land in Darden Towe Park, participation by the City Parks and Recreation Department in the boatbuilding program for youths, donation of office space by Albemarle County, and participation by area schools in LCEC programs; and WHEREAS, the LCEC applied for $300,000.00 in Transportation Enhancement Funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in 2007, which was proposed to be used with other funds to construct a 2,500 square foot visitor’s center, develop a system of interpretive hiking trails, and create a ferry boat crossing to allow pedestrian passage across the Rivanna River to the greenbelt trails in Pen Park (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, VDOT awarded $150,000.00 to the LCEC for the Project; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the allocation, VDOT required the County to execute a Project Administration Agreement setting-forth the County’s responsibilities for receipt of the allocation; and WHEREAS, the County required a Pass-Through Agreement between the LCEC and the County, setting-forth the LCEC’s assumption of the County’s obligations and responsibilities detailed in the Project Administration Agreement; and WHEREAS, the LCEC has applied for and been awarded additional grant funds in the amount of $300,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in 2010 for this Project, bringing the total grant funds awarded from VDOT to $800,000; and WHEREAS, VDOT requires the County to execute an amendment to Appendix A of the Project Administration Agreement reflecting the additional grant funds awarded and the revised Project costs and financial information as a condition for LCEC’s receipt of the grant awards; and WHEREAS, the County requires an amended Pass-Through Agreement between the LCEC and the County reflecting the increased Project costs and grant funds awarded ensuring the County’s obligations and responsibilities outlines in the Project Administration Agreement are assu med by the LCEC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute Appendix A – Agreement Amendment No. 3 in order to receive additional allocations for the Project, the total allocation being $800,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the amended Pass-Through Agreement, ensuring the County’s obligations and responsibilities outlined in the Project Administration Agreement are assumed by the LCEC. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Thurman offer to sell conservation easement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt resolution accepting Thurman offer to sell conservation easement STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs., Foley, Elliott, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On April 20, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the ACE Committee’s recommendations to: 1) accept the completed appraisal of the Thelma Thurman property from the FY 2009-10 applicant pool; and 2) approve inviting Mrs. Thurman to make a written offer to sell a conservation easement to the County based on this appraisal. On May 2, 2011, Mrs. Thurman agreed, in writing, to sell a conservation easement to the County for the appraised value. County Code section A.1-111(E) governs the Board’s consideration and acceptance of offers to sell ACE easements: "An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted by the board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board authorizing acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the Board if the proposed easement would be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this appendix requires the Board to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement.” DISCUSSION: A total of $522,249.88 is available for acquiring easements for the FY 2009-10 applicant pool. This amount is sufficient to provide funding for the acquisition of the Thurman easement which totals $230,000. 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. The ACE Committee has recommended acceptance of Mrs. Thurman’s offer to sell a conservation easement to the County for the amount indicated in the approved appraisal. Acquisition of this easement would provide the following benefits 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 is available from the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) accepting Mrs. Thurman’s offer to sell a conservation easement to the County for the price specified subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement. The Resolution further authorizes the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for this property. ATTACHMENTS A - Ranking Order of ACE Applicants for Round 10 – FY2009-10 B - ACE Budget for Round 10 & Thurman Easement Acquisition Cost C - Resolution Accepting Thurman Offer to Sell Easement to the County 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 eas ement, 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: t wo (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” means 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 S oil 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 pa rcel 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 Attachment C RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE Program from the owner of the following propert y: Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres (Milton) and; WHEREAS, the owner offered to sell a conservation easement on the specified property to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County’s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to sell a conservation easement for the propert y described above and authorizes the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the Co unty Attorney to send a copy of this resolution to the owner of the propert y identified herein, or her contact person. I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to ___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________. _________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ___ ___ Mr. Dorrier ___ ___ Mrs. Mallek ___ ___ Mr. Rooker ___ ___ Mr. Snow ___ ___ Mr. Thomas ___ ___ The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the 11th day of May 2011, adopted the following resolution: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the street(s) in Hollymead Towncenter Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 11, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Hollymead Towncenter Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 11, 2011, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. * * * * * The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is: 1) Town Center Drive (State Route 1719) from 0.07 miles west of Route 29 to 0.49 miles west to Route 606, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3801, page 616, and Deed Book 3323, page 740, with a 80-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.49 miles. Total Mileage – 0.49 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT OPPOSING INCREASES IN TRUCK WEIGHTS AND LENGTHS WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is concerned for the health, welfare and safety of the residents of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville and the conditions of its infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is concerned that attempts are being made at the federal level to increase the size, weight and allowable number of trailers beyond the capacity of existing road infrastructure; and WHEREAS, bigger and heavier trucks cause greater acceleration of the deterioration of our roads and bridges putting further pressure on local taxpayers to fund regional infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the investments in our County, City, State and Federal road systems have not kept up with increased traffic levels; current funding for roads and bridges across all government levels in the state is inadequate; and investments by local governments have been curbed by cuts in local government aide, municipal state aide, county state aide and a shrinking state truck highway fund; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors strongly opposes all legislation that attempts to shift costs and liability of private businesses on to local governments and threatens the general safety of those who live in Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports HR 1574 the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act and opposes any legislation increasing truck and weight size beyond the capacity of our road systems and putting our roads and bridges at risk of increased damage or deterioration. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to the Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider increasing 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: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: 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: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed lease amendment (Attachment A) effective July 1, 2011 and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease amendment. ATTACHMENTS A – Field School Lease Amendment Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to grant a sanitary sewer line easement across County-owned property adjacent to the Scottsville Community Center SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider granting a perpetual easement to the Albemarle County Service Authority for the rehabilitation, maintenance and operation of the sanitary sewer line across County-owned property adjacent to the Scottsville Community Center STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Crickenberger LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board of Directors has approved funding for the Scottsville Sanitary Sewer Phase II Project as part of an effort to upgrade the sanitary sewer system throughout Scottsville. The design of the Project has been finalized and the ACSA is ready to bid the project for construction. The Project includes the rehabilitation of a sewer line under the ball field behind the Scottsville Community Center, located on Parcel 130A2-00-00-07600, as well as into the adjacent property on 13100-00-00-081A0, as set forth in the Plat (Attachment D). The County owns both parcels. The ACSA has requested an easement to properly locate the existing sewer line within the proposed easement and to rehabilitate the existing sewer line on TMPs 131-81A and 130A2-76, replace clay portions of the existing sewer line with PVC pipe on those parcels, and remove an existing manhole on TMP 131-81A (See Attachments A and B). The existing easement not necessary for this pipeline will be vacated and abandoned. DISCUSSION: Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-owned real property. The proposed Deed of Easement (Attachment C) is in a form that has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney’s Office. Staff has reviewed and approved the proposed Plat. The proposed construction will be timed to minimize conflicts with the use of the ball field and the field will be restored to an equal or better condition. Approval of the proposed perpetual easement would allow the ACSA to make the sewer line improvements as proposed. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the Deed of Easement (Attachment C) on behalf of the County, after the Deed has been approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes. ATTACHMENTS A – ACSA March 4, 2011 Request B – Diagram of ACSA Project C – Proposed Deed of Easement D – Plat Return to regular agenda ATTACHMENT C TM 131-81A and 130A2-76 PREPARED BY: St. John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana, LLP This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 25th day of March, 2011 by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, (“Grantor”), and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY (the “ACSA”), (“Grantee”), whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor do es hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Albemarle County Service Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend one or more sewer lines consisting of pipes and appurtenances theret o, over, under and across the real property of the Grantors located in Albemarle County, Virginia, the location of the easement granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described on the following plat: A (9,972 sq. ft.) 20’ permanent sanitary sewer line easement, shown and described on plat of Lincoln Surveying, dated January 6, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plat), as it crosses property of the Grantor shown and described on the Plat and acquire d by the Grantor by the instrument recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 763, Page 1; Deed Book 739, Page 150; and Deed Book 1078, Page 477. Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for the exact location and dimension of the permanent easement hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses. As part of the easement the ACSA shall have the right to enter upon the above described property within the easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, 2 replacing and extending a sewer line and appurtenances thereto, within such easement and the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend such sewer line. If the ACSA is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right -of-way, the ACSA shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Grantor adjac ent to the right-of-way. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within such easement, the ACSA agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions to the same condition as prior to excavation, inc luding restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation. Grantor, its respective successors or assigns, agree that no new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall b e placed within the easement conveyed herein. The easement provided for herein shall include the right of the ACSA, to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. The ACSA shall have no responsibility to the Grantor , its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery and obstructions that are removed or otherwise damaged. The facilities constructed by ACSA within the permanent easement shall be the property of the ACSA which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the permanent easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein. The ACSA further VACATES and ABANDONS an existing sanitary sewer easement, recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1056, Page 124, shown and described on the Plat as it crosses property of the Grantor. 3 The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on _________________________, does hereby convey the interest in real estate made by this deed. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By:____________________________(SEAL) Thomas C. Foley, County Executive COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF________________, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 20_____, by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive, County of Albemarle, Virginia. __________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________ I.D. No._______________ ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY By:____________________________(SEAL) Gary O’Connell, Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY/CITY OF________________, to wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 20_____, by Gary O’Connell, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority. __________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ______________ I.D. No._______________ Approved as to Form: _____________________________ County Attorney COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to grant gas line easement across County- owned property (TMP 46-5A) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider granting a gas line easement to City Gas across TMP 46-5A to provide natural gas service to nearby properties, including portions of Hollymead Towne Center STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Herrick LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The City of Charlottesville Gas Division has requested that the County grant a permanent easement for the installation of natural gas lines upon and across County-owned property designated as Parcel ID 04600-00-00- 005A0, located on U.S. Route 29 adjacent to the southern end of the Hollymead Towne Center. The City proposes to make a tap on its existing line located in the grass median of U.S. Route 29 and crossing the southbound lanes to provide service in this area. DISCUSSION: Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-owned real property. This property was conveyed to the County by the developers of the Hollymead Towne Center for use as open space and a greenway trail. The gas line will be buried within the easement and there will be no above ground facilities. This easement will not interfere with the use of the greenway property or any activity at the Hollymead Towne Center shopping center. The proposed deed of easement is under review by the County Attorney’s Office. Staff has reviewed and approved the proposed Plat. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed gas line easement and authorize the County Executive to sign a deed of easement on behalf of the County once the deed has been approved for content and form by the County Attorney. ATTACHMENTS A – City August 30, 2010 Request B – Plat Return to agenda C I T Y O F C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E Department of Public Works Charlottesville Public Utilities 305 4th Street, N.W. P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3800 or 434-970-3815 Fax 434-970-3817 August 30, 2010 Mr. Andy Herrick Sr. Asst. County Attorney County of Albemarle (434) 972-4067 SUBJECT: Gas line easement across Tax Map 46 Parcel 5A Dear Mr. Herrick: I am following up on Barbara Ronan’s e-mail to you about the City’s proposed gas line easement across County-owned property. Attached for reference are the following pdf’s: #1: 2010_kohls_pars-rev-0830: a revision of the plat for Tax Map 46-Parcel 5A. Upon receipt of your email, I've added a distance measurement between the property-line (a.k.a. rights-of-way) and the gas line easement. #2: 2010_txmp32par42a: pdf version of gas easement recorded at DB 3918 P. 580. #3: 2010_txmp32par44 : pdf version of gas easement recorded at DB 3918 P. 573. #4: 2010_us29xing: pdf version of the "sketch" attached to VDOT Land Use Permit # 743 - 8727 effective 2010/08/23. Our proposed project consists of making a tap on our existing gas line located in the grass median of U.S. Route 29 (as shown on permit sketch--pdf # 4) and crossing the south bound lanes to serve the proposed commercial buildings (Kohl’s and others) at what could best be called south “Hollymead Towne Center” shopping center. All gas facilities that will cross the greenway trail parcel will be buried; there will be no above-ground facilities. None of the buildings at the site are complete; however, the roadways and parking lot features are complete enough for us to begin gas line installation as per the Land Use Permit and the easements across Tax Map 32 Parcel 44 & 42A (pdf’s # 3 & #2, respectively) before inclement weather arrives. The last time I was at the site, Aug. 10th, the greenway parcel (Tax Map 46 Parcel 5A) did not appear to be at final grade, nor were the proposed sidewalk(s) / trail(s) complete. We will not install the gas line across parcel 5A until the developer completes the grading and sidewalk(s) / trail(s), and the easement is recorded. The revised and corrected plat of Tax Map 46 Parcel 5A recorded at D.B. 3704 Page 460 (page 465, specifically) is itself extremely vague as to the metes and bounds of the parcel. The plat references Part A of the Greenway Area to be equal to 0.3 acres. This may indicate that the parties to the deed intentinally undefined or ill-defined the metes and bounds of the dedicated parcel. If no metes and bounds are available in previously recorded instruments and plats and physical property pins do not exist / have yet to be set, it is virtually impossible for the City to create a metes and bounds easement plat; whether such a plat is done in-house or prepared by an outside land surveyor hired by the City. The plat I prepared is drawn to the following scale: one inch equals eighty-feet. The centerline of the easement is 40.0’ from the property line. Also, we experienced some difficulty obtaining hard-copy sheets of the approved site plan; and, a scale-able digital version could not be provided, due to pending multi -party litigation concerning this project. We could provide a scan or copy of the sheets we did obtain from the developer and subsequently marked in red pencil the proposed location of the gas line, if necessary. Sincerely, Mary Zylowski, Engineering Technician Dept. of Public Works, Public Utilities: Gas 434-970-3815 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Lease of Jessup House property to Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider leasing the Jessup House property, jointly owned by the County and the City of Charlottesville, at 614 East High Street, to Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, Freitas LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County and the City of Charlottesville jointly purchased the property located at 614 East High Street (the Jessup House, identified on City Tax Map 53 as Parcel 111) in 2004, together with the adjacent Levy Opera House and a nearby parking lot. The Levy Opera House was used temporarily by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Court during the renovation of the J&DR courthouse. At the time of purchase, there was an existing commercial property lease between the previous owner and Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC (Silvercrest) for the Jessup House. The Jessup House property consists of a building containing approximately 6,218 square feet and a designated parking area. The property lies between East High Street and Jefferson Street, and on the west side of 7th Street, N.E. in the City of Charlottesville. The County and the City renewed the lease with Silvercrest in 2005 for five years. The 2005 lease expired on June 30, 2010. Since that time, Silvercrest has continued to occupy the space, and wishes to continue to lease the property for use as commercial off ice space. The County and City are in the process of determining the future use of this property. However, the County does not foresee a need to use or dispose of the property prior to June 2014, at the earliest, and believes that continued lease of the Jessup House property in the meantime is its most efficient use. DISCUSSION: The term of the new proposed Lease is from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015. The County and the City may, in their sole discretion, term inate the lease as early as June 30, 2014, provided at least one year’s advance notice is provided. There shall be no automatic renewal or extension of the Lease. Any renewal or extension shall be accomplished by separate written instrument. Absent such written renewal or extension, this Lease shall automatically terminate on June 30, 2015. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the terms of the new Lease. Silvercrest has executed the Lease, and City Council approved the Lease on April 18, 2011. BUDGET IMPACT: The City is the fiscal agent for the property, and provides all property management services stipulated within the Lease. The approval of this new Lease would generate at least $94,763 in combined rental revenue to the County and City in the first year. Subsequent rental income would be adjusted for inflation. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the Lease (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign the Lease. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Lease with Silvercrest Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Real Estate Tax Exemption For Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance to amend certain definitions in the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Koonce, Correa LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Albemarle County’s Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled program provides real property tax relief for qualifying elderly and/or disabled owners. These partial or full exemptions are based on applicants’ income and net worth levels, and are governed by state law. In November 2010, Virginia voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution eliminating state-mandated caps on eligible applicants’ income and net worth. Virginia Constitution Article X, Section 6(b) now provides in part: “A local governing body may be authorized to establish either income or financial worth limitations, or both, in order to qualify for such relief.” The 2011 Virginia General Assembly subsequently passed House Bill 2278 on March 24, 2011 to give effect to this Constitutional amendment by amending Virginia Code § 58.1-3212. Like the Constitutional amendment itself, Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now authorizes local governing bodies “to establish by ordinance net financial worth or annual income limitations as a condition of eligibility for any exemption or deferral of tax allowed pursuant to this article.” At this time, County staff is not recommending any changes to the dollar amounts of the net financial worth or annual income limitations set under the existing County ordinance. However, Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 also goes beyond the Constitutional amendment by mandating what exac tly can (and cannot) be considered as part of an applicant’s net financial worth or annual income. In certain respects, described in more detail below, these new state standards differ from the existing County ordinance. Therefore, an ordinance amendment is needed not to change the dollar amounts (as allowed), but to conform the existing County ordinance to new state definitions of net financial worth and annual income. Finally, Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now enables localities to “exempt or defer the real property taxes of the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated.” Though County Code § 15-705 currently provides a percentage reduction, applied to an applicant’s entire bill; the new state statute provides for exemption over a defined part of a property, rather than a percentage of a tax bill. Staff is proposing that the exemption apply to the maximum ten acres permitted by state law. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared an ordinance to amend County Code § 15-702 and § 15-705 as follows: Definition of Income – The County’s existing definition of “total combined income” in County Code § 15- 702(10) largely parallels the new criteria of Virginia Code § 58.1-3212, with two exceptions: o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now gives localities the option of including the income of “nonrelatives of the owner who live in the dwelling except for bona fide tenants or bona fide paid caregivers of the owner.” Non relative income contributes to the household income available to the owner. Because the County Code does not currently include the income of those residents, staff recommends that this provision be added in the proposed ordinance amendment. o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now provides, “Income shall include only those sources of gross income that are subject to tax under federal income tax laws, regulations, rules, or policies.” Because the AGENDA TITLE: Real Estate Tax Exemption For Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons May 11, 2011 Page 2 County Code currently has no comparable provision, that provision has been added in the proposed ordinance amendment. Definition of Net Worth – The County’s existing definition of “net combined financial worth” in County Code § 15-702(4) likewise differs from the new criteria of Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 in two notable respects: o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 fixes “December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year” as the valuation date for purposes of net worth. o While County Code § 15-702(4) includes the net worth of “the owner’s relatives living in the dwelling,” Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 does not; the existing County provision including the resident relatives’ net worth as part of the applicant’s net worth has been removed in the proposed ordinance amendment. Exemption – County Code § 15-705 currently sets a matrix of percentages by which an owner’s tax liability is reduced. o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now provides that localities “may exempt or defer the real property taxes of the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated.” As described above, the County Code provision has been changed to parallel the state provision in the proposed ordinance amendment so that taxes are not exempted on the property in excess of ten acres. Staff is not recommending any changes to the dollar amounts of the new financial worth or annual income limitations set under the existing County ordinance. Because House Bill 2278 passed as emergency legislation, it became effective at the time of its passage on Marc h 24, 2011, and following state law, this County Code amendment would be effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. BUDGET IMPACT: Any budget impact of these state-mandated changes would arise mainly from (a) the qualification of currently-ineligible applicants and (b) the disqualification of currently-eligible applicants. It’s not immediately clear whether the total amount of exemptions will increase or decrease. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Ordinance Return to agenda Draft: April 27, 2011 1 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. 11-15(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, 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 15, Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 15-702 Definitions Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS Sec. 15-702 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this article: (1) Dwelling. The term “dwelling” means a building occupied as a residence. (2) Income. The term “income” means the total gross income from all sources comprising the amount of money received on a regular basis which is available to meet expenses, regardless of whether a tax return is actually filed, the money is taxable or deductible from the taxpayer’s income tax return. (a) Income shall include: (i) retirement payments, including the portion that represents the contribution of the retiree; (ii) nontaxable social security retirement benefits; (iii) disability payments; and (iv) rental income. (b) Income shall not include: (i) life insurance benefits; (ii) receipts from borrowing or other debt; and (iii) social security taxes taken out of the pay of a retiree. (c) The income of a self-employed person received from the business shall be the gross income of the business, less the expenses of the business. (3) Manufactured home. The term “manufactured home” means a structure subject to federal regulation which is transportable in one or more sections; is eight (8) body feet or more in width and forty body feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet when erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a single-family dwelling, with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities; and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure. (4) Net combined financial worth. The term “net combined financial worth” means the net present value of all assets, including equitable interests, and liabilities, both as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, of (i) the owners, (ii) and of the spouse of any owner of the dwelling, and (iii) the owner’s relatives living in the dwelling. The term “net combined financial worth” shall not include: (i) the value of the dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated; (ii) the value of furniture, household appliances and other items typically used in a home; and (iii) the outstanding balance of any mortgage on the subject property, except to the extent that the subject property is counted as an asset. (5) Owning title or partial title. The term “owning title or partial title” means owning the usufruct, control or occupation of the real estate, whether the interest therein is in absolute fee or is in an estate less than a fee, such as the holding of a life estate. Draft: April 27, 2011 2 (6) Permanently and totally disabled person. The term “permanently and totally disabled person” means a person who is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be expected to result in death, or can be expected to last for the duration of such person's life. (7) Real estate. The term “real estate” includes manufactured homes. (8) Relative. The term “relative” means any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of the owner. (9) Taxable year. The term “taxable year” means the calendar year for which the exemption is claimed. (10) Total combined income. The term “total combined income” means the income received from all sources during the preceding calendar year, without regard to whether a tax return is actually filed, by (i) the owners of the dwelling who use it as their principal residence, and by (ii) the owners’ relatives who live in the dwelling, and (iii) nonrelatives of the owner who live in the dwelling except for bona fide tenants or bona fide paid caregivers of the owner. Income shall include only those sources of gross income that are subject to tax under federal income tax laws, regulations, rules, or policies. The following amounts shall be excluded from the calculation of total combined income: (a) The first sixty-five hundred dollars ($6500.00) of income of each relative who is not the spouse of an owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the exemption provided by subdivision 9 c hereof. (b) The first seventy-five hundred dollars ($7500.00) of income for an owner who is permanently disabled. (c) If a person otherwise qualifies for the exemption and if the person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person's physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for the person, and if a relative does move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relative’s spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided that the owner of the dwelling has not transferred assets in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) without adequate considerations within a three (3) year period prior to or after the relative moves into the dwelling. (2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5- 98; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03; Ord. 05-15(4), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord .07-15(1), 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-85.3, 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3217. Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption. The amount of the exemption established by this article from shall apply only to the real estate property taxes for the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated. The amount of the exemption for any taxable year shall be as follows: Percentage of Real Estate Tax Exempted Net Combined Financial Worth $0 to $100,000 Over $100,000 to $150,000 Over $150,000 to $200,000 Total Combined Income $0 to $30,000 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% Over $30,000 to $50,000 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% Over $50,000 to $69,452 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% Draft: April 27, 2011 3 (2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04; Ord. 06-15(3), adopted 11-1-06, effective 1-1-07; Ord. 07-15(1), 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08) State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3212. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Real Estate Tax Exemption For Disabled Veterans SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance to establish a real estate property exemption for certain disabled veterans and their surviving spouses STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Koonce, Correa LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In November 2010, Virginia voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that granted a real property tax exemption to certain disabled veterans and their surviving spouses. The General Assembly subsequently adopted House Bill 1645 enacting Virginia Code § 58.1-3219.5 and § 58.1-3219.6 to outline the circumstances and procedures under which localities are to grant this exemption. Specifically, the amendment provides a real property tax exemption for veterans who have been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to have a one-hundred percent (100%) service-connected, permanent, and total disability. The amendment also extends the exemption to the surviving spouses of such veterans so long as the death of the veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the spouse does not remarry, and the spouse continues to occupy the real property as his or her principal place of residence. If a locality exempts more than one acre under its tax relief program for the elderly, then the real estate tax exemption for the disabled veteran or surviving spouse would apply to the principal residence and the same number of acres as are exempt under th e tax relief program for the elderly. Staff has proposed in an ordinance to be also considered on May 11, 2011, that ten acres be exempt under the County’s tax relief program for the elderly. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XVI, Property exempted from taxation, to add § 15-1603, Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans, Application for exemption. The proposed ordinance amendment would establish a property tax exemption for specified disabled veterans and their surviving spouses on or after January 1, 2011 and establish the process for eligible veterans and their surviving spouses to apply for the exemption. Wherever possible, the proposed ordinance directly tracks the language of the new state statute. The County is only enabled to provide this relief to veterans who have been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to have a disability is one hundred percent (100%) service connected. The enabling authority also directs that the tax exemption for a surviving spouse cannot be extended to any new principal residence obtained after the death of the disabled veteran. Because House Bill 1645 passed as emergency legislation, it became effective at the time of its passage on April 6, 2011, and following state law, the County Code amendment would be effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. BUDGET IMPACT: The amount of exempt taxes depends entirely on the number of qualified disabled veterans (and qualified surviving spouses) applying for this exemption. This Constitutional amendment and state enabling legislation creates an unfunded state mandate. Because statistics regarding disabled veterans with a 100% service-connected disability as rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are not available for tracking, staff cannot accurately estimate the fiscal impact of this state-mandated exemption. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Ordinance Return to agenda Draft: April 27, 2011 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. 11-15(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XVI, PROPERTY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION, 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 15, Taxation, Article XVI, Property Exempted From Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding: Sec. 15-1603 Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption. CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XVI. PROPERTY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION Sec. 15-1603 Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption. A. Pursuant to Article X, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia, and for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, the following real property, including such joint real property of husband and wife, of any veteran who has been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its successor agency pursuant to federal law to have a 100 percent service -connected, permanent, and total disability, and who occupies the real property as the veteran’s principal place of residence, shall be exempt from taxation: (i) the qualifying dwelling, and (ii) the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which said dwelling is situated. B. The surviving spouse of a veteran eligible for the exemption set forth in this section shall also qualify for the exemption, so long as the death of the veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the surviving spouse does not remarry, and the surviving spouse continues to occupy the real property as the spouse’s principal place of residence. C. The veteran or surviving spouse claiming the exemption under this section shall file with the director of finance or his designee, on forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit or written statement (i) setting forth the name of the disabled veteran and the name of the spouse, if any, also occupying the real property, (ii) indicating whether the real property is jointly owned by a husband and wife, and (iii) certifying that the real property is occupied as the veteran's principal place of residence. The veteran shall also provide documentation from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its successor agency indicating that the veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability. The veteran shall be required to refile the information required by this sect ion only if the veteran's principal place of residence changes. In the event of a surviving spouse of a veteran claiming the exemption, the surviving spouse shall also provide documentation that the veteran's death occurred on or after January 1, 2011. State law reference -- §§ 58.1-3219.5, 58.1-3219.6 Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to receive comment on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget (Attachment B). The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for improvements to roads in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Construction Program is based on the County’s Priority List and is reflective of available State road funding allocated to the County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed annually. VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County: FISCAL YEAR REG. STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE MIN. UNPAVED ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS 2011-12 $366,810 $0 $0 $366,810 2012-13 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568 2013-14 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568 2014-15 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568 2015-16 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568 2016-17 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568 At an April 6th work session, the Board agreed to seek up to $3.0 million in Revenue Sharing Program funds ($1.5 million in County funding and $1.5 million VDOT Revenue Sharing Program match) in FY 2011-12. Board adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment C) is required in order for it to be able to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program in FY 2011-12. The Board also directed staff during this work session to provide a draft Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program assuming: a) an FY2011-12 Revenue Sharing Program which totals $3.0 million in VDOT/local funds and b) a plan which assumes only $1.0 million is available via the Revenue Sharing Program in FY 2011-12. The $1.0 million is based on the approximately $500,000 in County match currently available in its adopted FY2011-12 budget for Revenue Sharing participation. This information is provided in the Discussion section below. DISCUSSION: Two documents are before the Board for review and action: the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget. Each is discussed below: County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) – Four new projects have been added to this year’s Priority List. Three of the projects are public requests for road paving and those have been added to the Rural Rustic Road paving list. The fourth project is the Brock Mill Rural Addition project. The four projects are: Red Hill School Road (Rt. 760), road paving request – Request to pave Rt. 760 near Red Hill School in North Garden. This road serves the Red Hill Elementary School and carries between 70 and 170 vehicle trips/ day. AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program May 11, 2011 Page 2 Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787), road paving request – Request to pave a 0.9 mile section of this road from Broad Axe Road to Dry Bridge Road. The other half of this road from Route 250 west to Broad Axe Road is already paved. This road carries 290 vehicle trips per day. Patterson Mill Lane (Rt. 824), road paving request – Request to pave a 1.04 mile section of this road. Patterson Mill Lane runs from Route 250 west to Midway Road (Rt. 688). This road carries 200 trips per day. Brocks Mill Road, rural addition request – Include Brocks Mill Road as a rural addition project (priority #23) on the Strategic Priorities list (first page of the document). Two other modifications have been made on the Strategic Priorities list (first page). The Hillsdale Drive extension and the Berkmar Drive extension projects have been moved up in the priority list to be consistent with the recommendations found in the recently adopted Places29 Master Plan. Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget (Attachment B) –The proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program provided by VDOT assumes that a total of $3.0 million in Revenue Sharing (RS) Program funds (State funds and County match) will be allocated to the Broomley Road bridge replacement project. The following are the implications of this Revenue Sharing fund allocation to the Broomley Road bridge project and the Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program: VDOT staff has indicated that the $3.0 million in RS funds will fully fund the project and allow the project to be constructed in 2014. The Broomley Road bridge project cannot be advanced/ constructed any sooner than 2014 due to the time needed for design, right or way acquisition and contractor procurement. It will allow federal bridge funds currently allocated to the Broomley Road bridge project to be moved/reallocated to the Black Cat Road Bridge project. It will allow unpaved road funds (approximately $1.3 million) that were transferred last year from the Dickerson Road paving project to the Broomley Bridge project to be re-allocated to unpaved road projects. The total available funds will allow up to five unpaved road projects to be funded for construction. It would also eliminate the potential of a reduction (“penalty”) in future unpaved funds allocations for using unpaved road funds for non- road paving projects, should unpaved road funds be provided by the State again in the future. The five unpaved road projects identified for improvement are the highest priority projects from the Rural Rustic Road Priority List (Attachment A): - Rose Hill Church Lane (120 vehicle trips/day (VPD) - Fortune Lane (140 VPD) - Blufton Road (170 VPD) - Happy Creek Road (100 VPD) - Bleak House Road (100 VPD) If only $1.0 million becomes available in Revenue Sharing funds (based on the $500,000 currently budgeted for the County’s match) to supplement its estimated annual secondary road fund allocations, three of the unpaved road projects could be fully funded for construction (Rose Hill Church Lane, Fortune Lane, Blufton Road) by re-allocating “old” unpaved road funds. As requested by the Board, VDOT has also included in the proposed Six Year Program all secondary road bridge projects receiving secondary road and/or federal bridge funding. Previously only those project receiving secondary road funds were included in the document. Staff believes the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program provides for the flexibility to use up to $3.0 million of Revenue Sharing Program funding, and allows unpaved road funds previously allocated to the Broomley Bridge project to be moved back for use for their intended purpose. The projected annual allocations to the secondary program are insufficient to fund any of the major road improvement projects identified in the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements (Berkmar Drive extended, Proffit Road, or Sunset Avenue improvements and connector road) unless there is a significant increase in the use of Revenue Sharing Program Funds. Future commitment to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program will be discussed by the Board in upcoming work sessions on the Capital Improvements Program. AGENDA TITLE: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program May 11, 2011 Page 3 BUDGET IMPACT: The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT secondary road construction funds which do not impact County funding. Should the County also decide to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, the County’s match would be funded from anticipated appropriations in the CIP. Currently, $484,222 is available in the FY 2011-12 CIP for participation in the Revenue Sharing Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County’s Priority List (Attachment B). Staff also recommends that the Board approve the attached Revenue Sharing Program Resolution (Attachment C). ATTACHMENTS A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget C – Revenue Sharing Program Resolution Return to agenda STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Proposed May 2011 Bold-- Projects in Development Area Italics -- New Projects Page 1 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-23) VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed Ranking Route Number and Name Location From - To Estimated Advertisement Date Estimated Cost Description/Comments Justification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority List Most Current Traffic County and year of Count Y 0 County wide County wide N/A varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req. Y 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program N/A varies Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements. Safety/Public Request, studies-plans Y 1 Meadow Creek Pkwy Melbourne Rd to Rio Rd under constr.$32,587,196 Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR Capacity/ CHART 20,000-2006 Y 2 691 Jarmans Gap Road Rt 240 to Gray Rock Construction-- Spring 2011 $13,555,315 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane improvements Capacity,safety/Land Use Plan 2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in future) Y 3 656 Georgetown Road Rt 654 to Rt 743 Construction-- Spring 2011 $2,756,882 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn lanes Capacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public 17,000-2007 Y (Urban Program) 4 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. under design by City/VDOT $9,800,000 Connector Rd from Greenbrier Dr to Hydraulic Rd; constr. w/ urban system funds; $15.5 M. in donated ROW expected Places29 Master Plan; UnJAM 2035 N/A 5 Berkmar Dr Ext. & Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTC 38,000,000 New parallel road in Rt. 29 Corridor; Bridge location design first phase; ROW cost variable w/ development approvals Places29 Master Plan; UnJAM 2035 2006 23,500 6 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east $10,000,000 improve alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use path Capacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-2007 7 781 Sunset Avenue Fontaine/Sunset Connector Improvements to Sunset Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector Area B Study,Capacity/ LU Plan 2007 4,600-2006 8 631 Old Lynchburg Rd 1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708 Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan 2,300-2007 Y 9 Bridge Improvement Projects Various locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priority varies 10 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-2006 11 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan 6,900-2007 12 Southern Parkway Avon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed Capacity/Southern City Study 15,000-2004 13 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 670-2007 14 Eastern Avenue Rt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 4,100-2003 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Proposed May 2011 Bold-- Projects in Development Area Italics -- New Projects Page 2 VDOT's Secondary Program County's Proposed Ranking Route Number and Name Location From - To Estimated Advertisement Date Estimated Cost Description/Comments Justification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority List Most Current Traffic County and year of Count 15 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Ln Improve substandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds) Safety/City 26,000-2007 16 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 1,300-2006 17 Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern Ave New road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of site Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 2003 3,600-2003* 18 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt 29 (29H250) Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 18,000-2007 19 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with Rt 29 (29H250) Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 8,200-2006 20 Eastern Connector Rt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of alignment on hold Capacity/CHART 2006 21 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end Paving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request 2003 2,000-2006 22 Dickerson Road N. of Rt 805 to just S. of Rt 1030 Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable future UnJam 2030; DA location; Rt 29 alternate route 2008 200- 2003 Y 23 Brocks Mill Road, Rural Addition Rural addition projects to be funded upt the available $250 ,000 in VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Public Request 2011 N/A DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS Adopted April 2010 [Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] * Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District. **Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.A Bridge Priorities - In Priority Order VDOT's Secondary Plan Route Number, Road Name Location From-To Sufficiency Rating** Traffic Count Description/Comments Estimated cost/funding source Y Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 950 suff rating, high traffic count -- Advertisement Date (EAD) Oct. 2012 $2,736,912 / federal bridge funds Y Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 780 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Mar. 2014 federal bridge funds Y Route 677, Broomley Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 730 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014 $4,499,373 / federal bridge and secondary funds Y Route 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1100 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD Dec. 2014 Route 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 147 low sufficiency rating Route 745, Wheeler Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 87 low sufficiency rating Route 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 391 low sufficiency rating Route 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 5094 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count Y Route 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Y Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fortk of Rivanna River 480 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS Adopted April 2010 [Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Italics -- new projects Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B1 POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost Regular/RRR Most Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/Comments Year Project placed on Priority List Estimated Advertisement Date 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt 732 to Dead End Not Funded $292,444 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 704 Fortune Lane Rt 715 to Dead End Not Funded $561,676 140-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 672 Blufton Road Rt 810 to Dead end Not Funded $562,402 170-2009 School Request in 2007 2003 no date 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 Not Funded $442,700 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 662 Bleak House Road Rt 660 to Rt 665 Not Funded $ 617,145 100-2009 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead end Not Funded 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date 637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded $754,377 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date 747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to dead end Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 629/624 Browns Gap TP/Headqrters Ln Rt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 90/50-2006 Public request. ranking due to traffic count/new project 2010. 2010 no date ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS Adopted April 2010 [Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B2 POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost Regular/RRR Most Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/Comments Year Project placed on Priority List Estimated Advertisement Date 643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded $3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-15 784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded $1,842,855 260-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well Aug-11 688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not Funded $213,513 300-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 689 Pounding Creek Rd Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 590-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 731 Keswick Drive Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not Funded 310-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date 787 Gillums Ridge Rd.Rt 682 to Rt 708 Not Funded $1,427,288 290-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 820-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date 685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead end Not Funded 310-2003 Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align- ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project. 784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead End Not Funded 260-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date 720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to dead end Not Funded 250-2006 Public request 2007 no date 736 White Mtn Road Rt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 & 636 doesn't meet VDOT requirements) 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 731 Keswick Road .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744 Not Funded (short road seg. btwn P.O & K.C.C.-may be eligible for RRR) 230-2003 Public request. ranking due to traffic count. Possible RRR 2004 no date 683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to dead end Not Funded 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date 712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS Adopted April 2010 [Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B3 POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost Regular/RRR Most Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/Comments Year Project placed on Priority List Estimated Advertisement Date 712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 no date 671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 749 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date 829 Horseshoe Bend Rd Rt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date 645 Magnolia Rd Rt 608 to Orange CL Not Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 no date 674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005 no date 682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current paved sections Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to paved section Not Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead end Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date 687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 45-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date 668 Fox Mountain Trail Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 30-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date 605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run (including bridge) Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS Adopted April 2010 [Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding] Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. B4 POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County Priority Location From - To Funding Status Estimated Cost Regular/RRR Most Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/Comments Year Project placed on Priority List Estimated Advertisement Date 707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead end Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DE Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 no date 813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date 634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date 637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson CL Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007 no date 721 Old Dominion Rd Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006 no date 776 Buck Mtn Ford Lane Rt 667 to Rt 664 Not Funded 20-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no date RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to $1.5 million of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2011/12 Revenue Sharing Program; and WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $1.5 million in match in order to compete for a Revenue Sharing Program award; and WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the replacement of the Broomley Road (Rt. 678) Bridge over the Buckingham Railroad. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to provide $1.5 million of matching funds in its application for up to $1.5 million of revenue sharing funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation approve the County’s application. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 May 5, 2011 Frederick A. Wolf Jr. 603 Lexington Ave Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA201000016 Woolen Mills TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/21F Dear Mr. Wolf: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2011, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 11, 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. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to agenda Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Baksun Land Trust; Jonathan T Wren Trustee 2242 Taylors Gap Road North Garden Va 22959 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00016, Woolen Mills Staff: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 5, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not scheduled Owner(s): Baksun Land Trust; Jonathan T. Wren Trustee Applicant: Frederick and Mary Wolf Acreage: .588 Acres Rezone from: Light Industry (LI) to R-4 (residential) TMP: 078000000021F0 (See Attachments A & B) Existing Zoning and By-right use: Light Industry permits industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts. (See Attachment C) No residential uses are allowed. Location: 1911 & 1913 East Market Street Proffers: No Magisterial District: Scottsville Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1 residential unit plus an accessory apartment DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4 Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density Residential and Parks and Greenways (See Attachment D) Character of Property: The property consists of an existing historic two-unit house. There are also two out- buildings that appear to be used for storage. The front of the house is located approximately 5 feet from the edge of the street. The Rivanna River is located to the east and approximately 150 feet from the house. Use of Surrounding Properties: This is an old, historic, industrial area, primarily consisting of residential uses. There is a mix of old abandoned industrial buildings and refurbished industrial buildings now used for residential purposes. A storage facility is located nearby. The eastern boundary of this neighborhood is the Rivanna River. The area adjacent to the river is in the flood plain. The CSX railroad track is located to the west. Factors Favorable: 1. The rezoning request from Light Industry to R-4 Residential is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning to a residential use is more consistent with the surrounding adjacent residential properties. 3. The rezoning will make a legal non-conforming use more conforming. Factors Unfavorable: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-016, Woolen Mills. ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: April 5, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined ZMA 2010-00016 Woolen Mills PETITION PROJECT: ZMA201000016/Woolen Mills PROPOSAL: Rezone .588 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to R-4, Residential zoning district which allows residential uses and 4 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 2 for a density of 2 units/acre. PROFFERS: No 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 and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Neighborhood 4. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 1911 & 1913 East Market Street TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/21F MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville CHARACTER OF THE AREA This portion of the County is adjacent to the City of Charlottesville boundary. It is an old, historic, industrial area immediately surrounded by residential uses. There is a mix of old abandoned industrial buildings and refurbished industrial buildings now used for residential purposes. Houses are located close to the street, with the Rivanna River located to the east and the CSX railroad located to the west. A portion of land in this neighborhood that is adjacent to the Rivanna River is located in the flood plain. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The property consists of one historic building with two residential units. An addition at the rear of the house is located in the flood plain. (See Attachment B for flood plain) The applicant wishes to purchase the property and renovate the building to include one residential unit as their primary residence with an accessory apartment in the basement. The property is located in a Light Industrial zoning district which does not allow residential uses. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicants wish to rezone the property so that the residential use is more consistent with the adjacent residential zoning district, and to help bring a non-conforming property into a conforming use. Also, the rezoning may help the applicants as they obtain their financing. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY The property is a duplex built in 1850. There is no zoning history on this property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density and Parks and Greenways in Neighborhood 4. The purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Density designation is to provide for a gross residential density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, a range of dwelling unit types, and neighborhood-scale non-residential uses. A portion of this property is also designated Parks and Greenways, which allows public and private parks and existing and proposed greenways along streams. ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 The Neighborhood Model: An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this project since this is an existing building and site changes are not proposed. Economic Development Policy An objective of the County’s Economic Development Policy is to plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth. The Economic Development Policy further describes encouraging infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light-industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. While changing an area zoned for light industry to a residential district might be considered contrary to small business development, retention, and job creation, staff believes the zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and actual conditions in the area. 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-4 district is to allow for medium-density, single family 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 minimal residential development with one residential unit inclusive of an accessory apartment in the basement. The residential use in a Light Industry district is non-conforming. At 2 units per acre, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the R-4 Zoning District. The adjacent residential uses, which are similar structures, are also zoned R-4. Public need and justification for the change: This non-conforming use in a light industrial zone will become more consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area and the use will be more in keeping with the adjacent properties in the area. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: Environmental – The Rivanna River is located adjacent and to the east of this property. As previously mentioned in this report, a portion of this structure is located in the flood plain. The applicants have indicated that they plan to renovate the existing structure and would like to renovate part of the house in the floodplain. The flood hazard overlay district limits what can be done to a structure located in this flood district. The applicants currently have a zoning determination request in with the Zoning Administrator regarding the level of improvements that can be made to a structure in the floodplain if it were to become damaged. A determination has not been made as yet. This rezoning is not contingent on the Zoning Administrator’s determination. Cultural/Historic Resources - This property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. It is also a contributing property in the Woolen Mills Historic District. No impact on environmental, cultural, or historic resources is expected with the rezoning request. ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Planning Commission Staff Report Page 4 Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Utilities – No impact on schools, police, fire and rescue, transportation and utilities is expected from the rezoning request since the existing residential use of the property will not change. Streets – No impact on streets is expected from the rezoning request. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: No impacts to nearby and surrounding properties are anticipated, since the existing residential use of the property will not change. PROFFERS Since there are no anticipated impacts from this rezoning request, proffers are not needed. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The rezoning request from Light Industry to R-4 Residential is more in keeping with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning to a residential use is more consistent with the surrounding adjacent residential properties. 3. The rezoning will make the legal non-conforming use more conforming. Staff has found no factors unfavorable to this rezoning. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-016, Woolen Mills. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this rezoning: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00016. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this rezoning: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00016, (he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial). ATTACHMENT A – ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Location Map ATTACHMENT B – ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Tax Map and Parcel ATTACHMENT C – ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Zoning Map ATTACHMENT D – ZMA2010-00016 Woolen Mills Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Return to PC actions letter R I O R D ESTONY POINT RDRICH M O ND RD M I L T O N R DSEMINOLE TRL¡742 ¡631 ¡816 ¡795 ¡852 }ÿ53 §¨¦64 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2011. Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet ZMA 2010-016Woolen Mills Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest City Boundary 78-21F ± City ofCharlottesville E M A R KET ST Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2011. Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010 0 25 5012.5 Feet ZMA 2010-016Woolen Mills 10' Contour Roads Driveways Buildings Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest 100 Year Floodplain 78-21F ± E M A R K E T S TPIREUS R O W Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2011. Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010 0 100 20050Feet ZMA 2010-016Woolen Mills Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest 78-21F ± City ofCharlottesville 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 E M A R K E T S TPIREUS R O W Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2011. Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2010 0 100 20050Feet ZMA 2010-016Woolen Mills Roads Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest 78-21F ±Comprehensive Plan Land Use Community Service Industrial Service Institutional Neighborhood Density Neighborhood Service Office Service Office/Regional Service Parks and Greenways Regional Service Town/Village Center Transitional Urban Density Rural Area See Development Area Text Master Plan Areas City Boundary City ofCharlottesville ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 5, 2011 ZMA-2010-0016 Woolen Mills PROPOSAL: Rezone .588 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district, which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to R-4, Residential zoning district, which allows residential uses and 4 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 2 for a density of 2 units/acre. PROFFERS: No 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 and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways, playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Neighborhood 4. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 1911 & 1913 East Market Street TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/21F MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The purpose of ZMA-2010-00016, Woolen Mills is to rezone .588 acres from Light Industrial zoning district to R-4, Residential zoning district. The property consists of an existing historic two-unit house. There are also two out-buildings that appear to be used for storage. The front of the house is located approximately 5 feet from the edge of the street. The Rivanna River is located to the east and approximately 150 feet from the house. This is an old, historic, industrial area, primarily consisting of residential uses. There is a mix of old abandoned industrial buildings and refurbished industrial buildings now used for residential purposes. A storage facility is located nearby. The eastern boundary of this neighborhood is the Rivanna River. The area adjacent to the river is in the flood plain. The CSX railroad track is lo cated to the west. The applicant wishes to purchase the property and renovate the building turning it into one residential unit with an accessory apartment. The applicants wish to rezone the property so that the residential use is more consistent wit h the adjacent residential zoning district, and to help bring a non-conforming property into a conforming use. In addition, the rezoning may help the applicants as they obtain their financing. Factors Favorable: 1. The rezoning request from Light Industry to R-4 Residential is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning to a residential use is more consistent with the surrounding adjacent residential properties. 3. The rezoning will make a legal non-conforming use more conforming. Factors Unfavorable: None Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-016, Woolen Mills. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Franco asked if the greenway is accommodated behind these lots. He knew there was something that went on with the draining of the dam. He asked if the greenway goes past this on its own property via an easement. He asked how the greenway is dealt with in the back. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 2 Ms. Grant replied that the greenway is an area in the back of the property. It is just considering an area that is not developed. Mr. Franco asked if the greenway path is on their property. He asked if there is adequate land to create or maintain the greenway path.. Ms. Grant replied that it is on their property. It is just an open area that is in the back of several of the properties. She did not know if she would say it is a formal trail back there. Ms. Monteith noted that she actually walks around this area quite a bit. The path goes from Free Bridge to Riverview Park. Then it moves on to City streets, where one would be on City streets down in front of this house. Therefore, there really isn’t a greenway path that goes behind these houses. Mr. Franco said there had been talk about wanting it for quite a while. He lived across the street from this property for quite a while. When the dam was drained part of the idea was that maybe they would get the greenway path back along Riverside as opposed to along the street. He guess when it was drained the property became attached to these properties as opposed to become vacant or the stuff that was under water. He was just asking if the greenway path is still something they are looking for back there. Ms. Grant said that she was not sure of that. The owner of the property is present and may be can speak a little more to that. As far as she knew, there is no formal trail in the back of the property or in the back of any of the properties. It is just an open area. She did not know if there was an easement or ownership issues. Mr. Franco asked if there was communication with the City with the Woolen Mills Neighborhood about this proposal or the Neighborhood Planner for the City. Mr. Cilimberg noted that they send all of their projects to the City so they are aware of the process. He did not know if there was special notification or a discussion with any staff of the City or not. Ms. Grant noted that there was not. They do send notifications out to the City staff. She heard from the President of the Neighborhood Association. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Fred Wolfe, applicant, said that the staff report summarizes their intention quite well. He and his wife plan to purchase the home from Mr. Wren and turn it from a rental property into a single -family residence with the possibility of an accessory apartment. Their primary residence would be a single -family detached dwelling. There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2010-00016 Woolen Mills as recommended by staff. The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00016 Woolen Mills would be forwarded to the Board with a recommendation of approval at a date to be determined. Return to PC actions letter 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 22, 2011 Steve Driver Terra Engineering And Land Solutions 2374 Sturarts Draft Highway Stuarts Draft, Va 24477 RE: SP20100010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church TMP 04400-00-00-01400 (church/cemetery) & 04400-00-00-012H0 (parsonage) Dear Mr. Driver: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2011, took the following actions on the above noted projects and made recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development and use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zon ing Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan  limits of disturbance  location of buildings and structures  location of parking areas  permanently closing driveway closest to cemetery Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1, 600 square feet. 3. 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 g reater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 4. Removal of trees shall be limited to the trees designated for removal, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and the minimum number of trees may be re quired to be removed by the Health Department for the septic system. Tree protection measures for remaining trees within the construction area including the alley, parking; Fellowship Hall building shall be required on the erosion & sediment control plan in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The tree protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity prior to any land disturbing activity. 5. Approval of a site plan or site plan waiver shall be required. 6. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required prior to approval of an issuance of a building permit. 7. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan (Attachment A) shall commence on or before five years from (the Board of Supervisor’s approval date), or this special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate. 8. There shall be no day care center or private school on site with out approval of a separate special use permit. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 11, 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, Elaine Echols Principal Planner Planning Division cc: Ivy Creek Methodist Church 674 Woodlands Road Charlottesville Va 22901 View PC staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to agenda SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP201000010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 5, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be Determined Owner: Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Applicant: Bob Pattison, Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Acreage: 2.973 total acres Special Use Permit: Section 10.2.2 (35) Church building and adjunct cemetery TMP: 04400000001400 and 044000000012H0 Location: 674 Woodlands Road (Rt. 676) at its intersection with Green Meadows Lane Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes DA (Development Area): RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Proposal: Special use permit to bring church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church facility to construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re-construct parking area on a total of 2.973 acres 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: properties contain existing church, parsonage, offices/Sunday School/fellowship hall and cemetery Use of Surrounding Properties: agricultural and residential Factors Favorable: 1. Closing the easternmost driveway would remove an unsafe condition. 2. The proposed building and site improvements would be sensitive to the historic structure and the historic site context. 3. The church contributes to the surrounding community. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The reorganization of the parking would require the removal of large trees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions. SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas PLANNING COMMISSION: April 5, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD PROJECT: SP201000010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Petition: PROPOSED: Special use permit to bring church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church facility to construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re-construct parking area on a total of 2.973 acres ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (35) Church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas (RA 1) - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources / residential density .5 units / acre in development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No__X__ LOCATION: 674 Woodlands Road (Rt. 676) west of Green Meadows Lane TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04400000001400 (church/cemetery); 044000000012H0 (parsonage) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett Character of the Area: The area can be characterized by a mixture of agricultural uses and residential subdivisions. The property surrounding the church on three sides is Edgemont Farm, which is under a conservation easement held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and in the Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District. Specifics of the Proposal: Existing. The church property (TMP 44-14) currently contains a 1,590 square foot ca. 1920s historic stone church, a detached 3,300 square foot two-story Sunday School building, and attached to the rear of the church, a two-story 1,440 square foot multi-purpose building (Sunday School, office and one-story attached utility building). The multi-purpose/utility building is a more recent addition and is not considered a historic structure. A small detached utility shed is located at the end of an alley behind the buildings. A cemetery is located on the east side of the property. An existing alley provides access to the rear of these buildings. A parsonage is located west of the church and Sunday School Building on TMP 44-12H. The church, adjunct buildings, and cemetery are non-conforming uses and require approval of a special use permit to allow expansion of a structure. Proposed. The multi-purpose building and its attached utility building would be demolished and replaced by a larger Fellowship Hall. The proposed new 5,360 square foot structure would also be attached to the Sunday School building on the west side of the church. A copy of the existing and proposed plans is included as Attachment A (existing site/buildings - sheet C2.0; proposed site/buildings - sheet C3.0). No changes have been proposed for the church or the parsonage. Currently, the parking area is gravel with the undefined parking spaces that are typically found in rural churches. The proposed gravel parking would accommodate 43 vehicles, but wheel stops would be installed in order to define the parking spaces. The existing alley behind the church buildings would be widened and improved with gravel to provide access to the eight parking spaces between the church and the cemetery. The existing entrance adjacent to the cemetery SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 would be permanently closed, as it has been determined by VDOT that the entrance does not have adequate sight distance. The existing primary entrance to the church would continue to provide access; however, it would be improved to VDOT specifications. Planning and Zoning History: Constructed ca. 1920-26, the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) describes the church as a “well-executed example of early 20th century Gothic Revival on a small scale”. The church is a historic structure, but it has not been formally evaluated as by the DHR regarding eligibility for listing in the State and National registers. The church and cemetery are non-conforming uses in the RA district. SP 84-36 Susan G. Smith, a special use permit application for the temporary location of Free Union Country School was accepted for withdrawal by the Board of Supervisors after a recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission. Inadequate sight distance was a factor in the Commission’s recommendation. SUB 2010-148 Boundary Line Adjustment to combine church and parsonage properties. The BLA is required for the expansion and access of the church, as the proposed church expansion would not meet setback regulations. The application is being reviewed, at this time. SDP 2011-17 Site Plan application for the church expansion. Approval of SP2010-10 is required prior to completion of the site plan application, as the proposed building expansion would not meet setback regulations with the current property lines. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources as land use options. The protection of the historic church was a consideration in siting the proposed structure. Although not specifically mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, churches provide an important community resource in the RA and are integral to the historic context of rural communities. The property is located in the South Fork Rivanna Water Supply Watershed. The church expansion and re-designed parking lot will require storm water retention, as appropriate. RLUIPA: 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 demonstrates 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). SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 4 STAFF COMMENT: Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: 31.2.4.1: 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 church has occupied this site since the 1920s. No expansion of the church sanctuary or increase in seating has been proposed. The church properties are surrounded on three sides by the agricultural uses on Edgemont Farm. The Logan Village residential subdivision is located on the opposite side of Woodlands Road. As the building location on the rear of the church and proposed uses would be similar to the existing structure and uses, staff does not anticipate that the surrounding properties would be adversely affected. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and The proposed parking lot organization and the new building would be similar to the existing structure. The staff to the Historic Resources Committee had no objection to the demolition of the existing multi-use structure and its replacement of the fellowship hall, as the existing building is not a historic structure and the proposed building would be sited to respect the stained glass windows and would not further impact the existing historic church. The parking area would retain a gravel surface. As the fellowship hall would replace an existing building, there would not be an adverse impact on the adjacent Agricultural and Forestal District. It is staff’s opinion that the character of the district would not be changed. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: -Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; -Water supply protection; -Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and -Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)” Ivy Creek Methodist Church is an established component of the community. The enlargement of the Fellowship Hall would not adversely affect the historic church. The building addition and the parking re-design not conflict with the intent of the RA District. with uses permitted by right in the district, The church currently exists within the context of by-right uses and the proposed building addition would not otherwise affect the uses permitted by right in the RA District. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in section 5.0 of the ordinance that govern churches and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The closing of the existing easternmost driveway nearest the cemetery due to inadequate sight distance would increase the public safety in this area. The existing primary driveway between the church and the parsonage would be improved to VDOT standards. Impervious surfaces would be reduced to the minimum possible. SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 5 SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. Closing the easternmost driveway would remove an unsafe condition. 2. The proposed building and site improvements would be sensitive to the historic structure and the historic site context. 3. The church contributes to the surrounding community Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The reorganization of the parking would require the removal of large trees. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201000010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development and use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan limits of disturbance location of buildings and structures location of parking areas permanently closing driveway closest to cemetery Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1, 600 square feet. 3. 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. 4. Removal of trees shall be limited to the trees designated for removal, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and the minimum number of trees may be required to be removed by the Health Department for the septic system. Tree protection measures for remaining trees within the construction area including the alley, parking, Fellowship Hall building shall be required on the erosion & sediment control plan in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The tree protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity prior to any land disturbing activity. 5. Approval of a site plan or site plan waiver shall be required. 6. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required prior to approval of an issuance of a building permit. 7. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan (Attachment A) shall commence on or before five years from (the Board of Supervisor’s approval date), or SP201000010 PC April 5, 2011 Staff Report Page 6 this special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate. 8. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP 201000010 Ivy Creek United Methodist 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 201000010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Conceptual Plan titled “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (Sheets C1.0, C2.0, and C3.0) Attachment B – Location Map Attachment C – Site Photographs Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 5, 2011 SP-2010-00010 Ivy Creek Church PROPOSED: Special use permit to bring church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church fac ility to construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re -construct parking area on a total of 2.973 acres ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery uses SECTION: 10.2.2 (35) Church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas (RA 1) - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources / residential density .5 units / acre in development lots ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No__X__ LOCATION: 674 Woodlands Road (Rt. 676) west of Green Meadows Lane TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04400000001400 (church/cemetery); 044000000012H0 (parsonage) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett (Joan McDowell) Ms. McDowell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit for expansion of an existing church that was built around 1920, the Ivy Creek Methodist Church. The special use permit would bring the church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church facility to construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re-construct parking area on a total of 2.973 acres. The proposal would include the following: • Bring existing church and cemetery into compliance with the zoning ordinance • Demolish existing multi-purpose building (Sunday School / utility building) • Construct new Fellowship Hall • Re-design parking, use curb stops to define spaces • Improve alley in rear of church building • Close existing entrance between church and cemetery • No changes on parsonage • No changes to the historic church • No additional sanctuary seating Factors Favorable: 1. Closing the easternmost driveway would remove an unsafe condition. 2. The proposed building and site improvements would be sensitive to the historic structure and the historic site context. 3. The church contributes to the surrounding community. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The reorganization of the parking would require the removal of large trees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Ms. Porterfield noted there was a lot of discussion about large trees on the last church site the Commission reviewed. The Board of Supervisors required many trees to be planted. She questioned if there were large trees that could be saved on this site. Mr. Lafferty suggested that there were only two large trees. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 2 Ms. McDowell said that there were a couple of trees that would need to be removed to do the expansion. The trees x’d out on the site would need to be removed to construct the building. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was no way to avoid cutting those trees. Ms. McDowell replied that staff talked to the applicant and agreed that there does not seem to be any way to avoid it. Mr. Franco noted when they say that what is driving it is the formalization of the parking. It looks like one of the trees in the back right was in the footprint of the building. He asked if formalizing the parking is something that is driving the two trees in front being removed. He asked if that is a choice being made by the applicant or is that a site plan requirement. Ms. McDowell replied that decision would be made by the applicant. The applicant is present. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Steve Driver, with Terra Engineering, said the church bui lding was constructed many decades ago and is a well known land mark in the local community. He made the following comments. - Over the years, a social hall was added with the addition to the back of the church. The current proposal is simply to replace this addition and to extend it slightly to the west to the social hall so folks won’t have to walk out in inclement weather to go from one building to the other. About three or four decades ago, the church bought some additional land and built a church pa rsonage next door. The two parcels, the parsonage and the church, were recently approved by County staff to be combined into one larger parcel. The combination plat has been approved and recorded. - As Joan pointed out the purpose of the special use perm it is simply to bring the church, parsonage, Sunday School, and cemetery into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance, which obviously did not exist many years ago. In development of the current conceptual plan, several issues were raised by County staff. Over the last several months, the applicant has worked diligently with County staff to resolve all the issues. During this process County staff also suggested so as to be efficient in the work to also request waivers that were deemed to be conducive to the rural character of the site and the site’s usefulness and yet consistent with past Commission actions regarding the final site plan preparation. Therefore, waiver requests were made and County staff approved these waivers via the letter dated Mar ch 22, 2011 with conditions. Those conditions were simply that the site development is to be consistent with the conditions of this special permit and that timbers would be installed along the parking edges as shown on the concept plan. - He expressed their sincere appreciation to County staff for their time and efforts in helping the applicant to formulate a concept plan, which not only enhanced the worse experience for the church community, but also provides an improved and safer entrance to the church s ite. He respectfully asked the Commission to provide a positive recommendation for approval. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was any way to safe a couple of the gigantic trees. Mr. Driver said that was an excellent question. He had tried to figure out how to do that. One tree needs to be removed for the new building structure to the back of the church. The other two trees are in the parking lot area. To meet the County requirements for parking space an d circulation in the parking area those trees have to come down. There are a number of large mature trees on the site. Basically, to save those trees they would probably have to push some parking out in front of the church parsonage lot, which would not be conducive for walking from the parking to the church building itself. Their goal is to try to keep the parking as close to its current position as possible. That parking area currently is a graveled area and one of the waivers requested was that it remain a gravel area. There is very little grading required for that. The people who attend the church today pretty much park where ever they can find a place because there are no striped parking spaces. To meet the County requirements they have to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 3 relegate the parking a little bit and they are doing that by the proposed timbers and the concrete wheel stops. Ms. Porterfield asked staff if there is anything they can do to try to save the two big trees in front of the Sunday School building, which are in the parking lot. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he could not answer that since it was reviewed by the County Engineer because he has to set up aisles and parking spaces. He also mentioned if he had to avoid the trees, he might have to extend some of the parking over which gets into other areas that have trees in them itself. Where they can incorporate the trees, they certainly will. Once they are creating a parking area around the trees, they are disturbing the area underneath the canopy of the tree. Ms. Porterfield noted that she understood, but was just trying to see if there was anything that can be done or whether they have to go by the absolute letter of the law. She asked if there was anything that could be done. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he could not answer that question because he was not involved in that decision. That is really handled in another area. To the degree that it can be addressed during the site plan process, he was sure it would be. Ms. Porterfield realized that it was further away, but they would have able bodied people that could come and park behind the parsonage. There has to be enough people that could walk over from there. Mr. Cilimberg noted from knowing the site from past applications they may be robbing Peter to pay Paul . By making the shifts, they may be end up taking trees in another location. Ms. Porterfield said that they don’t show any trees back there because that has the drain field in it. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that parking over a drain field has its own issues. Ms. Porterfield agreed. She was just saying that they have these nice historic building and part of the wonderful part of them is the size of the trees that have been allowed to grow. It just seems a shame. There are four big trees on the site that are coming out. Ms. McDowell said there is a condition of approval. Mr. Smith pointed out that the church will add new trees and new growth. Mr. Zobrist asked if anyone else has any questions of the applicant. Mr. Franco reiterated what he was hearing. He was not looking to redesign the site to save the trees so much as asking a question. If they left the parking unorganized as it has been and people are just finding spaces in the lawn as they have been doing for years can they just leave it that way or would the church want to leave it that way. Bob Pattison, Chairman of the Building Committee, said they love those trees. They realize that the trees contribute significantly to the beauty of the site. If they could save those trees and not have to organize the parking the way it is, they would be more than happy to do that. Obviously, they have to lose the one that is over where the building is going to be. If they could help them to save those trees, they would be appreciative. Mr. Franco said from his perspective if there was a way that they could move this forward and allow the unmarked parking area to continue to provide the required parking and in that way they don’t have to take the trees he would support that. Mr. Cilimberg suggested they act on the special use permit application, and then indicate they would like a reconsideration of how the parking is being provided and if the trees can be saved. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 4 Mr. Kamptner noted that staff could look at that issue between now and the Board meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said that does not have to be dealt with by the Board necessarily, but it can be dealt with by the people who have to make those decisions. They don’t have any of those staff persons present. Mr. Franco agreed. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Jim Thornton, Pastor of Ivy Creek Church, said that they want very much to be more effective in their ministry in the community. They want to be able to offer much more to their young peop le, and children for a growing Christian Arts Academy that sometimes has around 100 people involved in Christian hearts. What they are asking for is the facility to enable them to do that. They will do everything they can to save the trees. The trees are nice, except for when they rake the leaves. There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lafferty said the desire to try to save the trees has been expressed and he was ready to make a motion. Mr. Franco said he was comfortable making a motion as well to move this forward. Again, his goal would be to highlight to staff that a willingness as part of our motion or after their motion that if they feel that leaving the parking unmarked, if everybody is comfortable with that on the user side, and that preserves the trees, that they are willing to have that happen. Mr. Lafferty suggested saying some consideration of saving the trees. Mr. Cilimberg said if they make the motion on the special use permit, staff understands the Commission would like them to talk with staff about any accommodations for the trees that are there now. Ms. Porterfield suggested that they needed to formalize it somehow. Mr. Morris agreed that exactly what Mr. Cilimberg said is as formal as the Commission wants to get. He thought this is something that needs to be looked at between the applicant and staff in a logical quiet manner and not at this late an hour. Mr. Franco said that he did not want to make that a condition of the approval. He would accept this if it was the only way to move it forward, but was willing to take this plan as is. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP -2010-00010 Ivy Creek United Methodist Church subject to the conditions, as recommended by staff. 1. Development and use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan limits of disturbance location of buildings and structures location of parking areas permanently closing driveway closest to cemetery ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 5 Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 1, 600 square feet. 3. 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. 4. Removal of trees shall be limited to the trees designated for removal, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and the minimum number of trees may be required to be removed by the Health Department for the septic system. Tree protection measures for remaining trees within the construction area including the alley, parking, Fellowship Hall building shall be required on the erosion & sediment control plan in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The tree protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity prior to any land disturbing activity. 5. Approval of a site plan or site plan waiver shall be required. 6. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required prior to approval of an issuance of a building permit. 7. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan (Attachment A) shall commence on or before five years from (the Board of Supervisor’s approval date), or this special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate. 8. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Franco noted in follow up that as a Commission they were in agreement that they would encourage or accept staff working with the applicant to save trees. Staff to follow up to see if a less formal parking arrangement could be done to save the large trees. Mr. Cilimberg added if it was possible under the ordinance because that is all staff has to work with. Mr. Kamptner recalled that a rural church within the last year or two where they had a less formal parking arrangement that was allowed. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the first thing staff was going to do as a follow up was to get with staff tomorrow on this. Mr. Cilimberg noted this might be the last time the Commission would see Joan McDowell as she is retiring. The Commission thanked Joan McDowell for her work and service to the Commission and wished her well in her retirement. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center and SP 2010-00009, Morey Creek Professional Center Parking Structure and Critical Slopes Waiver SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: applicant wishes to construct a 100,000 SF office building, 15,000 SF daycare facility, and parking structure. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: May 11, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On April 6, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Zoning Map Amendment and Special Use Permit. The Commission recommended approval of both items. DISCUSSION: Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has finalized the proffers to reference the correct acreage and the April 19, 2011 date of proffer signature. Attachment I is the revised proffers. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, with the revised proffers, SP 2010-00009, Morey Creek Professional Center Parking Structure (no conditions) and the Critical Slopes Waiver. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT I: Signed proffers, dated April 19, 2011 Go to PC actions letter 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 22, 2011 Samuel E. Saunders III / Timmons Group 919 2nd Street Se Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA201000003 & SP201000009 Morey Creek Professional Center TMP 07600-00-00-012A0 & 07600-00-00-012G0 Dear Mr. Saunders: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2011, took the following actions on the above noted projects and made recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of ZMA-2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, by a vote of 7:0. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SP-2010-00009, by a vote of 7:0 as recommended by staff. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, by a vote 7:0, for Morey Creek Critical Slopes Waiver, as recommended by staff. (Concurrent with SP and ZMA) Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 11, 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: University Of Virginia Health Services Foundation P O Box 800504 Charlottesville Va 22903 ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure Staff: Judith C. Wiegand Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 5, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not yet scheduled Owner(s): University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Applicant: Owner, represented by Samuel E. Saunders, with Timmons Group Acreage: 12.606 acres Rezone from: Planned Residential Development (PRD) which allows residential (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre). No residential units are proposed. TMP: TM, Parcel 076000000012A0 and 076000000012G0 Location: on the north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended between the intersections of Reservoir Road and Buckingham Circle (Attachment A). By-right use: residential including single-family detached, semi-detached and attached single- family, and multifamily dwellings at a density of 6.01 – 34 units per acre. The current PRD is approved for 61 units. Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a 100,000 SF office building, a parking garage, and a 15,000 SF daycare facility.(Attachment B) Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Development Area: Neighborhood 6. Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. Character of Property: The property is currently vacant, with a floodplain area, a perennial stream, wetlands, and some steep slopes. Use of Surrounding Properties: The site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property, known as Foxhaven, on the north by vacant land owned by the University of Virginia, on the east by the Buckingham Circle subdivision and across the street to the south by the Virginia Dept. of Forestry. Trinity Presbyterian Church, which has a large congregation, is to the west. The Fontaine Research Park, which serves as a major employer in the immediate area, is about one-half mile to the east. Two major highways are also within close proximity, the US Route 29 Bypass and I-64. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby Factors Unfavorable: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 2 will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the local street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-00009. Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 3 STAFF PERSON: Judith C. Wiegand PLANNING COMMISSION: April 5, 2011 ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure Critical Slopes Waiver PETITION PROJECT: ZMA 2010-03 Morey Creek Professional Center (Concurrent with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure) PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.009 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 day care center, and parking structure. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes Concurrent with ZMA2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): PROJECT: SP 2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03) PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures. (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 1010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to the west of Buckingham Circle TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-12A & 12G MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller CHARACTER OF THE AREA The site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property, known as Foxhaven. There are several residences in this area. The University of Virginia owns a large vacant parcel to the north. The Buckingham Circle neighborhood is located to the east and contains approximately 50 homes. The Virginia Forestry Department is located across Fontaine Avenue Extended to the south. Trinity Presbyterian Church, which has a large congregation, is to the west. The Fontaine Research Park, which serves as a major employer in the immediate area, is about one-half mile to the east. Two major highways are also within close proximity, the 250 Bypass and I-64. The subject property is currently vacant; a few structures once located on it have been removed. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Health Sciences Foundation (HSF), would like to construct an office facility for UVA Medical Center support workers. The proposal includes a 100,000 square foot office building, a parking structure, and a 15,000 square foot daycare center to serve UVA Medical Center staff. The office building is being sized to allow for future staff growth. A large portion of the property is being preserved to protect a stream, stream buffer, floodplain, and wetland area. The development would be served by an access road located to the west of Buckingham Circle. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 4 APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has indicated that the proposed office building will house support staff for the UVA Medical Center. Locating all of these support workers in the same facility will increase efficiency and bring them closer to the Medical Center. The daycare has been included in the proposal because the University would like to provide daycare for its workers near their place of work. Structuring the parking means that less of the site would have to be developed and that the parking spaces will be closer to the office building. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Prior to 1980, the property was zoned Commercial Office. With the comprehensive rezoning in December 1980, the property was zoned Highway Commercial. ZMA 2004-00002, approved September 14, 2005: the property was rezoned to Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow construction of the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes, with 61 units proposed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6. The recommendations from the Land Use Plan for Neighborhood 6 that are applicable to this proposal are discussed below. Limit the Neighborhood Service designation on Fontaine Avenue west of the Bypass (Old Route 29 South) to existing zoned land. A mixed use development may be permitted. The gross density of the mixed use development should be consistent with Neighborhood Density Residential and Neighborhood Service designations as shown in the Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in Neighborhood Service areas are expected to include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, Community, or Village. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service are typically 1-5 acres in size, are accessible from a collector road, have water and sewer available, and are compatible with adjacent land uses. Areas designated as Neighborhood Service should have a specific relationship to nearby and surrounding residential uses and, to the greatest extent possible, be connected to those uses through a system of sidewalks or pedestrian paths. A mixture of Urban Density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses is encouraged within this designation. Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service if a mixture of uses includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas, green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities should occupy at least 20% of the area. The proposed daycare and office uses are acceptable uses within the Neighborhood Service designation. The Land Use Plan suggests more of a mix of uses and a relationship to and support/convenience for surrounding residential areas. In this case, the majority of the development with the exception of the daycare would be a single office use/major employer. The inclusion of the daycare center brings the proposal closer to the intent of the Neighborhood Service designation. The relative isolation of the site from many other uses also limits its potential as place for support/ convenience uses. The scale of the development does not technically meet the limitations described in the Land Use Plan for building square footage in a Neighborhood Services area. The Land Use Plan suggests approximately 40,000 square feet (SF) of building area for Neighborhood Service areas of 1-5 ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 5 acres. However, the site is unique; it is significantly larger at 12.6 acres, it has been designated commercial in all of the land use plans since 1970, and it was previously zoned Highway Commercial. It has a large area of floodplain and a protected wetland. Because of its history, staff believes the physical scale of the proposed development respects the environmental features and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Proposed elevations for the 100,000 SF office building prepared by the applicant show a lower-scale, three-story building that is located on the site to avoid the environmental features and at the greatest possible distance from the Buckingham Circle neighborhood. The environmental features separate the office building, garage, and daycare facility from the neighborhood. Providing structured parking means that less of the site would be used for parking than it would be if all of the parking was surface parking. The daycare facility is in a separate building located in the northwest corner of the site, and at two stories, would be compatible with other structures on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation improvements recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood 6 that are relevant to this proposed rezoning include: Provide pedestrian connections from the residential areas in the Neighborhood to the Fontaine Avenue Research Park. Consider the transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations of the Southern Urban Area B Study. Provide transit service to Fontaine Avenue corridor including the Fontaine Research Park. Staff believes the proposal adequately addresses the pedestrian and transit recommendations. The applicant has proffered to: Provide an offsite paved pedestrian path that will connect with the Fontaine Research Park (Proffer #1). Staff requested that this path, which was proffered as a part of the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes rezoning, also be proffered by the applicant in order to assure that workers at the Professional Center could walk to Fontaine Research Park. Provide a loading space for the JAUNT bus (Proffer #3). Staff notes that at the time a CAT bus route serves the Morey Creek Professional Center, the buses would stop on Fontaine Avenue Extended, not go into the facility, so a stop would likely be located on Fontaine Avenue Extended. The Southern Urban Area B Study does not include any “transit, bicycle and pedestrian recommendations” that are specific to this property. The Study does include a recommendation that a park be located along the “Duck Pond, West of Buckingham Circle.” On private property, the providing a “greenway amenity area,” a trail connection, and benches is an appropriate passive use on the parcel. The transportation impacts have been analyzed with a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The results of and recommendations from the TIA are summarized below under Staff Comment. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan The site contains floodplain, a perennial stream, wetlands, and some steep slopes. The Open Space Plan shows a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley and Adjacent Critical Slope around Morey Creek, and identifies Morey Creek as a perennial stream with non-tidal wetlands, wooded areas and floodplain. The wetlands associated with Morey Creek have been significantly altered in this location, but remain in a relatively natural state upstream. The Open Space Plan states, “When wetlands are to be disturbed on a development site, require the developer to provide evidence of compliance with State and Federal wetlands regulations prior to County approvals.” Most of this ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 6 work was completed when the wetlands were recreated with a pond mitigation plan. The proposed plan protects these areas to the greatest extent possible. The applicant is requesting a Critical Slopes Waiver, which is discussed at the end of this staff report. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. It establishes 12 Principles for Development to which new development proposals should adhere. The application plan and other illustrations provided with this application have been evaluated to determine how well the proposal fulfills the principles of the Neighborhood Model. Staff believes that the current application plan addresses ten of the principles well, the remaining two are not relevant to the project. Pedestrian Orientation The plan includes sidewalks throughout the development, to the environmental area, along Fontaine Avenue, and connecting to a potential future greenway. The applicant does not show a sidewalk on both sides of the main travel aisle as it enters the site; a sidewalk is shown only on the east side of the street adjacent to the office building, parking garage, and daycare. However, there is nothing on the west side of the street for which pedestrian access is needed and, due to the slope on that side of the street, there is no way to connect the sidewalk to anything. As the travel aisle approaches the daycare facility, a sidewalk is available on both sides. Staff notes that there is no entrance to the proposed office building from Fontaine Avenue Extended. Under normal circumstances, an entrance would be expected. However, this facility is unique for several reasons. First, the applicant has indicated that the building must be a secure facility due to the presence of medical records, so only one entrance that is monitored is appropriate. Since most of the employees will park in the garage, the main entrance is accessed from the garage. Any employees who walk over from Fontaine Research Park will be able to follow the sidewalk around to the entrance. Also, the uses in the surrounding area (residential, primarily) do not relate to the building; no pedestrian traffic from the west is expected. This principle is met. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths Wherever possible, a 6’ (minimum) planting strip with street trees separates the proposed sidewalks/pedestrian paths from the street or travel aisle. Staff recognizes that there are ROW and other design constraints that prevent a planting strip in all areas. This principle is met. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks Staff has determined that this is not the best location for public street interconnections and that it would be very difficult to develop the project with public roads. The proposed internal travelway running north/south could be extended if conditions warrant a connection in the future; an access easement for the benefit of the property to the north has been included on the application plan to allow for this potential connection. This principle is met. Parks and Open Space More than half of the site remains undeveloped (66.7 % or 8.41 of the 12.6 acre site) with this proposal. The plan provides for preservation areas as well as amenity areas. This principle is met. Neighborhood Centers If developed as proposed, the site could become an employment center. It is surrounded by residential areas and is near other employment uses. This principle is met. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 7 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale Heights, setbacks, spatial enclosure, front and side yards, architecture, and relationships of building heights to widths all play a role in the scale of development. The images provided with the application plan and shown during the neighborhood meeting show that the proposal respects the adjacent Buckingham Circle neighborhood with plane changes, building materials/architecture, and the use of stepbacks. The proposed office building, garage, and daycare facility are generally lower in height than the previously proposed townhomes would have been. This principle also appears to be addressed on the Fontaine Avenue side of the building with varied architectural elements and plane changes along the façade of the building. The third floor of the office building has been stepped back a minimum of 15 feet from the second story. Staff believes that once a commitment is made to ensure that these images guide the ultimate design of the development, this principle will be met. Specifically, staff is working with the applicant on a commitment to the following: architectural elevations, lighting levels to be used in the parking structure, and landscaping between the office building/parking structure and Buckingham Circle. Relegated Parking Most parking for the office building is provided in the garage, which is located behind the office building from Fontaine Avenue Extended. A small amount of surface parking is provided for convenience in front of the daycare building and is not relegated. This principle is met. Mixture of Uses The project provides two types of commercial uses, office and daycare. Residential uses, private schools, a church and a large employer are within close proximity. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability This principle is not applicable as no residential uses are proposed. Redevelopment This is a redevelopment project, but there are no longer any structures on the site as they have been demolished. This principle is met. Site Planning that Respects Terrain About 1.77 acres of the site are in critical slopes and 0.59 acres of those critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Since important resources on the Open Space Plan are not impacted and there are no engineering concerns, staff has no objection to the critical slopes waiver. The application plan shows retaining walls with a maximum height of 8 feet between the building and the environmental features. Small retaining walls, 6 feet or less, on stepped terraces are preferable to unnaturally steep slopes or high retaining walls. However, in this location, the walls are between a sewer easement and the building, so creating terraces would conflict with the easement. Since only two short stretches of the walls are higher than 6 feet, staff believes this is the best solution. On the west side of the property across the travel aisle from the parking garage and near the daycare center, potentially higher retaining walls have been stepped. This principle is met. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas This principle is not applicable since the project is not adjacent to a Development Area boundary. Economic Vitality Action Plan The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to: ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 8 Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. The Health Sciences Foundation is an existing local business currently located in the Fontaine Research Park. The proposed new facility will expand the tax base. At the outset, the new facility will house employees that are now working at the Research Park. However, the new building has been planned to accommodate projected increases in the staff; additional employees are expected to be necessary in the future. The need for space to house the additional employees is one reason why the new facility is planned. One of the objectives under this goal is: Objective III. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, strategically work with UVA, UVA Real Estate Foundation and private and non-profit sector employers that provide or will provide a diverse array of quality career ladder employment opportunities for our resident workforce, with a particular focus on supporting existing local enterprises while not excluding new entrepreneurs and enterprises. The Heath Services Foundation is another private, nonprofit employer that provides a number of professional level jobs that are available to residents. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality Action Plan. STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: According to the Zoning Ordinance, the PD-MC zoning district is intended to: Permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. Be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. Discourage multiple access points to existing public roads and provide access oriented toward an internal road system that has carefully planned intersections with existing public roads. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the PD-MC district. Morey Creek Professional Center would have two commercial uses that would be under a single management (the daycare center will be under contract to HSF). The Professional Center would be located within a Development Area and with a main entrance directly onto the existing public road (Fontaine Avenue Extended), as well as a secondary, right-in only entrance from Fontaine Avenue Extended directly into the parking garage. Public need and justification for the change: Until it was rezoned as a PRD, this property was designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and had been zoned commercial for decades. An office building and a daycare facility are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 9 will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. According to the applicant, there is a significant need for additional daycare facilities to serve HSF and UVAF employees. Because this daycare center is adjacent to the Professional Center and in close proximity to Fontaine Research Park, it will serve employees at both locations. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: The applicant has agreed to protect the significant environmental features on the site. They are shown on the application plan as preservation areas. Buildings and roadways have been laid out around these features. There are no known cultural or historic resources on the site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: At VDOT’s request, the applicant prepared a TIA to meet the requirements of Virginia Chapter 527. The purpose of the study was to determine the impacts of the Morey Creek Professional Center and to recommend improvements to lessen the transportation impacts of the development. The study area extended along Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue from the intersection of the US Route 29 Bypass southbound ramps to Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue (in the City of Charlottesville). The ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges were also included in the study area. The study included the following intersections, which are shown on an aerial map in Attachment C: Fontaine Avenue Extended at the US Route 29 Bypass southbound ramps Fontaine Avenue at US Route 29 Bypass northbound ramps Fontaine Avenue at Ray C. Hunt Drive Fontaine Avenue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue Following completion of the main TIA, the traffic consultants also analyzed the intersection of Buckingham Circle and Fontaine Avenue Extended. The study noted that: The addition of the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center creates a somewhat different set of hurdles at the interchange of US Route 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue. Given the directional traffic characteristics associated with office development and the proposed building’s location west of the interchange, new deficiencies are noted that are not directly addressed by the improvements proposed in conjunction with the Fontaine Research Park expansion to the east. The proposed Morey Creek Professional Center generates directional traffic flows opposite of what exist today. The applicant has proffered all of the improvements recommended in the TIA to address traffic issues, so the traffic impacts on local streets have been addressed. In particular, the residents of Buckingham Circle should find it easier to enter/leave their development once the traffic signals and turn lanes are in place. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 10 Staff notes, though, that these proffered improvements do not address the problems with the weaving movements on the US Route 29 Bypass northbound and southbound. As VDOT states in its evaluation: The weave analysis included in the study for traffic on the Route 29 Bypass between the I-64 and Fontaine interchanges and traffic on I-64 eastbound between the Route 29 Bypass loops are performing below acceptable levels of service and will continue to degrade with additional background and site traffic. The study does not provide any recommendations to improve these maneuvers. These interchanges need additional analysis and improvements that are beyond the scope of this study. VDOT notes that improvements to this segment of the regional road system will require further study and are beyond what is usually required of a single development project. A summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) results is provided in Attachment D. VDOT Comments are included in Attachment E. As noted in the comments, the proffers (Attachment F) address VDOT’s request that all of the improvements needed to handle the additional traffic from the Fontaine Research Park rezoning and the Morey Creek Professional Center have been proffered by the Health Services Foundation (HSF). Each of the improvements are expected to be in place in time to serve traffic from either institution. VDOT has assured staff that all of the other comments listed under “Plan” (numbers 2 – 8) can be dealt with at the time of site plan approval. Schools: The proposed development is not residential, so there will be no impact on County schools. Fire and Rescue: The closest County fire rescue station is Monticello off of Avon Street Extended (near Monticello High School). There is a closer station in the City of Charlottesville. Utilities: Water and sewer are available to the site. The applicant has provided the 40-foot sewer easement requested by RWSA; it is shown on the application plan. RWSA and ACSA comments are included in Attachments G and H, respectively. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The proposed Morey Creek Professional Center will be developed on property that is currently vacant. The impact of the proposed Professional Center on the nearest neighbors, the residents of Buckingham Circle, would be primarily from traffic, noise, and lighting. The potential traffic impacts have been addressed as noted above. The Professional Center, including the daycare facility, will be open during typical business hours on weekdays. Thus, there would be little, if any, noise in the evenings and on weekends. Also, the applicant has represented that the lighting in the office building and garage will be minimal outside of office hours. The applicant has offered to increase the amount of landscaping in the area between the office building/parking garage and Buckingham Circle. These impacts are expected to be less than the impacts from the previous proposal, the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes. Further, the stream/stream buffer/floodplain/wetland area will provide a buffer between the Professional Center and the residential area. Staff notes that this area is significantly larger than the buffer that would normally be required between a commercial area and a residential area. Also, Professional Center employees will have their own entrance off of Fontaine Avenue Extended; they will not be using Buckingham Circle. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 11 The applicant has met several times with the residents of Buckingham Circle to explain the project and explain how the proposed development would address residents’ concerns. The primary concern expressed by the residents is their difficult entering and leaving their neighborhood through the intersection at Bucking ham Circle and Fontaine Avenue Extended. Staff believes that the road improvements identified in the TIA (see below) and proffered by the applicant will address the traffic issues at this intersection, as well as on other local streets. PROFFERS Attachment F contains the signed proffers, as reviewed by the County Attorney. Staff believes these proffers address the matters that need to be addressed, and that each proffer will be fulfilled at the appropriate time in the development process. Each proffer is described below: Proffer 1: the Owner has agreed to construct an off-site asphalt-paved pedestrian walkway from the southeast corner of the site to the Fontaine Business Park with the route running along the north side of Fontaine Avenue Extended. This is the same pedestrian path that was proffered by the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes. Proffer 2: the Owner has agreed to design and construct a pedestrian bridge over the stream/stream buffer/floodplain area at the southeast corner of the site. This bridge will enable Professional Center employees to reach the greenway amenity area and to reach the pedestrian path (Proffer #1). The pedestrian bridge was proffered by the Fontaine Avenue Townhomes project. Proffer 3: the Owner has agreed to provide a loading space for JAUNT buses to drop off employees at the office building. During discussions with the applicant, staff determined that, should a regular CAT bus route be extended to serve the Professional Center, a CAT bus stop would most likely be located on Fontaine Avenue Extended, so no stop needs to be located within the site. Proffer 4: the Owner has agreed to design, bond, and construct the following transportation improvements: A traffic signal at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 northbound ramp intersection. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) showed that this signal would be necessary due to the additional traffic from the Morey Creek Professional Center. An eastbound right turn lane on Fontaine Avenue at the US 29 southbound ramp intersection. This improvement is also necessary due to the traffic from the Morey Creek Professional Center. A traffic signal and additional lanes at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 Bypass southbound ramps intersection, using one of the two options described in the proffer. These improvements have also been proffered as part of the most recent rezoning for the Fontaine Research Park and are included here so that they are available as soon as they are needed. Staff notes that additional proffer(s) and/or additions to the application plan will be needed to indicate the applicant’s commitment to the building elevations, parking garage lighting, and landscaping that have been shown to nearby residents and staff. SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP 2010-00006, Parking Structure. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff notes the following: The applicant proposed structured parking after early designs for the Professional Center showed that the required number of parking spaces, if provided as surface parking, would take up too much of the site and the spaces furthest from the office building would be too far away to be walked ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 12 comfortably. The proposed parking structure will have three levels, with each level accessed from a different point. The applicant has indicated that the structure, when not in use, will have very low light levels. 31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided 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, Staff does not believe that the proposed parking garage would be of substantial detriment to the Buckingham Circle neighborhood or other nearby uses because the parking structure would be used primarily during weekday business hours. Also, a large area with significant environmental features would serve as a buffer between the parking structure and the nearby residential uses. Staff believes that the impacts of the parking structure would be significantly less than those from the parking associated with the previously proposed townhome development. With the townhomes, people would have been parking at all times of the day and night, and, because the parking would have been spread throughout the site, it would have been much more difficult to minimize the impacts of parking lot lighting and vehicle headlights. The proposed parking garage has a separate entrance; it is not accessed from Buckingham Circle. Potential local traffic impacts have been addressed through proffers, as recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, A parking garage is an expected use within a commercial office development, so having one as part of the Professional Center will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, A parking structure is permitted in a PD-MC by special use permit because it is permitted in the C-1, CO, and HC districts. Providing a parking garage for most of the parking, rather than relying solely on surface parking is in keeping with the intent of planned development districts generally (Section 8.1); they “promote economical and efficient land use through unified development.” with the uses permitted by right in the district, Uses permitted by right in a PD-MC district are those permitted by right in C-1, CO, and HC districts. Parking is a requirement for commercial uses and is compatible with commercial uses. with additional regulations provided in section 5, Section 5.1.41 Parking Lots and Parking Structures requires that a site plan be prepared for each parking lot and parking structure. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the proposed Professional Center would provide a needed facility for the applicant and would provide jobs in Albemarle County. The site is well-located for a commercial office use as it is served by a major road and is in close proximity to other commercial uses and residential areas. WAIVERS—CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION Staff notes that this same waiver was requested and approved as part of ZMA2004-00002, Fontaine Avenue Townhomes (approved January 24, 2006). ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 13 I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by the Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment I)], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be both natural and manmade. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “Critical Slopes.” These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slopes areas on the west end of the site are small isolated areas and areas which have been disturbed with a permit for a stockpile (WPO200800044). They do not form a part of a larger system of critical slopes. These areas will be disturbed for buildings and parking. The areas of critical slopes on the east side of the site border the stream and pond. These areas form part of a larger system of critical slopes. The applicant is disturbing these areas for utility crossings and for the edge of the travelway into the parking structure. The numerical breakdown of disturbances as provided by the applicant is given below: Areas Acres Total site area 12.6 Area of critical slopes (man-made & natural) 1.77 14% of development Total critical slopes disturbed 0.59 33% of critical slopes Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope areas contain both natural and manmade critical slopes. Please see the applicant’s waiver request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance. Each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18-4.2 is addressed below: 1. “rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock”: Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent excessive movement of soil. It is noted that the site has an open permit for a stockpile (WPO200800044) on the west side, which could be removed now without a waiver. The applicant asked for this permit to be extended in anticipation of moving or eliminating the stockpile with this project. 2. “excessive stormwater run-off”: Stormwater runoff will be treated and directed into the adjacent stream and pond. It is noted that the pond has an open permit for repair of the dam (W PO201000021), which was breached. ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 14 3. “siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water”: Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation is mitigated during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. 4. “loss of aesthetic resource”: This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. Some of the slopes were created as part of a soil stockpile, and having an open permit, could be disturbed now, as discussed above. The open space plan, prepared in 1992, shows portions of this site as included in “Major and Locally Important Stream Valleys and Adjacent Critical Slopes”. It appears that some modification of the slopes has occurred in the nearly 20 years since the preparation of the Open Space Plan. The slopes are wooded and do provide a natural setting within the Development Area. 5. “septic effluent”: This site is serviced by public sewer. A portion of this site plan is located inside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. The critical slopes to be disturbed are not within the 100-year flood plain area, with the exception of the utility crossings, and the existing permit for repair of the dam. Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical slopes. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of Section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; The areas proposed for development are relatively small and isolated. Denial of a waiver to disturb the smallest areas would significantly reduce the development potential of the site as these small areas are centrally located. The larger areas of disturbance are at the rear of the site. If a waiver to disturb these slopes is not approved, the total development potential of the site will be reduced. Authorizing disturbance of the larger area of critical slopes is a balance between protection of resources and efficient utilization of the County’s urban land. Approval of the waiver can be supportive of the County’s effort to focus development in the Development Areas. B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; No proposed alternatives satisfy the intent and purpose to an equivalent degree. C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 15 Denial of this waiver for the two small areas of critical slopes near Fontaine Avenue would have a significant impact on the development potential of the site. Denial of a waiver to disturb the critical slopes at the rear of the site would reduce the developable land on site by a significant amount. However, staff does not believe that denial of the waiver for disturbance of the slopes at the rear of the site would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. As stated previously, approving this waiver would permit efficient use of land located in the development areas. The disturbance of these slopes is associated with a rezoning request and the disturbance of these slopes is a factor in considering the impact of the rezoning. If the rezoning is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and sound planning principles then granting the waiver should be considered as an action necessary and appropriate to forward the public purpose because it allows for the development to occur. Staff review of the request for a Critical Slopes Waiver indicates that the application meets the minimum engineering criteria for a waiver. While development of the site could occur without a waiver, approval allows for more efficient use of the land in the County’s Development Areas. Staff recommends approval of this waiver. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the local street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. Staff has found the following factor unfavorable to this rezoning: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-00009 Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver ZMA2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center / SP2010-00009, Parking Structure Planning Commission Public Hearing, April 5, 2011 Staff Report, Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, subject to the proffers provided and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment: Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for SP 2010-00009, Parking Structure: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP2010-00009, Parking Structure. (No conditions) B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit: Move to recommend denial of SP2010-00009, Parking Structure. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION for Critical Slopes Waiver: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this critical slopes waiver: Move to recommend approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center, as recommended by staff. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this critical slopes waiver: Move to recommend denial of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Application Plan, Dated January 18, 2011 ATTACHMENT C: Map of Area Included in the Traffic Impact Analysis ATTACHMENT D: Staff summary of TIA Results ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comments, dated February 10, 2011 ATTACHMENT F: Proffers, dated February 17, 2011 ATTACHMENT G: RWSA Comments, dated May 19, 2010 ATTACHMENT H: ACSA Comments ATTACHMENT I: Critical Slopes Waiver Request Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 5, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 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; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, 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 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items: ZMA-2010-00003 Morey Creek (Concurrent with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure) PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.009 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 day care center, and parking structure . No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes Concurrent with ZMA-2010-03, the following proposed special use permit ("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 25A.2.2(1): AND SP-2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA 2010-03) PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking structures . (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 1010-03 and SP 2010-09: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service -- neighborhood- scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to and west of Buckingham Circle TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76-12A & 12G MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Judith Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint Presentation and summarized the staff report. This request is for Morey Creek Professional Center, which is a zoning map amendme nt, ZMA-2010-00003. There is also a special use permit for a parking structure to accompany that professional center and a critical slopes waiver. The purpose of the rezoning is to obtain approval to construct a new 100,000 SF office building with a par king structure and a 15,000 SF daycare center in a location along major commuter access routes and in close proximity to the UVA Medical Center. Location: • On Fontaine Avenue Extended • Near US 29 Bypass and I-64 • Near Fontaine Research Park • Adjacent to Buckingham Circle neighborhood ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 2 As noted in the staff report—the Comp Plan expects Neighborhood Service areas to be 1 – 5 acres in size and to have a maximum of approximately 40,000 SF of office, commercial, and services. This site, however, is significantly larger at 12.6 acres, with approximately two-thirds of the site covered by the stream, stream buffer, wetlands, and related environmental features. Staff believes that, since the site is larger and the environmental features provide a good buffer, that a 100,000 SF building, with a parking garage, and 15,000 SF daycare facility is appropriate. The zoning for this property has been commercial since the County’s comprehensive rezoning in 1980 . However, in 2005, it was rezoned to PRD with a plan to construc t 61 Townhomes. The applicant wishes to rezone to Planned Development—Mixed Commercial. The application plan: • Fontaine Avenue Extended • Buckingham Circle • Stream/wetlands/slopes are—environmental area • Proposed office building—fronts on Fontaine Avenue. As noted in the staff report, will have an entrance in the back. It needs to be a secure facility due to the medical records used and stored inside. The entrance will be monitored; access from the garage. Anyone walking over from Fontaine Research Park would follow the path around to the entrance. Because of the location and surrounding uses, little if any pedestrian traffic is expected from the west. • Proposed parking structure—three floors • Daycare facility, with drop off and nearby parking. • Amenities will include a pedestrian path to Fontaine Research Park, bridge over the wetlands/stream area, and loading space for the JAUNT bus. Neighborhood Concerns: 1. Size and scale of use/buildings; need for daycare 2. Traffic impacts of proposed development 3. Lighting on the site 4. Impacts of construction on wetlands and other environmental features 5. Transit, bicycle, pedestrian issues 6. Screening between buildings and neighborhood (Buckingham Circle Neighborhood) Two major concerns with the Morey Creek proposal are the size of the use and the potential traffic impacts. This list of concerns staff compiled from the comments made and questions asked at a neighborhood meeting held last November. As noted earlier, staff believes that the size of this property and the presence o f the environmental features mean that a 100,000 SF office building with the parking structure and the proposed 15,000 SF daycare facility can be located on the site without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding properties. The applicant has paid special attention to the potential impacts on the Buckingham Circle neighborhood and has met with the neighbors to describe the project, listen to the neighbors’ concerns, and answer their questions. During their presentation, the applicant will compare the relative sizes and layouts of the proposed Professional Center and the previously approved townhome project and will show renderings of night views, so the Commission can see how these concerns have been addressed. Size and scale of the building— The residents also asked why the applicant needed 100,000 SF. The applicant is trying to co-locate more than one group of support workers to increase efficiency. They will also have some space for growth. [During the applicant’s presentation, they will give more details]. The daycare is being included to fulfill a UVA policy to provide daycare near workers. Traffic impacts—(Staff skipped over this item.) Lighting on the site—The applicant has agreed to minimize the lighting in the building and parkin g garage after business hours. Some workers may be in the offices on Saturday mornings (2/month), but ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 3 otherwise the workers will be there Monday through Friday during regular business hours. Staff believes that the county ordinance relating to lighting will be sufficient. Impacts of construction on the environmental areas—The County has regulations to protect these areas. Specific techniques will be addressed during site plan preparation. In addition, federal and state regulations regarding wetlands will address that. Availability of transit—The neighbors asked if workers could be bused from Fontaine Research Park to the site. It is not feasible, but a drop off space for the JAUNT bus will be included (proffered) and a regular CATS bus stop could be located in front of the building. The applicant has proffered to construct the same pedestrian path to Fontaine Research Park that was proffered by the townhome proposal. There is a sidewalk along the street or Fontaine Avenue Extended. There is a path t hat goes over to Fontaine Research Park. The bicycles could use those pedestrian paths as well. Additional screening—The applicant will provide more detailed information about views and landscaping during their presentation. They will comply with County ordinances for landscaping and screening. She presented one of the renderings that the applicant has provided to show the view from Buckingham Circle looking back. She pointed out the landscaping proposed and what the building would look like. Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffic impacts—These were addressed by the TIA, including an analysis of the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection. If all of the road improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park and the two improvements necessitated by the Morey Creek proposal were built, traffic on the local streets would be able to handle the traffic. The two improvements necessitated by Morey Creek are the signal at the northbound ramps and a right turn lane at the southbound ramp. In fact, it would be easier for Buckingham Circle residents to get out of their development during peak traffic times with these improvements. Here are the TIA results. • Study included the impacts of and improvements proffered by Fontaine Research Park • Traffic signals would be required at both the northbound and southbound US 29 Bypass ramps to Fontaine Avenue • Several other lane improvements are also necessary. • Once these signals and improvements are in place, impacts of Morey Creek traffic on the local streets would be addressed. It was mentioned that Trinity Church gets so busy on Sunday mornings that the residents have trouble getting out of their neighborhood because there is so much Church traffic. Staff pointed out that the Morey Professional Center is not expecting to be open on Sunday. Therefore, there should not be a conflict between those two uses. Staff noted that G lenn Brooks and Joel DeNunzio are present for questions. The proffered road improvements include the following: Proffer 1 – Pedestrian Walkway This is the proffer for a pedestrian walkway from the Morey Creek Professional Center to Fontaine Research Park. This proffer was included in the prior townhome proposal. The Owner shall construct, at its expense, an off-site asphalt-paved pedestrian walkway and other improvements in accordance with standards for such walkways of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), as specified in the VDOT Road Design Manual, from the southeast corner of the site within the existing public right -of-way along the north side of Fontaine Avenue to the Fontaine Business Park intersection as shown on Sheet C2.0 Pedestrian Pathway and Offsite Waterline of the Application Plan. The walkway and other improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 4 Proffer 2—Morey Creek Bridge This proffer is to design and construct a bridge over Morey Creek. The Owner shall design and construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing Morey Creek, as shown on the Ap plication Plan, to a standard approved by the County Engineer, and it is to be a fully engineered clear span bridge, similar to the ―Connector‖ bridge as manufactured by the Steadfast Bridge Company (1-800-749-7515) or an equivalent bridge approved by the County Engineer. The bridge shall be designed and constructed above the 100 - year flood plain. The bridge shall be completed, as reasonably determined by the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. Proffer 3—JAUNT Bus Loading Space The Owner shall provide a loading space for the JAUNT bus to a standard approved by the County Engineer, in consultation with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), JAUNT, and/or VDOT . Space may be provided on the main entrance road or on the parking deck as determined by the owner at the time of site plan approval. The JAUNT loading space shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the office building. Proffer 4—Traffic Improvements Staff has not included all of the wording from this fourth proffer. Each includes a reference to the standards to be followed and the timing for providing the improvement. The complete language, as signed by the applicant is included in the staff report at Attachment F. In order to be certain that the necessary traffic improvements will be in place at the time they are needed, Morey Creek has proffered all of the improvements that were proffered by the Fontaine Research Park applicant during the most recent rezoning. The Owner at its expense shall design, bond and construct the following transportation improvements: A. A traffic signal at the Fontaine Avenue/US 29 Northbound Ramp intersection…. B. An eastbound right turn lane within the public right-of-way on Fontaine Avenue at the US 29 Southbound Ramp intersection…. C. A traffic signal and additional lanes at the Fontaine Avenue/US route 29 Bypass Southbound Ramps intersection…according to one of two options…. In the staff report, staff noted that there were thre e areas still under discussion with the applicant. Two of them, the site lighting and landscaping, will be addressed through compliance with County ordinances . Staff believes they are no longer a concern. However, the third area is compliance with the Neighborhood Model’s request that ―building facades facing a street shall not extend for more than 100 feet without a change in plane. The minimum change in plane is 6 feet and the cumulative total length of the change in plane shall extend for no less than 20% of the length of the building façade. Floors shall be stepped back a minimum of 15 feet from the second story. The applicant has shown the appropriate step back for the third floor of the office building. Staff is fine with this. However, this is the first illustration provided with the initial application. Staff notified the applicant in the first comment letter that this design did not comply with the Neighborhood Model. Since then, staff has seen two different treatments of this façade. The problem is that the side of the building faces south, which will get a lot of sun. The applicant has come back with a revision to it, which uses the continuous fascia that runs all across the front of the building as a sunshade. There is still some staggering with the windows inside, but not any variation in the continuous fascia. The applicant will explain what they wanted to do a little further. Staff wanted to ask for the Planning Commission’s explanation on that. Special Use Permit—Parking Structure Staff indicated there was a special use permit as a part of this proposal for the parking structure. • A three-level parking structure is more efficient • Many of the spaces are closer to the building than they would be if surface parking were used. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 5 Staff thinks the parking structure is a good idea. Critical Slopes Waiver There will need to be a critical slopes waiver. There are two types of Critical Slopes on the site: 1. There are small, isolated areas, disturbed for a stockpile and do not form parts of a larger system. These would be disturbed for buildings and parking. 2. There are areas on the east side of the site that border the stream and the pond . These slopes are part of a system and would be disturbed for crossings and the edge of the travel way into the parking garage. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed office building, parking structure, and daycare facility are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and are appropriate uses in a commercial area. The property fronts on a major road and is near Interstate 64 and the US Route 29 Bypass, so it is located near major commuting routes. It is also in close proximity to the Fontaine Research Park. Locating the proposed Professional Center in this area will minimize car trips that might otherwise be necessary. Having the daycare center nearby will minimize the length, and possibly the number, of car trips that parents would make to use an offsite daycare center. 2. The proffered traffic improvements will address the additional traffic issues on the loc al street network and will improve conditions at the Buckingham Circle/Fontaine Avenue Extended intersection for the residents of Buckingham Circle. 3. The conceptual plan preserves significant environmental features on over one-half of the site. 4. Approval of the SP for the parking garage will permit more efficient use of the site. 5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver will permit more efficient use of the site. Factor Unfavorable: 1. Any new development in the area, including Morey Creek Professional Center, will add traffic to the regional road network, in particular the ramp junctions and weaving sections along the US Route 29 Bypass at the Interstate 64 (I-64) and Fontaine Avenue Extended/Fontaine Avenue interchanges. Road improvements to address these areas are beyond what is attributable to the impacts of this project. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2010-00003, with the proposed proffers, and including the Commission’s direction on the building elevations. • Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00009 • Staff recommends approval of the Critical Slopes Waiver Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Loach asked how many children the daycare would have. Ms. Wiegand replied that she thought it was 200 children, but the applicant would be able to address it. Mr. Loach asked if the daycare center would be serving the entire University and Heath Center. Ms. Wiegand replied yes. Mr. Loach said essentially they would be putting additional traffic coming from almost every direction and then the afternoon most of it from the University and hospital would be coming back down JPA and Fontaine. Ms. Monteith asked to clarify that because she made some phone calls on this today. As she understands it, the daycare facility is for use of people in this building or people for the medical center, but not for the University at large. They have two separate systems. The system for the daycare for ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 6 University people is a completely separate system. This has been set up only to address medical center people. Mr. Loach pointed out they mentioned with caution the interchanges on 64 from both east and west it would be drawing people to drop their children off there and then go back up Fontaine to the Health Science Center. Ms. Wiegand agreed that could happen. Mr. Loach said in the afternoon it would be more practical for everybody to come down Fontaine and JPA to pick up their child and if they were east and west get back on 29 and go back that way. He suggested that they wait to see the traffic study. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Wiegand indicated that they factored all of those trips in the traffic study. Ms. Wiegand noted this shows that the daycare center at 15,000 square feet at this number of average daily trips that would be attributable to the daycare and then the number attributed to the office building. Almost one-half of the daily trips are to/from the daycare center. This calculation was made using a very conservative assumption—that none of the people in the office building would be dro pping off their children at the daycare—that all of the children would be dropped off by parents working at other UVA/HSF workplaces. Therefore, since it is likely that some of the children will be dropped off by parents working in the office building, the ADT for the daycare facility and the Total ADT are likely to be lower. Day Care Center 15,000 SF 1,189 ADT General Office 100,000 SF 1,334 ADT TOTAL 2,523 ADT Source: ―Trip Generation Handbook, 8th ed.,‖ Institute of Transportation Engineers Ms. Porterfield asked what was the hours of operation for the daycare. Ms. Wiegand replied that it was the same as the office building. The office building will be opened Monday through Friday in normal business hours. She was also told that there might be staff working in there on a couple of Saturday mornings a month in the office building because they have some reports and things that they have to get out. T hat would not happen every weekend and the daycare would not be open at that time. Ms. Porterfield said even though it is catering to the medical center it is only going to be Monday through Friday. She asked if the hours were going to be basically 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Ms. Wiegand replied that she did not get specific hours, but that is what she would imagine. The applicant will provide any further information. Ms. Porterfield said they got a letter from a nearby resident that indicated that there was a presentation by the applicant that 40% to 60% of the actual building will be needed by the applicant and the rest will be rented or leased. She asked if that is to these ancillary companies she was talking about. Ms. Wiegand replied that as she understands the tenants in the building would all be part of the support staff for HSF. The applicant can clarify that further. She though where that 40,000 to 60,000 square foot number was coming from was they have about 40,000 to 60,000 square feet in the research park right now. However, they are talking about bringing in some slightly different groups of people into the proposed 100,000 so there would be more people in there and they are also talking about having room to expand if they have additional growth in the future. Ms. Porterfield said when she was looking at this she was not expecting them to rent to other businesses in the community. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 7 Ms. Wiegand replied no, she did not expect that. She did not know exactly what the leasing arrangements between the different people would be, but it is her understanding that it was all going to be Health Sciences support staff. The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Bill Daggett, with Daggett and Grigg Architects, represented Health Services Foundation with the Morey Creek Professional Center. He thanked Ms. Wiegand for her efforts in trying to work out the details . He also thanked the Buckingham Circle neighborhood. They attended two meetings and brought up excellent questions. They have tried to address their concerns. He presented a PowerPoint presentation, as follows. There are four issues he wanted to cover in a little more depth. Building Sizing & Scale of Development Basis for Building Size Consolidation via Terraced Parking Approach Comparison to Approved Townhouse Development Night Lighting Winter Working Hours & Overnight Impacts Fontaine Avenue Elevation Response to Façade Setbacks Requirement Traffic Mitigation Recommended Improvements at Fontaine Ave. - On March 16, 2010, an analysis was done for the Health Services Foundation to determine how many square feet they actually would need, including reserve space for some expansion, and came up with a gross square footage of about 63,000 square feet. In 2008 an analysis was done for another department associated with the Medical Center that also is engaged in financial assistance to patients in that case Health Services Foundation does all of the billing for physicians. Therefore, this is a combined service. When the Health Services Foundation determined that, it needed to move so that the building they occupy now could be used for medical use at Fontaine it made sense to combine these. That is exactly what they are looking to do. With the two, it adds up to about 95,000 square feet. Because of the composition of the multi-story building they have to add some square footage for common travel way up and down the inside the building and so forth. Therefore, they come up to about 100,000 square feet. This is how this proposal came to be. - When they first started, they wanted to see if they could use surface parking and they could service this building. In order to service the building with required parking they had to look at obtaining this piece of property and working with the University Foundation to obtain the other piece of property for the daycare center. This is a ll done as a surface parking lot. This required multiple rezoning, which was problematic. It was an excessive walking distance since they were 750’ from the parking space to the building. There was massive site grading. He pointed out that the two dark lines were two 10’ tall walls with one on top of the other. It was much like was seen at Lowe’s. The retaining wall would continue all around. There is another 10’ wall at the top of the site. This is to maintain the 5 percent grade for parking. They are going to have to cut deeply into the site and then level it out. On top of that, they could not fit everything because it was all taken up by parking. Therefore, they end up having to pick up this small parcel of 3.5 acres to handle the daycare center, which the University asked if they could include. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 8 - What they did is abandon that concept and came up with the idea of building the 100,000 square foot office building in this location, but creating a terracing parking structure that was associated with it that benched into the site. That enabled them to take all of the retaining walls and put it at the back side of the parking structure and to step it so that they did the least amount of site grading. The daycare center could locate conveniently in this location. It takes care of it so they are only rezoning the one piece of property, which is designated for this use. They now have a reasonable parking distance. Actually two floors of it are under cover, which is great for the folks working in the building. The site grading is greatly reduced and they have consolidated. - The next thing he wanted to discuss what they have today, which is the townhouse plan for 61 units. There are some units included for low income/worker housing. This occupies about the same part of the site that they do, which is the only part of the site that can be built on. He noted the wetlands and other area and reviewed the proposed plan. The proposal would step back the office building both horizontally and vertically so that they are eroding the building and presenting as small a front to the neighborhood as possible. This is their parking structure. They are tying this into the look of the building so that it really looks like an extension of the building. It is not going to look like a parking structure at all. The daycare is so far back and hidden away the folks in this neighborhood will not even see it. The only place it will be seen is from the Foundation’s property. - He compared the proposal to the previous approved townhouse plan. He noted that the townhouse plan added almost 175,000 square feet of living space. This plan proposes 115,000 square foot. They are not increasing the amount of built area actually in terms of useful space. The upper section is of the townhouses. He noted that the townhouses were shown to be a little closer to the neighborhood. He noted that the retaining wall went from 0’ to about 17’. The townhouses are three stories with two stories and a half basement and roof. The parking structure is two stories. - They tried to look at this with some models so they could see the imposition of both of these projects from the vantage point of the Buckingham Circle Neighborhood. He displayed a rendering of what it looks like today or actually last March. This is approximately, what it would look like with the townhouses and retaining walls. The slide showed their proposal with the same water feature, their building eroding so it showed the least amount of square footage towards the neighborhood, and their two-story parking structure, which is integrated into the façade. The next slide shows one imposed on the other. They are slightly higher at the back of the building towards their entrance and Fontaine. It is only about 5’. Right at the base of the windows is the top of the parking garage. Therefore, there is a great deal more exposure of the townhouses as a wall of buildings towards the neighborhood than what they are presenting with the parking structure. - He presented a slide of the night view in Decem ber when people are working. Then he showed a slide of what the building would look like after dark. The building would become completely dark . All of the corridors inside the building will be at the interior. Offices will be equipped with occupancy sensors so lights will automatically go out as people are living the building. - He reviewed the three elevations. Their rendition actually steps back as proposed by staff at 30’ and then a 30’ indentation that is 6’ back. Then it was 60’ and another 30’ and so on down the building. They also stepped back the third floor at 15’. Therefore, that is now stepped back further. When they looked at this, they felt it did not have as much impact being on the south elevation as it would if they continued the fascia and created deeper shadow lines. The next slide shows they are creating a much deeper shadow line, which is going to accentuate the fact that they have recessed the 30’ bays. It is their feeling that is a more positive building image is going to create a more pronounced depth. They would certainly hope the Commission would agree. - Finally, regarding traffic what has been agreed between the Health Services Foundation and the University Foundation is that whoever goes first all of these improvements a re going to be made ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 9 so that any new building will be occupied only after they are in place. They have worked with each other and have proffered it. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Smith asked what was the total number of parking spaces in the structure. Mr. Daggett replied that it was roughly 450 parking spaces altogether. Some parking spaces are under the building. Therefore, the combination of the parking structure and under the building is between 425 and 450. Mr. Smith asked how many employees. Mr. Daggett replied that it was 235 plus the employees for the other medical finance group. All of the parking meets the ordinance regulations. Mr. Lafferty asked if the pedestrian bridge would be wide enough to accommodate a bicycle and pedestrians. Mr. Daggett replied that as he understands it that bridge has to be built in accordance with Mr. Brooks agreement, which is probably what they intend. Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be ADA compliant so that wheelchairs could be used. Mr. Daggett replied yes. Ms. Porterfield asked to go back to the letter from the adjacent neighbor, which brought up a couple things she was curious about. There is no on site dining or any kind of a restaurant even though they have many people there. Mr. Daggett replied that the finalized program has not been accepted formally. Within this program there is dining available for the folks in this building. There will be a cafeteria. They are including areas outside where they can take snacks and lunches, go outside, and eat in good weather. It is intended to serve the folks in the building. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is going to be a shuttle bus that would go back and forth from the Fontaine Campus to this so that people don’t have to move their cars. Mr. Daggett replied that he could not answer that question. Ms. Porterfield questioned if this bldg was not to be rented to any unrelated businesses. Mr. Daggett replied no, that the idea here is that this building is to be used by integ ral groups that are supporting the medical center. They will be integral financial groups. There is a certain level of security required. Therefore, this really benefits both of them. It is kind of a natural thing to put them together. Therefore, there will be better efficiency and security because they do handle a lot of money. Ms. Porterfield asked if they are all related to the University of Virginia medical. Mr. Daggett replied absolutely. This is not intended to be rented to anybody other than departments of the University servicing the Medical Center. Ms. Porterfield asked if the daycare center is a Monday through Friday only. Mr. Daggett replied as he understands it that is the plan. Mr. Loach asked if the day care hours would be longer. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 10 Mr. Daggett said that the daycare center was suppose to work during working hours and somewhat beyond so that if someone is leaving at 5 p.m. they will have time to pick their child up. He would say 6:30 p.m. or so. He did not know what the precise hours are, but it was not suppose to go on all night. The daycare is intended to service folks that are coming and going during the day. Mr. Zobrist clarified that Mr. Loach was thinking that people from the University Hospital would be coming to this site. This is just for the Fontaine and the day workers. Mr. Daggett noted that the folks at night are probably going to have their children at home. Mr. Loach said that if, in fact, the daycare is going to serve nurses and physicians at the hospital that many of the nurses’ shifts are 12 hour shifts, like 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. They have these v arying shifts at the hospitals. Mr. Daggett said that he could not answer that question. Mr. Loach asked if he was telling him that the daycare is j ust serving this facility on Fontaine, then he did not see a problem. Mr. Daggett said that it can serve for others at the University, but its hours are intended for day workers. Ms. Porterfield said that it makes a huge difference as to what the hours of the daycare are. Daycares the Commission has looked at there have been specific hours and that sort of thing. Mr. Daggett referred the question to Gary Lowe. Gary Lowe, Project Manager for Health Services Foundation, said the University is looking at numerous sites in and around the Charlottesville area for daycare centers. The ideal setting is for a 15,000 to 20,000 square foot building to accommodate 200 to 250 children. If it gets too much bigger than that, it becomes unmanageable. According to the folks they have talked to, they are expected to manage these. This is all being discussed and he was not 100 percent sure. However, they do have daycare centers close to the hospital as well. He would assume night time employees would drop the children off at the more convenient place right next to the hospital where they have an existing daycare. The need is certainly during the daytime. That is why they are looking at multiple sites in and around Charlottesville to accommodate the workers of children during those hours. He would not anticipate they having that particular facility open after normal working hours due to the fact they already have a daycare center right off of Cherry Avenue in the Eleventh Street area in existence that would be more convenient for the employees to use. Ms. Porterfield said the normal working hours of the Fontaine and this area would be what everyone would consider sometime between 6 am and 6 pm as opposed to the shift that medicine sees. Mr. Lowe replied that is correct. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Donal Day said that he had been a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle for the last 32 years, which was the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed center. He was appearing today to express in the strongest possible way his objections to this application. He felt the staff report or the written document erroneously suggests that the major concerns of their neighborhood had to do with exiting Buckingham Circle during these peak traffic hours. This could not be further from the truth. At both of the meetings, they had with the developer and his agent, where more than 30 people each time appeared, a wide range of concerns were presented. Their list of concerns were traffic, massing of the buildings, the visual and environmental impacts, runoff, and lighting all derived from a single source. That is the density and intensity of this proposed development. The creation of this dense monolith of glass and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 11 brick as presented adjacent to this rural housing development creates a contrast tha t will startle the observer. He will see this everyday as he drives out of Buckingham Circle. To get a sense of this disparity consider that there is more square footage proposed here on the 5 or so acres that Mr. Daggett says is the only part available to be built on. He was glad he said that because it is a 12 acre parcel, but only 5 acres can be built on. There is more proposed square footage there than there are in all of Buckingham Circle consisting of 50 homes. They have 30 acres. Therefore, they go from a very quiet nearly rural established residential neighborhood complete with chickens, bee hives, and back yard gardens to something more like a space ship with hundreds of cars zooming in and out during peak hours and with night time artificial lighting that can never be escaped. No number of County ordinances can dissipate what is basically the light from an infinitely sized large building. This proposed structure is, in fact, a violation of the Land Use Plan, which states that the building’s square footage limits it to a 5 acre parcel of 40,000 square feet . The staff report allows a slight of hand to circumvents this by suggesting that, in fact, it is a 12 acre site. No one is proposing to build on the wetlands in the riparian area. Mr. Daggett said so himself. Speaking of which, not long ago the County came to his neighbors and proposed to share the cost of planting a riparian buffer to protect and purify the stream. However, now the creek and the wetlands will be used as a dumping ground for all of the pollutants streaming off the parking spaces and the roofs. To make matters worse, staff supports a waiver for disturbance of the critical slopes. The daycare center would be serving mostly people outside this development. It is true they met with the applicant on two occasions. The meeting was cordial on both sides. They presented their concerns, which were heard the first time. When he came back, he told them exactly the same thing. Instead of a give and take, they got the brush off . This project takes property off the County tax rolls. Since the Health Services Foundation is a charitable non- profit organization that purchased this land, no property tax will be paid and none will be paid on this building development. His 1,500 square foot house on Buckingham Circle will provide more to the County than this entire project. The taxpayers of the County would be much better off if this property returned to a private profit and taxable organization. Linda Day, resident of Buckingham Circle, agreed with her husband. She reiterated that the project is too big. It is disproportionately large for their neighborhood. It is will look like a space ship enterprise, which will be seen when they drive out of Buckingham Circle. She questioned the parking garage since nobody has said how many square feet it will be. That is never mentioned. She questioned why this project is not being constructed with the idea of parking off site, such as Scott Stadium, with shuttle buses. There is also a new parking garage proposed in the new Fontaine Research Park. She asked why people wouldn’t be parking there. She asked why they needed to add this huge new footprint to what they have already proposed here for the office complex. She suggested that th ey go back to the 40,000 square feet and use shrubbery to hide it from their neighborhood. The Health Services Foundation needs to have a secure building particularly for those people that have some anger management issues due to declined insurance claims. She questioned that it might not be an appropriate location for a day care center in an area where they want to have a secure situation. She suggested that a day care center might be better sited perhaps in the Fontaine R esearch Park itself. Why add to more traffic problems by having pick-up and delivery of children throughout peak morning and evening hours. In the staff report, it says the site is bordered on the west by a large historic estate property known as Fox Haven. On the west, it is bordered by the Bias property. Furthermore, the Planning Commission should know that Fox Haven upon the death of Jane Heyward would revert to the University of Virginia. There is plenty of land out there to create something that is not going to be such an eyesore for their community. She suggested that they hold off for a few years. That is not in any disrespect to Jane Heyward who is an incredibly wonderful person. This is a big mistake in that the west is not owned by Fox Haven Farm. Brier Gertler, resident of 141 Buckingham Circle, noted that Eric Bloomfield had to leave at 9:30 p.m. She has lived here for six years. Buckingham Circle exists in splendid isolation. Donal Day gave the statistics about the number of houses and the square footage. The square footage of all the houses in 30 acres of Buckingham Circle is less than one-half of the proposed square footage for this project. It absolutely is going to be enormous and will not fit Buckingham Circle. Buckingham Circle is a quiet neighborhood with lots of wildlife. Her neighbor had a black bear on his front porch last year. She cannot ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 12 imagine a less appropriate site for a massive 115,000 square foot building with massive parking with 450 parking spaces. There will be thousands of car trips every day right by the only entrance and exit to Buckingham Circle, which is a dead end. Everybody comes and goes at the same time through that little intersection. The traffic is an unfavorable factor. There is more than one factor unfavorable. There is the traffic, lighting, noise, and the disruption of their beautiful life . She just wants to live the country. However, it has to be balanced against the factors favorable. It seems that going through the list of factors favorable that every one of those factors is favorable to HSF. She honestly cannot see a single factor favorable to Albemarle County. The one thing mentioned as a favorable factor to the County is the extended tax base. They were just told that this number of employees already works in th e County. Therefore, the idea is not that they are going to have new people coming in from outside the County. They won’t pay any property taxes. Therefore, she did not see how the County would get one penny of increased taxes. If the factors unfavorable were outweighed by the factors favorable, then yes by all means they should do it. The weight is only in one direction here and at the very least, she would ask that they cut this project in half. The project is too large. Robert Miller, resident of 143 Buckingham Circle, pointed out he was in complete agreement with everything that had been said so far. He noticed that their whole neighborhood was in full bloom right now except for the wetlands. It looks like someone came through and defoliated the place. Last fall there was foliage there. It is just a big brown pit this year. Usually this time of year the frogs almost deafening, and there are no frogs. He did not know what happened there. It s eems like someone has already started this project. Jane Bielefeld, homeowner at Buckingham Circle, noted that everyone knows each other in the neighborhood. It is a real neighborhood where they get out and walk on the Circle. She was deathly afraid that this will change their quality of life. She asked the Commission to say no to the request. Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, pointed out Free Enterprise Forum has no position with regard to this application. They have a process question. This is a ZMA and he questioned the purpose the ZMA. He questioned whether there is a real desire for this Commission to move forward dictating whether they will lease out space to anyone else or will be all employees of the applicant. He was concerned in so much as the restriction of trade and the idea that Albemarle County realized not so long ago that outsourcing cleaning services seem ed to be a more economical solution. If they put such a restriction into a ZMA, they would be prohibited from having anyone handling such outsourced cleaning services. It seems like a misplaced discussion point. Ms. Porterfield pointed out that she did not bring it up. She just wanted to know whether the letter was accurate in the size of the building. It sounded like they were building part of the building to have re ntal space for businesses in Albemarle County. She wanted to clarify it and she thought it has been clarified. Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Daggett said he would like to address one issue. That is that the H ealth Services Foundation pays real estate taxes. This building and property generates somewhere, if their numbers are correct what it is going to cost, somewhere between $150,000 and $160,000 annually. That is a fact. Mr. Loach asked why not utilize the buses like they do for the University Hospital. In other words, have people park at the stadium and bus them down rather than having a large parking lot. Mr. Daggett replied that the County Ordinance dictates the parking. He questioned if it is something that is negotiable. Mr. Cilimberg said that it can be reduced, but it can’t be removed. Mr. Daggett said that they have to have property within a certain distance to replace it. For sure, the Jaunt Bus can come to the site. When the University extends its service, it certainly can service this building and help with that. The number of spaces is dictated by the County Ordinance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 13 Mr. Loach said it would be a consideration on the part of the University if it could be negotiated and essentially reduced so they would be generating less traffic and less parking. Mr. Daggett replied that his sense of it was that there certainly was going to be more spaces than are going to be absolutely necessary to service this building. If that were negotiable, he would think they would be willing to do that. It would mean that they could build less parking structure. They have to service the folks who are coming to the building. At this moment, he did not know there has not been any discussion of reducing that parking on behalf of the County. Ms. Porterfield noted that comments were made about the building being really big. It is really big and a lot of square footage. She asked if the building has to be that big. Mr. Daggett replied that as he pointed out at the beginning, this building was sized to put these groups together in the same space and 100,000 square feet is what they need. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was no other way to achieve that. Mr. Daggett replied that if they want to put these groups together from the st andpoint of efficiency of operation to service the Medical Center, there is no way to do it other than in the same building. Ms. Porterfield asked if they want to do it here as opposed to at Fontaine. Mr. Daggett replied that Fontaine is a completely different thing. HSF would remain there except that the medical center needs to expand the medical services there to try to reduce the congestion at the hospital and to provide folks with easier access to medical services. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was any thought if they are going to have the day care center there and hidden if there was any reason why they could not hide the building more and have the smaller item out in front also more accessible. It is just a thought. Mr. Daggett said they have tried very hard to mitigate the impact of this large building by stepping it back as best they can. Most of its bulk will not be visible from the neighborhood. The point where they took the picture and showed those renderings is the point where they are d riving at the bottom of the circle. The houses as shown on the diagram go up both sides. He did not think they were going to see it from their houses, but a few may to some extent. They also offered to plant in front of them so that they had less view of it. That is something that they are still willing to discuss. Mr. Zobrist invited other questions. He thanked the applicant for his comments. The public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith said if he lived in Buckingham Circle, he would not want this big building over there either. However, he believed he would prefer this proposed as to having apartments and townhouses. That is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and this request is not. He would hope that the traffic problems will have been mitigated, but it will not be completely. Mr. Morris said when the Planning Commission heard the rezoning of this property in 2004/2005 virtually the same concerns were raised by the residents of the Circle. They were valid concerns. He thought the applicant’s presentation showed that they are probably going to be less affected by the profile of what is now being proposed than what was proposed and approved in 2005. Unfortunately, it is going to affect their community no matter what. Mr. Franco asked if this is a proffered site plan at this point. Ms. Wiegand replied that it is a planned district. Therefore, they don’t have to proffer the application plan. It is automatic. The application plan is not proffered. Mr. Franco asked if there is an ability to reduce the amount of parking. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 14 Ms. Wiegand replied yes, that she is going to talk with Ms. McCulley to see if they could reduce some of the parking. That could be done at the site plan. If the Commission should recommend approval when they get to the site plan, they just might have a slightly smaller building. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ordinance actually has provisions for a study that would be submitted for a reduction in parking. That can happen at the site plan stage. It has not happened at this point. Mr. Franco said approving this with this application plan does not prohibit that from occurring. Mr. Cilimberg replied no. The footprint could be reduced and if parking was reduced that is not an issue. Mr. Zobrist asked if staff has a proposed resolution. Ms. Wiegand noted that there were three separate motions that needed to be made. This is the first item. She asked if the Commission has any guidance for staff and the applicant about the elevations shown on Fontaine Avenue. Mr. Zobrist replied that he did not. He thought that the architects could do it better than he. He liked the way they had done it. Mr. Loach reiterated that the early planning should have been with transportation in mind. It should not have been how to mitigate and put another big parking lot somewhere. It should be how they can start to weave this thing into the fabric of the neighborhood. He would have thought the University would have started to take this into concern rather than push everybody down to those 29 exits, which was the one place they said there was going to be a problem. They should look to do anything that can be done about that. He agreed with Mr. Smith that he would prefer this use on a 9 to 5 five day a week basis, particularly knowing the University is going to be maintaining it and it will be maintained well. He noted that the Fontaine Park is a very nice place. Mr. Lafferty suggested that they needed to be careful about saying the University versus the Health Foundation since they are entirely separate. Mr. Smith said he could not see reducing the parking area. If they take 50’ to 75’ off the parking decks, they still have 3 elevations. They could never have too much parking. He was not saying cover the whole thing up, but it looks like it fits. Ms. Porterfield agreed that they should not take the parking down. One thing that the University medical needs everywhere is more parking. Mr. Loach noted he was not saying the parking should be reduced. They should be looking at incorporating mass transit with it. Not everybody is going to be coming from one spot into there. If there are other modalities available, then they could start to calculate. He suggested that she might be right on the one side, but on the other side wrong. Ms. Porterfield noted even if they end up with extra parking and they run a shuttle bus they have people that need to park off-site that are parking off-site now down at the hospital due to the lack of parking. Mr. Monteith noted that there is enough parking. People are making choices and there is plenty of parking. Ms. Porterfield said they would discuss that later. She requested to talk about the daycare. She questioned if they need to put perimeters on this daycare since they always have on any other day care that comes in. If it is truly a Monday through Friday daycare, it needs to be that. If needs to have the basic real working hours and not shifts, then it needs to be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 15 Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that would have to be a proffer as to the operation of daycare. This is a commercial use. Mr. Kamptner pointed out it is a by-right use in the PD-MC District. Mr. Cilimberg said this is not a rural area or residential zoning, but is Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Ms. Porterfield said that it is big and she understood what it is needed for. However, they need to try to keep as much activity there away on the weekends and the holidays. In other words, not Saturday, Sunday or holidays so at least the people living nearby could have some peace at that point. Mr. Kamptner noted the Commission could make a suggestion for a proposed proffer that the applicant can consider when this goes to the Board. Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZMA 2010-00003, Morey Creek Professional Center, as it stands subject to the proffers provided and commitments to building elevations, lighting, and landscaping. Mr. Franco pointed out with respect to the day care, the existing use that is allowed there is 24/7. He did not see that this daycare would be a greater impact than the 61 residential units that were proposed. Even if it was on Saturdays, he did not think it was appropriate for the Commission to be restr icting it. Ms. Monteith added if it is appropriate for the applicant and the County to work together, they certainly have used transportation land management to reduce the parking ratios at Fontaine. There is no reason why that couldn’t be applied as a formula here. Mr. Franco said absolutely. He thought that if it was a choice of the applicant to work with the County to reduce the traffic that is a choice they are making and he was comfortable with that. He did not want to force it on them, but would support that. Mr. Cilimberg said that would actually be necessary as part of a parking study to reduce spaces. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that the motion carried. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00009, Morey Creek Professional Center - Parking Structure as recommended with no conditions. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver: Mr. Kamptner noted that this was an action to approve. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission would be taking the action and not the Board. The Commission would actually be approving the waiver. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve of the Critical Slopes Waiver for the Morey Creek Professional Center, as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2010-00003 Morey Creek and SP-2010-00009 Morey Creek Professional Center – Parking Structure would go to the Board on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval. The critical slopes waiver was approved. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 5, 2011 PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES – Morey Creek Professional Center, Woolen Mills & Ivy Church Submit for Approval 5 -3-2011 16 Old Business Mr. Zobrist asked if there was any old business. Mr. Kamptner pointed out under the Morey Creek critical slopes waiver that Ms. Wiegand had the condition stated correctly since the Planned Development regulations were changed over a year ago. Under the current regulations, the Planning Commission makes recommendations on all of these types of waivers and modifications. If it were not part of a Planned Development, t he Commission would be taking final action. However, they changed the regulations to make sure that all of these waivers and modifications that are associated with a Planned Development go to the Board so the Board can look at everything better. Mr. Zobrist asked if the motion needed to be changed. Mr. Kamptner replied just to be perfect he asked for a motion to reconsider. That would be followed by a revised motion itself. Motion for Reconsideration: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to reconsider Morey Creek Critical Slope Waiver. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver for Morey Creek with the conditions as recommended by staff. (Concu rrent with ZMA-2010-00003 and SP-2010-00009). The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Summary of Actions For Morey Creek Critical Slopes Waiver Agreed to Reconsider, by a vote of 7:0, Morey Creek Critical Slope Waiver. Recommended approval, by a vote 7:0, for Morey Creek Critical Slopes Waiver, with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Franco requested staff for an update on the status of the critical slope ordinance since it might be helpful to hear where they might be heading. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the critical slope ordinance update had been put on hold due to the staffing situation. There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 May 5, 2011 Ellis Frazier 1022 Cottonwood Rd. Charlottesville, Va 22901 RE: SP201100006 Elks Farmers Market TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058A0 Dear Ms. Fraizer: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 19, 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: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan on Page 3 of the Plan entitled “Special Use Permit Elks Lodge” prepared by the applicant and dated 2-18-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. 2. The use shall operate only during the months of April through December of each year and only on Tuesdays and Saturdays. 3. The hours of operation for sales at the Farmers Market shall not begin earlier than 3:00 P.M. and shall end not later than 7:00 P.M. on Tuesdays, and not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall not end later than 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 4. In order to provide safe and convenient access to the adjoining property when the adjoining property is developed, a Class A – Type 1 low maintenance asphalt pedestrian path shall be constructed to the adjoining parcel in accordance with the County’s Design Standards Manual. The path shall be located to connect to a similar path to be constructed on the adjoining parcel described as Tax Map Parcel 07800-00-00-05800. Construction of the path shall begin after the final site plan or subdivision plat is approved for the area adjoining the Elks property and be completed before April of the following year. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 11, 2011. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to agenda 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, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Principal Planner Planning Division cc: Charlottesville Lodge #389 Protective Order Of Elks Trustees P.O. Box 528 Charlottesville, Va 22901 Charlottesville Lodge #389 Protective Order Of Elks Trustees 389 Elk Drive Charlottesville Va 22911 POLICY SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline. If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward the purposes of this policy. Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing. This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that the policy can be re-examined annually. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP2011-00006 Elks Farmers Market Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 19, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD Owners: Charlottesville Lodge #389 Protective Order of Elks Trustees Applicant: Ellis Frazier, representing Elks Trustees Acreage: 6.34 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for Farmers Market in accordance with Section 13.2.2.14 of the Zoning ordinance TMP: 07800-00-00-058A0 Location: 389 Elk Drive approximately 265 feet from intersection of Elks Drive and Rt 20N Conditions: Yes Existing Zoning and By-right use: R-1 with 1 dwelling per acre Magisterial District: Rivanna Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential which allows 6.01-34 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. DA (Development Area): X RA (Rural Area): Character of the Property: Developed with buildings, parking, and a swimming pool. Use of Surrounding Properties: Public park, residential, and wooded/undeveloped. (See Attachment A.) Factors Favorable: 1. The Farmers Market would promote and preserve agricultural businesses in the County. 2. No new parking is required because the Farmers Market makes use of a parking lot which is typically underutilized during the proposed time period. 3. Nearby and neighboring residential neighborhoods will have easy access to fresh local produce and products. Factors Unfavorable: There are no unfavorable factors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 2 STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: APRIL 19, 2011 SP201100006 Elks Farmers Market Applicant's Proposal: The Elks fraternal organization is requesting approval for a farmers market in the parking lot of the existing lodge. Farmers, artisans, and food vendors selling packaged, prepared, baked, or canned goods would be allowed to sell products produced in the surrounding area and state. No permanent structures are proposed and operation would take place April through December on Tuesdays and Saturdays. A full description of the proposal and the Concept Plan is provided as Attachment B and the concept. Petition: PROJECT:SP201100006 Elks Farmers Market PROPOSED: Farmers Market on 6.34 acres; no residential units proposed ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R1 Residential (1 unit/acre) SECTION: 13.2.2.14 Farmers Market COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential which allows 6.01- 34 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 389 Elk Drive approximately 265 feet from intersection of Elk Drive and Rt 20N TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna Character of the Area: The Elks Lodge is across Elks Drive from Darden Towe Park. Residential uses are adjacent to the property as well as across Route 20 North. An 18 acre wooded undeveloped parcel which is recommended for Neighborhood Density in the Comprehensive Plan adjoins the property to the south. Planning and Zoning History: SP-509 was approved in September 1975. Conditions of that special use permit are in Attachment C. Approval of a site plan was a requirement of the special use permit. The site plan file from 1975 is unavailable. Comprehensive Plan: The Pantops Master Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential. The Urban Density land use designation allows for residential uses at a density of 6.01 to 34 units/acre and some non-residential support uses and institutional uses. Small scale retail uses are also allowed. The area outlined in red is the Elks Lodge property. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 3 According to the Master Plan, the property is located in the Darden Towe Park/Stony Point Road (Cascadia – Fontana – Avemore) Neighborhood which is described below: This Neighborhood is located near Route 20 North and Darden Towe Park as well as land east of Route 20. It is the largest neighborhood in Pantops and the edges are formed by a stream running south of Wilton Farm and Avemore and by the edges of the Pantops Development Area on the north, east, and west sides. This neighborhood includes a Neighborhood Service center will consist of the non residential uses planned within Avemore and Cascadia. There are other important neighborhood focal points, including the Elks Lodge and Darden Towe Park. Pantops Master Plan recommends the following for land use in this neighborhood in Pantops: Maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. Allow for Neighborhood Density and Urban Density residential uses with a Neighborhood Service (NS) center. Protect the rural scenic qualities of Route 20 from the northern edge of the development area south to Elks Drive/Fontana Drive where development along Route 20 should transition to an urban character to the City of Charlottesville. Preserve stream corridors and flood plain in this neighborhood and allow for pedestrian paths in those areas, where natural features allow. Retain existing amenities and open space within residential developments. As indicated above, the Elks Lodge is a major focal point. The Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan promotes preservation and utilization of the County’s agricultural lands. The County’s Economic Development Policy recommends the following: Increase the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, more specifically by Increasing support to local agricultural infrastructure such local food networks and programs. (The agricultural infrastructure provides markets and supplies to farmers and significant economic activity to Albemarle County as a whole.) Establishing a proactive rural-support program that provides assistance to the local agricultural community, and that includes an on-going dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. Supporting farmers. Staff views the use as supportive to the Rural Areas and Economic Devel opment policies as well as in keeping with the recommended land uses in the Master Plan. Staff has also reviewed the use for conformity with the Neighborhood Model. The only applicable standards are: 1) Pedestrian Orientation and 2) Interconnected Streets and Transportation Systems. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 4 The use will primarily be accessed by vehicle and located on an already developed site. The undeveloped property to the south is under review as a (mostly) residential development. Provision of an asphalt path from the Elks Lodge site to the adjoining property is recommended to allow for future residents to conveniently access the Farmers Market without the need to drive. With provision of a path, staff believes that the principles of pedestrian orientation and interconnectivity will be provided. Staff Comment: 31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided 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, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The current fraternal use includes outdoor activities and the special use permit for the lodge provides protections to the surrounding residential properties. Because of the limited activities of the proposed Farmers Market operating outside of the primary operating hours of the lodge, no detriment is expected to adjacent properties, nor will a change occur in the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The R1 zoning district allows this use by special use permit if it is viewed as an appropriate use for the location. No adverse impacts are expected. Staff believes that the Farmers Market in conjunction with the Elks Lodge is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The R1 Zoning District exists to provide for an area of low-density residential development as well as to provide for institutional and support uses by special use. A Farmers Market is viewed as supportive to the nearby neighborhoods by providing residents the opportunity to purchase fresh, locally grown produce. with additional regulations provided in section 5, Section 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets describes the requirements for Farmers Markets. How this proposal meets those requirements is described below: 1. Zoning Clearance – The Zoning Administrator will require a zoning clearance prior to the Farmers Market use begins. 2. A Letter from VDOT establishing it has approved the entrance from the public street to the proposed use – VDOT comments are provided as Attachment D. 3. Temporary or Permanent Structures must comply with applicable yard requirements -- The applicant is not proposing to use any structures for the farmers’ market. It is intended that vendors will provide their own tents and tables or otherwise sell out of their trucks. In addition, the area in which the Farmers Market is proposed meets all current yard requirements. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 5 4. Number of Parking Spaces must meet standard of 1 space per 200 square feet of retail area – The applicant is providing a sufficient number of parking spaces for the use in the existing parking lot. 5. Parking location must be no located closer than 10 feet to the public right-of-way – This requirement is met. 6. Design and improvements – The parking design has been provided by the applicant and is judged to provide safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, a representative of Fire/Rescue, VDOT staff, Architectural Review Board staff, and Current Development staff have reviewed this proposal, have indicated no objection to the proposed farmers’ market use, and ha ve made no recommendations for additional improvements to address health and safety considerations. In addition, the hours of operation have purposely been set as to not interfere with other activities of the lodge. Summary: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The Farmers Market would promote and preserve agricultural businesses in the County. 2. No new parking is required because the Farmers Market makes use of a parking lot which is typically underutilized during the proposed time period. 3. Nearby and neighboring residential neighborhoods will have easy access to fresh local produce and products. Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan on Page 3 of the Plan entitled “Special Use Permit Elks Lodge” prepared by the applicant and dated 2 -18-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. 2. The use shall operate during the months of April through December of each year. 3. The hours of operation for sales at the Farmers Market shall not begin earlier than 3:00 P.M. and shall end not later than 7:00 P.M. on Tuesdays, and not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall not end later than 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. SP 2011-00006 PC April 19, 2011 Page 6 4. In order to provide safe and convenient access to the adjoining property when the adjoining property is developed, a Class A – Type 1 low maintenance asphalt pedestrian path shall be constructed to the adjoining parcel in accordance with the County’s Design Standards Manual. The path shall be located to connect to a similar path to be constructed on the adjoining parcel described as Tax Map Parcel 07800-00-00-05800. Construction of the path shall begin after the final site plan or subdivision plat is approved for the area adjoining the Elks property and be completed before April of the following year. Planning Commission Motion: Should a Planning Commissioner move to recommend approval of the special use permit, staff recommends approval with the conditions above. Should a Planning Commissioner move to recommend denial of the rezoning, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Elks Farmers Market description and concept plan dated 2 -18-11 Attachment C: Action Letter for SP 509 Attachment D: VDOT Comments dated March 31, 2011 Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00006 Elks Lodge Farmers Market 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission April 19, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, 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 absent. Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular m eeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:58 p.m. SP-2011-00006 Elks Lodge Farmers Market PROPOSED: Farmers Market on 6.34 acres; no residential units proposed ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R1 Residential (1 unit/acre) SECTION: 13.2.2.14 Farmers Market COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential which allows 6.01 -34 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, comm ercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 389 Elk Drive approximately 265 feet from intersection of Elk Drive and Rt 20N TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Elaine Echols) Ms. Echols presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This request is for a farmers market at the Elks Lodge on Pantops Mountain just across Route 20 from Fontana. The farmers market would be held in the parking lot. Staff analyzed the request and had no problems with it. Factors favorable • Promote and preserve agricultural businesses in the County; • No new parking is required -- parking lot typically is underutilized during proposed time period ; and • Easy access to fresh local produce and products for neighbors and residents in Pantops area. No factors unfavorable Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan on Page 3 of the Plan entitled “Special Use Permit Elks Lodge” prepared by the applicant and dated 2-18-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. 2. The use shall operate during the months of April through December of each year. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00006 Elks Lodge Farmers Market 2 3. The hours of operation for sales at the Farmers Market shall not begin earlier than 3:00 P.M. and shall end not later than 7:00 P.M. on Tuesdays, and not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall not end later than 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 4. In order to provide safe and convenient access to the adjoining property when the adjoining property is developed, a Class A – Type 1 low maintenance asphalt pedestrian path shall be constructed to the adjoining parcel in accordance with the County’s Design Standards Manual. The path shall be located to connect to a similar path to be constructed on the adjoining parcel described as Tax Map Parcel 07800-00-00-05800. Construction of the path shall begin after the final site plan or subdivision plat is approved for the area adjoining the Elks property and be completed before April of the following year. In addition to the hours of operation, it is understood that there will be vendors who will have to set up and take down before and after those hours. Staff recommends a path to the adjoining parcel, which would be located to connect with a path on the other side of the property. There is a development proposal in the office right now called Riverside Village, which is for the adjoining property. Staff believes that as that plan comes together the two of them will decide where that path connection should be made. The Elks would not have to put in their connection until after the final site plan or plat is approved for the adjoining property. That proposal will probably be seen by the Commission later this year. The Elks are okay with that condition. Mr. Lafferty suggested that they add “only” during these months to condition #2, and Ms. Echols agreed. Mr. Lafferty asked if the path was a multi-modal path. Ms. Echols replied that staff was talking about a Class A – Type 1 low maintenance asphalt pedestrian path similar to Fontana. That is the same standard Fontana had, which is the minimum standard from the Design Standard Manual. As heard in Fontana, those paths did not have a standard to begin with so they had to build upon that. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Ellis Frazier, one of five trustees of the Elk’s Lodge property, said he was appointed by the trustees to act on this legal matter only. The members also appointed him. They have talked with the a djoining neighbors. They are very excited about this. So far, this plan has exceeded their expectations. They have 18 vendors out of 21 spaces that have called and wanted a space . They may have underestimated what they should have asked for, but are going to leave the request as is. He thanked Elaine Echols and staff for their assistance in the process. He asked that the Commission and Board approve this request since it will be a big asset for the whole community Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Smith asked if the Elks Lodge had any objections to building this path as discussed. Mr. Frazier replied no. They had a little concern about it. However, after they explained it, they think it will be okay. The Board of Trustees said the maintenance path would be okay. Since the path is low maintenance, they don’t see any problem . The portion of the path through the southwest of their building is about the only feasible path, which connects with an access paved delivery driveway. They would only have to put in about an 8’ path. Mr. Morris pointed out that it was almost done. Mr. Frazier agreed since about 8’ is all they would have to put in to the next property line. They are okay with that. Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00006 Elks Lodge Farmers Market 3 Lynwood Bell, resident of 493 Fontana Drive, said as things sometimes seem simple they are not necessarily that simple. One of the things staff has forgotten about is the small matter of traffic. The traffic light at Fontana Drive and 20 North is the nexus for traffic that comes from Avemore, Wilton Farms, Fontana, and Highland Ridge. Some traffic will come from the Pavilions. In addition, they should not forget about Cascadia that is down the road. He recollects on weekends there are about 300 cars that turn per hour at that light coming and going to softball games, soccer games, tennis games, and Lacrosse games. There is another 162 units being planned to go right behind the Elks Lodge. In addition, they should not forget about their friends in Key W est and Franklin. On Tuesday across the street is traffic from the Montessori School. Those ladies now back their cars out of the parking lot around on the driveway out Fontana Drive and one -half way to the light from the Avemore/Fontana Drive intersection. They do that every day. There is an awful lot of traffic. The residents in that sector are being overburdened with traffic coming out of their ears. It has just begun. On Saturday, it is impossible to get out of his neighborhood to make a left turn to go towards Route 250 because there are many softball players who are in a rush . There should not be any parking along Elks Drive. They currently have a real mess and he would urge the Commission not to approve the request at that location because of traffic and safety considerations. Mike Power, resident of 138 Fontana Court across from the Elks property, said he would like to experience the benefits of the farmer’s market. The farmer’s market sounds like a great amenity that he would have convenient access to. He thought the Commission should consider some of Mr. Bell’s comments about traffic congestion at that traffic light, particularly in regards to what he understands is an upcoming Cascadia rezoning. He thought that they need an exit from Cascadia further north on Route 20 to make sure that does not add traffic to the same intersection coming out at the Montessori School. Richard Martin, member of the Elk’s Lodge for over 25 years, noted that the Elk’s Lodge was there before Darden Towe Park and before Fontana was ever thought about. The Elks have always been a very community oriented organization and hold many activities there. They have been approved for about 175 parking spaces in the parking lot. On occasions, they have an event that park people on Elks Drive. In addition, the County owned park next door parks people on Elks Drive. T he traffic light with a little work from VDOT can be made to handle traffic far more efficiently than what it is doing. He understands what Mr. Bell is saying about the traffic. However, if he is having a problem with that one, then he did not know what he does at the traffic light at Route 20 North and Route 250. The amount of traffic for this particular event will be over a period of time. It starts fairly early in the morning on Saturdays and is done by 1:00 p.m. On Tuesday afternoon, there will be a little additional traffic during travel time. However, he thought people needed places to go such as the proposed farmer’s market. This is a partial fund raiser for the Elks Lodge as well as a thing for the community. If it gets to the point where the Elks Lodge can’t afford to be there because they don’t raise funds to support the operation, they could sell this lot to a developer and then let’s see what happens to the traffic. There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris said he was completely for this request. He understands the problem with traffic, but he thought the benefit to the people on the east side of town was tremendous. He compliments the Elks for going this way. Besides, if he did not vote for it the people in Key West would lynch him. Mr. Lafferty pointed out the letter from VDOT on the back page recommends a pedestrian vehicular connection and yet staff is saying just a pedestrian connection. He questioned if that is the same connection. Ms. Echols replied that it is the same connection. The adjoining property could connect into Elks Drive if everything were in place for them to do that. There is a m atter of having to acquire a strip of land in order ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00006 Elks Lodge Farmers Market 4 to get to Elk’s Drive. She thought that was what they were talking about with the adjoining property being able to connect there. The pedestrian path is an absolute. Mr. Lafferty noted that they don’t want to hold the request up because of that. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00006, Elks Lodge Farmers Market, subject to the four conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Kamptner noted Mr. Lafferty recommended a change to condition 2. There is a possible ambiguity related to the days it can be used. He would recommend that condition 2 be revised to say the use shall operate only during the months of April through December of each year and only on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Motion Amendment: Mr. Morris accepted the motion amendment. Amendment Second: Mr. Smith seconded the amendment. Mr. Franco pointed out that in the past they have had some concerns about traffic , which the Commission has heard expressed. He asked if they would want to put a time limit on this. He supports the use since it is a great use. However, if they want to caveat it, he could also entertain a limited period of time of two years to see if works out and then make it unlimited after that. Mr. Morris said he saw no need for it. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that would require reapplication. Mr. Morris noted that he would like to leave the motion the way it is. Ms. Porterfield pointed out the Commission did not do that on the most recent farmer’s market s, including the one at Forest Lakes. She did not think the Commission should do it because they have not set that precedent. Mr. Zobrist asked that the question be called. The motion passed by vote of 7:0 subject to the conditions, as amended. 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan on Page 3 of the Plan entitled “Special Use Permit Elks Lodge” prepared by the applicant and dated 2-18-11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administ rator. 2. The use shall operate only during the months of April through December of each year and only on Tuesdays and Saturdays. 3. The hours of operation for sales at the Farmers Market shall not begin earlier than 3:00 P.M. and shall end not later than 7:00 P.M. on Tuesdays, and not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall not end later than 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 4. In order to provide safe and convenient access to the adjoining property when the adjoining property is developed, a Class A – Type 1 low maintenance asphalt pedestrian path shall be constructed to the adjoining parcel in accordance with the County’s Design Standards Manual. The path shall be located to connect to a similar path to be constructed on the adjoining parcel described as Tax Map Parcel 07800-00-00-05800. Construction of the path shall begin after the final site plan or subdivision plat is approved for the area adjoining the Elks property and be completed before April of the following year. Mr. Zobrist noted that a recommendation for approval on SP-2011-00006, Elk’s Lodge Farmers Market would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined. Return to PC actions letter