Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-10-05
Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E OCTOBER 5, 2011 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 6. Recognitions. a. Proclamation recognizing the 35th Anniversary of AHIP. 7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 9:30 a.m. 8. SP-2011-00012. Locally Grown Festival (Signs #62&64). PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1-9 p.m. in the fall of 2011. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). LOCATION: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm, approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White Hall Road (810). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 040000000026A1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall. (Deferred from September 7, 2011) Public Hearings: 9. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 10. WPOA-2011-00001. Water Protection. Amend Secs. 17-209, Fees, 17-304, Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan, 17-310, Fees, 17-321, Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority, and 17-322, Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer, of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code. The ordinance would reduce the fee for variances related to erosion and sediment control plans from $860 to a lesser amount (17-209), amend the procedures for reviewing stormwater management/BMP plans (“SWM plans”) (17-304) and mitigation plans (17-322), establish standards when inactive SWM plans and mitigation plans are deemed withdrawn and when approved plans expire (17-304, 17-322), eliminate the fee for certain SWM plan requests and reduce the fee for a mitigation plan from $860 to a lesser amount (17-310), and amend the regulations delineating the type of development allowed in the stream buffer (17-321). 11. ACSA-2011-0003. Arlin Martin. To amend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area boundary to provide “water service to one single-family dwelling only” on Tax Map 56, Parcel 80, an approximately 0.9 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas, located in an area designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. White Hall District. 12. SP-2011-00004. Eagleburger Property AT&T CV352 Tier III PWSF (Signs #106&107). PROPOSED: A one hundred and fifty five (155) feet seven (7) inches tall tower with six flush mounted antennas within an existing non-conforming electric power tower and associated ground equipment. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas-; agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/ file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111005/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 4) [10/7/2020 5:16:12 PM] Tentative acre in development lots. SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas – Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO. LOCATION: 1450 Owensville RD [State Route 678]. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05800-00-00-06600. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. 13. SP-2010-00055. Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care; SP-2010-00056. Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center (Sign #57). PROPOSED: SP-2010-00055 - Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per day) in new 12,000- square-foot building; SP-2010-00056 - Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, community facilities and activities, within new 12,000 square building (same building as SP201000055). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: SP-2010-00055: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). SP-2010-00056: 10.2.2.1 Community center (reference 5.1.04). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 2256 Irish Rd (Route 6), approximately 1 mile east of the intersection with Porters Rd (Route 627). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128000000109A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. 14. ZMA-2010-00009. Republic Capital Amendment (Sign #86). PROPOSED: Rezoning of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industry and HI Heavy Industry, which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use), to amend proffers. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service - warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Located on west side of Route 29N, at the intersection with Northside Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 15. SP-2010-038. Badger Industrial (Sign #81). PROPOSED: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow expanded use of industrially zoned property. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use), EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access, AIA - Airport Impact Area - Overlay to protect the airport and FH - Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Piney Mountain. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: This fill is proposed adjacent to the North Fork of the Rivanna River at the former Badger Powhatan site. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200-00-00-005B0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. 16. Appeal: Planning Commission denial of Critical Slopes Waiver Request for SP-2010-038 – Badger Industrial Building. 10:45 a.m. – Action Items: 17. 10:45 a.m. - Town of Scottsville Request for Police Funding. 18. 11:05 a.m. – FY 13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program, Request for Participation and Recommended Projects for Funding. 19. 11:25 a.m. - FY11/12 and FY 12/13 Revenue Update. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111005/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 4) [10/7/2020 5:16:12 PM] Tentative 20. Closed Meeting. 21. Certify Closed Meeting. 22. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments. 1:30 p.m. – Presentation: 23. DIA Update, Phil Roberts, Chief of Field Support Activity. 24. Annual Update on Economic Vitality Action Plan. 25. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update, Gary O’Connell, Executive Director. 26. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update, Tom Frederick, Executive Director. Action Items: 27. Comprehensive Regional Water Supply Plan Resolution. 28. Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2011 Strategic Plan Strategy Session Report. 29. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 30. Adjourn to October 12, 2011, 2:00 p.m., Room 241 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2010; May 4, July 13 and August 3, 2011. 7.2 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriation. 7.3 Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application. 7.4 Resolution of Intent to Amend County Code Section 18-4.18, Noise (Chapter 18, Zoning). 7.5 Set public hearing to consider Noise Regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (Chapter 7, Health and Safety). 7.6 “Watch for Child Playing” Signage for Reas Ford Lane. 7.7 Cancel Board of Supervisors October 12, 2011 night meeting. 7.8 VACo Credentials for 2011 Annual Business Meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties. FOR INFORMATION: 7.9 FY11 Preliminary End of Year Financial Report. 7.10 Board-to-Board Report for October 2011, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111005/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 4) [10/7/2020 5:16:12 PM] Tentative 7.11 VDoT Culpeper District – Albemarle County Monthly Report for October 2011. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111005/00_Agenda.htm (4 of 4) [10/7/2020 5:16:12 PM] On behalf of the citizens and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, we recognize and commend: Albemarle Housing Improvement Program in celebrating 35 years of service in our community. AHIP is an independent Home Repair Nonprofit which has helped over 2,000 families have safe, decent, and affordable housing. We are strengthened and enriched as a community by the efforts and dedication of AHIP’s staff in providing repairs, rehabilitation, and management of homes for lower-income residents. AHIP’s ability to access numerous resources including the use of local volunteers enhances our local investment for this valuable service. As a local government, we could not begin to provide the level of service we receive from the efforts of AHIP. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors joins in the celebration and congratulates AHIP for its 35 years of service and expresses its thanks for the outstanding work they continue to do in support of our community. Signed and sealed this 5th day of October 2011. Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation #2011094 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $5,000.00. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval one (1) FY 2011 appropriations as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2011094) totaling $5,000.00 for School Division grants. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $5,000.00 and the approval of Appropriation #2011094. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A 1 Appropriation #2011094 $5,000.00 Revenue Source: Local Grants $ 5,000.00 This request is to appropriate three grants received by the Sch ool Division as approved by the School Board on August 25, 2011. B.F. Yancey Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Laura Bush Foundation for America’s Libraries. These funds will be used to refurbish the school’s existing library collection with current and relevant titles in designated areas of need. Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Wachovia Wells Fargo Foundation Community Partners Program. These funds will be used to replace a damaged sculpture located in the front of the school and to purchase reading instruction material for grades K -2. Crozet Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the William’s Foundation. These funds will be used to purchase equipment for the Boys and Girls Lacrosse Program. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Letter of Support for Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s Regional Grant Application STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Graham; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) is seeking $400,000 in grant-in-aid funding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support the Thomas Jefferson Regional Brownfield Assessment Project. No match funding from the County is required for the grant; however, TJPDC has requested that the County provide a letter of support (Attachment A) for this initiative. DISCUSSION: Work under this project is proposed to include identifying properties in the TJPDC that possess good redevelopment potential but are afflicted by existing or potential environmental contamination which has resulted in the properties being undesirable for redevelopment. This assessment will begin a process that could ultimately transform these properties to more desirable and marketable sites. Specific tasks of the grant include: 1. Outreach and Education: The TJPDC will reach out to elected officials, planning commissioners, economic development organizations, the business community (especially real estate companies, developers, and banking institutions), and the public to educate them on the challenges and opportunities of brownfields remediation. 2. Regional Inventory: The TJPDC will inventory brownfields with a focus on sites that possess potential for redevelopment. 3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs): The TJPDC, with help from an advisory committee to be comprised of representatives from each locality, will develop criteria to guide the selection of sites from the inventory on which to conduct Phase I ESAs. The TJPDC will hire consultants to conduct the Phase I ESAs. 4. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments: With information gathered from the Phase I ESAs, the advisory committee will select sites on which to conduct Phase II ESAs. The TJPDC will hire consultants to conduct the Phase II ESAs. 5. Remediation Plans: Based on the findings of the Phase II ESAs, the advisory committee will determine which sites the TJPDC should contract with a consultant to develop remediation plans. At the conclusion of this planning work, the TJPDC will be able to apply for state and federal grants and loans to implement remediation plans and possibly to begin redevelopment planning. Anticipated benefits to the locality from remediation include: Brownfield property may be returned to its highest and best use Brownfield property may be returned to, or an increased contribution may be made to, the tax base A detractor of development for surrounding property is reduced or eliminated Jobs are created and/or attracted Pressure to grow outward is reduced Citizens’ exposure risk to environmental contamination is reduced Pollution/contamination and the risk of its migration to soil, water, and air is reduced BUDGET IMPACT: Because the TJPDC is only seeking a letter of support for its grant application, staff does not anticipate there will be any budget impact to the County through this initiative. AGENDA TITLE: Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application October 5, 2011 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board support the TJPDC’s grant application by authorizing the Board chair to sign a letter of support on behalf of the Board (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Draft Letter of Support Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda October 15, 2011 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Mr. Steve Williams 401 E. Water St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Williams: The County of Albemarle is pleased to participate in the coalition of localities that are represented in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s (TJPDC) application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Thomas Jefferson Regional Brownfield Assessment and Planning Grant. The County shares the TJPDC’s commitment to environmental stewardship and community development, both of which will be furthered by this project. We are excited to assist the TJPDC in the inventory and site selection process, and already have sites in mind that would benefit the County, our citizens, and the environment if de termined to be eligible for assessment activities. Here, as in many communities, economic opportunities have fallen short of expectations in the recent past. We believe the investment in troubled properties made possible by this funding will result in reinvestment and job creation that would have otherwise not occurred in Albemarle County. Additionally, the project will produce information on our vulnerability to environmental contamination, and establish the necessary steps to clean up pollution that potentially threatens our natural resources, health, and livelihood. The County sees this project as an opportunity to transform negative aspects of our community into assets, improving the quality of life for our citizens. The TJPDC has conducted work on our behalf many times, and we have found the organization to be a very capable partner. The Commission’s quality of work and comprehensive approach to regional issues uniquely qualifies them to undertake this project on behalf of the coalition members, each of which is affected by brownfields in their communities. For these reasons, we hope you will support the TJPDC’s proposal to assess and plan for brownfields remediation in our region. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Noise (Chapter 18, Zoning) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt a resolution of intent to amend County Code § 18-4.18, Noise STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Newberry and Ms. McCulley LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Before comprehensively amended in 2009, the County’s noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (the “nuisance noise regulations”) were primarily based on a standard that prohibited noise levels that were loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person (the “reasonable person standard”). The 2009 amendments replaced the reasonable person standard with an audibility standard. The amendments were necessary because of a Virginia Supreme Court decision earlier that year in which the Court concluded that Virginia Beach’s reasonable person standard was unconstitutionally vague. During the zoning text amendment to the County’s farm winery regulations pertaining to outdoor amplified music (County Code § 18-5.1.25) earlier this year, there was significant discussion as to whether sound produced from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery was subject to not only the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but also the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7. There are differences between the two regulatory schemes. The zoning noise regulations use a decibel-based standard (the exception being outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which uses an audibility standard) and are enforced by the zoning administrator in a civil proceeding. The nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 use an audibility standard (the exception be ing a catch-all provision prohibiting sound that is 15 or more decibels above the ambient sound levels), are enforced by the police and may result in a criminal prosecution. When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed that sound produced from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise regulations. However, it became apparent to staff that the change in the nuisance noise regulations from the reasonable person standard to the audibility standard in 2009 may have blurred the line as to when the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance or the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 applies in certain situations. DISCUSSION: The purposes of this ordinance are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning noise r egulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. To accomplish this purpose, this ordinance would amend County Code § 18-4.18.01 to expressly state that the zoning regulations will apply to those uses and activities authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance also would amend County Code § 18-4.18.05 to update the language of the exemptions so that it is consistent to the extent possible with the language of the exemptions in County Code § 7-106 adopted in 2009. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is expected. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution of intent to amend County Code § 18-4.18, Noise. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Resolution of intent Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the regulation of noise; and WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the Zoning Ordinance and which sounds are regulated under the noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code, and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two; and WHEREAS, it also may be desirable to amend the noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance to update the language of the exemptions in County Code § 18-4.18.05 so that it is consistent, to the extent possible, with the language of the exemptions in County Code § 7-106. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18-4.18, Noise, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. * * * * * Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Noise (Chapter 7, Health and Safety) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Set a public hearing to consider amending the noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Newberry and Ms. McCulley LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Before comprehensively amended in 2009, the County’s noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (the “nuisance noise regulations”) were primarily based on a standard that prohibited noise levels that were loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person (the “reasonable person standard”). The 2009 amendments replaced the reasonable person standard with an audibility standard. The amendments were necessary because of a Virginia Supreme Court decision earlier that year in which the Court concluded that Virginia Beach’s reasonable person standard was unconstitutionally vague. During the zoning text amendment to the County’s farm winery regulations pertaining to outdoor amplified music (County Code § 18-5.1.25) earlier this year, there was significant discussion as to whether sound produced from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery was subject to not only the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but also the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7. There are differences between the two regulatory schemes. The zoning noise regulations use a decibel-based standard (the exception being outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which uses an audibility standard) and are enforced by the zoning administrator in a civil proceeding. The nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 use an audibility standard (the exception being a catch-all provision prohibiting sound that is 15 or more decibels above the ambient sound levels) and are enforced by the police and may result in a criminal prosecution. When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed that sound produced from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise regulations. However, it became apparent to staff that the change in the nuisance noise regulations from the reasonable person standard to the audibility standard in 2009 may have blurred the line as to when the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance or the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 applies in certain situations. DISCUSSION: The purposes of this ordinance are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. To accomplish this purpose, this ordinance would amend County Code § 7-103 to expressly state that the nuisance noise regulations will apply only when the activity producing the sound is not subject to the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance also would amend County Code § 7-106(A) to add outdoor amplified music at a farm winery as an exempt agricultural activity (sound from outdoor amplified music at a farm winery is regulated under the Zoning Ordinance in County Code § 18-5.1.25(e)). Finally, this ordinance would make minor housekeeping amendments to County Code §§ 7-103, 7-105 and 7-106. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is expected. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on December 7, 2011. ATTACHMENTS None Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: “Watch for Child Playing” Signage for Reas Ford Lane SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to approve a request to install “Watch for Child Playing” signage on Reas Ford Lane (Route 661) STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, and Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The residents of properties along Reas Ford Lane and Graemont Lane submitted the attached request to install “Watch for Child Playing” signage on Reas Ford Lane (Attachment A). Reas Ford Lane, located off of Reas Ford Road, approximately 0.7 miles south of Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department (See map -- Attachment B), is a narrow, unpaved road that serves the Graemont subdivision, other homes along the road and Panorama Farm. Special events held at Panorama Farm (i.e., cross country meets and bicycling events) generate increased traffic volume on the road during these special events. VDOT requires that the Board adopt a resolution approving the placement of a “Watch for Child Playing” sign before it will install a sign. DISCUSSION: The County has developed the following criteria for reviewing a “Watch for Child Playing” sign installation request and staff has evaluated this request against these criteria: “Watch for Child Playing” signs shall be considered on secondary roads. Reas Ford Lane is in the secondary road system (Route 661). The request must come from a Homeowner’s Association where applicable. The residents along Reas Ford Lane and Graemont Lane have submitted a request to install signage. There must be a child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered. There is no formal established child activity attraction such as a park or tot lot on Reas Ford Lane; however, there are no sidewalks along this road and children living in this neighborhood often walk or bike on the road. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices: The proposed location of the signage will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. This request meets three of the four criteria. While there are no formal/central child activity attractions on the road, given the character of the road (narrow and unpaved), the lack of sidewalks or shoulders, and the use of the road by many drivers attending special events at Panorama Farm who may be unfamiliar with the area, it is staff’s opinion that this request for the installation of “Watch for Child Playing” sign age has merit in this location. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost to install a “Watch for Child Playing” sign is $150 per sign and VDOT will determine how many signs are appropriate. Typically, VDOT has installed one or two signs for each designated area. This cost will be paid from the County’s Six Year Secondary Road Maintenance Fund. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) approving the installation of “Watch for Child Playing” signage on Reas Ford Lane (Route 661). ATTACHMENTS: A – Letter requesting sign B – Location Map C – Resolution Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels ATTACHMENT B -- LOCATION MAP Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 12, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 1361 ft ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL WATCH FOR CHILD PLAYING SIGN ON REAS FORD LANE (ROUTE 661) WHEREAS, the residents of Reas Ford Lane are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, children live and play on Reas Ford Lane and the residents believe that a “Watch for Child Playing” sign would help alleviate some of the safety concerns; and WHEREAS, the residents of Reas Ford Lane have requested that the County take the necessary steps to have a “Watch for Child Playing” sign installed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the community’s request for VDOT to install “Watch for Child Playing” sign(s) on Reas Ford Lane. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Preliminary End of Year Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Preliminary Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Walters, and Ms. Burrell, Ms. L. Allshouse and Ms. Vinzant LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 05, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The attached Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2011. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous fiscal year. DISCUSSION: ($ in Millions) A. Attachment A: Preliminary General Fund Financial Report: a. Revenues (Preliminary): State, Federal and Local revenue receipts total $213.815 million, $3.231 million (1.5%) more than budget. These revenues, combined with the use of $2.634 million in transfers from other funds and $2.889 million of fund balance, total $219.348 million, which is $2.949 million (1.4%) more than the current General Fund budget. Recent national indicators suggest economic growth has slowed. The consensus of economic advisors expects the expansion may continue at a modest, uneven pace with significant downside risk. GDP increased 1.0% for the 2nd quarter and is estimated to increase 1.6% for 2011 and 1.1% for 2012. Retail sales were flat in August. The labor market stalled in August and initial unemployment claims rose to the highest level since June. Unemployment in the U.S. remains flat at 9.1% in August. Overall growth continues to be restrained by cutbacks in government spending as well as struggles in the housing market. On the positive side, business sales are solid rising 0.7% in August. The Conf erence Board index of leading indicators rose 0.5% in July, its third consecutive monthly increase. Inflation remains contained. The CPI rose 0.4% in August, core inflation without food and energy rose 0.2%. Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY11 fiscal year: Real Estate Tax revenues total $111.235 million, $0.738 million (0.7%) less than Budget, a $0.077 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The FY11 Budget was based on negative 0.50% 2011 tax year reassessment rate. The final 2011 tax year reassessment rate was a negative 1.24%. A Tax Year is equivalent to a calendar year. Its effects are realized over 2 consecutive fiscal years with the 1st half in one fiscal year and the 2nd half in the next fiscal year. A 1.0% change in the reassessment rate is equivalent to $1.303 million in real estate tax revenues for the 2011 tax year. Personal Property Tax revenues total $19.073 million, $0.111 (0.6%) less than Budget, a $0.352 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The impact of the Cash for Clunkers program has faded over time but new sales are mixed due to postponed demand and volatile economic conditions. Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees total $3.686 million, $1.355 million (58.1%) more than Budget, a $0.157 million increase over the previous Financial Report. Additional compliance enforcement through the DMV Stop and Department of TAX Set-off Debt programs has generated additional revenues. Delinquent fees previously implemented have also encouraged payment of delinquent taxes to avoid additional fees. Revalidation rollback revenues are reserved and not included in General Fund projections. Conservative budget estimates based on economic projections contributed to the excess over budget. AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Preliminary End of Year Financial Report October 5, 2011 Page 2 Sales Tax revenues total $12.716 million, $1.646 million (14.9%) more than Budget, a $0.034 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The overall impact is due to both increased consumer purchases as well as auditor findings. Taxpayers continue to be cautious but have begun to slightly increase discretionary spending as the economy improves. The auditor has identified $0.928 million in misallocated sales tax revenues which have been approved by the state to be transferred to Albemarle from other localities over a six month period with an additional estimated $0.201 million in process. On-going annual receipts increased approximately $0.352 million based on the approved adjustments. Significant revenues continue to be lost to internet purchases and retail development in adjacent localities. Business License, BPOL, revenues total $9.502 million, $0.177 million (1.9%) more than Budget, a $0.127 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. Payments are due June 15 which makes forecasting for prior Financial Reports more challenging. BPOL revenues are based on gross receipts for the previous year which usually lag current sales tax revenues by a year. Utility Tax revenues total $8.978 million, $0.030 million (0.3%) less than Budget, a $0.235 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The decrease is attributed to volatile weather conditions. Other Local Tax revenues total $9.933 million, $0.172 million (1.8%) more than Budget, a $0.268 million increase over the previous Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to increased Public Service tax receipts. State Revenues total $23.088 million, $0.402 million (1.8%) more than Budget, a $0.361 million increase from the previous Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to DSS reimbursements. Federal Revenues total $4.596 million, $0.183 million (4.2%) more than Budget, a $0.030 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The increase is primarily due to DSS reimbursements. Use of Other Funds transfers total $2.634 million, $0.282 million (9.7%), less than Budget, a $0.208 million increase from the previous Financial Report. The decrease is due to reduced school, stormwater, and proffer transfers. Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have not been analyzed for this report. b. Expenditures (Preliminary): General Fund expenditures, including transfers, total $209.416 million, a 3.2% savings of $6.983 million from Budget. In addition to operational savings in many departments, a significant portion of the expenditure savings is attributable to salary lapse and the associated benefit savings such as health insurance and group life insurance as well as the release of the revenue shortfall contingency. i. Departmental expenditures total $76.768 million, a 4.6% savings of $3.698 million from Budget: The savings are allocated by functional area as follows: Administration expenditures total $9.950 million, a 5.2% savings of $0.544 million from Budget. Judicial expenditures total $3.798 million, a 3.7% savings of $0.147 million from Budget Public Safety expenditures total $29.401 million, a 0.4% savings of $0.112 million from Budget. General Services expenditures total $4.098 million, a 9.5% savings of $0.432 million from Budget. Human Services expenditures total $17.605 million, an 8.5% savings of $1.636 million from Budget. Parks and Culture expenditures total $5.948 million, a 4.8% savings of $0.302 million from Budget. Community Development expenditures total $5.968 million, an 8.1% savings of $0.525 million from Budget. AGENDA TITLE: FY11 Preliminary End of Year Financial Report October 5, 2011 Page 2 ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and refunds total $18.790 million, a 10.1% savings of $2.106 million including release of the revenue contingency reserve. iii. Transfers total $113.858 million, a 1.0% savings of $1.179 million: Transfers to the School Division total $96.058 million as Budgeted. Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds total $17.801 million, a 6.2% savings of $1.179 million for a debt transfer which will be reappropriated in FY12. c. Revenues less Expenditures: This report projects that the fiscal year will end with $9.932 million of revenues in excess of expenditures. Revenues and related transfers are projected to exceed Budget by $2.949 million. Expenditures and related transfers are expected to produce $6.983 million in savings. B. Attachment B: Preliminary General Fund Budget Comparison Report: The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time. Preliminary Revenues: Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Utility Tax, Other Local Taxes, Other Local Revenue, Federal Revenue, Transfers from Other Funds, and Fund Balance show positive growth over FY10. Real Estate Tax, Business License Tax, and State Revenue show decreases from FY10. Preliminary Expenditures: Judicial, Public Safety, Human Services, and Non-Departmental expenditures show anticipated increases over FY10. Administration, General Services, Parks and Culture, Community Development, Non-School and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY10. C. Attachment C: Preliminary Fund Balance Report: The report indicates that the County: Had an Audited FY10 Undesignated Fund Balance of $24.566 million, Appropriated $2.899 million for Budgeted FY11 Initiatives and Reappropriations, Appropriated $0.250 million for FY12 initiatives, Has a remaining June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of $21.417 million, Has Preliminary revenues in excess of expenditures of $9.932 million, Has FY11 revalidation roll-back revenue of $0.153 million, Has estimated FY12 commitments of $1.564 million, Has Policy Fund Balance reserves of $26.280 million, and Has a Preliminary June 30, 2011 Policy Available Fund Balance of $3.658 million. The $26.280 million Policy reserves consist of a 9.0% unrestricted Fund Balance reserve and a 1.0% Stabilization reserve. The unrestricted Fund Balance reserve was increased from 8.0% to 9.0% based on Financial Advisor recommendations. The 1.0% Stabilization reserve was approved with the FY12-FY16 Five Year Financial Plan. D. Budget Impact: This Financial Report is based on audited FY10 financial data and twelve months of Preliminary financial data for FY11. This data is the basis of projections for the FY13-FY17 Five Year Financial Plan and FY13 Budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required . ATTACHMENTS; A – Preliminary General Fund End-of-Year Financial Report B – Preliminary General Fund Budget Comparison Report C – Preliminary General Fund Balance Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A FY 09/10 Full Year Actual (1) 07/01/10 Adopted (2) 06/30/11 Appropriations Preliminary 06/30/11 YTD Actual (3) YTD Actual as % of Appropriations $ Variances Act-Approp Variances as % of Appropriations Revenues: Real Estate Taxes, Current $112.462 $111.973 $111.973 $111.235 99.3%($0.738)-0.7% Personal Property Taxes, Current 19.020 19.184 19.184 19.073 99.4%(0.111)-0.6% Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 3.105 2.331 2.331 3.686 158.1%1.355 58.1% Sales Taxes 11.623 11.070 11.070 12.716 114.9%1.646 14.9% Business Licenses 9.508 9.325 9.325 9.502 101.9%0.177 1.9% Utility Taxes 8.965 9.008 9.008 8.978 99.7%(0.030)-0.3% Food and Beverage Taxes 5.390 5.650 5.650 5.737 101.5%0.087 1.5% Other Local Taxes 9.817 9.761 9.761 9.933 101.8%0.172 1.8% Other Local Revenue 4.792 5.157 5.184 5.272 101.7%0.088 1.7% State Revenue 23.134 22.687 22.687 23.088 101.8%0.402 1.8% Federal Revenue 4.407 4.337 4.413 4.596 104.2%0.183 4.2% Total Revenues 212.221 210.482 210.584 213.815 101.5%3.231 1.5% Transfers: Use of Other Funds 2.477 2.692 2.916 2.634 90.3%(0.282)-9.7% Use of Fund Balance 1.552 0.092 2.899 2.899 100.0%0.000 0.0% Subtotal transfers 4.029 2.784 5.815 5.532 95.1%(0.282)-4.9% Total $216.249 $213.266 $216.399 $219.348 101.4%$2.949 1.4% FY 09/10 Full Year Actual (1) 07/01/10 Adopted (2) 06/30/11 Appropriations Preliminary 06/30/11 YTD Actual (3) YTD Actual as % of Appropriations $ Variances Act-Approp Variances as % of Appropriations Expenditures: Administration $10.291 $10.356 $10.495 $9.950 94.8%($0.544)-5.2% Judicial 3.647 3.894 3.945 3.798 96.3%(0.147)-3.7% Public Safety 28.546 29.228 29.513 29.401 99.6%(0.112)-0.4% General Services 4.242 4.506 4.530 4.098 90.5%(0.432)-9.5% Human Services 17.561 19.209 19.241 17.605 91.5%(1.636)-8.5% Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.188 6.239 6.250 5.948 95.2%(0.302)-4.8% Community Development 6.926 6.222 6.493 5.968 91.9%(0.525)-8.1% Subtotal Operations 77.401 79.655 80.466 76.768 95.4%(3.698)-4.6% Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)18.112 20.574 20.895 18.790 89.9%(2.106)-10.1% Transfers: Transfer to School Division 97.042 96.058 96.058 96.058 100.0%0.000 0.0% Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 18.280 16.979 18.979 17.801 93.8%(1.179)-6.2% Subtotal transfers 115.322 113.037 115.037 113.858 99.0%(1.179)-1.0% Total $210.836 $213.266 $216.399 $209.416 96.8%($6.983)-3.2% 7/1/10 > 06/30/11 = 100% of year Preliminary FY11 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures $9.932 (1) Full Year FY09/10 Transacctions (2) July 01, 2010 Adopted General Fund FY11 Budget Preliminary June 30, 2011 Projected Available Funds $29.938 (3) Preliminary as of Septemer 21, 2011 Preliminary June 30, 2011 Policy Available Fund Balance $3.658 Current FY 10/11 Current FY 10/11 County of Albemarle PRELIMINARY General Fund Financial Report Year-To-Date for the Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2011 ($ in millions) Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are over expenditures Attachment B County of Albemarle PRELIMINARY - General Fund Budget Comparison Report Year-to-Date for the Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2011 ($ in millions) - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Administration Judicial Public Safety General Services Human Services Parks, Rec & Culture Community Development Non- departmental Non-School Transfers $ in millions Expenditures 09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Preliminary - 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Real Estate Tax Personal Property Tax Sales Tax Business Licenses Utility Tax Food_Beverage Tax Other Local & Delinq Taxes Other Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Transfers Other Funds Fund Balance $ in millions Revenues 09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Preliminary 95.4 95.6 95.8 96.0 96.2 96.4 96.6 96.8 97.0 97.2 1 $ in millions Transfer to School Division Attachment C June 30, 2010 Audited Fund Balance - April 06, 2011 $24.566 Less FY11 Appropriations Approved to Date: Budgeted FY11 Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)0.092 Soil and Water project refund -0.006 Restitution fees - Sheriff's Office 0.000 Reappropriation of FY10 outstanding purchase orders 0.030 Reappropriation of FY10 uncompleted projects 0.586 Fire Rescue Telecommunications expense 0.004 Grant Leveraging Fund 0.100 Sheriff, Police, and ECC training costs 0.092 CIP transfer 2.000 Total Approved FY11 Appropriations 2.899 Less FY12 Appropriations Approved to Date: Economic Opportunity Fund 0.150 Grants Leveraging Fund 0.100 Total Approved FY12 Appropriations 0.250 Total Appropriations Approved to Date 3.149 June 30, 2010 Fund Balance Available 21.417 Preliminary FY11 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures 9.932 Preliminary FY11 Revalidation Rollbacks 0.153 Preliminary June 30, 2011 Fund Balance 31.502 Less Proposed FY12 Commitments: FY11 Reapproprations - Estimated 0.385 FY11 Debt Transfer Reappropriation 1.179 Total Proposed FY12 Commitments 1.564 Preliminary June 30, 2011 Projected Available Funds $29.938 Less Policy Reserves: Fund Balance Reserve - 8% net Government and School FY11 Operating Budgets 21.024 Stabilizaton Reserve - 1% net Government and School FY11 Operating Budgets 2.628 Less Additional Reserves: Proposed staff recommendation of 1% additional reserve 2.628 Total Policy and Proposed Reserves 26.280 Preliminary June 30, 2011 Uncommitted Fund Balance $3.658 PRELIMINARY - General Fund Balance Report Year-to-Date for the Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2011 County of Albemarle ($ in millions) Page 1 of 2 Board‐to‐Board October 2011 A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors School Calendar – After significant feedback from stakeholders regarding the school calendar, the School Board approved a start date of August 22, 2012 for the next school year. The Calendar Committee will continue to develop the specifics of the calendar to ensure cooperation with Charlottesville City Schools and to incorporate professional development for teachers and administrators into the calendar. Burley Band Room – The School Board honored the years of teaching, directing, and mentoring provided to the students of Jackson P. Burley High School by naming the band room in honor of Elmer F. Sampson. Mr. Sampson was widely respected as a forceful, thorough, and knowledgeable band director at Burley who took students with little musical knowledge and taught them the rudiments of instrumentation and actually laid the foundation for many to go on to become accomplished musicians. The entire student body benefited from his dedication through the bands many performances. Funding for any signage will be provided by the Jackson P. Burley Varsity Club. Staffing Standards – Staffing Standards were developed by a committee including central office and school-based staff, with the purpose to establish a baseline of expectation for all schools and to foster equity across schools. The Standards are included in the School Board’s Adopted Budget, Section F, pages F-18 through F-25. In advance of the 2012-13 budget development, several standards are being reviewed: 1)Assistant Principals (F-20): Middle schools that have exceeded the standard of 400 students 2)Elementary Art, Music, and Physical Education (F-26): Music and Art staffing for schools that move from the 420-479 student range. While PE staff increases, Art and Music remains constant. It is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the Albemarle County minutes/week for all students at the larger elementary schools. 3) Gifted (F-27), Guidance (F-24), and Media (F-23): Elementary schools which from year to year vary around the 300 mark for enrollment 4) ESOL staffing: Increase the amount of staffing due to the increased number of ESOL students. 5) 17 FTE's that were reinstated to the current budget to assist in lowering the total number of students for teachers. Staff will need direction as to whether these positions will become a part of the funding request for next year. Albemarle High School Orchestra – The Albemarle High School (AHS) Orchestra was named winner of the 2011 Cruise Festival Overall Grand Championship Award for Chamber String Orchestra. Director Carrie Finnegan led the AHS String Ensemble (30 AHS students) to a Superior rating for their performance June 18th in the Bahamas Cruise Festival aboard the Royal Caribbean’s Monarch of the Seas. United Way Laurence E. Richardson Day of Caring - September 21, brought together volunteers from many community organizations to serve our schools and other groups. Area organizations and businesses contributing their time to Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) included ACPS Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) members, ACPS parents, and employees from the University of Virginia Medical Center, Inova Solutions, State Farm Craft Kids, the Virginia Center for Transportation. It was an honor to welcome these volunteers to give of their time and talents, and show our community what volunteerism is all about. “Safe Teen Driver” – Local teen drivers and their parents are invited to participate in the first “Safe Teen Driver” event at Albemarle High School on Saturday, October 8, 9am-12 Noon on the school parking lot. Students and parents from across Central Virginia are invited to participate in a driving contest to emphasize safe driving practices. Hosts include the police department, car dealerships, local restaurants, and insurance companies. Page 2 of 2 Design for Learning – During the School Board’s September 22 work session at Monticello High School, stakeholders including teachers, parents, students, administrators and community members, gathered to discuss contemporary learning spaces. The design and use of learning spaces should be versatile enough to accommodate diverse learners and broad enough to address the spectrum of student learning styles. Thoughtful deployment of contemporary learning spaces does much to support student acquisition of Lifelong Learning Competencies. School Board members joined discussion with stakeholders to learn how teachers are currently accommodating space in classrooms and libraries to encourage students to learn without the typical physical limitations of desk and chair. Teachers reported success with students’ appreciation for the opportunity to gather at tables for learning, to have quiet areas for small group or individual work, or even to be able to sit on the floor for work and discussions. In some cases the whole room…walls, floor, and ceiling…was actively involved as the learning space. Discussions included improving academic choice for students through the design and use of contemporary learning spaces. Considerations for design and use of contemporary learning spaces have implications for the Board’s ongoing study of building capacities. www.k12albemarle.org Page 1 of 5 Culpeper District Albemarle County Monthly Report October, 2011 Special Issues FY2013 Revenue Sharing Program - If you wish to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2012, applications are due November 1, 2011. Please see attached letter from Mike Estes dated August 9, 2011. Preliminary Engineering PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Route 691, Jarman’s Gap Bike lanes and sidewalk improvement Construction Underway Construction Complete – September 2012 January 2011 Route 656, Georgetown Road Sidewalk improvement Construction Complete Project finished February 2011 Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E. of Monticello Loop Road Survey Preliminary Design - October 2011 February 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi E. of Monticello Loop Road Survey Preliminary Design - October 2011 February 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection Improvements at Route 20 Survey Preliminary Design - October 2011 February 2013 Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – Summer 2011 May 2013 Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection Improvements at Route 729 Project Scoping Survey – September 2011 October 2013 Route 616, Black Cat Road Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design – Winter 2012 March 2014 Page 2 of 5 Albemarle County Monthly Report Continued October, 2011 Preliminary Engineering-continued PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Route 677, Broomley Road Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design – Winter 2012 December 2014 Route 250, Bridge replacement over Little Ivy Creek -- Project Scoping – Winter 2012 * Route 762, Rose Hill Church Lane, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 * Route 704, Fortune Lane, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 * Route 672, Blufton Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 * Route 608, Happy Creek Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall 2011 * Brocks Mill Road, Rural Addition -- Project Scoping – Spring 2012 * Route 774, Bear Creek Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 * Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 * *Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge Replacement Construction Underway Construction Complete – Summer 2012 August 2010 Construction Activities Georgetown Road (NFO) 0656-002-254, C501 Scope: 5’ wide Pedestrian Facility with Crossing and Resurfacing with Refuge Islands Next Major Milestone: Anticipate project completion by September 23. Contract Completion Date: September 23, 2011. Page 3 of 5 Albemarle County Monthly Report Continued October, 2011 Construction Activities—continued McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501 Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road and Pedestrian Path Next major Milestone: Clearing complete. Install work bridge and begin grade work. Contract Completion: June 10, 2013. Meadow Creek Parkway 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges. Next Major Milestone: Landscaping to be accomplished during the third week of September to complete project. Contract Completion: October 14, 2011. I-64 Eastbound Shadwell Exit (FO) 0064-002-815, N501 Scope: Widen Ramps and Improve Signals. Next Major Milestone: Project complete pending final resolution of Notice of Intent to File Claim. Contract Completion Date: December 2, 2010. JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501 Scope: replace Bridge over railroad and approaches. Next Major Milestone: Complete and open temporary pedestrian bridge scheduled for mid October. Contract Completion Date: August 24, 2012. Jarmans Gap Road (NFO)0691-002-258, C501 Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pave, Planting and Utilities. Next Major Milestone: Road closed beginning September 12th for 60 days to facilitate box culvert installation. Contract Completion: September 21, 2012. Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0250-002-798, N501 Scope: Patch deck and epoxy overlay on the Route 250 Bridge over the R ivanna River. Next Major Milestone: Project complete on August 24. Contract Completion Date: July 29, 2011. Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502 Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over Route 29. Next Major Milestone: Complete project Contract Completion Date: August 20, 2011. Slurry Seal Schedule SS7A-967-F11, P401 Scope: Slurry Seal various subdivisions in Albemarle Co. Next Major Milestone: Completed on August 25. Contract Completion Date: October 1, 2011. Bridge Repairs (NFO) BRDG-967-040, N501 Scope: Bridge Repairs - District Wide (Term 2). Next Major Milestone: Completion of Term 2 Work. Contract Completion Date: February 7, 2012. Plant Mix Schedule (NFO) PM7A-967-F11, P401; PM7B-967-F11, P401 Scope: Plant Mix Southern Culpeper District. Next Major Milestone: Completion. Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011. Page 4 of 5 Albemarle County Monthly Report Continued October, 2011 Construction Activities—continued Plant Mix Schedule PM7K-967-F11, P401 Scope: Plant Mix (Secondary Routes in Albemarle, Greene, and Louisa Counties) Southern Culpeper District. Next Major Milestone: Completion. Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011. Pipe Rehabilitation (NFO) BRDG-967-045, N501; BRDG-967-062, N501 Scope: Pipe Rehab in (Culpeper, Louisa, Madison, Albemarle, Fauquier, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties) Northern Culpeper District. Next Major Milestone: Executed, Begin Construction. Contract Completion Date: April 29, 2012. Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501 Scope: Guardrail repairs – District wide. Next Major Milestone: Begin work. Contract Completion date: July 1, 2012. Surface Treatment Schedule ST7A-967-F11, P401 Scope: Surface Treatment Southern Culpeper District (all 4 Counties). Next Major Milestone: Complete pending possible additional work Contract Completion Date: September 1, 2011. Latex Modified Schedule (NFO) LM7A-967-F11, P401 Scope: Latex Modified Schedule various routes in Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange Counties. Next Major Milestone: Complete project. Contract Completion Date: October 1, 2011. Traffic Engineering Studies Completed Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 (Barracks Rd) to Route 601 (Free Union Rd) – Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign installation pending. Route 614 from Route 601 (Free Union Rd) to Route 810 (Browns Gap Rd) – Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign installation pending. Route 676 (Owensville Rd) from Route 676 (Tilman Rd) to Route 614 (Garth Rd) – Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign installation pending. Route 678 (Owensville Rd) from Route 250 (Ivy Rd) to Route 676 (Tilman Rd) – Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign installation pending. Route 743 (Earlysville Rd.) and Route 676 (Woodlands Rd.)– Review intersection safety – study complete. No action recommended. Page 5 of 5 Albemarle County Monthly Report Continued October, 2011 Rio Road and Route 631– Review relocation of stop bar for better sight distance. Due to location of pedestrian facilities relocation of stop bar not recommended. Route 601 (Garth Rd) at Route 658 (Barracks Farm Rd) – Intersection safety review study complete. Sign installation pending. Route 637 (Dick Woods Rd) from I-64 interchange to Route 250 – Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of centerline pavement markings complete; subject of citizen request. Centerline markings not recommended. Routes 1670 (Ashwood Blvd), 1675 (Kendalwood), 1723 (Crosstimbers), 1737 (Watercrest) & 1720 (Timberwood Pkwy) – Crosswalk study at multiple locations; subject of citizen request. Awaiting installation. Routes 1765/1769, 1770/1769 & 1770/1771 Intersections in Fontana Subdivision - Multi- way stop studies complete. Study also includes review of Routes 1765 (Fontana Dr) and Route 1771 (Verona Dr) for centerline and edge line pavement markings. Multi-stop not recommended. Centerline and edge markings installed. Under Review Route 706, Dudley Mtn Road from Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) to Route 708 (Red Hill Rd) – Speed study currently in progress. Route 29 from Route 1575 (Austin Dr) to Route 763 (Dickerson Dr) – Review of existing advance intersection and industrial intersection warning signs underway. Route 866 (Greenbriar Dr) at Route 1427 (Hillsdale Dr) – Multi-way stop study underway. Route 631(E Rio Road) at Route 768 (Penn Park Rd.) – Study to review the addition of pedestrian phasing to the traffic control signal at the intersection. In Progress. Maintenance Activities Routine maintenance activities-nothing of significance to report at this time. David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP201100012, Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1pm and sunset in 2011. STAFF CONTACT(S): Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Brennan LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: September 7, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On July 12, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions of SP2011-12 to allow a one-time music event in calendar year 2011 for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1pm and sunset. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission requested that staff work with zoning regarding the enforceability of and need for the condition outlined below, which read as follows: The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line. Staff subsequently met with zoning and they stated that removing the condition would be the best course of action since it would eliminate the need for a waiver and make the application subject to existing regulations. Since the Planning Commission, the applicant has requested that the timeframe for this one-time event be extended to the end of 2012 to allow for greater flexibility as to when the event could be held. Staff has no objection to this request because it does not change the nature of the application or staff’s findings that led to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of SP2011-12, Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions with the elimination of condition 11 and modification of condition 14, as follows: 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions for SP-2011-12, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Peter Larson and dated April 18, 2011, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: • location of the temporary parking area • location of temporary stage Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate during the temporary event. 3. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the temporary event use. 4. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees. 5. The hours of operation for the music shall not begin earlier than 1:00 PM and shall end not later than sunset. 6. Off-site parking shall not be permitted. 7. The maximum number of attendees allowed on the site for the temporary event shall not exceed 700 persons. 8. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required on site on the day of the temporary event. 9. Overnight camping shall be prohibited. 10. Artificial lighting shall not be permitted, provided that flashlights may be used while the site is restored and cleared as provided in Condition 14. 11. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line. 12. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area as required by the zoning administrator within 30 days of the temporary event. 13. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and structures associated with the event within three days after the temporary event. 14. Special use permit 2011-12 shall be valid for a temporary event to be held not later than December 2012 in 2011. View PC actions letter and attachments Return to regular 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 July 21, 2011 Peter Larson/Justin Billcheck 3040 Waverly Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP201100012 Locally Grown Festival TMP 04000-00-00-026A1 Dear Mr. Larson & Mr. Billcheck: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 12, 2011, by a vote of 6:1 recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions for SP-2011-12, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Peter Larson and dated April 18, 2011, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: • location of the temporary parking area • location of temporary stage Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate during the temporary event. 3. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the temporary event use. 4. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees. 5. The hours of operation for the music shall not begin earlier than 1:00 PM and shall end not later than sunset. 6. Off-site parking shall not be permitted. 7. The maximum number of attendees people allowed on the site for the temporary event shall not exceed 700 persons. 8. A maximum of 280 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked on site on the day of the temporary event. 9. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required on site on the day of the temporary event. 10. Overnight camping shall be prohibited. 11. Artificial lighting shall not be permitted, provided that flashlights may be used while the site is restored and cleared as provided in Condition 14. 12. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line. 13. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area as required by the zoning administrator within 30 days of the temporary event. 14. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and structures associated with the event within three days after the temporary event. 15. Special use permit 2011-12 shall be valid for a temporary event to be held in the fall of 2011. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to exec summary Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on September 7, 2011. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner Planning Division 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. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: July 12, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD Owner: Douglas Gernert and Andrea Larson Applicant: Peter Larson Acreage: 89.23 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations TMP: Tax Map 40 Parcel 26A1 Location: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm (road), approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White Hall Road (810) Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: Yes RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A Proposal: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1-9pm in the fall of 2011 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestral, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Character of Property: The property is characterized primarily by cleared fields, with only a small forested area in the western portion of the parcel. Use of Surrounding Properties: The properties surrounding the parcel are included in the Rural Area Zoning District, and are characterized by large farms and single-family residential lots. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed use would only minimally impact the character of the site, given that the event is temporary and no permanent structures or improvements would be constructed. 2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the proposed use. Factor Unfavorable: 1. The use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use would increase traffic in the area on the day of the event. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions. SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: ERYN BRENNAN PLANNING COMMISSION: JULY 18, 2011 SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions Petition: PROJECT: SP201100012 Locally Grown Festival PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1-9pm in the fall of 2011 ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) LOCATION: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm, approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White Hall Road (810) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 040000000026A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall Character of the Area: The 89 acre parcel is bisected by a private road leading to the main house. The property consists primarily of cleared fields with a wooded area located in the western corner of the property north of the main house. The properties surrounding the subject parcel are designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and are included in the Rural Area Zoning District. These properties are generally characterized by large farms and single-family residential lots (Attachment A). Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a temporary event that would allow one music event for a maximum of 700 hundred people in the fall of 2011. The number of tickets printed and sold in advance would not exceed 700 to ensure that the number of people on the site at any given point during the temporary event would be managed. Any unsold tickets would be sold at the gate the day of the event. The hours of operation for the music festival would be during daylight hours only from 1:00 to 9:00 pm. The stage would be constructed in the field north of the road traversing the property, approximately 650 feet west of the nearest residence on Sugar Hollow Road (Attachment B). As the noise may exceed sound levels allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day), the applicant has requested a waiver for Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is also included with the application. However, condition 12 has been offered to restrict noise levels to no higher than 65 dBA during the event as measured from an adjacent property. A maximum of 15 vendors selling food, wine, and beer would be set up for the event. All festival parking would be on-site, and no off-site parking would be allowed, as stated in condition 6. One parking area has been identified on the concept plan (Attachment B) to accommodate up to 280 cars. The applicant has contracted an event management company to organize trash removal and recycling, and portable bathrooms would be available for festival participants. The Health SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 Department has no issues with the event, but has stated that the applicant would need to obtain a permit at least 14 days prior to the event, ensuring that the vendors are licensed and the number of portable toilets is adequate. The applicant has indicated that an emergency rescue vehicle will be available on site, and the Police Department has stated that the site must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and that final approval is subject to a field inspection and verification. Condition 3 has been proposed to ensure Health, Fire, and Police department approvals are obtained before a zoning clearance would be issued. Planning and Zoning History: This special use permit request is the first planning application for this property since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include agriculture, forestry, and conservation. The proposed temporary event does not directly contribute to these land uses, but also does not negatively impact these land uses. The proposed use would occur for only one day and no permanent improvements are proposed to the site to accommodate the event. In addition, the event would highlight local food and beverage vendors, and, therefore, would support principle 3 outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to “provide support to local agricultural and forestal economies and connect local producers and consumers of rural products (11).” Also, any profits from the music festival would go to support local nonprofit organizations. Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 31.6: 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, Staff does not anticipate any significant detrimental impacts to adjacent property. The music area is located in the lowest geographic elevation, but may exceed the 60dBA noise level allowed by-right in the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment C). In anticipation of this issue, the applicant has requested a waiver for this section of the Ordinance, but a condition of approval is proposed to limit noise levels to 65dBA, which previously has been approved for the annual festival held at Misty Mountain Camp Resort in 2010. The nearest residence is located approximately 650 feet away from the stage area and other residences to the west are located approximately one-half mile from the site, and no music would be played after daylight hours. The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the proposed use would not have a detrimental impact on traffic in the area because: 1) the special event is proposed only one time, and 2) the entrance has adequate site distance. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and There would be no site development changes or permanent new construction on the property; therefore, the use would have no long-term impact on the character of the district. The one stage proposed to be assembled outdoors for the event would be temporary and removed the day after the festival. SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 4 that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The purpose of the Rural Areas Zoning District is the 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. The proposed use does not directly promote the purposes of the Rural Areas Zoning District; however, temporary events are allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas. Given that the requested use would be a temporary event, it is not discordant with the goals and intent of the Rural Areas Zoning and would have no permanent or detrimental impact on the district. The proposed temporary event also would have no adverse impact on the water supply in the area since portable toilets are being used for the event. with uses permitted by right in the district, The subject property and the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under RA zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation of rural land. The temporary event would not adversely affect the permitted by right uses in the Rural Area zoning district. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance address zoning compliance and additional regulations associated with the proposed temporary event use. Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: This provision is intended to regulate for purposes of public health, safety and welfare, major events such as agricultural expositions, concerts, craft fairs, and similar activities which generally: attract large numbers of patrons; may be disruptive of the area; and occasion the need for planning in regard to traffic control, emergency vehicular access, health concerns and the like. The provision is not intended to regulate such minor events as church bazaars, yard sales, bake sales, car washes, picnics and the like which generally are not disruptive of the area and require only minimal logistical planning; nor is it intended to permit permanent amusement facilities. Each such event shall be sponsored by one or more not-for-profit organizations operating primarily in the county and/or the city of Charlottesville. The event is being sponsored by three local nonprofit organizations including Kin Pan Alley, the White Hall Ruritans, and the Boys and Girls Club. No event shall extend for a period longer than that provided by the board of supervisors in the conditions of the special use permit. A separate special use permit shall be required for each event. Condition 15 is proposed to limit the timeframe of the special use permit for one temporary event to the fall of 2011. Special use permits may be issued by the board of supervisors pursuant to this section, upon finding: a. That the public roads serving the site are adequate to accommodate the traffic which would be expected to be generated by such event; VDOT has determined that Sugar Hollow Road is adequate to accommodate the SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 5 traffic the event is expected to generate. b. That the character of such use will be in harmony with the public health, safety and welfare, and uses permitted by right in the district and will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property in terms of smoke, dust, noise, hours of operation, artificial lighting or other specific identifiable conditions which may be deleterious to the existing uses of such property. The use would not adversely affect the permitted by right uses in the Rural Area zoning district and would not constitute a substantial detriment to adjacent properties given the temporary nature of the event. The hours of operation are limited to the daytime; therefore, no noise or artificial lighting would be generated from the use after dark. Except as the board of supervisors may expressly add or delete conditions in a particular case, each such permit shall be subject to the following conditions: a. A preliminary plan showing access, parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and method of separation of the same shall be approved by the director of planning; A preliminary plan meeting ordinance requirements has been provided. b. Such organization shall have made adequate arrangements with the county sheriff, fire and rescue squads, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health for the conduct of such event; Written approval from the Police Department, Health Department, and Fire and Rescue has been made a condition of approval (condition 3). c. Adequate arrangements have been made for the removal of trash and debris, reseeding and general restoration of the site following the event. The board of supervisors may establish and require the posting of a bond in an amount deemed by the zoning administrator to be sufficient for such purpose. (Added 7-7-82) The applicant has contracted with an event management company to address trash removal and this requirement also has been made a condition of approval (condition 3). and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process which assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the location requested. The Building Official has stated that a building permit would be required for the stage. The Health Department has no objection to the proposed special use permit application, but has stated that the applicant would need to obtain a permit prior to the event to ensure that the food vendors are licensed and the number of portable toilets is adequate and this has been made a condition of approval. Approval by the Police Department and Fire and Rescue has also been made a condition of approval (condition 3). The Virginia Department of Transportation has no objection to the proposed special use permit. SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 6 However, the proposed use would generate an additional 280 vehicles on the day of the event on Sugar Hollow Road; therefore, it would have some impact on traffic in the area. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. The proposed use would only minimally impact the character of the site, given that the event is temporary and no permanent structures or improvements would be constructed. 2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the proposed use. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application: 1. The use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use would increase traffic in the area on the day of the event. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 201100012 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions, subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions for SP2011-12, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Peter Larson and dated April 18, 2011, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: location of the temporary parking area location of temporary stage Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate during the temporary event. 3. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the temporary event use. 4. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" SP 2011-12 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions PC July 18, 2011 Staff Report Page 7 in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees. 5. The hours of operation for the music shall not begin earlier than 1:00 PM and shall end not later than sunset. 6. Off-site parking shall not be permitted. 7. The maximum number of people allowed on the site for the temporary event shall not exceed 700 persons. 8. A maximum of 280 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked on site on the day of the temporary event. 9. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required on site on the day of the temporary event. 10. Overnight camping shall be prohibited. 11. Artificial lighting shall not be permitted, provided that flashlights may be used while the site is restored and cleared as provided in Condition 14. 12. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line. 13. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area as required by the zoning administrator within 30 days of the temporary event. 14. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and structures associated with the event within three days after the temporary event. 15. Special use permit 2011-12 shall be valid for a temporary event to be held in the fall of 2011. Based on the findings contained in this staff report and the noise restriction proposed in condition 12, staff also recommends approval of the waiver request for Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Character of the Property Attachment B – Concept Plan Attachment C – Images of the Site Return to PC actions letter Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Overlays AgForest Districts Conservation Easements Parcel Info Parcels Elevation Y2007 Critical Slopes (> 2 Attachment A Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 27, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 415 ft Top left: The location of the stage, audience, and vendors. Bottom left: The view west of the stage area. Above: One of the two gates between the parking area and stage area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission July 12, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 12, 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 present. Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 7:26 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:32 p.m. Public Hearing Items: SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people between the hours of 1-9 pm in the fall of 2011 ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) LOCATION: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm, approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White Hall Road (810) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 040000000026A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall (Eryn Brennan) Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit application to allow a temporary one day event consisting of a music festival for a maximum of 700 people in the fall of 2011. The 89-acre parcel is bisected by a private road leading to the main house on the property and it consists primarily of cleared fields with a wooded area located in the western corner of the property north of the main house. The properties surrounding the subject parcel are designated rural area in the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the rural area zoning district. The hours of operation for the music festival would be during daylight hours only which depends on when the sun sets on that particular day in the fall. The stage would be constructed in the field north of the road traversing the property, approximately 650 feet west of the nearest residence on Sugar Hollow Road. As the noise may exceed sound levels allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day), the applic ant has requested a waiver from Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is also included with this application. However, condition 12 has been offered to restrict noise levels to no higher than 65 dBA during the event as measured from an adjacent property. A maximum of 15 vendors selling food, wine, and beer would be set up for the event. All festival parking would be on -site, and no off-site parking would be allowed, as stated in condition 6. One parking area has been identified on the concept plan to accommodate up to 280 vehicles. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 2 The applicant has contracted an event management company to organize trash removal and recycling, and portable bathrooms would be available for festival participants. Condition 3 has been proposed to ensure Health, Fire, and Police department approvals are obtained before a zoning clearance would be issued. The gate area closest to Sugar Hollow Road would be where people would access the event from the parking area. The stage would be set up in the area where there was a dip in the valley as shown in the sketch. The applicant intended that so it would be at a lower elevation to help mitigate and off -set some of the noise impact from the event. Some increase in traffic can be expected on the day of the event. VDOT has no objection to the application. The proposed use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the rural areas, however, given the temporary nature of the event staff has not identified any detrimental impacts on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Music Festival with the conditions outlined in the staff report. The name has evolved after the application was submitted. Regarding the waiver requested, it is anticipated that noise may exceed the 60 decibels allowed during the day. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver from Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Mr. Morris noted it bothered him when he read staff was recommending raising the decibel level to 65 after what they have gone through with the wineries. It just seems that they are absolutely opening floodgates if they increase the decibel level they will permit in this area. Ms. Brennan pointed out this is the decibel level the Commission approved for the music festival held at the Misty Mountain Campground. Mr. Loach asked how that would be measured. Ms. Brennan replied the condition was included because they did not anticipate staff atte nding the event. The Misty Mountain Campground festival was three days and zoning staff did attend that festival. Staff did sound measurements and none exceeded the 60 decibels. On this particular day with this particular parcel, staff could certainly discuss with Ms. McCulley the possibility of staff attending the event. Mr. Loach said it would also be helpful in the future as they start to develop these base lines if they can have some experience with it. Ms. Brennan noted if the 65 decibel level m aximum was set for this particular event, it gives them a possibility of a quantitative analysis for a future application should this become successful and the applicant wants to come back with a special use permit. If it does not come close to the 60 dec ibels allowed, they don’t need to include a condition. If it came really close, they should cap it at 65 decibels. Mr. Zobrist noted it also ends at sunset, and Ms. Brennan agreed that was correct. Ms. Porterfield asked if the Misty Mountain festival was capped at 65 decibels. Ms. Brennan replied that was correct because that festival goes into the evening. Ms. Porterfield asked if it had been considered with something like this that a part of the approvals would be the applicant would pay to have a zoning staff member at this event. Ms. Brennan replied that to her knowledge that has not been considered. Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be possible in the future. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 3 Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would have to defer to Mr. Kamptner on that. Mr. Kamptner said it has not been the County’s practice to require a user of a land use to pay for the cost of compliance with the regulations. Ms. Porterfield pointed out the problem is if there is a complaint the event is over before the next time somebody can get out. Mr. Loach asked if the Commission can make a condition of approval that it be on the onus of the applicant to have the sound measured during the performances to make sure it does not exceed the 65 decibels. Mr. Kamptner said it would be fair to require the applicant to monitor the sound levels using the standards and protocols that are in Section 4.18. Whether or not they would use it for enforcement purposes is another matter. If it is monitored, the County can further develop its data bas es to these standards, conditions, and particular activities in how to regulate them in the future. It would certainly give them real time information as to whether or not they are in compliance and they can self -correct throughout the day. Ms. Porterfield said that is probably the biggest reason for doing it. The applicant could self correct, which would be wonderful. Mr. Loach noted they could give the data to the County so they could have it for their information. Mr. Kamptner said his recollection from the Misty Mountain Festival in 2010 or the prior year was they had actually done sound checks before the event actually started. Therefore, they were confident and knew they were in compliance with the condition before the event even started. Ms. Brennan agreed and noted that County staff also went out and did measurements during the duration of the festival. Mr. Franco asked if they are talking about any sound or the amplified music. He was wondering if they should specifically say amplified music. During the discussion on the wineries, there was a lot of discussion about the general noise. Mr. Loach suggested they reference the section Mr. Kamptner referred to. Mr. Kamptner suggested they talk with zoning rather than try to fashion a conditio n. In the sound tests taken under the zoning ordinance they are not going to get a line graph showing everything taking place from the time the event starts until sunset. However, they are going to get averages taken during certain periods. What those tell us for the life of the event he did not know since they are not going to be random samples of sound levels throughout the event. They are going to be whenever the person conducting the test concluded their testing period. The Commission can make a re commendation for that condition and let staff talk to zoning to see how that can work in a reasonable way. Mr. Zobrist suggested the condition state that the applicant will comply with such reasonable monitoring of sound as required by the zoning department. Then they could let the zoning department decide whether they want to do it or not. Mr. Kamptner replied that could be the recommendation and then staff can work with zoning to come up with a condition before this goes to the Board. Mr. Franco said that condition 7 talks about a limit not to exceed 700 persons. Thinking back to the Blue Ridge Swim Club, was that 700 attendees or 700 inclusive of staff, vendors, and emergency personnel? Ms. Brennan replied it was 700 attendees. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 4 Mr. Franco said he would like to see that clarified. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Peter Lawson, applicant, represented the request. Mr. Zobrist asked if this was his parents’ property, and Mr. Larson replied, yes, it was his family’s property. Mr. Zobrist asked if his parents had given him permission to put this event on. Mr. Larson replied yes, his parents had given their permission to hold this event. Mr. Loach said under the staff report it says the prop osed use does not directly promote the purposes of the rural zoning district. To mitigate that he sees this event is being sponsored by three local nonprofit organizations, including Kin Pan Alley, the White Hall Ruritans, and the Boys and Girls Club. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Larson replied that the third one they are changing to another nonprofit, the Music Resource Center, which is underneath the Boys and Girls Club. Mr. Loach asked if the sponsors would be recipients of the proceeds. Mr. Larson replied that the sponsors would be the main beneficiaries of the revenue. They intend to give them a large portion of the revenue. Mr. Smith asked what percent would be a large portion of revenue. Mr. Larson replied that they have not discussed that with them yet. They have been waiting for this to go through until they start talking about that. Ms. Porterfield noted this event is a lot more open ended because there is no date. Ms. Brennan replied that is correct; however, it allows for a rai n date. Mr. Franco pointed out there is only one event to occur by the end of the year. Ms. Porterfield asked when he is planning to have this event. Mr. Larson replied he was considering Labor Day weekend or the weekend of September 16th and 17th. Ms. Porterfield noted they have always had a date certain with a rain date. Ms. Brennan replied that Misty Mountain Campground was allowed one event per year anytime of the year. There was no date for that. Mr. Franco said he was comfortable leaving the date open ended since it is one event, which has to be within the next six months or before the end of the year. Mr. Loach said the timing did not bother him. He had discomfort in their application for something that does not promote the purposes of the rural area zoning. It is nebulous in they were going to have a music festival for these organizations, but don’t know what percentage of the profit they will receive. He wants to do the right thing for these organizations, but did not want these type of things popping up all over the rural areas based on the promotion for good causes. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 5 Mr. Cilimberg pointed out in the staff report Ms. Brennan notes they are going to be selling local goods as part of this activity. While it might not be promoting agricult ural activities on the site, which is the primary activity or the use in the rural area, it is actually utilizing the sale of local products as part of the event. Mr. Franco said he was a little concerned about the use. However, overall he was okay wit h the use because of the local vendors and the support of the community that is coming out of it. He would be more comfortable knowing more specifically a percentage not necessarily of the revenues, but of the products so to speak. Obviously, there will be expenses. If the applicant were able to say aside from expenses that this portion of the profit is going towards the nonprofits it would be good. Mr. Loach said it would have been nice to have some people from these organizations present to support the event. Mr. Franco said overall he was still in support of the concept. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant did not have any of that information for Misty Mountain, which came back before the Commission twice. That event originally was approved for one year. Then it came back for a long term approval. That was not a matter the Commission discussed nor was it an issue. That was actually a private event. Mr. Kamptner pointed out in regards to the resolution of intent passed he was working on the temp orary event section this afternoon. One thing that caught his eye was it had to be sponsored by a local nonprofit organization. All that it requires is sponsorship. It actually does not require anything else that he was aware of. Maybe through practice Community Development has some base line criteria to what the nonprofits have to do to qualify as being the sponsors. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance that establishes any criteria. Ms. Brennan replied that zoning makes the determination when the application is submitted. They ensure that it is being sponsored by nonprofits, whether it is one or multiple. In this case, it is multiple sponsors. Zoning made the determination that it was sponsored by nonprofits. Therefore, it is okay for them to pursue a special use permit for a temporary event. Mr. Loach asked if the notification has been sent out to the neighbors. He asked if any opposition had been received. Ms. Brennan replied there was some confusion about the road name. The road it is on is Mount Juliet Farm, but it is not actually Mount Juliet Farm, which is the adjacent farm. When the caller understood it was the adjacent parcel and not their own they were clear and fine with it. Ms. Porterfield asked when zoning made the determ ination did they have the application from the nonprofits signed by the nonprofits. Ms. Brennan replied that the zoning ordinance does not require an application or signatures from the nonprofits. However, the letter was submitted stating this applicat ion is being sponsored by these nonprofits, which staff felt was sufficient. Ms. Porterfield noted there was already one change in the nonprofits according to the applicant. Ms. Brennan replied yes, the applicant just said the Music Resource Center under the Boys and Girls Club would be a non-profit. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Larson replied yes, that was correct. Ms. Monteith said she had a few questions about the 280 parking spaces and the maximum 700 attendees, in which case they could have 800 people there because they could have other people who need to support the event. She was trying to figure out the math on that. It does not seem that many people are going to be walking or riding their bikes to this. She asked if he was going to man date that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 6 there was going to be three people per car. She wondered how he managed the numbers if he might get 800 people and could only have 280 cars. Mr. Larson replied they assumed it would be a family oriented event. They hope people will show up in a car pooling fashion. In addition, they have plenty of other space. They could add the entire property as a parking area. The area is easily accessed and they could take cars all over it. Honestly, he had not considered the 50 to 100 extra employees they will be having there. He did not expect to have the full 700 people. However, either way the parking area shown in white is already more than capable of holding over 350 cars. That is subject to interpretation since he has not measured it with a tap e measure. However, the other land can be used for parking, too. It is just more grass. Ms. Monteith suggested since this is a new thing that in planning for this he should think about how that parking flow would happen and the exiting patterns. It is not really a big road. She suggested that he should think about if everybody tried to leave at the same time. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said they have no opinion about this project in general. However, they do question the unfavorable recommendation with regard to supporting any part of the Comprehensive Plan. The idea of the festival itself and the idea of rural enterprises, which he speaks about regularly, are supported by this type of activity and would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Loach supported the application even though he had some discomfort with it. He stressed his opinion to Mr. Kamptner to consider nonprofits while he is working on that section of the ordinance. In the future when these things come with the proviso of being supported by whatever organization he felt they should have supporting documentation from those organizations and know what percentages of the revenue they receive. He thought the Planning Commission should actually know that. He moved for approval of SP- 2011-00012, Locally Grown Festival subject to the conditions recommended by staff . Mr. Cilimberg asked if he wanted the decibel condition revised as discussed. Mr. Zobrist noted it was as reasonably required by the zoning administrator. Mr. Loach agreed to change the decibel condition. In addition, condition 7 should be changed not to exceed 700 attendees. Mr. Franco questioned if the attendees should be ticket purchasers or whatever it is. Mr. Lafferty asked if they wanted the vehicles to be attendee vehicles. Mr. Franco preferred if staff was comfortable saying that the delineated area is for parking and suppose d to stay in the delineated area, but not to regulate the number of cars. Ms. Brennan noted that condition 1 ties it to the location of the temporary parking area, so the concept plan shall be in general accord with that. Mr. Franco asked that condition 8 be eliminated, which limits the maximum to 280 vehicles. As long as they can fit 300 vehicles in that area, it is alright. Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 7 Mr. Kamptner said based upon what the applicant said – condition 15 should be amended because the two dates he suggested are before fall begins just so zoning does not have an issue with the condition. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the condition be reworded to say shall be held before the end of the calendar year 2011. Mr. Kamptner suggested the condition state to be held in 2011. Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP-2011-00012, Locally Grown Festival subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions for SP-2011-12, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Peter Larson and dated April 18, 2011, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: • location of the temporary parking area • location of temporary stage Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate during the temporary event. 3. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the temporary event use. 4. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees. 5. The hours of operation for the music shall not begin earlier than 1:00 PM and shall end not later than sunset. 6. Off-site parking shall not be permitted. 7. The maximum number of attendees people allowed on the site for the temporary event shall not exceed 700 persons. 8. A maximum of 280 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked on site on the day of the temporary event. 9. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required on site on the day of the temporary event. 10. Overnight camping shall be prohibited. 11. Artificial lighting shall not be permitted, provided that flashlights may be used while the site is restored and cleared as provided in Condition 14. 12. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an adjacent property line. 13. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area as required by the zoning administrator within 30 days of the temporary event. 14. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and structures associated with the event within three days after the temporary event. 15. Special use permit 2011-12 shall be valid for a temporary event to be held in the fall of 2011. Mr. Zobrist invited discussion. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 12, 2011 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown Festival and ZMA-2011-00004, Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment 8 Ms. Porterfield asked if VDOT looked at the road and entrance and if it meets their standards. Ms. Brennan replied yes, VDOT has no objection. Mr. Cilimberg noted this approval was for the event to occur one time. If this is successful and they decide they want future events, then they are going to need to come back. There will be some history and a record of how the event went this year if they were to come back with a request again. Ms. Porterfield said there was not much in this application. She would be much more comfortable if it was at least a little bit better delineated like some other ones they have had. That is why she would vote no. The motion was passed by a vote of 6:1. (Ms. Porterfield voted nay) Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00012 Locally Grown: A Festival of Organic Proportions, would go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on a date to be determined subject to staff’s recommended conditions, as amended. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2012 Budget Amend- ment in the amount of $10,620,331.39 and approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2012024, #2012025, #2012026, #2012027, #2012028, #2012029, #2012030, #2012031, #2012032, and #2012033 for various school and local government programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, Sch ool Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of the new requested FY 2012 appropriations, itemized below, is $10,620,331.39. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. DISCUSSION: The proposed increase of this FY 2012 Budget Amendment totals $10,620,331.39. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 598,430.85 Special Revenue Funds $ 1,575,586.82 School Fund $ 637,754.92 ECC $ 10,925.00 Capital Improvements Funds $ 5,969,992.62 Stormwater $ 1,827,641.18 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 10,620,331.39 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenue (Non-Tax*) $ 101,234.50 State Revenue $ 625,690.30 Federal Revenue $ 1,562,671.29 Loan Proceeds $ 2,397,039.62 General Fund Balance $ 559,972.59 Other Fund Balances $ 5,373,723.09 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 10,620,331.39 *The local revenue in this amendment includes $13,797.00 in donations and contributions,$23,553.00 in insurance receipts, $60,577.00 in recovered costs, and $3,307.00 in miscellaneous local revenue. The budget amendment is comprised of twenty (24) separate appropriations as follows, 14 of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved August 3, 2011: One (1) appropriation (#2012010) totaling $167,312.71 to the School Capital fund for various Maintenance/Replacement projects and technology upgrades at CATEC; One (1) appropriation (#2012011) totaling $116,453.75 for the ACE program from the Farmland Preservation’s Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program; and AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations October 5, 2011 Page 2 One (1) appropriation (#2012012) totaling $100,000.00 to re-appropriate funding for the Grants Leveraging Fund; One (1) appropriation (#2012013) totaling $10,925.00 to re-appropriate reimbursable Emergency Management grants for the Emergency Communications Center (ECC); One (1) appropriation (#2012014) totaling $75,000.00 for a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant awarded to the Commission on Children and Families; One (1) appropriation (#2012015) totaling $74,947.00 for a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant awarded to Offender Aid and Restoration; One (1) appropriation (#2012016) totaling $40,790.00 for a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant awarded to the Police Department; One (1) appropriation (#2012017) totaling a net of $0.00 to adjust the revenue sources supporting the Police Department’s Victim Witness Program; and One (1) appropriation (#2012018) totaling $75,000.00 to re-appropriate funding for the Office of Housing’s Community Development Fund, formerly titled the Community Development Loan Fund. Approved September 7, 2011: One (1) appropriation (#2012019) totaling $192,000.00 for parking lot modifications at Stone Robinson Elementary School and Hollymead Elementary School; One (1) appropriation (#2012020) totaling $250,028.10 for a Renewable Energy Resource Center at Henley Middle School; One (1) appropriation (#2012021) totaling $3,032.50 for rental income and expenses related to the Old Crozet Elementary School; One (1) appropriation (#2012022) totaling $193,226.82 for various ECC items, including a maintenance contract, Computer Aided Dispatch Microcomputer replacement, salary increases resulting from reclassifications, resurfacing the ECC parking lot and replacing its HVAC system; and One (1) appropriation (#2102023) totaling $570,000.00 Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands project. The ten (10) new appropriations requested for Board approval on October 5, 2011 are as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2012024) totaling $2,500.00 for school division donations; One (1) appropriation (#2012025) totaling $4,200.00 for Fire Rescue donations; One (1) appropriation (#2012026) totaling $44,987.26 for the replacement of two vehicles totaled due to storm damage; One (1) appropriation (#2012027) totaling $1,290,012.32 to re-appropriate various grants and seized asset accounts; One (1) appropriation (#2012028) totaling $384,972.59 to re-appropriate funding for various General Fund projects; One (1) appropriation (#2012029) totaling $81,476.00 for a grants awarded to the Sheriff’s Office and Police Department; One (1) appropriation (#2012030) transferring $941,080.00 from the Street Improvement-Local balance to the Revenue Sharing Road Program ; One (1) appropriation (#2012031) totaling $5,257,752.35 to re-appropriate funding for various General Government CIP projects; One (1) appropriation (#2012032) totaling $428,473.81 to re-appropriate funding for various School CIP projects; and One (1) appropriation (#2012033) totaling $ 1,257,641.18 to re-appropriate funding for various Stormwater CIP projects. Additional details for the ten October 5, 2011 appropriation requests are provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2012 Budget Amendment in the amount of $10,620,331.39 and approval of Appropriations #2012024, #2012025, #2012026, #2012027, #2012028, #2012029, #2012030, #2012031, #2012032, and #2012033 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to agenda Attachment A 1 Appropriation #2012024 $2,500.00 Revenue Source: Donations $ 2,500.00 This request is to appropriate a donation Murray High School received in the amount of $2,500.00. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help fund any educational needs at Murray High School. Appropriation #2012025 $3,800.00 Revenue Source: Donations $ 3,800.00 This request is to appropriate $3,800.00 in donations received by the Department of Fire Rescue (FR) for the replacement of worn office chairs and broken recliners at Monticello Fire & Rescue (Station 11). In 1998 a Special Reveune Fund account was established for donations received by FR. This request is to appropriate $3,800.00 from this account to fund these costs. Appropriation #2012026 $44,987.26 Revenue Source Local Revenue (Insurance receipts) $ 23,553.00 Vehicle Replacement Fund Balance $ 21,434.26 This request is to appropriate $44,987.26 for the replacement of one totaled vehicle in the Parks and Recreation Department and one totaled vehicle in the Finance Department. Two vehicles were totaled during a recent severe thunderstorm, in which a tree fell on these vehicles while parked at the County Office Building on McIntire Road. These costs will be funded through insurance receipts and the fund balance of the fund used for local government replacement vehicles. Appropriation #2012027 $1,290,012.32 Revenue Source Local Revenue* $ 60,852.00 State Revenue $ 57,159.11 Federal Revenue $1,084,426.29 Other Fund Balance $ 87,574.92 *Interest and Recovered Costs This request is to re-appropriate and appropriate funding associated with twelve grants and one seized asset account. The funding requested for re-appropriation has not been expended as of June 30, 2011. These expenditures are expected to occur in FY 11/12. No additional local funding is required. This request is to re-appropriate $688,735.70 for the Oak Hill Sewer Project. In FY 10/11, $712,500.00 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were obtained and appropriated for the Oak Hill Sewer Project. This project will support the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood serving 58 residential units. No expenditures were incurred in this fund in FY 10/11. A portion of these grant funds, ($33,510.00), were included in the original FY 11/12 budget appropriation. As a result, only the balance of $678,990.00 is requested to be re-appropriated. In addition, this includes a request to re- appropriate the balance of administrative fees ($9,745.70) earned for the CDBG funded Crozet Meadows project which can be applied to support the administrative costs associated with the Oak Hill project. The total amount to be re-appropriated into FY 11/12 is $688,735.70. This request is to re-appropriate $99,300.26, the FY 10/11 balance remaining in seized asset funding received from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the Police Department and the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, and to appropriate $39,375.00 in additional funding anticipated to be received in FY 11/12 for a total appropriation request of $138,675.26. These monies will be used to purchase evidence equipment and traffic enforcement items for the Police Department and office supplies, furniture, and training/conferences for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. This request is to re-appropriate $74,239.82, which is the balance remaining of a Department of Criminal Justice Services State Homeland Security Program grant received by the Albemarle County Police Department in FY 10/11. The original grant totaled $124,400.00. The purpose of this grant is for maintenance and/or replacement of equipment and services purchased through previous Homeland Security grant funding to law enforcement. This includes the replacement/upgrade of 11 mobile data computer set-ups within the mobile data system; the purchase of 12 replacement portable radios; the Attachment A 2 resupply of digital cameras for police officers; and the replacement of 12 filters for gas masks. This request is to re-appropriate $18,484.30, the remaining balance in Department of Justice grant funding for the investigations of Internet Crimes Against Children. In FY 09/10, the Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant to assist in the investigations of Internet Crimes Aga inst Children. Bedford County designated Albemarle County as being an area district in the fight against internet crime an d provided Albemarle County with $80,000.00. Half of the funds are to be used by the Albemarle County Police Department, while the other half is distributed by the Albemarle County Police Department to other agencies. This request is to re-appropriate $70,913.50 in Department of Homeland Security grant funding that has been received by the Fire/Rescue Department in prior fiscal years and to appropriate the fourth year ’s receipt of this grant in the amount of $116,000.00 for a total appropriation request of $186,913.50. In FY 08/09, the Department of Homeland Security awarded the Fire/Rescue Department a grant in the amount of $392,000.00 to assist in the marketing and advertising components of volun teer recruitment. The funds are slated to be used for advertising and supplies including but not limited to radio, TV, pamphlets, door hangers, banners, etc. The grant is funded over a four-year span. The amount to be brought forward to FY 11/12 is $70,913.50. In addition, this appropriates the fourth year ’s grant receipt amount of $116,000.00 for a total appropriation for FY 11/12 of $186,913.50. This request is to re-appropriate $4,021.51, the remaining balance of a Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) grant awarded to the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office in FY 10/11. In FY 10/11, the DMV awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office a total grant in the amount of $19,320.00. The purpose of this grant is to assist in the purchase of radar units as well as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement. This request is to re-appropriate a $25,459.00 U.S. Department of Justice grant awarded to the Albemarle County Police Department in FY 10/11. The purpose of this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and improving public safety through an increase in Community Policing. This request is to re-appropriate $14,943.17, the remaining balance of a $45,000.00 grant awarded to the Albemarle County Police Department from the the DMV in FY 10/11. This grant is intended to assist in the purchase of radar units and breath testing units, and to fund overtime hours for DUI checkpoints. This request is to re-appropriate $48,673.74 of a $113,138.00 grant awarded to the Albemarle County Police Department by the Department of Justice in FY 09/10 to assist in overtime expenses and equipment to support more Community Policing in problem solving, crime prevention, and safety enhancement through working directly with citizens. This request is to appropriate $22,159.11, the remaining balance of a grant that was received by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS). The ACDSS, in partnership with United Way – Thomas Jefferson Area, was awarded grant funds from the Virginia Health Care Foundation (VHCF) for the implementation of Project Connect, VHCF’s children’s health insurance enrollment initiative. This is a 20 - month grant that began on February 1, 2010 and will expire on September 30, 2011. Total grant fun ds are allocated 60% to the United Way for an Outreach Worker position and 40% to ACDSS for an Eligibility Worker position at UVA Medicaid. This grant is 100% reimbursable. This request is to appropriate $60,577.00 for the cost associated with the Project Director position for the Foothills Child Advocacy Center in FY 11/12. All salary and benefits associated with this position will be reimbursed by Foothills on a quarterly basis This request is to re-appropriate $3,605.89 in donations for the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department. In FY 07/08, the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department received $12,000.00 from the J&E Berkley Foundation. In FY 10/11 a second donation in the am ount of $578.67 was received. These monies are to enable the continuation of a free smoke detector program to bring single family residences into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommendations. This program targets households that are at risk and usually cannot afford smoke detectors. This request is to re-appropriate $3,524.32, the remaining balance of a Department of Criminal Justice grant awarded to the Albemarle County Police Department in FY 10/11. T he Department of Criminal Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $63,462.00 with a local match of $3,340.00 for a total of $66,802.00. This grant is to upgrade forensic techniques and related technology for improved crime scene investigation, evidence collection, and criminal case development. Appropriation #2012028 $384,972.59 Revenue Source GF Fund Balance $ 384,972.59 The following requests are for the re-appropriation of FY 10/11 funds to the following projects: Attachment A 3 Human Resources: This request is to re-appropriate $3,500.00, which is the anticipated unexpended balance from the County’s Total Rewards/Employee Recogntion Program to support Countywide employee recognitions in FY 11/12. Voter Registration and Elections: This request is to re-appropriate funds for additional election officers working the November 8, 2011 general election, in the amount of $5,000.00 and funding in the amount of $26,000.00 for five additional handicapped-accessible voting machines. These additional expenditures are necessitated by the 2011 redistricting, which created four split precincts in the County. Split precincts are those in which some voters vote one ballot and others vote a different ballot depending on the legislative districts in which they reside. These additional election officials and handicapped-accessible voting machines will allow these precincts to continue to be managed pursuant to State Board of Elections guidelines and best practices. Fire Rescue: This request is to re-appropriate $3,339.00 for the replacement of an ID Copier/Datacard Printer and $97,133.59 related to Volunteer Recruitment and Retention initiatives. Economic Opportunity Fund: This request is to re-appropriate $250,000.00 for the Economic Opportunity Fund. The Fund is to be u sed as local match for federal or state economic development projects with an emphasis on creating jobs for local County residents. Appropriation #2012029 $81,476.00 Revenue Source Federal Revenue $ 81,476.00 This request is to appropriate three grants as described below. Once the grant monies are appropriated, the County Executive will sign the necessary grant award documents and they will be submitted to the funding agency. A $21,600.00 grant (#154AL-2012-52108-4486) has been awarded by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to the Sheriff’s Office. The grant requires a local match of $4,320.00 for a total amount of $25,920.00. The local match will be provided from the Sheriff’s existing budget. The purpose of this grant is to assist in the purchase of radar units as well as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement. A $19,876.00 grant (#2011-DJ-BX-02583) has been awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice to the Albemarle County Police Department. There is no local match. The purpose of this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours by current officers in support of reducing crime and and improvement of public safety for more community policing. A $40,000.00 grant (#154AL-2012-52193-4571) has been awarded by the DMV to the Albemarle County Police Department. The grant requires a local match $2,204.00 for a total amount of $42,204.00. The local match will be provided from the Police Department’s existing budget. The purpose of this grant is to assist in purchase of radar units as well as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement. Appropriation #2012030 $941,080.00 TRANSFER OF FUNDS Revenue Source Transfer $941,080.00 As approved by the Board at its September 7, 2011 meeting, this request is to transfer $941,080.00 from the CIP Street Improvement- Local Project balance to the Revenue Sharing Road Program. This will support the County's share of the VDOT Revenue Sharing program match for the Broomley Road Bridge project which is considered one of three high priority bridge projects identified in the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and in VDOT’s Six Year Secondary Construction Program . As approved by the Board on September 7, 2011, this appropriation, combined with the use of the FY 12 Revenue Sharing Program funds ($484,222) and the re- appropriation of the FY 11 Revenue Sharing Program balance ($74,698) which is included in the re-appropriation request below will provide the required match ($1,500,000) to participate in the FY12 VDoT Revenue Sharing Program. Attachment A 4 Appropriation #2012031 $5,257,752.35 General Government Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests Revenue Source Loan Proceeds $2,397,039.62 State Revenue $ 190,000.00 Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 64,596.33 Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $2,606,116.40 Each year, staff presents to the Board a list of General Government Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year, and are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or on-going maintenance CIP projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, 3) CIP projects which are planned to be completed in FY 12 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available in the following fiscal year , or 4) CIP project balances that are requested to be reappropriated for other uses . A re-appropriation of those fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or completion of the projects in the next fiscal year. Re-appropriations requests for active or encumbered General Government CIP Projects: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CityView Project: This request is to re-appropriate $8,339.32 to support CountyView upgrades as detailed in the CountyView Management Plan including enhancements to the CountyView web application to facilitate public access for viewing/processing applications online. The upgrade is scheduled to be completed and ready for use in September 2012. $8,339.32 GIS Project: This request is to re-appropriate $415,381.86 to fund the priorities identified in the five-year GIS implementation plan and schedule as recommended by the GIS Steering Committee. Funding planned GIS initiatives result in efficiencies with respect to access, use and maintenance of the County's geographic resources. $415,381.86 E. Rivanna Tanker 26: This request to re-appropriate $84,651.28 to support the purchase of the E. Rivanna Tanker; the truck was delivered in late summer and is complete with the execption of minor equipment installation. $84,651.28 Crozet Library: This request is to re-appropriate $580,565.59, the remaining project balance for the library parking lot design and construction and library building design. These funds will support the purchase order balance for the architect/engineer contract, construction contract, change orders, and contingency. The parking lot construction is currently underway and substantial completion is anticipated in October 2011. Completion of the architect/engineer contract will be dependent on funding for the library build ing. $580,565.59 Crozet Main Street: This request is to re-appropriate $92,084.62, the account balance, for the extension of Library Avenue (aka Crozet Main Street), to the proposed Crozet Eastern Avenue. The current available funds may be used to extend or connect developer- funded/built portions of Library Avenue to existing developments . There is a Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) currently under review by the County which, if approved, would enable a developer to construct a significant segment of Library Avenue. The connection to Eastern Avenue would be dependent on the design and construction of the proposed Crozet Eastern Avenue roadway, which is not currently funded. $92,084.62 Crozet Streetscape Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate $499,059.33, the remaining project balance, for the relocation of overhead electric and utility lines to underground electric and utility lines along and adjacent to Crozet Avenue, the construction of a new stormwater drainage system, pedestrian/vehicular/streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from the Square to Tabor street, and the first block of 'Main Street' (a.k.a. Library Avenue). These funds will support the purchase order balance for the architect/engineer contract, the pending purchase order for services related to the negotiation and/or coordination of deed and plat signatures for the right-of-way and/or easement dedications, and the utility relocation. Of the twenty-six utility easements that were necessary, only three are outstanding. In addition, staff is working with three owners to obtain the remaining twelve right-of-way/easement dedications. Once all of the easements are finalized, utility re-location and construction bid documents (pedestrian/vehicular/streetscape enhance - ments) can be finalized. The construction of the first block of Main Street (Library Ave nue) is complete and preparation of documents to request VDOT road acceptance is in progress. $499,059.33 Attachment A 5 Ivy Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate the remainingFY 11 project balance of $24,602.40 to support the purchase order balance for the architect/engineer contract for programming and schematic design and potential change orders to this contract. Any potential savings will be used toward the final design for the Ivy Fire Station. A lease is in place with UVA for the warehouse where the fire station is to be housed, and construction funding was appropriated in FY12. It is anticipated that construction documents will be completed by mid-December 2011. $24,602.40 Pantops Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate $10,651.32, the remaining project balance, to support the property dedication to the County for the Pantops fire station; specifically, these funds will be used for any potential costs associated with preparing and obtaining approval of the subdivision plat (surveying, deeds/plats, etc.). $10,651.32 Meadowcreek Path: This request is to re-appropriate $20,000.00, the account balance, to support design and construction of a path connecting Meadowcreek Parkway Phase 1 to neighborhoods on the west side of Rio Road. Design is scheduled to start after the completion of the Meadowcreek Parkway which is anticipated to be in October 2011. At this time, It is unknown if any easements will be required for construction. $20,000.00 Sidewalk-Avon Street: This request is to re-appropriate $70,992.22, the account balance, to support sidewalk and curb and gutter construction at Avon Street from Lakeside Apartments to City limits. The start date is unknown at this time and is dependant on funding for design and construction. The remaining funding required is requested in the FY13 Sidewalk Program CIP Request. It is anticipated that easements will be required for construction. $70,992.22 Sidewalk-Route 250/Westminster: This request is to re-appropriate $18,027.50 from the account balance for completion of 2,786 linear feet of new sidewalk on the north side of the 250 Bypass on Pantops Mountain (from CarMax to Westminster Canterbury). These funds support purchase order balances for the construction and architect/engineer contracts, special inspection and testing, and miscellaneous work (i.e. filling in ravine, mowing, etc.) required to achieve final completion of the project. The project has reached substantial completion. (The remaining project balance, $62,316.60, is requested to be re-appropriated to the sidewalk contingency - see below). $18,027.50 Sidewalk-South Pantops: This request is to re-appropriate $22,886.03, the remaining project balance, for the construction of 3,500 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of South Pantops Drive and the west side of State Farm Boulevard. These funds will support design and construction. Final design plans are in progress; they are anticipated to be bid in early FY 2012 but are dependent upon obtaining any easements that may be required. $22,886.03 Sidewalk-Crozet Avenue North: This request is to re-appropriate $10,219.39, the remaining project balance, for the replacement/construction of approximately 1,100 feet of sidewalk and drainage improvements along the West side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. This reappropriation supports the purchase balance on the architect/engineer contract. Design plans are under review. Construction is dependent upon obtaining additional funding and required easements. The additional required funding is included in the FY13 Sidewalk Program CIP Request. For your information, the County also received a state-funded Safe Routes to School Grant ($190,000.00), which will support a portion of this project budget and will provide an improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends the sidewalk to Ballard Drive. The grant-funded portion of the project (crosswalks and warning lights/signage) will proceed as the first phase. $10,219.56 Sunridge Road: This request is to re-appropriate $1,761.42, the remaining project balance, for the extension of Sunridge Road within the existing right-of-way serving three parcels and drainage improvements to resolve downstream flooding. These funds will specifically be used for maintenance or to repair any damage until the road is accepted by VDOT. Roadwork is complete and request for road acceptance by VDOT is in progress. $1,761.42 COB McIntire Renovations Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate $5,300.00 for final items related to the recently completed renovation for the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offices. These funds will be used to pay for miscellaneous office furnishings. $5,300.00 Attachment A 6 Police Technology Project: This request is to re-appropriate $293,486.00, the remaining project balance, to support the on-going Police Technology software (Mobile Data Computer Software) system implementation which will begin its 30-day test acceptance test this Fall. Upon successful completion of the test, the payment for the software and for the license fees will be due to the vendor. These funds also support the Police Department's emergency modem/docking station purchases and installations. $293,486.00 Police Video Equipment: This request is to re-appropriate $9,335.40, the remaining project balance, to support the ongoing replacement purchases of video cameras in police vehicles and to fund emergency repairs of video cameras and equipment. Video cameras are a crucial tool in the prosecution of various traffic and criminal cases. $9,335.40 Park, Byrom: This request is to re-appropriate a total of $17,224.53 ($10,225.11 from tourism funding) to support purchase order balance of the contractor for the completion of Byrom Park amenities, including trail improvements/development and trail signage. $17,224.53 Park, Preddy Creek: This request is to re-appropriate $252.40 to support the purchase order balance of the contractor for completion of the Preddy Creek Park amenities. $252.40 Parks Athletic Study/Development: This request is to re-appropriate $1,800.00 to support athletic field maintenance, which is scheduled for September - December of 2011. $1,800.00 Park, Rivanna - Free Bridge Connector: This request is to re-appropriate $1,003.15 to support trail maintenance and repairs along the Rivanna-Free Bridge Connector. $1,003.15 Greenway Program: This request is to re-appropriate $2,123.00 which will be used for three pedestrian bridges along the Rivanna Greenway. Bids are anticipated to be received by the end of November 2011. $2,123.00 Seminole Trail - Engine 82: This request is to re-appropriate $600,489.00 to support the purchase of Seminole Trail's Engine 82. The engine has been delivered. $600,489.00 Records Management System: This request to re-appropriate $9,950.00 to support the balance of the Laserfische software contract services. $9,950.00 Re-appropriations for routine or on-going maintenance General Government CIP Projects: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Voting Machine Replacements: This request is to re-appropriate $91,175.77 to support the purchase of voting machine replacements over the course of the next several years to meet legal requirements based on anticipated County precincts. $91,175.77 Library Maintenance Projects: This request is to re-appropriate $218,571.49, the remaining project balance, for maintenance projects to be undertaken and/or completed in FY12 for the County's jointly-owned library facilities (Gordon Avenue Library and James Madison Regional Library-Central) such as HVAC updates, brick repairs and elevator upgrades. $218,571.49 Streetlights: This request is to re-appropriate $35,231.74, the project balance, to support the design and installation of streetlights on US 250 West at the Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter/Cory Farms subdivision area to address traffic and pedestrian safety issues. $35,231.74 Re-appropriations for General Government planned CIP allocations or contingencies: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Places 29 Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $1,185,000.00 to implement the Places 29 Master Plan, including the location and design of Berkmar Drive extending from the South Fork of the Rivanna River/Western Bypass to Airport Road; priority sidewalk and crosswalk improvements in various locations (including Rio and Hydraulic Roads, Hollymead Community); transit stop improvements (benches, shelters, trash cans, turn-outs); and the Northtown Trail design and construction. $1,185,000.00 Pantops Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $198,731.45 to continue implementation of the Pantops Master Plan. Various projects identified include: "priority crosswalk" improvements (at Rt 250/Rt. 20 and Rt. 250/Rolkin intersections); Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection improvement design; other pedestrian crossings improvements at various locations; traffic calming/management improvements on connector roads South Pantops Boulevard and Fontana; and construction of the Old Mill Trail and bridge installation. $198,731.45 Attachment A 7 Rivanna Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00 to begin implementation of the Rivanna Master Plan. If feasible, future pedestrian/bike connections will be implemented, related to the re-construction of the Route 250 bridge, near the Route 250 bridge over the railroad crossing in Shadwell. Alternatively, these funds could be allocated for needed improvements in other master plans (pedestrian improvements on US250 at Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter in Crozet, walkway improvements connecting to Brownsville/Henley school complex in Crozet, or pedestrian crossings of US 250 in Pantops) or to match VDoT Revenue Sharing Program funding/award for FY 12 or FY 13. $50,000.00 Contingency for Master Plans: This request is to re-appropriate $50,239.61 to either cover needed improvements (pedestrian improvements on US 250 at Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter in Crozet, walkway improvements connecting to Brownsville/Henley school complex in Crozet, pedestrian crossings of US 250 in Pa ntops) or to match VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funding/award for FY 12 or FY 13. $50,239.61 Revenue Sharing Road Program: This request is to re-appropriate a total of $74,697.90 to support the County's share of the VDOT Revenue Sharing program match for the Broomley Road Bridge project as approved by the Board at its September 7, 2011 meeting. $74,697.90 Sidewalk Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate the remaining project balances of two completed sidewalk projects: (a) the Hillsdale sidewalk project in the amount of $7,595.83 and (b) the Route 250/Westminster sidewalk project in the amount of $62,316.60. The Sidewalk Contingency supports unforeseen project costs of the current sidewalk projects listed in the "sidewalk construction program" or of sidewalk projects/improvements with no funding that arise as a result of safety issues (e.g. Barracks Road sidewalk to address safety of residents walking to the bus stop at Georgetown Road and Georgetown Road westward to apartment complexes). $69,912.43 Roadway Landscape Program: This request is to re-appropriate $100,000.00, the remaining project balance, to be used for improvements to the entrance corridors, specifically median and shoulder landscaping. $100,000.00 Keene Landfill: This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00, the remaining project balance, to have funds available to respond to environmental issues, emergency environmental engineering services, and/or repairs and maintenance of the closed landfill. $50,000.00 The requests below re-appropriate balances of the General Government Capital Improvement Fund remaining as of June 30, 2011. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00 from the Pantops Master Plan FY 10/11 balance to the Rivanna Trail Bridge (Old Mill Bridge). This funding supports the construction of three pedestrian bridges on the Old Mills Trail along the Pantops/Rivanna Greenway. The project is currently in the design phase and is anticipated to be bid in October and completed in December 2011. $50,000.00 Microsoft Upgrade: This re-appropriates $284,006.03 from the IT ADP Equipment FY 10/11 balance to upgrade (a) SharePoint, the County’s major internal collaboration tool, (b) Exchange, the County’s e-mail system, and (c) the County’s Office Productivity tools such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. The County’s Information Technology Review Team (ITRT) has identified this upgrade as a high priority. Approval of this appropriation will prevent the need for a FY13 CIP request. Upon approval of this request, all three p rograms will be evaluated for either on-premise or hosted licensing models. If the ITRT selects the hosted licensing model all three services may be upgraded through the purchase of Office365 E3 with the possibility of implementation by March of 2012. IT estimates that this re-appropriation will provide at least a full year of end-to-end office productivity upgrades and services. $284,006.03 Attachment A 8 Appropriation #2012032 $428,473.81 School Division Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests Revenue Source School CIP Fund Balance $428,473.81 Each year, staff presents to the Board of Supervisors a list of projects that were appropriated to the School Capital fund in a prior year, but remains unfinished or billing has not been finalized at year end. A re- appropriation of those fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or completion of the projects in the next fiscal year. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Albemarle High School: This request is to re-appropriate $750.00 to support the Albemarle High School’s renovation and addition project. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/construction administration contract. The project is substantially complete, and the punch list work is anticipated to be completed by June 2012. 750.00 CATEC: This request is to re-appropriate $3,664.00 to support ongoing work at CATEC. These funds support work that is being done in response to an Americans with Disabilities (ADA) audit. Work is anticipated to be complete by summer 2012 3,664.00 Greer Elementary School: This request is to re-appropriate $137,225.04 to support the Greer Elementary School’s Addition Phase 2 project. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design and support the construction of this project. The project is scheduled to break ground in the Fall of 2011 and to be substantially complete by August 2012. 137,225.04 ADA Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $5,284.27 to support Americans with Disabilities Act improvements at various schools. These funds support work that is being done in response to an audit completed by the State. The work will be complete by August 2012. 5,284.27 Vehicle Maintenance Facility: This request is to re-appropriate $93,057.07 to support the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) Bus Wash project and subsequent bus wash addition. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/sonstruction administration (CA) contract and the purchase order balance for the constructio n contract and change orders. The original project is substantially complete and the addition will be complete by October 2011. 93,057.07 Child Nutrition: This request is to re-appropriate $1,100.00 to support the pantry shelving project at various schools. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 1,100.00 AHS Track & Tennis: This request is to re-appropriate $5,694.25 to support the track & tennis court reconstruction project at Albemarle High School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 5,694.25 MHS Tennis Courts: This request is to re-appropriate $23,500.00 to support the tennis court resurfacing project at Monticello High School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction of the project. The project is substantially complete as of 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 23,500.00 Hollymead Parking Lot Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $3,215.00 to support the bus loop project at Hollymead Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project will be substantially complete by October 2011. 3,215.00 Stony Point Parking Lot Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $2,497 to support the parent drop off project at Stony Point Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 2,497.00 Attachment A 9 Stony Robinson Parking Lot Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $2,817.00 to support the satelite bus parking project at Stone Robinson Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 2,817.00 Burely MS Asphalt Track: This request is to re-appropriate $1,368.00 to support the track project at Burley Middle School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 1,368.00 HVAC Design: This request is to re-appropriate $3,783.00 to support multiple HVAC projects. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 3,783.00 HVAC Design-Woodbrook Elementary: This request is to re-appropriate $2,674.00 to support the chiller replacement project at Woodbrook Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 2,674.00 HVAC Design- Red Hill Elementary: This request is to re-appropriate $2,681.00 to support the HVAC project at Red Hill Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 2,681.00 HVAC Design- Greer Elementary: This request is to re-appropriate $1,541.50 to support the Kitchen AC project at Greer Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 1,541.50 Energy Conservation: This request is to re-appropriate $5,204.25 to support the Renewable Energy Resource Center project at Henley Middle School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the design/CA of the project. The project will break ground in October 2011 & will be substantially complete by February 2012. 5,204.25 Greer Elementary HVAC: This request is to re-appropriate $75,536.17 to support the Kitchen AC project at Greer Elementary. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 75,536.17 Burley Elementary HVAC: This request is to re-appropriate $41,745.50 to support the ESOL HVAC project project at Burley Middle School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction of the project. The project is substantially complete as of August 2011, but it has not been fully billed. 41,745.50 AHS Turf: This request is to re-appropriate $2,633.95 to support the turf field project project at Albemarle High School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction of the project. The project is substantially complete , but it has not been fully billed. 2,633.95 WAHS Turf: This request is to re-appropriate $1,449.87 to support the turf field project project at Western Albemarle High School. These funds support the purchase order balance for the construction of the project. The project is substantially complete. 1,449.87 This request also re-appropriates a balance of the School Division Capital Improvement Fund remaining as of June 30, 2011 as follows: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Minor Capital Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $11,052.94 from Brownsville Elementary School project to support minor capital improvement projects associated with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) uses at various schools. The State recently conducted an ADA Compliance Audit for the School Division at the high schools and some minor projects are needed for compliance. 11,052.94 Attachment A 10 Appropriation #2012033 $1,257,641.18 Stormwater Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests Revenue Source Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $1,257,641.18 Each year, staff presents to the board a list of projects that were appropriated to the Stormwater Capital fund in a prior year, but remains unfinished at year end. A re -appropriation of those remaining balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or completion of these projects. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT COB Parking Lot Biofilters: This request is to re-appropriate the remaining account balance of $41,793.73 for the completion of the stormwater management of two aisles at the McIntire County Office Building parking lot. Plans include landscaping improvements and a pedestrian walking trail. These funds support purchase order balances for the construction and architect/engineering contracts, change orders, and contingency. Construction was substantially completed in June 2011 and plantings will be completed in the Fall of 2011. Total project completion is anticipated by December 2011, excluding 1-year warranty on plantings. $41,793.73 Downtown Crozet Wetlands Stormwater Project: This request is to re-appropriate $15,074.84, the remaining Downtown Crozet Wetlands account balance in FY 11, for stormwater management through pipe and channel improvements and the construction of a stormwater wetland system to treat runoff from existing and future development in Downtown Crozet. The project is anticipated to be substantially completed in February 2012 based on a notice authorizing work to proceed being issued by the end of September. $15,074.84 Woodbrook Lagoon: This request is to re-appropriate $302,522.90, the remaining account balance, for stormwater management for a 250 acre urban watershed through channel improvements, wetlands, and biofiltration. These funds support purchase order balances for the construction and architect/engineering contracts, change orders, and contingency. This project is under construction and the project is anticipated to be substantialy completed in November 2011. $302,522.90 This request also re-appropriates balances of the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund remaining as of June 30, 2011 as follows: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Stormwater Improvement Control Account: This is a request to re-appropriate a total of $898,249.71 ($846,221.16 from the Stormwater Control Improvement Account balance and $52,028.55 from the Turtle Creek Retrofit project balance) so that additional funds are immediately available to support projects that are currently or will be under contract. Funds will support core, essential stormwater improvement projects and/or will be available to address potential Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandated requirements. $898,249.71 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Water Protection Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider amending the Water Protection Ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Brooks. LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5,2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Staff periodically reviews water protection regulations to assure they are doing what they were intended to do. Staff has identified three areas of regulation warranting amendment. The proposed ordinance is Attachment A. The September 7, 2011 Executive Summary summarizing the proposed ordinance is Attachment B. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance would amend the Water Protection Ordinance as follows: Reduce fees for variances and mitigation plans. The current variance fee was based on the assumption that variances would require review by multiple staff members and would generally be for complex projects. Staff experience is that variance applications are much smaller and simpler, are primarily intended to accommodate individual sites with tight topography or other unique c ircumstances, and require only 2-4 hours of staff time to review. Similarly, mitigation plans are usually a simple planting plan that can be incorporated into other plans and require limited staff time to review. The proposed amendments to County Code §§ 17-209 and 17-310 reduces the fee for variances from $760 to $150, and also reduces the fee for mitigation plans from $860 to $150. Allow limited disturbance of the outer 50 feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the Rural Areas. Since 1998, the WPO has permitted limited disturbances of the outer 50 feet of stream buffers with mitigation. Stream buffers were first placed on intermittent streams only in the water supply watersheds, however, a 2009 amendment added stream buffers on intermittent streams in all rural areas. The 2009 amendment created uncertainty as to whether any disturbance of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas was allowed, regardless of mitigation. The proposed amendment to County Code § 17-321 would clarify that limited disturbances of the outer 50 feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas are permitted with mitigation. Facilitate a coordinated review of stormwater management/BMP plans and mitigation plans. The current time limits on the approval and re-submittal of erosion and sediment control plans have been difficult to properly implement when owners combine them with stormwater management/BMP plans and mitigation plans into one physical plan set and submit them simultaneously. The proposed amendments to County Code §§ 17-304 and 17-322 would facilitate the coordinated review and action on erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management/BMP plans, and mitigation plans when they are simultaneously submitted. The proposed amendments also would void dormant applications and approved plans that are not implemented within the periods specified in the regulations. BUDGET IMPACT: With an estimate of 5 variance applications and 5 mitigation plans per year, the revenue reduction as a result of the fee changes is estimated at $6,880.00. Staff notes this amount may be partially offset by an increased number of applications, as some property owners have decided against pursuing an application due to cost. However, fees are required to reflect the County’s cost of providing services and the new fees will more accurately reflect the staff time required for these services. The other proposed amendments would not have a budget impact though they would promote the efficient administration of the Water Protection Ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) ATTACHMENTS Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance Attachment B-September 7, 2011 Executive Summary Return to regular agenda Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 11-17( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, AND ARTICLE III, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17, Water Protection, Article II, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Article III, Stormwater Management and Water Quality, are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 17-209 Fees Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan Sec. 17-310 Fees Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority Sec. 17-322 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer Chapter 17. Water Protection Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control Sec. 17-209 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” A. Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit: 1. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit located in a residential development: $150 2. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit not located in a residential development: $150 3. Plan review for a single family dwelling unit: $150 4. Permit and first year inspection fees for a single family dwelling unit: $150 5. Annual permit renewal and inspection fees for a single family dwelling unit, starting with second year: $150 6. Each reinspection: $150 B. Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempt agricultural land: 1. Plan review: $150 per review 2. Permit and first year inspection fees: $150 3. Each reinspection: $150 4. Annual permit renewal and inspection fees, starting with second year: $150 Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 2 C. All other land disturbing activity: 1. Plan review, disturbed area less than one acre: $150 per review 2. Permit and first year inspection fees, disturbed area less than one acre: $200 3. Annual permit renewal and inspection fee, disturbed area less than one acre: $200 4. Plan review, disturbed area one acre or larger: $300 per review 5. Permit and first year inspection fees, disturbed area one acre or larger: $100 per disturbed acre 6. Annual permit renewal and inspection fee, disturbed area one acre or larger, starting with second year: $100 per disturbed acre 7. Each reinspection: $250 8. Amendment to approved plan: $180 per plan review D. Variances: $760150 per request (§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17, 2-11- 98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-17(1), 11-11-98; Ord. 02-17(1), 7-3-02; Ord. 08- 17(3), 8-6-08) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-562. Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan. Each stormwater management/BMP plan submitted pursuant to this article shall be reviewed and approved as provided herein: A. Within ten (10) days from the receipt of an application, the program authority shall conduct a preliminary review of the application for completeness. During this period, the program authority shall either accept the application for review, which will begin the forty-five (45) day review period set forth in paragraph (D), or reject the application for incompleteness. If the program authority rejects the application because it is incomplete, it shall inform the owner in writing of the information necessary to complete the application. If the program authority accepts the application for review, it shall send an acknowledgment of the acceptance of the application to the owner. BA. The plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of section 17-303 and all other requirements of this article. CB. During its review of the plan, the program authority may meet with the owner from time to time to review and discuss the plan with the owner, and to request any additional data as may be reasonably necessary for a complete review of the plan and shall inform the owner in writing of any modifications, terms, or conditions required to be included in the plan in order for it to be approved. DC. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a plan within sixty (60) days from the date the application was accepted for review; provided that the program authority shall act on any plan that was previously approved within forty-five (45) days after the plan was revised, resubmitted to the program authority, and accepted for review. The decision of the program authority shall be based on the plan’s compliance with this Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 3 article. The decision shall be in writing and shall be served by first class mail to the address provided by the owner in the application for approval of the plan or by personal delivery to the owner. The date of the decision shall be either the date that it is deposited for mailing or the date that it is personally delivered to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. ED. Each stormwater management/BMP plan approved by the program authority shall be subject to the following: 1. The owner shall comply with all applicable requirements of the approved plan, this article, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-603.2 et seq.), and the state stormwater management regulations set forth in 4 VAC 50-60-10 et seq.; 2. The owner shall certify that all land clearing, construction, land development and drainage will be done according to the approved plan; 3. Land development shall be conducted only within the area specified in the approved plan; 4. The rights granted by virtue of the approved plan shall not be transferred, assigned or sold unless a written notice of transfer, assignment or sale is filed with the program authority and the recipient of such rights provides the certification required by provision (E)(2) paragraph (D)(2); 5. The program authority may require, in conjunction with its approval of a plan, that the owner first enter into a stormwater management/BMP facilities maintenance agreement as provided in section 17- 323; 6. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving reasonable notice to the owner, occupier or operator of the land development, to conduct periodic inspections as provided in section 17-324; and 7. The program authority may require, as a condition of plan approval, that the owner enter into a right of entry agreement or grant an easement for purposes of inspection and maintenance. If such agreement or easement is required, the program authority shall not be required to give notice prior to conducting an inspection. FE. Nothing in this section shall require approval of a plan or part thereof that is determined by the program authority to pose a danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare or to deviate from sound engineering practices. F. An application for a stormwater management/BMP plan that requires modifications, terms or conditions to be included in order for it to be approved as provided in paragraph (B) shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the omitted modifications, terms or conditions within six (6) months after the owner is informed of the omitted information as provided in paragraph (B) ; provided that any application for which the program authority informed the owner of omitted modifications, terms or conditions prior to [effective date of ordinance] shall be deemed withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the omitted modifications, terms or conditions by [insert date 6 months after effective date of ordinance]. G. An approved stormwater management/BMP plan shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a grading, building or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities to implement the plan (the “permit”) within one (1) year after the date of its approval; provided than any stormwater management/BMP plan approved prior to [effective date of ordinance] shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a permit by [insert date Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 4 one year after effective date of ordinance]; and further provided that any stormwater management/BMP plan associated with a subdivision plat or site plan whose period of validity is extended by Virginia Code § 15.2- 2209.1(A) shall likewise be extended for the same time period.. (§ 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-11-90; § 19.3-28, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.1-8, 19.3-28; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-603.8. Sec. 17-310 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” 1. Plan review: $300 per plan review 2. Amendment to approved plan: $180 per plan review 3. Request for exception (section 17-308): $240. 4. Request for development in a stream buffer or for reduction or modification of stream buffer (section 17-321) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document) (section 17-322): $85. 54. Each inspection or reinspection: $60. 65. Mitigation plan (section 17-322): $860150 (§ 19.3-34, 2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-8, 19.3-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-17(1), 7-3-02; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-603.10. Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority. Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 17-322: 1. on a lot which is located within a development area but is not within a water supply protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream); 2. on a lot which is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development is determined by the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this paragraph, the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer; 1. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream) for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under this paragraph, any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer; Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 5 32. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project; 43. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a road, street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-320(D) and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for the lot to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance, or to establish more than one stream crossing; 54. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system must comply with all applicable state laws; and 65. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district. (§ 19.3-45, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, § § 19.2-8, 19.3-45; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108. Sec. 17-322 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section 17-321 shall submit to the program authority for review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein: A. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable requirements of this section, the fee required by section 17-310, and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with. If the mitigation plan pertains to a road, street or driveway encroaching into or crossing a stream buffer, it shall be submitted with and reviewed by the program authority in coordination with the preliminary site plan or preliminary subdivision plat, if such a plan or plat is submitted or, if not, in coordination with the final site plan or final subdivision plat, or building permit. B. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of this article. The program authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within thirty (30) forty-five (45) days that a complete plan was accepted for review. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision. C. Each mitigation plan shall: 1. identify the impacts of proposed development on water quality and lands within the stream buffer; 2. ensure that, where development takes place within a stream buffer: (i) the proposed development shall be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 6 functions of the stream buffer; (ii) no more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to allow a development that is permitted in the underlying zoning district under the applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance; (iii) indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the proposed development; and (iv) the impervious cover shall be minimized consistent with the proposed development; 3. demonstrate and assure that development will be conducted using best management practices; where best management practices require regular or periodic maintenance in order to continue their functions, the program authority may require that the owner enter into an agreement providing for the ongoing maintenance of the plantings in the stream buffer, and may require a bond with surety or other acceptable instrument, which agreement and bond with surety or other acceptable instrument shall be of a substance and in a form approved by the program authority and the county attorney; 4. specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts; 5. contain all other information requested by the program authority; and 6. where an owner seeks to establish more than one stream crossing as provided in section 17-320(D)(6), demonstrate that the environmental impacts from the entire road, street or driveway necessitated by a single stream crossing would be greater than the environmental impacts caused by an additional crossing and its associated road, street or driveway. For the purposes of this subsection, the environmental impacts considered by the program authority include, but are not limited to, impacts to soil, soil erosion, stormwater quantity, water quality, loss of vegetated stream buffer, impacts to stream beds and stream banks, the creation of impervious surfaces, and the disturbance of slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater. D. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by the program authority based on the following criteria: 1. whether all reasonable alternatives to development in the stream buffer have been explored and exhausted; 2. whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and is conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; 3. whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions; 4. whether the design and construction of the development will satisfy the criteria in subsections 17-322(C)(2) and (C)(3); and 5. for driveways, roads and streets, whether their alignment and design are optimized, consistent with all other applicable requirements, to minimize encroachment in the stream buffer and adverse effects on water quality. E. An application for a mitigation plan that requires modifications to be made in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the omitted modifications within six (6) months after the owner is informed of the omitted information; provided that any application for which the program authority informed the owner of omitted modifications prior to [effective date of ordinance] shall be deemed withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the omitted modifications by [insert date 6 months after effective date of ordinance]. F. An approved mitigation plan shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a grading, building or other Draft: 08/30/11 Attachment A 7 permit for activities involving land disturbing activities to implement the plan (the “permit”) within one (1) year after the date of its approval; provided than any mitigation plan approved prior to [effective date of ordinance] shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a permit by [insert date one year after effective date of ordinance]; and further provided that any mitigation plan associated with a subdivision plat or site plan whose period of validity is extended by Virginia Code § 15.2-2209.1(A) shall likewise be extended for the same time period. (§ 19.3-46, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; § 19.1-13, 6-19-91, § 13; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-13, 19.2-8, 19.3-46; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Water Protection Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Set a public hearing to consider amending the Water Protection Ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Brooks. LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: September 7,2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Staff periodically reviews water protection regulations to assure that they are doing what they were intended to do. Experience shows that three areas of regulation warrant consideration for amendment: (1) certain fees may be reduced because the time required for staff to provide the service is less than anticipated; (2) language regarding the allowance of limited disturbance of the outer fifty feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas should be clarified; and (3) the regulations need to allow timing of the review and action on sediment control plans, stormwater management/BMP plans and mitigation plans to be better coordinated when they are simultaneously submitted. DISCUSSION: The follow changes are proposed: Sec. 17-209 Fees. Sec. 17-310 Fees. The proposed amendments to these sections would reduce the fees for variances and mitigation plans. The current variance fee is based on the belief that they would require review by multiple staff members and would generally be for complex projects. Staff experience is that variance applications are much smaller and simpler, are primarily intended to accommodate individual sites with tight topography or other unique circumstances, and require only 2 -4 hours of staff time to review. Similarly, mitigation plans are usually a simple planting plan that can be incorporated into other plans and require limited staff time to review. Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program author ity. The proposed amendment to this section would clarify that limited disturbances of the outer 50 feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas are permitted with mitigation. Prior to a 2009 amendment, stream buffers were placed on intermittent streams only in the water supply watersheds. The 2009 amendment added stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas. The 2009 amendment created uncertainty as to whether any disturbance of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas was allowed, regardless of mitigation. This uncertainty was not intended. Since 1998, limited disturbances of the outer 50 feet of stream buffers have been permitted with mitigation. Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan. Sec. 17-322 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer. The proposed amendments to these sections are intended to allow the coordinated review and action on erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management/BMP plans, and mitigation plans when they are simultaneously submitted. The current time limits on the approval and re-submittal of erosion and sediment control plans have been difficult to properly implement when owners combine the three plans into one physical plan set and submit them simultaneously. The proposed amendments would also void dormant applications and approved plans that are not implemented within the specified periods. BUDGET IMPACT: Although the reduced fees will result in reduced revenues, they will more accurately reflect staff time required for the services. The amount of reduced revenues will be evaluated as part of staff’s analysis of this proposed ordinance amendment, but staff anticipates that the amended fees will result in less than a $5,000 reduction. The other proposed amendments would not have a budget impact though they would allow the more efficient administration of the Water Protection Ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on October 12, 2011. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ACSA 2011-00003, Arlin Martin -- Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water service SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to review a proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to provide water service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 80 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Arlin Martin has filed an application requesting public water service for Tax Map 56, Parcel 80. This property represents an approximately 0.9 acre parcel of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) located in a designated Rural Area per the County’s Comprehensive Plan (See Location Map, Attachment A). This property is currently in the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area, with a designation for “water only to existing structures.” (See Jurisdictional Area Map, Attachment B) The applicant wishes to replace an existing single family residence with a new home on the property. DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water service to the Rural Area: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of the public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health or safety is endangered. Recommendation: Only allow changes to the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Area boundaries in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. In this particular situation the existing house is in a severe state of disrepair and the applicant wishes to replace it with a new single family home. Because the current designation only allows service to the existing structure, a new home could not be served. Due to the small size of the parcel (0.946 acres), it will be difficult to safely provide both private well and septic service to this parcel and the new residence. The parcel is currently served by a septic system on-site. It should be noted that the applicant recently received approval of a variance (VA 2010-0004) to further reduce the size of this parcel by 0.106 acre, permitting a boundary line adjustment that transfers this acreage to the adjacent parcel (Parcel 80B), which is currently only 0.378 acres. This will reduce TMP 56-80 to a 0.84 acre parcel. A previous owner of TMP 56-80B received County approval for this boundary adjustment in 1976, but failed to record the plat. The current “water only to existing structures” designation was placed on this property when the Board established the Jurisdictional Area maps and process in the early 1980s. Staff understands that the “service only to existing structures” designation was generally intended to recognize certain properties that were located outside the Development Area boundaries, but located adjacent to existing service lines , that were already developed in a more urban manner and/or already served by public water (or sewer). However, there is no documentation on file specifically noting the reason why this property has this designation. While there is no well on the property, there is also no documentation of a health or safety problem with an on-site water source. However, as noted previously, the size of the parcel (either the current 0.946 acres or ultimate 0.84 acres) would make it difficult to provide a well on the property that would be adequately/safely separated from the existing septic system and home. Staff can identify only one other case similar to this one for a property in the Rural Area. In that case, a building eligible for service under a “water only to existing structure” designation and located on a two-acre parcel off of Georgetown Road was demolished because it was in a severe state of disrepair. The owners, not aware of the jurisdictional area restrictions, subsequently requested a new service designation in 2000 (ACSA Amendment Request, Barbara Flowers) when they decided to build a new ho use. Because the property was two acres in size, could not be further subdivided, and is located outside of a designated Development Area, making it not likely to be rezoned to a more intensive use, the AGENDA TITLE: ACSA 2011-00003, Arlin Martin -- Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water service October 5, 2011 Page 2 Board approved a change in the Jurisdictional Area designation on this parcel to “water only to one structure.” Similarly, the applicant’s property, while zoned RA, Rural Areas: 1) is less than one acre in size; 2) cannot be further subdivided; 3) is unlikely to be rezoned to a more intensive use as it is located in the Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Area; and, 4) will be used for one residence, which was the intended service with the original Jurisdictional Area designation. As such, staff finds that a Jurisdictional Area designation for “water service to one single-family dwelling only” would be acceptable. BUDGET IMPACT: If the request is approved, the property owner will bear the cost to connect to an adjacent water line. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide “water service to one single-family dwelling only” on Tax Map 56, Parcel 80. ATTACHMENTS A – Location Map with Comprehensive Plan Boundaries B – Jurisdictional Area Map Return to agenda Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Comp Plan Land Use Info Comprehensive Plan Area Crozet Master Plan Land Greenspace * Neighborhood Density (Lo Neighborhood Density Urban Density Mixed-Use Downtown Institutional Light Industrial See Crozet Masterplan Te Attachment A -- Location Map, Matin ACSA Jurisdication Area Request Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 22, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 389 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Comp Plan Land Use Info Comprehensive Plan Area ACSA Jurisdictional Areas No Service Water Only Water and Sewer Water Only To Existing Str Limited Service City Water and Sewer Attachment B -- Current ACSA Jurisdicational Area Designations Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 22, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 195 ft COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 August 31, 2011 Valerie Long - Williams Mullen 321 East Main St., Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP201100004 Eagleburger Property, AT&T CV 352 Tier III PWSF TMP 05800-00-00-06600 Dear Valerie, The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 26, 2011, approved the above noted petition by a vote of 6:0 with a modification identified by staff. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The monopole shall not be increased in height. 2. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider; 3. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. 4. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled “Eagleburger Property CV352 Meriwether Lewis Elementary School 1450 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 with an Engineer’s seal and revised zoning drawings dated 4/12/2011 “ View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to agenda Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 5, 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, Gerald Gatobu Principal Planner Current Development Division Cc: Joe O'Connor / SAI Communications 2400 Ownby Lane. Richmond, VA 23220 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2011-4 Eagleburger Property Tier III PWSF Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: July 26th , 2011 Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD 2011 Owners: Eagleburger Lawrence S. Applicant: Joe O’Connor SAI Communication Acreage: 20.99 (Lease Area: 168 square feet) Rezone from: Not applicable Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District TMP: Tax Map 58, Parcel 66 Location: 1450 Owensville Road [State Route 678] about five hundred feet from the intersection of Willow Oak Circle [State Route 1648] and Owensville Road [State Route 678] By-right use: (RA) Rural Areas Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: Yes Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: Install one hundred and fifty five (155) foot seven (7) inches tall monopole with six flush mounted antennas within an existing non- conforming electric power tower and associated ground equipment Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 3 Character of Property: The property consists of a single-family home with several accessory structures, wooded areas, and a stream in the rear. There is an existing electric power tower along Owensville Road [State Route 678] on the front portion of the property. Use of Surrounding Properties: Single family Residential Homes Factors Favorable: 1. The existing electric power structure represents an opportunity site 2. Antennas will be flush mounted 3. Tower will serve a Public Purpose Factors Unfavorable: 1. Some visual impact is anticipated with the installation of the monopole Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations: Staff Recommends approval of the proposed monopole, antennas and associated ground equipment. 2 STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu PLANNING COMMISSION: July 26th, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: SP 2011-4: Eagleburger Property - Tier III PWSF PROPERTY OWNER: Eagleburger Lawrence S. APPLICANT: Joe O’Connor SAI Communication PROPOSAL: Install one hundred and fifty five (155) foot seven (7) inches tall monopole with six flush mounted antennas within an existing non-conforming electric power tower and associated ground equipment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is located on Owensville Road [State Route 678] about five hundred feet from the intersection of Willow Oak Circle [State Route 1648] and Owensville Road [State Route 678]. The property consists of a single-family home with several accessory structures, wooded areas, and a stream in the rear. There is an existing electric power tower along Owensville Road [State Route 678] on the front portion of the property [Attachment B]. Surrounding areas consist of single-family homes. The facility will be within an existing power tower currently used as an opportunity site. The electric power tower has attached antennas and existing ground equipment. The ground equipment is well screened, and not visible from Owensville Road [State Route 678]. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: B200504919TWR: Tower Building Permit E200504920 ETWR: Wiring Tower Antenna Permit DISCUSSION: This proposal requires Tier III special use permit approval. The proposal is for the Installation of a one hundred and fifty five (155) foot seven (7) inches tall monopole with six flush mounted antennas within an existing non-conforming electric power tower including associated ground equipment. The electric power tower has attached antennas and existing ground equipment installed, and is therefore in use as an opportunity site. The proposed tower will serve the Meriwether Lewis Elementary school site and other uses along Owensville Road. The Board of Supervisors needs to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed tower facility, and ultimately approve or deny the special use permit request. 3 ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? The electric power tower currently exists. The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties. No increased impact to adjacent properties is expected. The applicant will install the monopole within the existing power tower. Proposed antennas will be flush mounted onto the monopole. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? Installing a monopole within the electric power tower will not impact the character of the district. The electric power tower exists and is currently in use as an opportunity site. There are antennas and associated ground equipment currently attached to the electric power tower. The character of the zoning district will not change with this use. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Area chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 23). This request is consistent with both sections. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Debatable visual impacts in the district are anticipated with the installation of the monopole. Most of the visual impact will be above ground level. The proposed use is not permitted by right in the district, however, the proposed monopole and ground equipment will provide personal wireless communication services to the uses permitted by right in the district. Approval of this special use permit will not prevent or discourage permitted uses in the district or area, therefore, staffs opinion is that this request is in harmony with the uses permitted in this district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The purpose of Section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy. Flush mounted antennas are recommended in the personal wireless policy and in section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff’s opinion is that although the existing electric power tower is already a negative visual impact, adding a monopole with flush mounted antennas will not result in additional adverse visual impacts. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process. The special use permit process assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give AT&T the ability to offer personal wireless service communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services to areas along Owensville Road, and the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. This contributes to the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 4 Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows. Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilites. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.1, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics] Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. The proposed monopole, antennas will be installed within an existing electric power tower. The electric power tower has existing attached antennas and ground equipment. AT&T's equipment shelter will meet the required setbacks and all area and bulk regulations including minimum yard requirements. All site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. The existing electric power tower has attached antennas and ground equipment owned by other companies/carriers. The proposed monopole and antennas will be installed within the electric power tower, and do not require installation of guy wires. The equipment cabinet will be screened from Owensville Road [State Route 678] by added vegetation. 5 Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. This request proposes an array of antennas that are flush-mounted. Per the above ordinance section, the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3). This proposal consists of a monopole with two arrays of antennas. The two arrays will consist of six (6) panel antennas [Attachment A]. The proposed antennas meet the size requirements, and no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment. In no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. Each antenna and associated ground equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. The applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and 6 conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. AT&T or its assignee(s) will remove the facility within 90 days if use of the antennas and monopole at this location is discontinued at anytime in the future. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. AT&T will make sure required annual reports accurately account for all equipment supporting the proposed facility at this site (if the proposed antenna and monopole addition is approved and installed). Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed equipment cabinet will be screened from Owensville Road using proposed landscaping. The existing ground equipment installed by another carrier is well screened from the road. The ground equipment is not fenced. The proposed ground equipment will not be fenced, and there is little to no need to protect the facility from trespass because it is on private property with no pedestrian traffic in the area. The area has a wooden fence along the front of the property. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a 7 conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. This proposed monopole and antennas will be located within an existing electric power tower along Owensville Road. The electric power tower exists and is not located on lands subject to a conservation or open space easement. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed 155-foot monopole will be located within an electric power tower. The proposed monopole will not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. The flush mounted antennas on the proposed 155-foot monopole conform to the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. Flush mounted antennas are encouraged because they minimize adverse visual impacts. Because the electric power tower already exists, and the proposed monopole and flash mounted antennas will be painted to match the electric power, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal will result in minimal additional adverse visual impacts. Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12). The proposed facility will utilize an existing electric power structure. The proposed facility does not meet the criteria listed in this section and is therefore a Tier III tower. The Board of Supervisors can grant a modification of this section to allow the tower to be located within an existing power structure. Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street. 8 AT &T will paint the proposed antennas and monopole to match the color of the existing electric power tower. The electric power tower has a galvanized steel finish. Proposed vegetation will screen the equipment shelter from adjacent properties and roadway. Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 31.6.1): Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna mounting at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends approval of the proposed 155-foot monopole, antennas, and associated equipment within the existing electric power tower based on the analysis provided herein. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this Tier III Personal Wireless Facility, it will need to approve the applicable ordinance modification(s) outlined below: Zoning Ordinance Modifications 1. Subsection 5.1.40(d)(6) SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors that are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 1. The existing electric power tower represents an opportunity site. 2. Antennas will be flush mounted on the 155 foot tall monopole 3. Tower will serve a Public Purpose by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services to areas along Owensville Road, and the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. 9 Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. Some visual impact is anticipated with the installation of the monopole. Staff’s opinion is that the increased visibility of the existing tower will be minimal and that the favorable factors outweigh the unfavorable factors, therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. Several other electric power towers have been used as opportunity sites in the County. Staff has looked at the various approved monopoles that have been installed in the County. Photos of a similar type of electric power tower with a monopole and antennas installed within have been included in this staff report. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to deny this request, in order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors is required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: Conditions of approval: 1. The monopole shall not be increased in height. 2. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider; 3. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. 4. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled “Eagleburger Property CV352 Meriwether Lewis Elementary School 1450 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 with an Engineer’s seal and revised zoning drawings dated 4/12/2011 “ 10 ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan B. Vicinity Map C. Photos of Existing Facility D. Photos of similar Approved Facilities E. Photo Simulations of Proposed Facility Return to PC actions letter 11 Motion: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP2011-4) is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend approval of SP 2011-4 Eagleburger Property AT&T Tier III PWSF with the conditions and modifications outlined in the staff report. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend denial of SP 2011-4 Eagleburger Property AT&T Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 1 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Albemarle County Planning Commission July 26, 2011 A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., Room #241, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Commissioners absent was Thomas Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, was present. Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Item: SP-2011-00004 Eagleburger Property AT&T CV352 Tier III PWSF PROPOSED: A one hundred and fifty five (155) feet seven (7) inches tall tower with six flush mounted antennas within an existing non-conforming electric power tower and associated ground equipment ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas-; agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas – Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO LOCATION: 1450 Owensville RD [State Route 678] TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05800-00-00-06600 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Gerald Gatobu) Mr. Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request for the Eagleburger Tier III tower. • The most important principle for siting personal wireless facilities in Albemarle County is visibility. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 2 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL • This application is a Tier III personal wireless facility because it does not meet the Tier II criteria found in section 5.1.40.(d).(6). • A field visit was conducted on March 30, 2011. • The proposed monopole will be 155 feet 7 inches tall. Six antennas will be flush- mounted to the monopole and associated ground equipment installed. • The monopole will be installed within an existing electric power tower (opportunity site). It will go right in the middle with some flush-mounted antennas on it. • The tower will serve a public purpose b y providing cell phone coverage along Owensville Road [State Route 678] and the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. • There will be no loss of historic and scenic resources related to the installation of the tower because the electric power tower exists and it has existing antennas and ground equipment attached. Staff recommends approval of the proposed monopole antennas and associated ground equipment with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission needs to recommend approval/denial of a modification to Subsection 5.1.40.(d)(6). Mr. Zobrist invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Valerie Long, representative for AT&T, presented a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the location of the monopole to the elementary school and explain the proposal. This is one of the five sites where AT&T is working with the School Board to provide wireless telecommunication services at five of the schools that currently do not have any AT&T service anywhere nearby. Originally, they were looking for a site on the school property where they could locate a brown treetop style pole in the trees. Unfortunately, there is not anywhere they could have hidden it. The trees are either next to a stream at a very much lower elevation or it is open ball fields. The school building itself is not tall enough to attach the antennas directly to it. When that did not work out, they looked for an existing structure. Therefore, the tall existing Dominion Power poles are an opportunity site as described in the County’s Wireless Policy and in the Wireless Ordinance. The ordinance essentially creates incentives to co-locate the antennas on existing structures. This tall pole would provide a good opportunity site. She reviewed several photo simulations and propagation maps to show the coverage. The monopole would be screened from the road. It will provide in-building coverage at the school, which is the primary coverage objective. It will also provide strong coverage in buildings all along Owensville Road. There are a number of residences in that area. It does not quite make the connection down to 250. That is still on their to do list. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Morris said he had one point of clarity. When they place the cell phone tower inside of an electrical pole does that foul up the reception or the transmission. Ms. Long replied that they work very closely with Dominion Power and the applicant to coordinate the installation with the power company to minimize interruptions. She was not ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 26, 2011 3 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL exactly sure how it works. AT&T works very closely with Dominion Power who is essentially the landlord. AT&T has to have two leases for sites like this. They get a tower lease from the owner of the tower, Dominion Tower, and then a land lease from the owner of the land. In this case, it would be Mr. Eagleburger or his heirs for the ground equipment. She did not know if they would have to shut things down, but they obviously do it so as to minimize any interruptions. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith pointed out that he lived near the tower location and when driving down the road the tower would not be seen. Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-00004 Eagleburger Property AT&T CV352 Tier III PWSF with a Zoning Ordinance modification from Subsection 5.1.40(d)(6) subject to staff’s recommended conditions. 1. The monopole shall not be increased in height. 2. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider; 3. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. 4. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site construction plans, entitled “Eagleburger Property CV352 Meriwether Lewis Elementary School 1450 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 with an Engineer’s seal and revised zoning drawings dated 4/12/2011 “ Mr. Kamptner asked if the motion includes the recommended conditions and also the recommendation regarding the modification identified by staff, and Mr. Smith replied yes. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2011-00004, Eagleburger Property AT&T CV352 Tier III PWSF would go the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with the modification identified by staff subject to the recommended conditions on a date to be determined. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP2010-55, Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP2010-56, SAIC – Community Center SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: SP201000055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per day); SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, day care, and community activities in new 12,000 square building. STAFF CONTACTS: Benish, Brennan LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On August 23, 2011, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of SP2010-00055 and SP2010-00056 with the conditions listed below. 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center for SP2010-55 and SP2010-56, prepared by Meridian Planning Group, LLC, and dated December 17, 2010, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: The size and location of the proposed building The location of the parking area 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 hours of operation for the child day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 AM and shall end not later than 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 3. The hours of operation for the community center and the adult daycare shall not begin earlier than 9:00 AM and shall end not later than 9:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 4. The hours of operation for the dental office shall not begin earlier than 8:00 AM and shall end not later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 5. The maximum number of employees for the child day care, the community center, and the dental office shall not exceed a total of 15 on any given day. 6. The maximum number of people allowed on the site at any given time shall not exceed 150.children for the child day care shall not exceed 50 per day; the maximum number of attendees for the community center shall not exceed 80 per day; and the maximum number of patients for the dental office shall not exceed 20 per day. 7. Any outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by October 1, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission requested that staff reword condition 6 to limit the number of people allowed on the site at any given time instead of limiting the number of people allowed on the site per day for each use. Based on the Planning Commission’s comment, the new proposed wording is shown underlined above. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the application with the proposed changes to condition 6 as requested by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS A – August 23, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 September 15, 2011 Christopher Murray - JABA, Inc 674 Hillsdale Dr., Suite 9 Charlottesville, Va 22901 RE: SP201000055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care; SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center Tax Map, Parcel 128000000109A0 Dear Mr. Murray: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 23, 2011, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center for SP2010-55 and SP2010-56, prepared by Meridian Planning Group, LLC, and dated December 17, 2010, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: The size and location of the proposed building The location of the parking area 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 hours of operation for the child day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 AM and shall end not later than 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 3. The hours of operation for the community center and the adult daycare shall not begin earlier than 9:00 AM and shall end not later than 9:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 4. The hours of operation for the dental office shall not begin earlier than 8:00 AM and shall end not later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 5. The maximum number of employees for the child day care, the community center, and the dental office shall not exceed a total of 15 on any given day. 6. The maximum number of children for the child day care shall not exceed 50 per day; the maximum number of attendees for the community center shall not exceed 80 per day; and the maximum number of patients for the dental office shall not exceed 20 per day. (Condition to be revised prior to Board meeting to establish a maximum number of attendees.) 7. Any outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by October 1, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to exec summary Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 5, 2011. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesit ate to contact me at (434) 296-5832 x3029. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner Planning Division Cc: Southern Albemarle Family Practice Inc & Central Virginia Community Health Center , Inc. P.O. Box 220 New Canton, VA 23123 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP2010-55, Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP2010-56, SAIC – Community Center Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 23, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD Owner: Southern Albemarle Family practice, Inc. & Central Virginia Community Health Center Applicant: Christopher Murray, JABA Acreage: 16.621 acres Special Use Permit: SP201000055: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility SP201000056: 10.2.2.1 Community center TMP: Tax Map 128 Parcel 109A Location: 2256 Irish Rd (Route 6), approximately 1 mile east of the intersection with Porters Rd (Route 627) Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A Proposal: SP201000055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per day); SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, day care, and community activities in new 12,000 square building Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestral, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Character of Property: The property is characterized primarily by woods, with a cleared area approximately 500 feet north of the entrance drive to accommodate and existing 3,500 square foot building. Use of Surrounding Properties: The properties surrounding the parcel are included in the Rural Area Zoning District, and are characterized by large farms and wooded tracts of land. Factors Favorable: 1. The parcel is already partially developed to accommodate an existing health facility, and the proposed new facility would only minimally impact the character of the site. 2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the proposed uses. 3. The minor increase in traffic as a result of the proposed uses would not adversely impact traffic in the area. 4. The proposed uses would support the needs of rural area residents. Factor Unfavorable: Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these Special Use Permits, with conditions. SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center PC August 23, 2011 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: ERYN BRENNAN PLANNING COMMISSION: AUGUST 23, 2011 SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center Petition: PROJECTS: SP201000055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care; SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center PROPOSED: SP201000055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per day); SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, day care, and community activities in new 12,000 square building ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: SP201000055: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06) SP201000056: 10.2.2.1 Community center (reference 5.1.04) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 2256 Irish Rd (Route 6), approximately 1 mile east of the intersection with Porters Rd (Route 627) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128000000109A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville Character of the Area: This 16 acre parcel is primarily wooded (Attachment A). A 3,500 square foot health care facility and associated parking is located approximately 500 feet northeast of Irish Road (Route 6) (Attachment B). The properties surrounding the subject parcel are designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the Rural Area Zoning District, and are generally characterized by large farms and wooded tracts of land (Attachment C). The property is located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District; h owever, the existing building on the site is listed as non-contributing in the National Register Historic District Nomination. Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a child day care to accommodate up to 50 children per day year-round and an adult day care to accommodate up to 80 attendees per day . The applicant is also requesting a special use permit for a proposed new 12,000 square foot community center to accommodate the day care, dental clinic, and various community activities, including occasional evening meetings (Attachments D and E). The details of the proposed uses are provided in the chart below: Days per Week Hours of Operation Number of Employees Number of People Community Center 4 days per week max. 9am – 9pm *to allow occasional evening meeting space 5 max. 80 max. Dental Clinic Monday – Friday 8:00am – 5:00pm 5 max. 20 max. Child Day Care Monday – Friday 7am – 6pm 5 max. 50 max. SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center PC August 23, 2011 Staff Report Page 3 Planning and Zoning History: This special use permit request is the first planning application for this property since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance . Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include agriculture, forestry, and conservation, and the Plan encourages the preservation and protection of natural, historic, and scenic resources. The proposed day care and community center would not adversely impact these by-right uses and would support the following guiding p rinciples outlined in the Plan: Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and futur e Rural Area residents. Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburbanization of the Rural Areas. Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 31.6: 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, Staff does not anticipate any detrimenta l impacts to adjacent properties. There are only three residences within a one -third mile radius of the proposed development, and the new building would not be visible from any of the adjacent residences. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) calculated that the proposed uses would add to the Average Daily Traffic 517 vehicles per day (63 during the afternoon peak hour) to the existing 1200 vehicles per day on this section of Irish Road, and that this constitu tes a negligible impact on traffic in the area. VDOT also determined that the turn lane is sufficient to accommodate the new uses. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and The rural character of the district would not be change d by the construction of the new facility because the proposed building and parking area expansion has been located on the site to take advantage of already cleared space, which reduces the need for substantial tree clearing. Thus the proposed new facility would have only a minimal impact on the wooded character of the site. Additionally, the proposed development would not impact the stream buffer located to the west of the entrance. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordi nance, The purpose of the Rural Areas Zoning District is the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery to the rural areas; and conservation of natural, scenic, and h istoric resources. The proposed uses would support the needs of rural area residents and would not adversely impact rural area resources. This proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the Rural Areas zoning district. with uses permitted by right in the distric t, The subject property and the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under Rural Areas zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation of rural land. The proposed uses would not adversely impact the by-right uses in the district. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center PC August 23, 2011 Staff Report Page 4 Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses zoning compliance and additional regulations associated with the proposed day care and community center uses. Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Supplemental Regulations for day care facilities as follows: Each day care center or family day home shall be subject to the following: (Added 1 0- 3-01) a) No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social Services. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01) A condition of approval (Condition 2) requiring state licensure has been offered. b) Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01) The fire department has reviewed this application and has advised the appl icant that the day care use must comply with Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Codes. A conditional of approval (Condition 3) addressing periodic fire inspections has also been offered. c) These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall b e deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. (Amended 10 -3-01) The applicant has been advised of these requirements. Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.04 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Supplemental Regulations for community centers as follows: Any such use seeking public funding shall be reviewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall be mindful that such use is appropriate to villages, communities and the urban area of the comprehensive plan. The applicant has indicated that they are not seeking public funding. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process which assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the location requested. The Building Official has no objection to the application, and Health Department approval will be required as part of the site plan review. VDOT also has no objection to the proposed application. A condition of approval (Condition 3) addressing periodic fire inspections, as required by the supplemental regulations, has also been offered. SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center PC August 23, 2011 Staff Report Page 5 SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. The parcel is already partially developed to accommodate an existing health facility, and the proposed new facility would only minimally impact the character of the site. 2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the proposed uses. 3. The minor increase in traffic as a result of the proposed uses would not adversely impact traffic in the area. 4. The proposed uses would support the needs of rural area residents. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors for this application. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends app roval of Special Use Permit 201000055 and 201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center Day Care and Community Center, subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center for SP2010 -55 and SP2010-56, prepared by Meridian Planning Group, LLC, and dated December 17, 2010, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: The size and location of the proposed building The location of the parking area 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 hours of operation for the child day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 AM and shall end not later than 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 3. The hours of operation for the community center shall not begin earlier than 9:00 AM and shall end not later than 9:00 PM, a maximum of four (4) days per week. 4. The hours of operation for the dental office shall not begin earlier than 8:00 AM and shall end not later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 5. The maximum number of employees for the child day care, the commu nity center, and the dental office shall not exceed a total of 15 on any given day. 6. The maximum number of children for the child day care shall not exceed 50 per day; the maximum number of attendees for the community center shall not exceed 80 per day; and the maximum number of patients for the dental office shall not exceed 20 per day. 7. Any 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 SP 2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Day Care SP 2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) – Community Center PC August 23, 2011 Staff Report Page 6 no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by October 1, 2016, the permit s hall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Proposed SAIC Site Attachment B – Images of the Site Attachment C – Character of Area Attachment D – Concept Plan Attachment E – Floor Plan of Proposed Facility Return to PC actions letter Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Overlays 100 Year Floodplain Water Protection Ordinanc Parcel Info Parcels Proposed SAIC Site Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources July 29, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 208 ft Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Character of Area Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources July 29, 2011 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 587 ft Top: Existing facility and rear parking area where new building is proposed. Bottom: Front parking area proposed to be expanded. Top: Existing facility. Bottom: Entrance drive from Irish Road (Route 6). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 1 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Albemarle County Planning Commission August 23, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Members absent were Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia (UVA Architect – Ex- officio). Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Zobrist, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items SP-2010-00055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care; PROPOSED: SP-2010-00055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per day); SP201000056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, day care, and community activities in new 12,000 square building ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: SP201000055: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06) SP201000056: 10.2.2.1 Community center (reference 5.1.04) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 2256 Irish Rd (Route 6), approximately 1 mile east of the intersection with Porters Rd (Route 627) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128000000109A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville AND SP-2010-00056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center SP-2010-00055 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Day Care: Child day care (50 children per day) and adult day care (80 adults per da y); SP201000056 Southern Albemarle ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 2 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Intergenerational Center (SAIC) - Community Center: Community center for dental clinic, day care, and community activities in new 12,000 square building ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: SP201000055: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06) SP201000056: 10.2.2.1 Community center (reference 5.1.04) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 2256 Irish Rd (Route 6), approximately 1 mile east of the intersection with Porters Rd (Route 627) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128000000109A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Eryn Brennan) Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. This is an application for two special use permits. One is to allow a daycare center for both adults and children. The second is to allow for a community center to accommodate the daycare, an adult daycare facility, community events, and a new 12,000 square foot building. This is a 16 acre parcel that is primarily wooded and a 3,500 square foot health care facility and associated parking already exist on the site. The properties surrounding the subject parcel are designated rural areas in the Comprehensive Plan and are included in the rural area zoning district. The subject parcel is located in the southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. However, the existing building on the site is listed as noncontributing in the National Register Historic District nomination. The applicant is requesting two special use permits, the details of which are provided in the following chart. Days per Week Hours of Operation Number of Employees Number of People Community Center 4 days per week max. 9am – 9pm *to allow occasional evening meeting space 5 max. 80 max. Dental Clinic Monday – Friday 8:00am – 5:00pm 5 max. 20 max. Child Day Care Monday – Friday 7am – 6pm 5 max. 50 max. One is to allow a child daycare to accommodate up to 50 children per day year round; an adult daycare/community center to accommodate up to 80 attendees per day. The applicant has noted that the request will allow up to 80 attendees for the adult daycare/community center. It is based on a maximum number, which they only expect to achieve a few days a year. On average the applicant anticipates roughly 30 to 40 maximum per day for the proposed use. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 3 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center The applicant is also requesting a special use permit for a new 12,000 square foot community center to accommodate the daycare, dental clinic, and various community activities in cluding an occasional evening meetings. VDOT calculated the trip generation expected for the proposed uses and determined that the increase in traffic on Route 6 would be negligible. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. The parcel is already partially developed to accommodate an existing health facility, and the proposed new facility would only minimally impact the character of the site. 2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the proposed uses. 3. The minor increase in traffic as a result of the proposed uses would not adversely impact traffic in the area. 4. The proposed uses would support the needs of rural area residents. The applicant has been made aware that a site plan would be required in addition to health department approval. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors for this project. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-2010-55, Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center - Day Care and SP-2010-56, Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant invited to address the Planning Commission. Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. Ms. Porterfield asked why the request is for four days a week. Ms. Brennan replied that is what the applicant requested. Her understanding is the applicant does not expect this to be used on a daily basis for an adult daycare. The applicant can explain this better. Ms. Porterfield asked if staff asked the applicant to limit it. Ms. Brennan replied no. In fact, staff asked the applicant to expand the scope of the use based on recommendations from zoning just in case they wanted evening meetings and to have the option available to them to be able to use it. Ms. Porterfield suggested that it be expanded. The applicant can address the issue when they speak. Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 4 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Chris Murray, Business Developer Director, represented the applicant, JABA. Others present were Cheryl Cooper, Chief Operating Officer and Bill Hughes, Board Member of JABA and Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center. He asked Cheryl Cooper to explain the programming and the history of this project. Cheryl Cooper, Chief Operating Officer for JABA, said in 2008 a group of local citizens from Scottsville, Yancey, and Walton Schools, along with the Albemarle County Social Services, met to discuss the need for quality childcare in southern Albemarle. JABA learned of this interest and introduced the idea of an intergenerational center in which there would be a childcare program and a new community center for older adults replacing the centers in Esmont and Scottsville. Rod Manafold, CEO of Central Virginia Health Services, Inc., the parent organization of Southern Albemarle Family Practice, proposed sharing their property on Irish Road, the site being considered this evening. Later in 2008, a feasibility study conducted by Professor Shannon Jarrett, of Virginia Tech identified strong interest in having a childcare program for southern Albemarle and a positive reaction to this location. A community center meeting was held to present the project with good attendance and lots of interest in working on design and fundraising. Since that time work has continued on the conceptual design and program discussions between the friends of the Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center, JABA, and the YMCA as the proposed provider for the childcare program. In 2009, JABA held its public hearing in Scottsville, which included focus groups on the interest of the community for an intergenerational center. It was a very positive response. This project is a continuation of JABA’s desire to work with local jurisdictions to have an intergenerational community center in every county. They have partnered with local governments in Louisa, Greene, and Nelson. This is the opportunity to do the same in Albemarle County. These projects build on relationships and partnerships within each community to meet identified needs. In this case it is to provide a site for a quality childcare program and replace two aging facilities that are limiting the growth of programs for older adults in Albemarle County. Putting the child care and senior centers in the same facility, they are building on the opportunity for an intergenerational program where youth and adults share their skills, experience, learn from each other, and enjoy the company of each other. She thanked the Commission for their consideration of this site. Ms. Porterfield noted the reason she asked the question about the four day limit is that it seems that they don’t want to limit themselves. It is tougher to go small because they would have to come back to go bigger. If they really think that they are going to use it four days a week, but might use it eventually for seven days a week, she felt they should not limit them at this point. Ms. Cooper said that was great counsel and they were willing to accept that. Ms. Porterfield pointed out she was speaking specifically to the community center and the adult day care. For childcare they have always limited it to Monday through Friday. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 5 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. Deborah Cara apologized that she was not prepared because this is the first she was seeing all of this. She expressed her concern, as she was the key property owner that all this property abuts on. She was somewhat inquisitive to how people are saying this won’t affect her property. She raised concerns. Primarily she has cattle on this property. She owns the two properties that abut this proposal. She owns the adjacent property and another small property there. Rock Castle Creek is their main water source, which is her main concern. Someone came up her to property last year and asked if they could perk on her land and try to drill water because they could not find and perk for this facility. They are now having problems with a dry well. She has had to move her cattle off so far this year. The one house already has one dry well and a new one that is going dry. She is really concerned with the idea of suddenly increasing this facility by five times its size and what that will do to their water source. Additionally, she was concerned as a property owner that she really values her quiet. She did not want to have 80 screaming children in her backyard. She cares about lights at night, which would be disruptive to the woods and their ability to have night skies and other amenities. That is why they live in a rural community. She asked to discuss those issues. The idea of having a center is a good idea. She thinks that anything that helps benefit Esmont is a good idea, but was hoping that they could allay some of her concerns about the water usage and any impact it would be having on her farm. Mr. Zobrist asked if she received the notice for this hearing. Ms. Cara replied that she received the notice Saturday. It was just a sheet saying that it was a meeting. She had never seen all of the documents just reviewed. Ms. Brennan noted that the notification letter was mailed on August 8th. Mr. Zobrist suggested that she talk with Ms. Brennan. Generally, they like to get the notices out so that they can communicate with the staff and get their concerns aired. Ms. Cara said it was helpful to see all of the additional documents. Ms. Porterfield requested to ask a question. She questioned which property she owned. Ms. Cara replied that they owned the surrounding property. When they built the medical center, they gave property 20 years ago in order for them to get water. They have two dry wells right now. Ms. Porterfield suggested if they do have an outside play area they could go in one direction that was away from her property. Ms. Cara said anything they could do to keep down the lighting would be appreciated. In the winter time, they see the driveway lights. Mr. Zobrist noted that there is a lighting ordinance, which requires down lighting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 6 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Ms. Cara noted the main issue was the water and the noise. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Porterfield noted that staff had taken care of the outdoor lighting problem with condition 7, which indicates the full cut-off and shielded fixtures. The lighting should not be a problem. She assumed the applicant was aware of the water situation in that area. If the other Commissioners agreed, she would like to change condition 3 not to limit the number of days per week that the community center can operate from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. She doubts they would use all 7 days, but it gives them the opportunity. Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with that. Mr. Morris said he had no objections. He feels that the facilities in Louisa, Greene, and Nelson are all for five days a week. He requested the Commission ask the applicant to come forward again. Ms. Cooper said in all those cases they could be operational five days a week. In Greene they are open two days a week. In Nelson they are open two days a week. In Louisa they are open five days a week and have an adult daycare as well as their community center there. In those buildings they have other activities going on. A public library is in Greene. Nelson has an extension service and other activities. Ms. Porterfield asked if they have anything on Sundays. Ms. Cooper replied no. Ms. Porterfield suggested they limit it to Monday through Saturday. She was thinking if they are doing adult care there are people who work who have to somehow go to the store and do things like that. Therefore, they might need the adult care on Saturdays. Ms. Cooper noted the Charlottesville Center is open on Saturday for adult care. Ms. Porterfield suggested the condition allow it for six days Monday through Saturday. Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Franco noted condition 6 talks about the number of people or attendees per day. In the past it has always been a cap on the number of people there at one time versus over the course of a day. It is easier to count and enforce. He asked if that condition should be reworded. Ms. Brennan replied that zoning has looked over these conditions, did not express any concern, and wanted to make just one number for the day. However, it is something staff could entertain. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 7 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center Mr. Kamptner noted with schools and day cares they have typically put a hard cap rather than at any given time. Staff can look at that between now and the Board meeting. Mr. Franco asked to put that on the record that the motion be phrased to allow some change in that between now and the Board meeting. He would like at least to see some consistency. He understands the school and some of the other uses. However, when they talk about a community center it probably makes more sense to have a cap on the number of people there at any one period of time. Mr. Loach pointed out if they had sessions they could essentially exceed the limit even though they at any one time don’t exceed the limit. Mr. Morris agreed that was a good point. Ms. Porterfield asked if they want to let it go the way it is right now and then let staff work on that. Mr. Franco agreed that staff and the applicant would work on what is the right number between now and the Board meeting. Ms. Porterfield asked regarding the child care if he was happy with the maximum of 50. Mr. Franco agreed because that is the way they normally do it. Ms. Porterfield said when they get to the community center number they need to have a cap on the number of people there at any one period of time. When considering the community center amount of people to come staff and the applicant need to work out something that puts a cap on the number of people at any one time. MOTION: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP- 2010-00055 and SP-2010-00056 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center Day Care and Community Center, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. 1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center for SP2010-55 and SP2010-56, prepared by Meridian Planning Group, LLC, and dated December 17, 2010, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development: The size and location of the proposed building ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 23, 2011 8 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2010-55 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Daycare and SP-2010-56 Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Center – Community Center The location of the parking area 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 hours of operation for the child day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 AM and shall end not later than 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 3. The hours of operation for the community center and the adult daycare shall not begin earlier than 9:00 AM and shall end not later than 9:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 4. The hours of operation for the dental office shall not begin earlier than 8:00 AM and shall end not later than 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 5. The maximum number of employees for the child day care, the community center, and the dental office shall not exceed a total of 15 on any given day. 6. The maximum number of children for the child day care shall not exceed 50 per day; the maximum number of attendees for the community center shall not exceed 80 per day; and the maximum number of patients for the dental office shall not exceed 20 per day. (Staff and the applicant need to establish the maximum total number of attendees on site at any one time prior to Board review.) 7. Any outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by October 1, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (6:0). Mr. Zobrist said SP-2010-00055 and SP-2010-00056 would be forwarded with a recommendation for approval to the Board of Supervisors to a date to be determined. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing for the rezoning of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industry and HI Heavy Industry, which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential uses); to amend proffers. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg; and Ms. Brennan LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On June 1, 2011, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors voted to defer ZMA2010 -00009 and requested the applicant work with staff to amend and clarify th e proffers to ensure they are legally acceptable. DISCUSSION: The Board reviewed the attached proffers (Attachment A) on June 1, 2011, noting the staff report provided a number of outstanding issues with the proffers (Attachment D). While the minutes o f this Board meeting have not been approved and there remain some staff uncertainty as to the Board’s intent, staff understands the Board’s general consensus for changes to the proffers to be as follows: Proffer 1 is not necessary and could be eliminated if the applicant so chooses. Staff still believes this proffer is not necessary as other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regarding water and sewer would supersede this proffer (ex. Section 4.1 Area and Health Regulations Related to Utilities), but the applicant has chosen to keep the proffer which the Board left at the discretion of the applicant. Proffer 2 should be reworded to use the standard proffer language provided by staff to the applicant. The applicant reworded the proffer using the standard l anguage provided by staff. Proffer 3 is not necessary and should be removed. The applicant removed the proffer. Proffer 4 does not need to be revised. Staff believes this proffer needs to be further clarified as explained in the June 1, 2011 executive summary. (Renumbered Proffer 3 in September 26, 2011 proffer statement.) Proffer 5 should clarify the timing of constru ction and design of the buffer. The applicant revised the proffer to clarify the issues regarding design and timing of the buffer. (Renumbered Proffer 4 in September 26, 2011 proffer statement.) Proffer 6 could be eliminated if the applicant so chooses. The applicant removed the proffer. Proffer 7 should be clarified. After a great deal of discussion regarding this proffer, the applicant suggested eliminating the proffer since the expanded buffer area and vegetated berm proposed in proffer 4 is intended to mitigate impacts of the development on adjacent properties. Staff agreed that eliminating the proffer regarding parking would be acceptable if the applicant could obtain letters of support for the buffer as proposed in proffer 4 from the adjacent property owners. The applicant was able to obtain two letters of support and these have been included as Attachment C. T he applicant removed the proffer. Proffer 8 should be reworded to use the standard proffer language provided by staff to the applicant. The applicant reworded the proffer using the standard language provided by staff. (Renumbered Proffer 5 in September 26, 2011 proffer statement.) AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital October 5, 2011 Page 2 The revised proffers are attached as Attachment B. Zoning staff worked with the applicant to revise the proffers to ensure they meet the Board’s directions and are legally a cceptable. Staff finds that the proffers as proposed generally address the intent of the Board of Supervisor’s direction to clarify and amend the proffers. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the revised proffers. The County Attorney continues to advise that Proffer 1 should be removed and that Proffer 3 should be clarified to articulate the standards required to be met for road improvements. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff anticipates there will be no direct budget impact. Changing the zoning designation to Industrial may provide an opportunity for business development and employment that may potentially increase County revenues. RECOMMENDATIONS: The attached proffers as provided in Attachment B have been offered by the applicant to address proffer issue s discussed by the Board on June 1st. W hile those changes may reflect the Board’s consensus in that discussion, staff has noted that two of the proposed proffers may prove difficult to understand, complicating enforcement, and the County Attorney has advised that the proffers should be further amended. After the public hearing, the Board can approve the rezoning with the proposed proffers if the proffers have addressed the issues previously identified and discussed by the Board. ATTACHMENTS A – Proffers Reviewed by the Board on June 1 B – Proposed Proffers C – Adjacent Property Owner Letters of Support D – June 1, 2011 Executive Summary Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezoning of a 20.54 acre site zoned LI Light Industr y and HI Heavy Industry, which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use), to amend proffers. STAFF CONTACT(S): Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Brennan LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: June 1, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On February 17, 1988, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved ZMA1987 -19 to rezone a 20.54 acre site from R1 Residential to LI Light Industry and HI Heavy Industry. The rezoning included a proffered plan and proffers. The applicant is now seeking to amend the proffers associated with ZMA1987-19. On March 15, 2011 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA2010-00009 with the following expectations: 1. An interconnection between Northside D rive and the University of Virginia Foundation property shall be provided through a commitment to either dedicate right of way along the boundary with the Foundation property as an extension of a road through the subject property or through the reservation of a 25’ strip for a road along the shared property line with the Hall’s property, Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C5. 2. There shall be no parking on the south side of the buildings adjacent to Airport Acres. 3. The requested proffer changes will be made regarding a reduced buffer adjacent to Airport Acres as proposed by the applicant (from 150 to 50 feet with a four -foot high planted berm and a building setback of 75 feet; additionally, the building height restriction of 30 and 25 feet for any portion of a structure within 300 feet of Airport Acres will be eliminated). 4. Technical changes shall be made to other proffers. 5. The proffered plan shall be revised to reflect the amended proffers or the proffered the plan shall be removed. DISCUSSION: On April 4, 2011, the applicant submitted revised proffers to address the Planning Commission’s expectations, which included removal of the proffered plan. Following the applicant’s submittal, staff provided comments in an effort to simplify and clarify the proffers, to assure that they were in an acceptable form, and to address the Planning Commission’s expectations above (Attachment B). Following is a summary of staff’s comments Proffer 1: Staff recommended that this proffer , which restricts uses if public sewer is not available, be eliminated as unnecessary. Proposed uses not served by public sewer are already restricted by t he Health Department, which issues permits for onsite sewage disposal only for domestic waste. In addition, because the site is zoned Light Industry and Heavy Industry, any use not served by public sewer that proposes to discharge sewage other than domestic waste would require a special use permit. Proffer 2: Staff requested that this proffer be revised to use language previously accepted for such a proff er where, as here, the applicant proffers to prohibit uses otherwise allowed in the zoning district. In addition, the phrase in the proposed proffer that the prohibited uses “would include” those listed creates an ambiguity as to whether the list is exclusive or merely serves as an example. Proffer 3: Staff recommended that this proffer be deleted because Tax Map and Parcel Number 32 -22C, which is the subject of this proffer, does not exist. Proffer 4: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is does not provide who determines Northside Drive’s capacity, the capacity threshold, responsibility for constructing the road improvements or what those improvements would be. AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 2010-00009, Republic Capital June 1, 2011 Page 2 Proffer 5: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. The proffer need ed to specify when the buffer would be expanded, such as in conjunction with the first site plan, its length (a 10 -foot long berm would do little good) and location. Staff also requested that the proffer be revised to use language previously accepted for such a proffer where, as here, the applicant proffers to establish a berm or a similar buffer. Proffer 6: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. Staff recommended revisions to a number of key terms in the proffer, including changing “reasonably consistent” to “consistent” (in reference to the architectural style of the buildings) and changing “natural” to “neutral” in reference to the buildings’ colors. Proffer 7: Staff recommended that this proffer be revised because it is unclear. In addition, t he Planning Commission requested that there also be no loading in that 150 -foot zone. As written, the proffer allows travelways and loading areas in the 150-foot zone. Proffer 8: Staff requested that this proffer be revised to use language previously accepted for such a proffer where, as here, the applicant is proffering to reserve right -of-way for future dedication. This proffer is intended to address one of the Planning Commission’s expectations; however, the County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation have determined that the dedication of a 25 -foot strip of land along the this project’s boundary line with Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C5 would not be adequate to build a road connection to a future extension of Lewis and Clark Drive. The County Engineer has noted that the proffer has little tangible value to the County because: (1) the future extension is dependent upon acquiring an a dditional 25 feet of right- of-way from the abutting parcel; and (2) the proffered alignment, which includes two angle breaks along the property line, would not accommodate the required curvature of the road. After receiving the comment letter, the applica nt requested to go directly to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing. The applicant’s final proffer statement, dated May 23, 2011, is Attachment A. BUDGET IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the applicant has attempted to address four of the five expectations recommended by the Planning Commission, the proffers are not in a legally acceptable form for the reasons noted above. Thus , staff recommends that the Board defer holding a public hearing on the rezoning until the proffers are revised to address the issues noted herein or that it hold the public hearing and defer or deny the rezoning. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Proffers B – Applicant Comment Letter, dated May 4, 2011 C – 1988 Proffered Plan D – March 15, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Repo rt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 September 8, 2011 Justin Shimp P.O. Box 1113 Troy, VA 22974 RE: SP201000038 Badger Industrial & Critical Slopes Waiver Request Tax Map 32 Parcel 5B Dear Mr. Shimp: On August 9, 2011, the Albemarle County Planning Commission recommend denial of the above-noted Special Use Permit petition, by a vote of 5:1 and denied the Critical Slopes Waiver Request by a vote of 6:0. The Special Use Permit recommendation of denial was based on the following unfavorable factors: • Fill is shown within the floodway • Comp. Plan Open Space is disturbed • Uncertainties within the applicant floodplain models • Model shows the fill raising the flood elevation • Uncertainty with the Erosion Sediment Control plan, if approved • Proposal requires the disturbance of critical slopes The critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010-00038 was denied based on the fact the special use permit was recommended for denial to the Board of Supervisors and on the finding that the waiver would: - be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; and/or - be contrary to sound engineering practices; and/or - all four of the considerations listed in 18-4.2.5.a.3.a-d. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review the Special Use Permit petition and your appeal of the Planning Commissions denial of the Critical Slopes Waiver and receive public comment at their meeting on October 5, 2011. It is the Board of Supervisor’s preference that a public hearing 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. Therefore any new or additional information regarding your application, including final proffers if applicable, must be submitted to our office at least twenty-three (23) days prior to your scheduled hearing date, which is October 5, 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 hesit ate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Phil Custer Civil Engineer I Current Development Division Cc: HMC Holdings LLC 995 Windsor RD Charlottesville VA 22901--5044 SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP-2010-00038 Badger Industrial Staff: Phil Custer Planning Commission Public Hearing: August 9, 2011 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To be determined Owners: HMC Holdings, LLC Applicant: HMC Holdings, LLC represented by Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering Acreage: 12.05 acres Special Use Permit: Request to allow fill in the floodplain to create more buildable area (Section 30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance) TMP: TM 32, Parcel 5B Location: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29 Existing Zoning and By-right use: Light Industrial (LI) – industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use); Entrance (EC) – overlay to protect protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; Airport Impact Area (AIA) – overlay district to prevent obstructions to airport operations and minimize adverse air port-related impacts on properties; Flood Hazard (FH) – overlay district to provide safety and protection from flooding Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes (SP 2010-006 and SP 2010- 011) Development Area: Community of Piney Mountain Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Piney Mountain Character of Property: The site is developed and includes a one-story office fronting a larger industrial/warehouse building with paving surrounding the structure. There is a wooded area sloping down to floodplain to the south and east. The site is partially screened by a 1-story building on TM 32 Parcel 5B1 that shares a common wall which was subdivided in 2010. Use of Surrounding Properties: The Camelot residential subdivision is located across US 29 to the northwest and the UVA Research Park is across US 29 to the southwest. Industrially zoned properties including the Clayton Homes display lot and the International Auto Sport site are situated immediately to the north. The NGIC/DIA facilities are further to the north. The North Fork of the Rivanna is located to the east and south, with residential uses beyond. Factor Favorable: 1. The proposal increases developable land in the development areas. Factor Unfavorable: 1. The fill is shown within the FEMA-defined SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 2 floodway. 2. The area of fill is shown on the Open Space Plan. 3. There are some technical uncertainties with the revised floodplain models provided by the applicant. 4. The model shows the proposed fill raising the flood level. 5. The proposal does not take into account for temporary disturbance and filling of land within the floodplain for ESC measures. 6. The fill activity would result in the disturbance of critical slopes. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the factors noted as unfavorable, staff recommends denial of this special use permit application. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 3 STAFF PERSON: Phil Custer PLANNING COMMISSION: August 9, 2011 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined SP 2010-00038 Badger Industrial PETITION PROJECT: BADGER INDUSTRIAL (SP 2010-00038) PROPOSAL: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow expanded use of industrially zoned property. PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 - 34 units/acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Piney Mountain ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29 TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 5B MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The subject parcel was developed in 1968 as Electronics Concepts, Inc., and later as the Badger Powhatan Company. A brick-faced office fronts larger warehouse structures, and paving extends around all sides of the building. In 2010 the original site (south of the mobile home sale property) was subdivided to carve out a 4.75 acre parcel along the frontage of Route 29. Wooded areas and steep slopes that descend to the North Fork of the Rivanna River exist on the east and south sides of the property. An intermittent stream runs west to east on the property from an outlet at the eastern edge of the fill. The stream is considerably eroded due to its urbanized drainage area which includes the property under review, a large portion of Route 29, and Camelot Drive. With TMP 32-5B1, the 12.05-acre parcel anchors the southern end of a block of industrial land situated along US 29 opposite Camelot Drive. To the north, a mobile home sales business and an auto distribution warehouse facility are located on industrial p roperty. Further north, the NGIC/DIA facility includes large office buildings off of Boulders Road. Residential developments of varying scale (including the Camelot subdivision on the west side of US 29 and Rivers Edge to the southeast across the North Fork of the Rivanna) are located in the general area. (See Attachment A, GIS Aerial Photograph) SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow fill in the floodplain to expand the developable land of the existing parcel. For all practical purposes, no expansion of the existing site can be achieved without filling in the floodplain which currently climbs about halfway up the approximately 20ft tall slope on the east and south ends of the storage area surrounding the warehouse building. The applicant is proposing to fill approximately an additional 180ft into the floodplain to the east and south for a total length of 900ft around the parcel. The new plateau would accommodate a new 40,000sf (or larger) warehouse, associated parking, and necessary stormwater management facilities. (See Attachment D) In addition to the need for a Special Use Permit for filling within the floodplain, the proposal also is contingent on a waiver of 18 -4.2 for the disturbance of critical slopes along the eastern and southern slopes of the property. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 4 PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY This property has the following relevant history: SDP-0000119: Electronics Concepts, Inc.: Site plan approved 7/10/1968. SDP-000025: Sprinkler Systems Building Addition: Site plan approved 5/10/1973; service drive approved 5/28/1974. SDP-000026: Badger Powhatan Parking Lot: Site plan amendment for additional parking approved 12/18/1975. VA-1977-066: ATO Properties (Badger Powhatan): Variance for reduction in sign setback approved 11/10/1977. SDP-1992-82: Badger Powhatan: minor amendment for snack bar building signed 12/6/1992. SUB-2010-13: A 2-lot subdivision for parcel 5B was approved on 4/2/2010. The action divides the parcel along a line that runs north/south through the building. The auto body shop is proposed for the western part of the building and the site. SP-2010-06: Baugh Auto Body: Special Use Permit to allow reuse of an existing building for an automotive repair shot; Approved 9/8/2010 SP-2010-11: Baugh Rental Car Outdoor Storage: Special Use Permit for outdoor storage of rental cars associated with the auto body shop reviewed with SP -2010-06. Approved 9/8/2010 CONFORMITY WITH THE PLACES29 MASTER PLAN/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Future Land Use Map in the Places29 Master Plan shows two designations on this site. (Please see Attachment B GIS Comprehensive Plan Areas) The first is Office/Research & Development (R&D)/Flex/Light Industrial, with which the proposed use is compatible. However, the east and south sides of the property are designated Privately Owned Open Space/Environmental Features because there is a combination of natural features in these areas, including the stream, the 100 -year floodplain, and steep slopes. These features are also shown on the Places29 Parks & Green Systems Map, along with a proposed trail along the stream. As indicated on page 4-13 of the Master Plan, examples of the only types of primary and secondary uses expected in areas designated Open Space are: public, semi-private, or private parks or recreational fields; greenways and blueways; and trails and paths. As stated on page 4-25 of the Master Plan, “This design ation on the Parks & Green Systems Map combines significant clusters and contiguous areas of steep slopes, the 100 -year floodplain, and stream buffers with larger areas of privately owned open space in existing developments. … Where this designation extends onto private property, it indicates that steep slopes are present and disturbance should be avoided.” Staff believes that filling in the floodplain to expand the use of the property is not compatible with the Places29 Master Plan. COMFORMITY WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY The County’s Economic Development Policy contains several objectives and strategies that speak to the need to balance the need for economic development with preservation of natural features that contribute to the quality of lif e for residents and workers in the County: OBJECTIVE I: Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 5 STRATEGIES: 1. Protect through diligent growth management efforts the County's distinctive natural and man-made qualities to maintain its attractiveness as a place to live and work. Support those projects that meet the intent of the Neighborhood model form of development, i.e., offer a mix of uses and a balance of jobs -to-housing in our development areas. 2. Maintain the relationship of high quality schools and public services and an outstanding level of natural and cultural amenities to positive economic development, and maintain these attributes. OBJECTIVE IV: Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development, along with environmental impact and standard of living impact. STRATEGY: 2. Recognize that County residents place importance on job opportunities and economic growth, but not at the expense of the prot ection and preservation of water quality and quantity, natural resources, farmland, historic areas, and open space. Staff believes that filling in the floodplain to expand the use of the property is not compatible with the Economic Development Policy beca use it runs counter to many of the environmental caveats expressed within the policy. STAFF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION-SPECIAL USE PERMIT Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: 31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The model provided by the applicant shows that the proposed fill will raise the floodplain on adjacent properties. Engineering has discovered issues with the model that must be addressed before a complete analysis can be provided with any degree of confidence. Please see Attachment H for a list of issues Engineering has discovered with the model. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and The warehouse use meets the requirements of the Light Industrial Zoning District as long as no hazardous material listed in section 18 -27.2.1.17 is stored on site. that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 30.3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Flood Hazard Overlay District: It is intended that the flood hazard overlay district hereby and hereafter created shall be for the purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, these provisions are intended to restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control mea sures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man -made environment. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 6 It is further intended that these provisions shall be adequate for qualification and continuation of Albemarle County on the regular program of the National Flood Insurance Program as administered by the Federal Insurance Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To these ends, provisions have bee n developed in accordance with regulations governing the regular program. Further along into this portion of Zoning Ordinance (30.3.03.2), more guidelines are written: In order to comply with the requirements of the regular program of the National Flood Insurance Program, no construction or other development shall be undertaken without prior issuance by the zoning administrator of a development permit. The purpose of such permit shall be to determine the effects of the proposed construction or development on the flood carrying capacity of the water course. No development permit shall be issued for any use, structure, activity, fill, new construction, substantial improvements or other development which in the opinion of the county engineer would result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge. In making such determination, the county engineer shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, stat e or other source and may request assistance from the Federal Insurance Administration, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and such other qualified agencies and persons as he deems appropriate. An important issue to recognize with this application is that the proposal shows fill within the approved FEMA floodway, which is not allowed by-right or by Special Use Permit in Section 30.3.05.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment C SP 2010-00038 Sheet 2 of 3) The applicant has acknowledged this conflict and has stated that he feels that the current floodway line in the FEMA model is incorrect and intends to submit a Letter of Map Revision to FEMA to modify it. The applicant wishes the county to act on the applica tion based on the condition that FEMA will approve the relocation of the floodway line closer to the river bank. Staff has been informed by the County Attorney’s office that this is possible procedurally but Staff does not feel that it is appropriate to act until input or approval from FEMA is given. Even ignoring the issue with the existing floodway line, commentary can be provided on the proposal’s conflict with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in the commentary regarding the Comprehensive/Places29 plan, the proposed fill is shown within an area marked as open space. Open spaces are generally located in areas where there are natural resources to be protected. The proposal also shows an increase to the flood elevation upstream of the sit e. Based on staff analysis, approval of this permit would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the ordinance and , in fact, it would be in direct conflict with letter of the ordinance. This request cannot be approved because it is in direct conflict with the provisions of Section 30.3.03.2. with uses permitted by right in the district, The warehouse use meets the requirements of the Light Industrial Zoning District as long as no hazardous material listed in section 18 -27.2.1.17 is stored on site. However, for the reasons stated above, approval would be inconsistent with uses permitted by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in s ection 5.0 for this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 7 At this time, staff cannot conclusively state that the proposed fill would not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare . Generally, it is not good engineering practice to allow fill within the floodplain. Specifically, the floodplain models submitted by the applicant show an increase to the existing flood elevations all along the river. Most importantly, the flood elevation at the bridge shows an increase of more than 2ft between the existing model and the model modified by the applicant. (See Attachments F and G) However, this jump in elevation occurs not when fill is added, but when the new cross-sections (9.73, 9.6, and 9.54) are included in the model. The reasons for such a jump are unclear and staff has requested that the applicant explain this considerable increase in flood elevation . Staff cannot find that this request is in harmony with the intent to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public. STAFF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION-CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER REQUEST 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) allow s the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment E), and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the ordinance as outlined in 18- 4.2.5.a.2. Staff’s recommendation for this waiver request is detailed under the subheader Section 4.2.5.a.3. Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance : The applicant is requesting a waiver to disturb critical slopes to develop the parcel in accordance with the application plan (Attachment E). The disturbance to critical slopes is needed to provide additional buildable area for a 40,000sf warehouse (which could be much larger), parking, and stormwater management areas. The majority of the slopes being disturbed are grassed, manmade slopes that were constructed after the approval of SDP-025. (See Attachment D) These slopes are roughly 2:1, and may be steeper in some areas. A small portion of the critical slope disturbance occurs in naturally occurring slopes within the intermittent stream channel. Areas Acres Total site 12.05 total acres approximately Critical slopes 2.24 ac. 18.6% of site Critical slopes disturbed 1.28 ac. ~57% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: Staff finds none of the proposed critical slope disturbance to be exempt. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2: “movement of soil and rock” Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will minimize any movement of soil. Before construction occurs an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be approved by the county. However, the proposed limit of fill leaves inadequate room for sediment control measures such as diversion dikes and sediment traps. These measures will likely require fill SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 8 which is prohibited unless acknowledged by this special use permit or is out of the floodway. Staff is concerned that proper Erosion and Sediment Control measures cannot be established with the current layout. “excessive stormwater runoff” A stormwater management plan must be approved for this project prior to construction. The plan will collect as much of the runoff as possible and direct it to Stormwater Management facilities. The rainfall falling on the newly created slopes will not be considerably more excessive than the runoff on the existing slopes. “siltation” Please see “movement of soil and rock” section. “loss of aesthetic resource” Approximately half of these slopes appear on the Open Space plan as an area of critical resources. Staff opinion is that the proposed disturbance of critical slopes , shown in the Open Space Plan as a critical resource, will result in the loss of aesthetic resource. “septic effluent” This development will be served by public sewer. Section 4.2.5.a.3 Findings The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; and at least one of the following: 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 strict application of section 4.2 will forward the public purpose by preventing the loss of aesthetic resources and minimizing the potential for soil and rock movement. 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 alternatives have been proposed. c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the develop er 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 The property is already developed. Denial of this request would not 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. SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 9 Staff can identify no public purpose that would be served by granting this waiver. Staff is unable to recommend that any of the findings of the ordinance can be made . Staff opinion is that approval of this request may result in the movement of soil and rock and will result in the loss of aesthetic resources. For these reasons staff recommends denial of the critical slopes waiver. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this request. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposal increases developable land in the development areas. Staff has identified the following fact ors unfavorable to this request. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The fill is shown within the FEMA-defined floodway. 2. The area of fill is shown as a resource in the Open Space Plan. 3. There are some technical uncertainties with the revised floodplain models provided by the applicant. 4. The model shows the proposed fill raising the flood level. 5. The proposal does not take into account for temporary disturbance and filling of land within the floodplain for ESC measures. 6. The fill activity would result in the disturbance of critical slopes. RECOMMENDED ACTION In order to approve this request the provisions of Section 31.6.1 (for the special use permit) and the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a) have to be adequately and affirmatively addressed. Staff analysis is that approval of this request would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.6.1 and 4.2.5(a) as outlined in the unfavorable factors comments above and therefore staff recommends denial of both requests. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION Two actions will be required by the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors d oes not need to act on the Critical Slopes Waiver. A. Action on the Critical Slope Waiver I. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to move to approve this critical slope waiver: Move to approve the critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010 -00038 (with any conditions deemed necessary). II. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to move to deny this critical slope waiver: SP 2010-38 Badger Industrial PC Staff Report Page 10 Move to deny the critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010-00038 based on the finding that the waiver would: -be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; and/or - be contrary to sound engineering practices; and/or -all four of the considerations listed in 18-4.2.5.a.3.a-d. B. Recommendation of the Special Use Permit I. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: Move to recommend approval of SP 2010 -00038. II. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this rezoning: Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00038 based on the factors unfavorable as identified by staff or Move to recommend denial for the following reasons: ATTACHMENTS A. GIS Aerial Photograph B. GIS Comprehensive Plan Areas C. SP 2010-00038 Sheet 2 of 3, dated 6/1/2011 D. SP 2010-00038 Sheet 3 of 3, dated 6/1/2011 E. Applicant’s critical slope waiver request letter F. Bridge Cross-Section, Existing Flood Model G. Bridge Cross-Section, Applicant’s Flood Model H. Engineering memo from the review of Applicant’s floodplain m odels, dated July 15th, 2011 I. Review Letter provided to Applicant after 2 nd submittal, dated July 6th 2011 Return to PC actions letter Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLParcel InfoParcelsMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesJuly 27, 2011GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)200 ft Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLParcel InfoParcelsComp Plan Land Use InfoPlaces29 Master Plan LanAirport DistrictUrban Mixed Use (in CentUrban Mixed Use (in areaCommercial Mixed UseUrban DensityNeighborhood DensityOffice / R & D / Flex / LightLight IndustrialHeavy IndustrialInstitutionalPublic Open SpacePrivately Owned Open SpMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesJuly 25, 2011GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)300 ft 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 360 370 380 390 400 410 NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER Plan: N. FORK RIVANNA RIVER-M1 Floodway-Final 7/13/2011 ROUTE 29 - S.B.L. Station (ft)Elevation (ft)Legend EG 100-YEAR WS 100-YEAR EG FLOODWAY WS FLOODWAY Crit 100-YEAR Crit FLOODWAY 4.0 ft/s 4.5 ft/s 5.0 ft/s 5.5 ft/s 6.0 ft/s 6.5 ft/s 7.0 ft/s Ground Ineff Bank Sta .12 .06 .12 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 360 370 380 390 400 410 NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER Plan: North Fork w FILL 7/27/2011 ROUTE 29 - S.B.L. Station (ft)Elevation (ft)Legend EG FLOODWAY EG 100-YEAR WS FLOODWAY WS 100-YEAR Crit 100-YEAR Crit FLOODWAY 3.5 ft/s 4.0 ft/s 4.5 ft/s 5.0 ft/s 5.5 ft/s 6.0 ft/s 6.5 ft/s Ground Ineff Bank Sta .12 .06 .12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project: Badger Industrial [SP201000038] Plan preparer: Mr. Justin Shimp, PE; Shimp Engineering, P.C. Owner or rep.: HMC Holdings, LLC Plan received date: 5 July 2011 Date of comments: 15 July 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer Engineering has reviewed the FEMA models associated with the second submittal of the Special Use Permit Application for fill within a floodplain (SP-2010-00038). The models were received 5 July 2011. The following comments require further clarification from the applicant or modifications to the model: 1. For each model (“Corrected,” “New,” and “with Fill”), please list each modification you have made to the existing model. For instance, in the “Corrected” model, please note how many feet each side of the floodway limits were moved and for which cross-sections. Another example, for the “New” model, please clarify which models were updated with county topography (it looks as though none of the existing cross-sections in any of the new models were) and what “among other items” meant in the Readme file. It is difficult to determine what modifications were made to each file by exploration. 2. Why does adding the three new crosssections (without fill) raise the floodplain elevation throughout the model? The difference between the output tables of “Existing” and “New” is between 0.6ft and nearly 2ft. This seems to indicate that something may be wrong with the entire model if a crossection, several thousand feet upstream, is affected by simply entering new cross- sections at the Badger site. 3. Similarly, the “with Fill” floodplain model shows higher flood elevations throughout the whole model than the “New” model. I believe FEMA requires the study be carried to the point where the impact of the fill has no affect on the existing flood elevations 4. Though the fill reduces the flood carrying capacity of the river, the model “with Fill” shows that the floodplain is actually lowered in the area of fill when compared to the “New” model. This is counterintuitive. Was there another modification or assumption in this model that might affect the floodplain elevation in this area of fill? 5. When determining the floodway location, it seems Method 4 or 5 should primarily be used, as stated in the Hec-RAS user’s manual. These methods require that the floodplain carrying capacity be reduced equally on both sides of the cross-section. In one of the cross-sections, the floodway has been moved farther south and east away from the proposed development. It seems that Hec- RAS can generate the location of these limits of the floodway internally and that the user override (Method 1) should only occur at the very last step for “further refinement”: “The input data for method 5 consists of a target water surface increase and a target energy increase. The program objective is to match the target water surface without exceeding the target energy.” I would suspect FEMA would not accept any modification to the floodway that was not primarily relying on Method 4 or 5. The modication to the floodway should be reviewed/approved by FEMA before the models are submitted to the county for review. 7-15-2011_2nd submittal_FEMA Model Review Memo.doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 1 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval Albemarle County Planning Commission August 9, 2011 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chair; and Don Franco. Commissioners absent was Duane Zobrist, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Phil Custer, Engineer; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner, and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items : SP-2010-00038 Badger Industrial PROPOSED: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow expanded use of industrially zoned property. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use), EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access, AIA - Airport Impact Area - Overlay to protect the airport and FH - Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference fa cilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths in the Community of Piney Mountain ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: This fill is proposed adjacent to the North Fork of t he Rivanna River at the former Badger Powhatan site. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200-00-00-005B0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Phil Custer) Phil Custer, Engineer with Community Development, presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. He asked if everyone had received the memo written by Bill Fritz and Amelia McCulley dated August 8th. They will get to that part of the presentation later on. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow fill in the floodplain to expand the dev elopable land of the existing parcel. The site was formerly known as Badger Powhatan. The Planning Commission and Board considered the special use permit for the front of the property last year. The site is zoned Light Industrial and currently contains warehouse uses. The proposal is for fill in the floodplain and disturbance of critical slopes as shown. Most of the critical slopes are from the development of site plan 025, which was done in the late 70’s. The remainder of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 2 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval critical slopes are within a stream that is eroded from a pipe that contains water from Route 29. The open space line is delineated from the floodplain. The applicant’s proposal shows the main aspect of the plan is to fill an additional 180 feet towards the river into the floodplain to the east and south for a total length of 900 feet around the parcel. The new plateau would accommodate a new 40,000 square foot (or larger) warehouse, associated parking, and necessary storm water management facilities . What is proposed on top of the fill is not as important as the fill. The building can move around and parking could be smaller or larger in relationship to the building. What is important here is the fill because the warehouse is an allowed use in Light Industrial. Essentially the memo from Bill Fritz says there are two zones in the Floodplain Hazard Overlay District. One being the floodway and the other the floodway fringe. Each district has its list of by right and special permit uses. Fill is not listed in either category within the floodway. It is allowed by special use permit in the floodway fringe. The memo from Mr. Fritz and Ms. McCulley simply stated that the review of this application should consider only fill in the floodway fringe. In terms of definition, he noted a standard cross section that he took from the FEMA Model. The floodway is in the center and the fringes on the outside. They would be able to fill into the floodway fringe either on the left or right side of the exhibit. The proposal fills within the floodway, which is actually staff’s largest concern with the proposal. They have other concerns with the project including the disturbance into the areas marked as open space, uncertainties with the model that they reviewed, and questions regarding t he erosion and sediment plan if the special use permit was approved to the limits of the floodway as proposed by the applicant. If they approve fill in the special use permit to the limits of the floodway they are really limited to what they do erosion control wise past the floodway line. They are boxing themselves into a situation as having to either try to get by with silt fence or not filling in the floodway because most of the measures they would use to protect fill of this kind would be sediment tr aps and basins, which would require fill. If they were filling by the special use permit to the floodway line, they would not be able to go past that. For those reasons, staff is recommending denial of both the critical slopes waiver and the fill in th e floodplain. He offered to answer any questions about the application. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. Mr. Lafferty asked staff to go back to the cross section. He asked what is the blue line. Mr. Custer replied the blue line was not important, but just a section of the model. The outputs give speeds, which is showing there are different speeds within the floodplain. The deeper the section the faster it is going. That is what it is indicating. As it gets farther out and shallower, it just s lows down. It is color designated. Mr. Lafferty asked if the fringe is defined by the speed of the water. Mr. Custer replied the fringe is essentially the area that can be filled and only raise the floodplain elevation 1 foot. FEMA computes these for some of the larger floodplains they have in the County. In the model, they have set these lines. They set them by taking the cross section and the program finds out how far they can fill, which essentially creates walls from both sides. By taking out areas of the cross section the water needs to go some place and it goes up. As soon as the water goes up 1 foot that is where the floodway fringe line is. It is a little tricky doing it inside the model. Justin will get into this. However, he has some doubts of the logistics of the floodway line. Mr. Lafferty asked if this would be moving the man-made critical slope just further out. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 3 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval Mr. Custer replied that it would be filling over top of the man-made critical slopes and establishing another man-made critical slope closer to the river. Mr. Loach noted in the report it says the model provided by the applicant shows that the proposed fill was raised to the floodplain on adjacent properties. He asked what the implications are to these properties. Mr. Custer replied that there was no developed land on the adjacent side. There are some questions about the model that they have. The applicant gave three models. There are some uncertainties there. However, there are no houses near this and it is a critical slope on the other side of the river. Ms. Porterfield asked if he was saying it would not affect the houses on the other side of the river . Mr. Custer replied yes. There is some question. The floodplain model they show does show the water getting closer to the bottom of the Route 29 bridge. That is staff’s biggest concern. Staff will have to work things out with the applicant at the next submittal. Ms. Porterfield asked what he thought the different was between the deck and the top of the river would be in an 100-year flood. Mr. Custer replied that it would be touching it, which is what the model shows now. He would qualify that the existing floodplain model does not contain any cross sections of where a flood is going. Therefore, what the applicant has provided in the model are three or four additional cross sections with the existing condition. He has run the model to update it. Then he has provided another model that shows what the impacts of the fill is. The impact of the fill in relationship to th e 29 bridge comes up once you add those cross sections. It is not once the fill is added. There are some questions. He could not say that it was the fill that was doing it. It might just be a quirk in the model that they have not quite figured out yet. If that was the case and he felt comfortable with the model, that would be the lead bullet in this presentation. However, there is a lot of uncertainty in this. Ms. Porterfield said the question would be if they had a really bad flood and thin gs coming down the river and knocking the bridge out that is what she is trying to ask. Mr. Custer replied that the existing model is not far off. It is probably 18” or 1’. That is what the model says with all their assumptions. Ms. Porterfield said at this point the scenario she was talking about could happen now without any more fill in the fringe. Mr. Custer replied yes. Mr. Lafferty said the applicant indicates he approached FEMA to establish exactly where the floodplain is. He asked how long does that process take with FEMA. Mr. Custer replied that he did not, but it was not quick. Mr. Loach pointed out the section on public safety, health, and welfare states at this time the staff cannot conclusively state that the proposed fill would have any negative effects on the public health, safety, or general welfare. In the conclusion, it says staff cannot find that the request is in harmony with the intent to protect health, safety, and general welfare. He asked if there is some contradiction there. What does staff mean when they say it cannot find that this request is in harmony. Mr. Fritz said this is one of those types of applications because it relies on so much technical analysis. What they are finding there is he can’t make an absolute finding one way or the other. So barring the ability to make the affirmative finding that is why there is a statement that they can’t find it in harmony . ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 4 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval With the information they have available to do the technical analysis he can’t make a definitive conclusion as to what the entire impacts are going to be that it is going to cause a specific harm. However, they look at special use permits that they have to make affirmative findings. Failing making that affirmative finding they can’t find that it is in harmony with the intent to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare because there may be potential impacts. They can’t confirm that. It is written that way. Mr. Loach noted that if staff is telling him there is a potential for harm that is a significant finding. Mr. Fritz said he did not know that they were telling them that it is, but they can’t tell them that it won’t be. He questioned if that is a fair question because of the level of technical analysis that has occurred on this cross section. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Justin Shimp, with Shimp Engineering, said he represented the applicant on this project. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. The reason he proposed the application in this manner with a conditional FEMA approval is the things they were discussing. It is really very complicated to deal with. However, there are set federal guidelines. The model goes off to FEMA and they say it is good or it is not. The third party makes the call basically on that regard. • Our proposal is to seek approval from the County to obtain fill up into what he believes to be the correct floodway line, which is allowed. The difference here in what staff ha s come up with is their argument, which he disagrees with, is that the floodway line represents this set line map. He was stating that it represents a volume of water that has to go down the river safely and the detail of that location defined by FEMA thr ough some very detailed technical guidelines. What they are looking to do is get the Commission’s input and the County’s approval on this concept before all of that engineering is done. The engineering will dictate how far they can go within these guidelines. However, that will be done after they weigh in. They seek the conditional approval first. Then they will deal with FEMA should the County view this as an appropriate use. To be clear there will never be fill placed in the floodway. If the line were not amended, then what he was showing would not happen. • They are seeking to place fill in the floodplain (or floodway fringe) for the purpose of increasing available useable industrial land to provide for additional space for industrial and commercial businesses who wish to operate in Albemarle County. • We seek conditional approval to place fill in an area formally occupied by the “floodway” pending FEMA approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to correct the maps for this particular section of the North Fork Rivanna River. • Under no circumstances would permanent fill be placed in the floodway • Approval should be made conditional on FEMA approval of the LOMR. Should that document not be approved, the special use permit becomes void. Before they go through that process with FEMA they want to know what the County thinks about the land use. Background: • Why do we think this can be done: 1) Special use permits are often if not always granted with conditions, which if not met, void the special use permit. Consider the example of the relationship between the County, the Army Corp., and Stream Buffers. An application could be approved with the condition of USACE approval for a stream crossing, without that approval from an outside agency. 2) The flood hazard maps should not be considered “precise” documents. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 5 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval 3) A similar application was processed and approved in May 2008. SP-2007-0063 “5th Street Development” was approved with a nearly identical FEMA issue: A project he reviewed with a similar issue was SP -2007-00063, 5th Street Development where approval was given subject to FEMA’s approval of the floodplain map revision. This is an example that shows that these things do change. RE: SP-2007-00063 5th Street Development Tax Map Parcel 76-55A and Tax Map Parcel 76M1-1 “On May 14, 2008, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action on SP #2007 -00063, 5th Street Development to allow a special use permit for fill in the floodplain on Tax Map Parcel 76-55A and Tax Map Parcel 76M1-1 in the Scottsville District. This special use permit was approved based on the following conditions:” “The County Engineer’s receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. The applicant must obtain a map revision, a letter of map revision, or a letter of amendment as required from the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence;” In August 8, 2008, this map was revalidated. So three or four months after the plan was approved the study was confirmed and that met one of the criteria of the special use permit. A Brief Technical Explanation: • From the Current FIS for Albemarle County published by FEMA: “One Aspect of floodplain management involves the balancing of economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For the purposes of the NFIP a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management . Under this concept, the area of the 100 year flood plain is divided into a floodway and floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain area’s that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100 year flood can be carried without any substantial increases in flood heights” The definition of the floodway, as Mr. Custer said, is really just a tool by which the County will know where the important waters are for transporting the river in a flood stage and the backwater fringe area. He noted his site as it relates to the floodway. The hatched area is the floodway. Then the line just over 50’ or so is the floodway fringe. His opinion is that those two lines are too close together. The floodway line should be over closer to the river, which is what the math suggests. That is why he has drawn the plan as he has. What they are looking for is the Commission’s opinion, blessing, and recommendation on using this industrial zoned property. They desire to know if the Commission believes that utilizing under used portions of industrial zoned property in the development area is appropriate in this situation with the clear understanding that: 1. Prior to placement of any fill, FEMA shall approve a LOMR for the parcel based upon more accurate engineering data showing the revised location of the floodway line and that; 2. No fill shall be placed within the corrected floodway area. Why should this be supported? • Industrial property in the development area’s have an economic value to the County. The potential benefit to the County is upwards of a $5 Million Dollar tax base increase and the addition of ~ 40 new Jobs in the area. • Add to the growth area? Or utilize existing parcels more effectively? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 6 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval • The river/floodplain is protected because the SP approval is contingent on FEMA’s review and approval of the floodway revision and fill in the floodplain. This data shall be reviewed by their experts to determine if the floodway maintains adequate capacity. • With approval of the SUP the applicant will repair the badly eroded gull ey flowing through the stream buffer area to the North Fork Rivanna. • With the approval of the SUP the applicant will agree to provide for water quality treatment for the existing parking lot on parcel 5B with the development of the site plan for the new f ill area. Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Shimp to go back to the two things he would improve, which included the parking lot. Mr. Shimp replied that there was an old pipe that was put in from Route 29 to drain back through the site and on to the river. It is literally now a 10’ deep eroded gully. He felt that Mr. Custer has seen the gully and could attest to what it is. If they are going to be back there working, it would be appropriate to repair that all the way out to the river. Mr. Lafferty asked if they had applied to FEMA and when did they expect a response. Mr. Shimp replied that it could take three to four months. It can be a long and expensive process. Mr. Lafferty asked if they were looking for approval before they commit to the expensive process. Mr. Shimp replied he thought the idea is to get a buy in on the land use question in whether this is appropriate before they go and get all of the final documents. If in fact he is wrong, then it a ll goes away. The application would become void because the LOMR could not be approved. Mr. Smith asked if the FEMA cross sections are correct what effect does that have if they were to do the fill upstream. Mr. Shimp replied assuming the math is correct today if they applied fill to the limits of the floodway line the most it would raise the elevation is 1’. It would really be less than that because they would not build a retaining wall straight up like a true wall. It would be back. Therefore, it would not be a true 1’, but something less than 1’ would be the maximum. There being no further question, Mr. Morris invited public comment. Jo Higgins said she was very familiar with this property. Currently there is a major pump station under construction in the northeast corner. There was a previous approval for critical slopes disturbance for the Albemarle County Service Authority to do that pump station. The wastewater treatment plant just to the north of this is being taken out of service. She wa s thinking about the open space plan and staff’s comments. It seems that the open space plan was tailored to show the land along the river and pick up any space that is not used. It is really important when one has an industrial site that is already deve loped to consider the two things being offered here regarding water quality. There are many sites out there that have uncontrolled run off. If they don’t do it with further development of the site, they are grandfathered. There are many developments tha t this pertains to with Highway Commercial and Industrial being the worse. If an opportunity to do some benefit occurred, it is very worthwhile to consider. This was all man-made slopes anyway. There might be a useable area if the LOMR is not approved. The pump station is under construction to be done in early 2012. The activity in the clearing has already taken place. Therefore, it is not pristine. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 7 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Ms. Porterfield noted the applicant made a comparison between this request and the one on 5th Street. She asked staff to talk about similarities and differences between the projects since 5 th Street was approved. Mr. Brooks noted staff also recommended denial on that application. Mr. Morris pointed out the Planning Commission recommended denial. Mr. Brooks noted the 5th Street request was approved by the Board. However, that was a different situation. When the Commission saw the request, it was the second time through the process. The first time through the process was a number of years before that. The c ounty had done a study with the city after 5th Street was nearly constructed and the bridge was rebuilt. That study effectively changed the FEMA lines based on the new construction of the r oa d and the bridge that was just upstream of that site. As part of the study there was a letter of map amendment done with FEMA. The map that Mr. Shimp showed the Commission tonight was an updated FEMA map that unfortunately FEMA did not include the letters with. If they are looking at the order of how things occurred, he thought that FEMA had already been applied to and notified of the changes and it was a county initiative. Then the site came in and took advantage of that because the bridge had constricted the floodplain. This site was just downstream of the new bridge. They took advantage of the narrowing that the bridge had done on their site. It has never been built. Ms. Porterfield said she was trying to figure out if the Board of Supervisors approval was based on getting the documentation from FEMA that it could be done. Mr. Brooks replied that staff already had that documentation in another form. They knew it could be done. It was more determined. Ms. Porterfield said in this case this would be a start up with FEMA to try to see if it would work. Mr. Brooks agreed. He was not sure how the other one was approved since he was not a direct lead on that project. He noted that everything he said might not be accurate because it was ten years ago. The way the ordinance is written it is very strict. The ordinance says one cannot get a special use permit – you cannot deny it, approve it, or apply for it in a floodway. Right now, that is what the applicant is doing. His suggestion was not to bring this before the Planning Commission because they could not act on that part. There is a portion in the fringe, which could not be built with this plan. However, technically there is a portion in the fringe that they can have a sp ecial use permit for. He was confused about how they would approve that if they wanted to. Ms. Porterfield said he was saying regardless of whether they wanted to place the burden on the applicant to get FEMA to weigh in and bring in the infor ma tion that would move the actual floodway they can’t do that because they are not allowed to do that. Mr. Brooks replied that our ordinance restricts us from a special use permit in that area. Mr. Kamptner asked to throw out an analogy, which they shared with the applicant’s attorney. Imagine that your property is zoned residential, but you want to operate a fast food restaurant. That use is allowed by special use permit in the C-1 zoning district. What the applicant is proposing here is essentially asking for the special use permit for the fast food restaurant before they get the C-1 zoning with the promise that at some point in the future they will go through the rezoning process once th ey know they are going to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 8 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval approve the special use permit. The distinction between the floodway and the floodway fringe has zoning implications because the uses that are allowed within the flood hazard overlay district depend on whether or not the land is within the floodway or the floodway fringe. The applications for special use permits for fill in the floodway are allowed only within the floodway fringe. There is no right to apply for a special use permit for fill in the floodway. The Commission’s aut hority tonight really extends only to that portion to the limits of the floodway fringe. The Moore’s Creek Yacht Club application is unique. His recollection going back to right after FEMA adopted the new maps and the Board followed and adopted them also, was that there was a recognition that there were dozens if not hundreds of LOMR’s and LOMA’s that had not been incorporated into the maps. His recollection is that FEMA has already let us know and they are going to grandfather all of those in. They need to go through the process. Mr. Brooks noted that they had acknowledged that there had been a mistake and left those out. There are about 10 or 20 of those. Mr. Kamptner said that they knew that there was already a letter of map amendment in place an d that FEMA was going to grandfather that in and adjust the maps accordingly. Mr. Brooks noted having done our own studies as a county, he thought that they were pretty comfortable with the new line. There is another aspect to the FEMA process that creat es a circular logic with staff. When they apply to FEMA they need a community official signature that acknowledges that the county agrees with what they are doing. He usually ends up signing those. It is not like the county does not review it at all. T hey will still be looking at it. Mr. Lafferty said he also sees they are losing some open space in Places29. They have the critical slope part that they need to address. It is not simply building into the floodway. Ms. Porterfield said that it was a good explanation. Mr. Loach asked for clarification. In the findings, it says staff can identify no public purpose that would be served by granting this waiver. Staff is unable to recommend any of the findings in the ordinance can be made. He asked if he was hearing from staff that they have weighed all of the potential positives or is just when they made that recommendation it was directly related to the loss of aesthetics resources. Mr. Fritz asked if he was talking about the critical slopes waiver section and staff’s findings under section 4.2.5.a.3 on page 8 and 9 of the staff report. Mr. Loach agreed. Mr. Fritz pointed out staff looked at the very specific criteria that is contained in those sections and made the finding. The broadest criteria was granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import tha n would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. They could potentially interpret the expansion of the buildable industrial area on this property meets that criteria. Staff thought about that and did not find it trumped the impact of what is designated in the Comp Plan. It is not designated as an industrial area. If it had been designated as an industrial area, then perhaps they may have recommended that it allow achieving the Comp Plan. That is a purpose of greater public import than protecting the critical slopes. Mr. Custer said they could have approved it administratively if it was not in the open space. It is man- made critical slopes on the site plan. Mr. Fritz has the ability to approve that, but not if it is on an open space plan. On the first plan they had said it was man-made slopes and could approve it administratively. However, then they discovered that ½ of them wer e on open space. Ms. Porterfield asked if the owner of the property for the critical slopes paying industrial taxes. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 9 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval Mr. Fritz replied he did not know how the land value has been determined. Ms. Porterfield said if they are going to keep them as open space it would seem unfair that they have to pay industrial rate taxes. Mr. Fritz pointed out they don’t consider that specifically because the criteria for the critical excludes the priority interest of the developer as a factor in analyzing disturbance of critical slopes. It specifically excludes the priority interest of the developer. Ms. Porterfield said if they want to maximize the use of the property. She understands that the disturbance of the critical slopes is needed to do the fill. Mr. Fritz agreed that was correct. Ms. Porterfield said that they basically are attached. If they approve the critical slopes, it would not do them any good. Mr. Fritz said if the Commission recommended approval of the special use permit without approving the critical slop es they have gotten nowhere. Mr. Morris invited the applicant to give a rebuttal. Mr. Shimp noted he had one comment to clarify what Mr. Brooks talked about as far as the difference in the Yacht Club application and the current application. He was unaware of the history with the county. At the time the Planning Commission and Board reviewed the application for that particular project the floodway line was shown in an area that fill was to be placed in. Perhaps it was a mistake that everyone feels certain that it could be changed. Legally that line was in the middle of the site when that special use permit was processed. He did not see a problem with that because the condition attached to it was the LOMR would have to be approved. Without that approval the dirt never goes in. In this case what is different is that they are relying on his word essentially saying he thinks this can be changed. Whereas, there was a much more detailed study that the county had looked at. He supposed that was ideal, but a t the same time the person at risk is not the county. It is the applicant. It is on the applicant to prove this theory correct. If they do, the floodway line can be amended. If they don’t, that is really on the applicant. He sees that as the big difference in his position with what he is saying and what the county is saying. He was not trying to fill in the floodway. They are saying in the past there was a situation where a map was believed to be wrong, it was corrected and fill was approved in that location. He was seeking the exact same treatment. Mr. Morris invited further discussion. Ms. Monteith said normally FEMA maps are not generally disputed. This is not common practice. They are being asked for a special use permit for both affecting critical slopes and for the floodplain. Ms. Porterfield said the applicant could go to FEMA to see what they can do. She asked if the applicant has to have the county sign off on the request prior to that. Mr. Fritz replied the applicant could go and do that, but as part of the work there is a sign off by the county as part of the work. Ms. Porterfield asked if the county could sign off on this if the applicant wanted to pursue this. Mr. Brooks replied that was a good question. What they typically would apply for is a conditional letter of map revision or map amendment. There is a community acknowledgement signature that goes on that. What they are acknowledging he would have to look on the form exactly. They are acknowledging that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 10 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval the applicant wants to change the floodplain and they agree or don’t agree with it. There is room for comment. Mr. Franco said he thought they were only acknowledging that staff was aware of it. He was not under the impression that staff was sanctioning it or saying yes or no th ey agree with it. Mr. Brooks said if he withholds his signature, it goes to the county executive. He was not sure. He had never tried that. Since he had never been in this situation he could find it out and come back. Mr. Franco felt that it was only an acknowledgement that this was occurring in his jurisdictional area and not that they sanction it. FEMA has control of that line. It is an interesting discussion. If FEMA decides that the line is moved, then essentially it is moved. The question before the Commission tonight is really the land use. If they take some of the technical stuff out the real question is would they support this new land use and do they want to see an expansion of the industrial area in this critical slopes area or not. By this area, he meant to say the critical slopes, the open space plan and some of the other aspects that have been discussed. That is the core thing before the Commission. He feels torn about it, but wants to give the applicant some kind of direction. Based on the fact that the Comp Plan calls for it to be open space, he is not inclined to support this. It may change his opinion to see the floodway line moved, but right now, the way the proposal is submitted he sees many problems with it. He was not inclined to support it. Mr. Morris agreed. It is in his district and he hates to see the master plan going down the tubes with the loss of the green space. They have precious little enough. Mr. Loach said it comes down to a risk benefit ratio. The ratio is not in the applicant’s favor taking everything staff has said in the report. Motion on SP-2010-00038: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend denial of SP -2010-00038 Badger Industrial based on the factors unfavorable as identified by staff The motion was approved by a vote of 5:1. (Ms. Porterfield voted no.) Mr. Morris noted that the motion to recommend denial of SP-2010-00038 Badger Industrial was approved. Motion on Critical Slopes Waiver: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to deny the critical slope waiver associated with SP-2010-00038 Badger Industrial based on the fact that the special use permit was recommended for denial. Mr. Morris invited further discussion. Mr. Kamptner asked to clarify if the motion also includes for the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Franco replied absolutely it includes the reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Lafferty agreed that would be true for both motions. Ms. Porterfield voted aye for denial of the critical slopes based on the fact that the special use permit recommendation was for denial. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 11 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0 to deny the critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010- 00038. It was based on the reasons stated in the staff report and on the finding that the waiver would: - be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; and/or - be contrary to sound engineering practices; and/or - all four of the considerations listed in 18-4.2.5.a.3.a-d. . Mr. Morris said that the critical slope request was denied by an unanimous vote. Ms. Porterfield asked the engineers to let the Commission know whether the County has to take a position should an applicant come in and want to contact FEMA or whether it was just a signature as Mr. Franco was saying or whether staff has to take a pro or con position on it. That would be good for future applicants to understand so the Commission would know for future applications. Mr. Custer replied that staff would sent an email to the Commissioners. Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-000038, Badger Industrial would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial based on staff’s recommendation that the request would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.6.1 and 4.2.5(a) as outlined in the unfavorable factors comments detailed in the staff report, as follows: Unfavorable factors: • Fill is shown within the floodway • Comp. Plan Open Space is disturbed • Uncertainties within the applicant floodplain models • Model shows the fill raising the flood elevation • Uncertainty with the Erosion Sediment Control plan, if approved • Proposal requires the disturbance of critical slopes The critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010-00038 was denied based on the reasons stated in the staff report and on the finding that the waiver would: - be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; and/or - be contrary to sound engineering practices; and/or - all four of the considerations listed in 18-4.2.5.a.3.a-d. Old Business Mr. Brooks asked to clear up the question concerning the FEMA requests from the first application. There are two separate sections for signature. The first is for fill in the floodway fringe. The second is for properties located within the regulatory floodway. They make the distinction. It is pretty lengthy. Therefore, he would just pick out the pertinent parts. It says for the person signing it that he hereby acknowledges that they have received and reviewed the letter of map revision. Based upon the community’s review they find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway and that all other necessary federal and state ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 12 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval local permits have been or will be granted. So it is sort of a community acknowledgement for that fill that is going in the floodway fringe. For the other section, which is a different application, with whether they are actually applying to say there is a mistake in the map and the line should be somewhere else , there is a different acknowledgement for that. It says as the community official responsible for floodplain management I acknowledge that they have received and reviewed this request and they understand it is being forwarded. We acknowledge that no fill on this property has been or will be placed within the designated regulat ory floodway.” It says we understand that it is determined that this property has been inadvertently included in the regulatory floodway. In other words, we think they have made a mistake so change the line. As a community official, he would be agreeing with that and FEMA should take another look at the line and see if that is the right one. That is what they would do. They would do that second acknowledgement and that second application type to change that floodway line before they came to staff to ask for permission to fill in the floodway fringe. That is the way he understands it. Ms. Porterfield said that he would basically have to take a stand either way on the second one that at least he thinks that it should be studied. Mr. Brooks replied yes, and that does not bother him as much as the first one where he was saying he was giving community agreement and review. He feels that he should have something more than just the engineering math working out. For the floodway itself all they are saying i s that perhaps it was inadvertently added in the floodway and it should not be. He would be comfortable just doing that based on the engineering alone. Ms. Porterfield said if the previous applicant wanted to go with this they could try that method to see what he could come up with and then make another application. Mr. Brooks said they could potentially get this property out of the floodway just in the fringe and then come back to the Commission with a special use permit for that. Ms. Porterfield thanked Mr. Brooks for the information. Mr. Kamptner asked to go back to the Badger Powhatan application just to give the Commission a bigger picture and put all of this in context. Staff was not trying to impose a procedure for the sake of imposing a procedure. They want any application to be processed with enough infor ma tion for staff to be able to make an informed recommendation. However, they also want the actions of the Planning Commission or the Board to be valid not only because they want the government to be taking action, but they want the recipient of that approval to walk away knowing that their approval is going to be valid. There is a question when an applicant seeks to leap frog through the process and get the more specific approval, in this c ase the special use permit, before they have the underlying zoning. The final approval may be void. It may be void in a way that five years from now when somebody downstream is upset can have the court declare that approval to be void. The applicant would have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in approving the site and they no longer have a lawful permit. Or, ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 13 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval they may not be able to get financing and things like that . They are not only looking out for staff’s interests, but trying to assure that the action is valid for the applicant’s benefit as well. Mr. Loach noted that on the part of the Planning Commission if they approve this could it be misconstrued in some of the application process to FEMA. It would be part and pa rcel of the application to say oh look the community approved it as Mr. Brooks was talking about on the check off sheet. He thought that the way the Commission handled it was probably more prudent. Mr. Kamptner said in this case they recognize that there was no opposition to this particular application. However, staff cannot do their analysis based upon whether somebody is going to object to the application. They want to have a consistent process. In talking with Mr. Brooks over the past few days, his approach as the County Engineer over the past is when an application comes for fill and the fill is shown as being in the floodway, Mr. Brooks has rejected and said they need to go through the FEMA process first before they can have their application proce ssed. Staff was just a little late in identifying that issue in this case. The County Engineer has been consistent the last few years with this. Ms. Monteith said the first question on her list was why did they go to FEMA first. Mr. Franco pointed out he understood why not to go to FEMA first. It takes about a year, not three or four months, to go through the process. It takes a long time to go through that process. It is expensive. He thought that the real question is the land use and whether the C ommission would support it or not. That is why he tried to give feedback to the applicant tonight that even if they went through FEMA he was not sure he would support it so don’t go and waste the money if they are going to bring it back to the same Commis sion. Mr. Lafferty said one thing that came up in both discussions about the applications tonight was run off. Since they are in the C hesapeake Bay Runoff Watershed pretty soon they are going to be subject to EPA regulations that the State has endorsed . It is under the total daily maximum load will it will basically be treating st orm water just like sewer. It has to be cleaned up before it is dropped into anything that goes to the Chesapeake Bay. It came up a couple of times in the discussions tonig ht. That will probably be in 2014. Mr. Morris noted that he really thinks their action tonight with Badger was consistent with their action on the 5th Street. As he recalled the Commission recommended that it be denied simply because it was in the floodplain. Then additional information was brought before the Board of Supervisors and the Board overturned it based upon the information that they had. He thought that the Commission did the right thing in denying it based upon the information they had. Mr. Porterfield noted what Mr. Brooks said was that it would have been good if the applicant had taken the second route if they thought it was worth the money and go ahead and do FEMA first either by asking for deferral right now or plan to reapply if the y eventually get something from FEMA. Ms. Monteith noted that their projections are just projections. Personally, she felt that in good planning the first thing to check is the FEMA map. Yes, they can challenge the FEMA map, but that is not usually the approach. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 9, 2011 PAGE 14 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2008-00038 Badger Industrial - Submitted for Approval Ms. Porterfield noted they had a couple of decent points of things that could benefit the county in cleaning up some very old situations that would behoove them. However, she was very glad that staff clarified there was a path for them and they chose not to take it. Mr. Loach noted had they approved this they would have lost 12 acres of open space. He knew they have had other applications before them they have approved that they actually used the open space. He was hoping that they were keeping track of how much open space they are losing that was in the master plans that has been lost. He would like to know on a yearly basis what they have really lost. Mr. Morris suggested that it be kept for each master plan. There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-2010-038 Badger Industrial critical slopes waiver SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of critical slopes waiver request for SP-2010-038 Badger Industrial STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Fritz, and Custer LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At its August 9, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission denied the applicant’s request for a critical slopes waiver based on the reasons identified in the staff report (Attachment A). The Planning Commission found that a critical slopes waiver: (1) would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; and (2) would be contrary to sound engineering practices; and further found that none of the specific findings in County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(3)(a) through (d) required to grant a waiver could be made. The critical slopes waiver was considered by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Badger Industrial’s application for SP-2010-038. County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(5)(a) provides that a “modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.” Therefore, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is automatic. DISCUSSION: In considering an appeal of a decision on a critical slopes waiver, the Board may grant or deny the waiver based upon the findings set forth in County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(3). If the Board decides to grant the waiver, it may impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(4). Findings County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(3) authorizes the Board to grant a critical slopes waiver if it finds: (1) the waiver “would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties”; (2) “would not be contrary to sound engineering practices”; and at least one of the following: 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; b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least 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 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. Conditions County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(4) authorizes the Board to impose conditions “deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that the development will be consistent with the intent and purposes of section 4.2.” AGENDA TITLE: SP-2010-038 Badger Industrial critical slopes waiver October 5, 2011 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT: No immediate budget impact is associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Badger Industrial’s request for a critical slopes waiver be denied for the reasons stated in the staff report and the findings articulated by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS A – August 9, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report (included under Agenda Item #15) B – September 8, 2011 PC Denial Letter to Applicant (included under Agenda Item #15) Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Town of Scottsville Request for Police Funding SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of funding for Scottsville Police based on assistance on calls for service provided to the Albemarle County Police Department STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs Foley, Elliott, Davis, Sellers, and Parrent LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On June 8, 2011, John Snoody, Vice Mayor of the Town of Scottsville, submitted a letter (Attachment A) to Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier requesting that the County agree to an annual monetary pledge to the Town of Scottsville that would allow them to upgrade a part-time Scottsville police position to a full time position. The amount requested for this current year is $25,000. Mr. Snoody states that this request, according to statistics he presented, is based on the fact that his police department provides law enforcement services in Albemarle County outside of the Town of Scottsville. According to Vice Mayor Snoody, between the period April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011, his police department responded to 514 calls for service, of which 237, or 46%, were within the Town of Scottsville. The remaining 54% of calls were outside of the Town. DISCUSSION: The Albemarle County Police Department appreciates the assistance provided by the Scottsville Police Department (PD); however, a more thorough review of the calls for service data is necessary to fully understand the situation. The numbers presented in the letter were calculated based on a retrieval of all calls that the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) recorded showing the Scottsville PD having participated in, regardless of the type of call and level of involvement in the call’s ultimate outcome. The Scottsville PD might have provided the primary officer, a back-up officer, or may even have been called-off from the incident before or soon after arriving. Most importantly, there was no effort to separate the actual calls for service through the ECC from officer initiated activity reported to the ECC. The most frequently reported officer initiated activities are Traffic Stops and Extra Patrols of an area. ECC records indicate that between April 2010 and March 2011, the Scottsville PD was the primary responder in 138 calls for Beats 13 and 14, which includes almost 200 miles of Albemarle County north and west of Scottsville. Of those, 76 (55%) were calls from the ECC and the other 62 (45%) were Scottsville officer initiated. The officer initiated activities were primarily Traffic Stops, Extra Patrols, and reporting Traffic Hazards such as disabled vehicles, dead animals, or other objects in the road. These activities covered 52 of the 62 officer initiated activities. The 76 ECC calls for service in these 2 beats in which the Scottsville officers were listed as the primary responder included: 14 traffic accidents 13 traffic Hazards 10 false alarms 10 disorders 8 assist agency (typically Fire or Rescue) 7 suspicious activities 5 miscellaneous criminal incidents 3 animal control calls 2 citizen assists 1 each, parking violation, trespass, miscellaneous non-criminal and a B&E report 76 ECC calls in a year averages to fewer than 1.5 calls per week outside of Scottsville. AGENDA TITLE: Town of Scottsville Request for Police Funding October 5, 2011 Page 2 During this same period (April 2010 – March 2011), the ECC records indicate that the Albemarle County Police Department was the primary responder to 2,063 ECC calls for service in Beats 13 & 14. This averages 39.7 calls per week. Combining these call totals (76 + 2,063) equals 2,139 ECC calls for service in these 2 beats per year. The Scottsville PD was listed as the primary officer in 3.5% of the ECC calls for this area of the County. During this same 12 month period (April 2010 – March 2011), the ECC data indicates that the Albemarle County and Scottsville PDs responded to 212 calls for service through the ECC for the Town of Scottsville (Beat 21). This averaged to well under 1 (0.06) ECC call for service per day. The County Police were listed as the responder in 120 ECC calls for service and the Scottsville Police in 92 calls indicating that the County actually responded to more calls for service in the Town than its own officers for this period. Through this more thorough analysis of the data, several important facts are evident as the Board considers this proposal: 1. Many of the calls that Scottsville Police respond to outside of its Town limits are the result of officer initiated activity. 2. Calls where Scottsville Police is the primary responder outside of the Town limits averages 1.5 ECC calls per week. W ithin the Town limits the calls for service averages 0.06 ECC calls per day. 3. The officer population ratio for the Albemarle County Police Department is 1.2 officers per 1000 (based on 120 officers). The comparative ratio for Scottsville Police is 5 officers per 1000 (based on 3 officers). 4. The officer per square mile ratio for the Albemarle County Police Department is 0.16 officers per square mile. The comparative ratio for the Scottsville Police is 3.0 officers per square mile. While it is important for the Board to understand the scope and nature of these calls for service, it is equally vital to review how the funding of law enforcement f or the Town of Scottsville has been addressed since the Town’s annexation of County property in 1993. Pursuant to the provisions of the 1993 Annexation Agreement, the Town assumed sole responsibility for law enforcement within its jurisdictional boundaries effective December 31, 1993. Despite the terms of this agreement, the Town, in 1997, submitted a f unding request to the County for police officers for the Town. At that time, the Board denied the request and indicated to the Town that it should limit its responses in the County if this activity was driving the need for additional resources. The Board’s previous actions and the terms of the Annexation Agreement emphasize that the County’s position has been that Scottsville has the responsibility to provide law enforcement in the Town and that no County dollars are available for Scottsville law enforcement officers. While the Albemarle County Police Department recognizes and appreciates the assistance provided by the Scottsville Police Department, staff believes that the data does not support the need for County funding of the Scottsville P.D., and that any additional funding to address handling County calls for service should be directed to the Albemarle County Police Department, who has the responsibility for County-wide law enforcement services. Staff also believes that, in reviewing the comparative officer to population ratios of the two police departments, providing funding to Scottsville would not be in the best interest of the County’s long term public safety needs. BUDGET IMPACT: Should the Board approve this $25,000 request, an appropriation totaling this amount is required from the FY2011-12 Board Reserve. Moreover, future Boards will need to consider increasing the County’s Police Department Budget in ensuing budget years to provide funding for this ongoing obligation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board not approve Vice Mayor Snoody’s request for funding for the Town of Scottsville Police Department. ATTACHMENTS A – Scottsville Police Request Return to agenda TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE Ma>VJT jESSKR GROVE 1/1 VICTORY HALL 40 I V ALLEY STREET SCOITSVILLE,VlRGlNlA 24590 TQI'>1I COUIICl1 R.DA}I.'IEL GRlTSKO BRANDON A.MAUJ'IN LIliA A.ROlll1ltSON RONALD L SWTH JOHN R.SNODDY IV CRAlON.STRATION Town AdIt,ini.ltralor C~~\V.DRAPSRIll TELEPHONE:(434)286-9267 FACSIMILE:(434)286-4237 www.scottsville.org TV»?IClerk AMY E.MoYER 1ownAllomey JAMES M.BOWl.ING rv June 8,2011 The Honorable Lindsay G.Dorrier,Jr. Member,Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 278 James River Road Scottsville,VA 24590 Re:Town of Scottsville Police Department Dear Supervisor Dorrier: I trust this letter finds you well and enjoying the coming of summer in Scottsville.As you know, the Town of Scottsville's Police Department prides itself on its community involvement,both within the Town limits and in the greater,southern Albemarle area.Within the Town of Scottsville,our three officer department (one Chief,one full-time officer,one part-time officer) ensures public safety at events such as our Batteau Festival,Fourth of July Festival,Scottsville River Run/Walk,Scottsville Beer Festival,and numerous other gatherings and concerts.Beyond the Town limits,our Police Department responds to numerous calls in the southern Albemarle area and works tirelessly to ensure public safety for the area's residents,no matter their address. These calls for service outside of the Town limits are the impetus for my letter. During the 12-month period between April I",2010 and March 31St,2011,our Police Department responded to 514 calls for service.Just 237,or 46%,of those calls were within the Town of Scottsville.The nature of the calls outside of the Town limits (54%)range from miscellaneous criminal activity,to breaking and entering,to missing persons.True to our Police Department's commitment to all southern Albemarle citizens and our department's commitment to the Albemarle County Police Department-many of'the responses outside ofthe Town limits fall intothe citizen assistance or Albemarle County Police Department assistance categories. While the Town's Police Department finds great professional reward in assisting citizens outside of the Town limits and would like to provide this assistance in perpetuity,this assistance does not come without a cost to the Town and its taxpayers.As such,the Town's Public Safety Committee (PSC)provides the following information and proposal.'-- •The Town of Scottsville budgets approximately $60,000 per year for a full-time officer. •At present,and as noted above,the Town employs one Chief,"one full-time officer,and one part-time officer.. •As also noted above,54%ofthese officers'time is spent providing public safety to citizens outside of the service area funded by the Town's taxpayers. •As such,the Town's PSC respectfully requests that the County of Albemarle offset the public safety service outside ofthe Town of Scottsville with an annual monetary pledge equal to the amount needed to fully transition our part-time officer into a full-time officer.At present,that amount is $25,000 per year;the remaining $35,000 is currently generated by tax revenue.Not only will this pledge,and subsequent transition of the officer to full-time status,fund the ongoing service provided to County residents by the Town of Scottsville,it will allow for more frequent and timelier responses to public safety needs within the Town limits and beyond. As I'm sure you may have questions regarding this request,I propose that you and I meet with our Chief of Police to discuss this letter and any suggestions you might have regarding this issue. Thank you for your consideration and your service to our community,and please contact me regarding a meeting at your convenience.I can be reached atjohnrsnoddy@embarqmail.com or 434-286-3492. Sincere~itr24Jf).~_/.~-«.-'/John R.Snoddy,IV Vice Mayor L Chairman,Traffic,Public Safety and Infrastructure Committee Town of Scottville cc:Mayor Barry Grove Chief Robert Layman Councilor Craig Stratton COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval to participate in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program (and project(s) for Revenue Sharing f unds) STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and Benish LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Recently, VDOT advised that its Revenue Sharing Program will be available to localities for FY 13 and established November 1, 2011 as the deadline for receipt of applications/proposals . VDOT is accelerating its application deadline for its FY 13 Program in order to determine the level of state funds needed to maximize local participation in this program . Please see the attached letter from Michael Estes of VDOT for further explanation of this year’s application process (Attachment A). For FY 13, it is anticipated that the Revenue Sharing Program will potentially match, dollar-for- dollar up to $10.0 million, a locality’s contributio n toward funding transportation projects. This summer, VDOT awarded the County $1.5 million in FY 12 Revenue Sharing Program funds. This allocation, along with the County’s match, will be utilized for the Broomley Road bridge replacement project. The allocation of Revenue Sharing funds to the Broomley Road bridge project not only insured that this project was fully funded, but also allowed other County funds previously allocated for the bridge project to be reallocated to four (4) Rural Rustic Road paving projects. Currently, there is approximately $895,100 availabl e for a FY 13 local match consisting of $655,170 from the County’s Transportation Improvement Program CIP fund and $239,951 from de -allocated Revenue Sharing Program local matching funds which were not utilized in recently completed projects. This amount is scheduled to be refunded by VDOT to the County this fiscal year. DISCUSSION: County and VDOT staff have met to review the FY 13 Revenue Sharing Program requirements and guidelines, the County’s priority lists of road projects and State priorities for project funding. As a result of these discussions, staff has determined that the majority of the County’s higher priority projects are not at a stage where they can qualify for the FY 13 program (i.e. Hillsdale Drive extension, Berkmar Drive extension and Proffit Road improvements). Staff has identified several potential projects for the FY 13 program which are described later in this report; however, these have not been identified as the County’s top priorities and uncertainties associated with project impacts from the Western Bypass Project on one of these (Rio Mills), warrants fur ther consideration and evaluation. Staff recommends that as the Board considers the County’s participation in the FY 13 Program that it remain cognizant of the fact that a very limited pool of funds is available ($895,100) in the County’s Transportati on Improvement Program CIP Fund at this time. Moreover, given the County’s ongoing financial challenges, it is uncertain as to when additional resources can be allocated to replenish this source of funding. Therefore, obligating all or any portion of this am ount toward the FY 13 Program significantly reduces the County’s capacity to address other higher priority projects as well as other routine requests for transportation upgrades throughout the County in the short-term. Based on the limited amount of funding currently available for the required County match, the expected total cost and preliminary stage of development for most of the County’s higher priority projects as well as the uncertain status of the State’s commitment to local priorities, staff reco mmends that the County not participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 13. Staff believes that it would be more prudent to reserve the existing limited Transportation Improvement Program funds until next year when the County will have a better unders tanding of the level of State funding commitments made to high priority local projects (Hillsdale Drive extension, Berkmar Drive extension, etc.). This will allow the County’s limited funding resources to be applied more effectively towards implementing these high priority projects. AGENDA TITLE: FY 13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation October 5, 2011 Page 2 Should the Board wish to pursue Revenue Sharing Program funds for FY 13, the most viable projects for funding are road paving projects. Staff has identified the following projects for potential funding: Paving of Rio Mills Road (Rt. 643) from the Rockyvale Quarry entrance to US 29. Rio Mills Road is the highest priority “Regular Paving Project” on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and carries 650 trips per day. Rio Mills Road, along with Dickerson Road, functions as a parallel road network to US 29 and provides access to the Hollymead Community and the northern Urban Area. Paving this section of the road would also address safety and maintenance issues related to increased truck traffic on the road from the quarry operation. The estimated project cost is $3.2 million. It is possible that construction work related to the western bypass could impact improvements m ade to Rio Mills Road through this project. The project would have to be designed and some property acquisition may be necessary; therefore, the project could be funded over two years, if necessary. Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787) Rural Rustic Road Paving, from Broad Axe Road (Rt. 682) to Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708). This project is ranked as the sixth highest project on the “Regular Paving Project” list, but has recently been determined to be eligible for a Rural Rustic Road paving project. The annual averag e daily traffic on the road is 290 vehicl e trips, which would make this section of road the most heavily travelled road on the Rural Rustic Road paving project list. Gillums Ridge Road connects US 250 to Dry Bridge Road. The section of road from US 250 to Broad Axe Road (Rt. 682) is already paved. The other five projects ranked higher on the Regular Paving Project List have not been determined to be eligible for Rural Rustic Road Paving. VDOT is in the process of re-evaluating the roads on the regular road paving list for eligibility for the Rural Rustic Road paving. The estimated project cost is $525,000. Pocket Lane (Rt. 703) Rural Rustic Road Paving, from Rt. 715 to its dead end . This road carries 110 vehicle trips per day and is one of the three highest priority Rural Rustic Road projects not programmed for paving. The estimated project cost is $500,000. Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) Rural Rustic Road Paving, from Rt. 691 to Rt. 758. This road carries 110 vehicle trips per day and is one of the three highest priority Rural Rustic Road projects not programmed for paving. The estimated project cost is $754,377. Should the Board decide to pursue FY 13 funding, staff recommends that the level of the County’s match be based the on the de-allocated Revenue Sharing funds (and minimally supplemented by County funding as necessary) to implement one of the Rural Rustic Paving Projects. Staff would recommend funding for the paving of Gillums Ridge Road. BUDGET IMPACT: Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to advance important transportation projects. There is approximately $895,100 currently availab le for the required local match: $655,170 from the Transportation Improvement Program CIP fund (4-9010-41020-441200-950136-9999) and $239,951 from de- allocated Revenue Sharing Program local matching funds which will be refunded by VDOT to the County this fiscal year. Any additional funding needed for the local match would come from either future CIP allocations approved for FY12/13 for the Revenue Sharing Program participation or from the Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program fund (4-9010-8110-481020-950560-1240) appropriated for implementing Places29 Master Plan priority transportation Improvements. However, the Neighborhood Plan Implementation funds should be reserved to the greatest extent possible to fund future efforts to implement the high priority improvements identified in the Places 29 Master Plan (Berkmar Drive extended and/or Hillsdale Drive extended). RECOMMENDATIONS: County staff is recommending that the County not participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 13. Should the Board decide to pursue FY 13 funding, staff recommends funding for the paving of Gillums Ridge Road and di recting staff to submit a Detailed Description of Funds Form Application to apply fo r $262,000 FY13 Revenue Sharing Program funds requiring a local match of $262,000. If the Board approves the County’s participation in the Program, staff will prepare a resolution required to be adopted by the Board to formally request to participate in the Program for the Board’s consideration at its November 2, 2011 meeting. ATTACHMENTS A – Letter dated August 9, 2011 from VDOT B – County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvemen ts C – Albemarle County Priorities for FY 2012-2017 (Primary Roads, New Roads, Transit, Safety Related ) 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 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 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 633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004 no 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 ATTACHMENT C ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2012-2017 SYIP (Primary Roads, Major Improvements, Transit, Safety Related Improvements) (APPROVED APRIL 6, 2011) I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS 1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Rd., including the interchange at the Route 250 Bypass. Secondary/Urban/Federal earmark funds – Designed and funded to construct; County portion under construction. 2. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor: a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29 Priority project; Primary/Proffer/City funds – Funding committed to design and construct. b. Construct a third lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29 North from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center; Places 29 Priority project; No funding to design or construct. c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive; Places 29 Priority project; Urban funds/Private right of way donations – Designed and being funded to construct. d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design only (no funding to construct). 3. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64 interchange to Village of Rivanna). Interstate funding – I-64 interchange under construction; Portions of parallel roads constructed in private projects; no additional funding to design or construct. 4. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan: a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds - Crozet Ave. Streetscape project designed and funded to construct. b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds – Jarman’s Gap Rd. designed and funded to construct. c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad crossing; Portion constructed in private project; No funding to design or construct. d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St. CIP funds - Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or construct. 5. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding. 6. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave. Connector; No additional funding to design or construct. 7. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding. 8. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding. II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS 1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding. 2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT, JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus pull-outs, shelters, etc.). No funding. 3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs. Services provided in County by CAT are County funded. 4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle County in 2009. State funded through 2012. III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or bikeway improvement: a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet Ave. streetscape project designed and funded to construct. b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North; No funding. c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through extension and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations; CIP funding – under construction. d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding. e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding. 2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at 1) Tilman Road and 2) Owensville Road. No funding. 3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231. No funding. 4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151. No funding. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 11/12 and FY 12/13 Revenue Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of current projected revenue reductions for the County’s FY 11/12 and FY 12/13 Budgets STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Elliott, Davis, and Ms. L. Alllshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County has conducted five year financial planning since 2004. This process provides an opportunity for staff and the Board to collectively consider long-range revenue trends and to work towards the balancing of a Five Year Expenditure Plan prior to the development of the County’s annual budget. In preparation for the Board’s Five Year Financial Planning work sessions which begin in November, 2011, staff has begun a detailed review of the County’s revenues. In doing so, staff has developed a clearer sense of what the County’s financial situation looks like for the current and upcoming fiscal years. DISCUSSION: While it is early in the fiscal year and assumptions could change as new information becomes available, staff believes it is likely that the County will experience a revenue shortfall of approximately $1.07 Million (-0.5%) in the County’s current FY 11/12 Budget. In addition, revenues available for next year’s (FY 12/13) budget are estimated to further decrease by an additional $1.02 Million. These reductions are primarily attributed to an estimated 3% average reduction in 2012 real estate property assessments and an anticipated additional 1.5% reduction in average real estate property tax assessments in 2013. If the revenues are as currently projected and based on the County’s allocation formulas for transfers to the School Division and the County’s capital program, these reductions will result in an approximate $448 thousand decrease in local funding for the School Division and an approximate $80 thousand decrease in local funding for capital projects in the current fiscal year. In FY 12/13, the local transfer for the School Division could be further reduced by $188 thousand and funding for the capital program could be reduced by an additional $30 thousand. At the Board meeting on October 5, 2011, staff will present additional details about the anticipated changes in the County’s real estate tax revenues and provide information on the County’s other major sources of revenues. Staff will continue to closely monitor the County’s financial situation. During the Five Year Financial Plan Work Sessions beginning on November 9, 2011, staff will present information to the Board regarding the cumulative effect of reduced real estate tax revenues and will present potential strategies to address the continued decline in real estate values. BUDGET IMPACT: As indicated above, anticipated potential decreases in revenues are likely to impact the funding available for local government, as well as the transfers to the School Division and Capital Program. Reductions in real estate tax revenues are anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the County’s budget in future years. RECOMMENDATIONS: Given the uncertainly in the County’s current revenue picture, staff intends to strategically assess current local government staff vacancies and to review current levels of service for potential future reductions. Also, staff recommends that the Board not utilize savings from the restructuring of current debt to borrow an additional $10 million to support additional capital projects, as discussed during the Davenport presentation in September. Return to agenda County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: October 5, 2011 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions through December 2011 provided for informational purposes only. The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were received as follows: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy. No applications received. Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee : One vacancy. No applications received. Crozet Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. No applications received. Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative. No applications received. Pantops Community Advisory Council: Two vacancies. George Emmitt Richard McGrain Places 29 Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. No applications received. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy, joint City/County Chair. No applications received. Social Services Board: One vacancy. Jack Jouett District, no applications received. The following reappointments require action by the Board: JAUNT: Clifford Buys Juan Wade MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Ineligible No Action Required ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required ACE Committee David Callihan 8/1/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd ACSA James Colbaugh 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required ACSA Bill Kittrell 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required ACSA Clarence Roberts 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna) No Action Required Board of Building Code Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 Eligible No Action Required CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2014 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd Commission on Children and Families Carolyn Lawlor 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required Commission on Children and Families Janette Martin 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required Commission on Children and Families Amy Skilnick 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 No To be advertised Equalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required Equalization Board David Cooke II 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Jack Jouett)No Action Required Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required Equalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Scottsville) No Action Required Equalization Board William Rich 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rio) No Action Required Equalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Samuel Miller)No Action Required Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 Eligible No Action Required Housing Committee Valerie L'Herrou 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Ineligible To be advertised Housing Committee David Oakland 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required Housing Committee Sarah Collie 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required Housing Committee Kurt Keesecker 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd JAUNT Juan Wade 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Yes Action Required JAUNT Clifford Buys 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Yes Action Required Joint Airport Commission Richard Venerus 12/1/2011 12/1/2014 Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage Committee Anne Bedarf 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned To be advertised Pantops Community Advisory Council Ron Hoffman 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd Pantops Community Advisory Council Richard Jennings 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd Planning Commission Duane Zobrist 12/31/2011 12/31/2013 Eligible, (At-large)No Action Required Planning Commission Linda Porterfield 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required Planning Commission Calvin Morris 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required Planning Commission Tom Locah 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required PRFA A. Bruce Dotson 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd Social Services Board Mary Lou Folwer 12/31/2011 Resigned, (Jack Jouett)Advertised, No applications recv'd Social Services Board Lincoln Lewis 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required Social Services Board Wanda Kucera 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)No Action Required Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required Revised 09/29/11 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Annual Update on Economic Vitality Action Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on the First Year of Activities for the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, Graham and S. Allshouse; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010, following extensive public discussion and review. That plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and activities related to the Action Plan. Staff will present a report on the first full year of plan implementation at this meeting. This item is related to one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12: Goal 3: By June 30, 2012, the County and its partners will complete the first two year’s activities identified in the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan. DISCUSSION: The Board reviewed and endorsed a three-year work plan in November, 2010 (see Attachment A), which outlines the implementation of the Economic Vitality Action Plan (Attachment B). The first year of implementation has focused on several key areas: (1) Establishing the basic functions of a more focused, proactive economic development effort, including systematic business retention and business start-up/expansion/attraction services. (2) Establishing the County as a “convener, facilitator and catalyst” through strengthening relationships, building networks, and linking resources to meet the needs of businesses. (3) Achieving meaningful regulatory reform that streamlines process while maintaining the quality and high standards called for in the Comprehensive Plan and desired by the community. Below is a summary of the status, activity highlights, and next steps for each of the plan’s five objectives. Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image Status of objective: Strategies/actions for this objective are on track in accordance with the work plan. Visibility, outreach and interaction efforts will continue as ongoing functions of the County’s economic development effort. Highlights: A listening tour that included face to face meetings with 17 local, regional and state partners Completion of Phase I of the website enhancement: Phase II is underway Four quarterly roundtable sessions with staff and the business community focusing on small business issues, UVA partnerships, school/business partnerships and industrial sites and buildings Increased interaction with state partners: o Virginia Department of Business Assistance (DBA) – County staff met with the Director of the DBA, Peter Su, and his staff to discuss the County’s action plan and possible partnerships. o Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) – County staff hosted VEDP staff on several familiarization tours of County sites, updated the Albemarle Community Profile on the VEDP website, and participated in ongoing conversations about new business prospects. o Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) – County staff participated in a state-wide agri-business forum to showcase partnership in the Brew Ridge Trail and Monticello Artisan Trail, and maintained membership with the VA Agricultural Development Officers (VADO). AGENDA TITLE: Annual Update on Economic Vitality Action Plan October 5, 2011 Page 2 Strengthening relationships with local groups: o Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC) – The County is expanding its support of the Tech Tour o VA Bio – The County is partnering with the County school division and VA Bio on student mentoring and career exploration in the biotech fields. Next Steps: Completing Phase II of the website upgrade, continuing quarterly roundtables Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform Status of objective: Strategies/actions for this objective are on track in accordance with the work-plan. Highlights: The County has improved and simplified application procedures for entrance corridor development, with new Architectural Review Board (ARB) process improvements approved in May 2110. The Board, Planning Commission and ARB held a work session on August 3, 2011 to discuss changes in development review processes. The Board has directed staff to proceed with the recommended changes which are intended to reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shorten approval times. County sign regulation amendments to simplify and improve the sign review and approval process were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2011. County staff has produced a small business toolkit for the website upgrade to assist small business owners who are interested in starting, relocating, or expanding their businesses in Albemarle County Next Steps: County Code amendments for administrative approvals are scheduled to be presented to the Planning Commission in October, 2011; the sign ordinance recommended for approval by the PC is scheduled to be presented to the Board on November 2, 2011. Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities Status of objective: Strategies/actions for this objective are on track in accordance with the work plan. Highlights: CustomInk – This company expanded its operation into Albemarle County, utilizing an existing industrial building, with plans to create 110 local jobs in the next three years. MicroAire – MicroAire announced its purchase of the former USPS building and planned expansion of its operations to bring $8 million to the local economy and create 51 new local jobs aided by the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and the County’s Economic Opportunity Fund. Other job gains – The Defense Intelligence Agency completed its move and brought 800 new jobs, Martha Jefferson Hospital’s new facility brought 1,600 new jobs and an additional 150 jobs are expected from the Virginia Jobs Investment Program grant recipients within the next three years. Target Industry Study – Regional target industry study is being conducted by the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) Board of Supervisors/School Board Business Leaders Roundtable – A joint meeting was held with community business leaders focusing on local workplaces and workforce issues and needs in the community and identifying opportunities to strengthen community/business partnerships. Albemarle Business First – Business First team members began making targeted calls in April, 2011 and now have reached out to over 50 of the County’s existing local businesses Next Steps: Completing the target industry study is the first step of an existing business analysis and workforce study, following up on school board meeting, evaluating the first year of “Biz First” business retention program. Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options Status of objective: Several strategies/actions are still underway AGENDA TITLE: Annual Update on Economic Vitality Action Plan October 5, 2011 Page 3 Highlights: Light and Heavy Industrial districts’ uses – Staff finished with research and expect to have a recommendation to the Planning Commission by late Fall, 2011. Industrial districts’ commercial and industrial setbacks and buffers – The Planning Commission held a work session on January 11, 2011. Staff addressed questions and comments from the Planning Commission and are working on providing additional information for future Planning Commission consideration. Industrial districts’ performance standards. Now revised. Next Steps: Discussion of industrial uses and districts with the Planning Commission, evaluation of properties to be voluntarily rezoned to a new LI district, holding an industrial roundtable for the Comprehensive Plan update. Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism Status of objective: Strategies/actions for this objective are on track in accordance with the work plan. Highlights: Home occupations – The Board adopted an ordinance amendment to reduce the fees and approval time for home-based business applications on January 9, 2011. Farm Winery Zoning - The Board adopted an ordinance amendment to change the farm winery zoning regulations to use a decibel noise standard on March 9, 2011. Monticello Artisans Trail – The County worked with a contractor to print the brochures, distribute the signs and launch the website, and in partnership with the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CACVB), has hosted familiarization tours for the area’s tourism ambassadors; the official program launch is planned for mid-Fall, 2011. Agricultural Economy Roundtable - County staff held a roundtable to review agri-tourism activities and emerging trends in the state. Insights will be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Local Food Hub - The County co-sponsored the 2011 Community Food Awards to support Local Food Hub operations. Winebloggers Conference – Albemarle County teamed with the CACVB, Monticello and the Omni to host a press conference and to pursue other publicity initiatives to promote the annual Winebloggers Conference in July, 2011 in the community. Next Steps: Agri-business roundtables for Comp Plan update, Monticello Artisan Trail launch Data reporting As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and the local business climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The most recent quarterly indicators report, which includes several annual measures, is attached. Staff has included farm winery sales data to monitor agricultural economy activity. BUDGET IMPACT: No immediate budget impact is associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATIONS: No action is required by the Board of Supervisors regarding this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Approved Work Plan Attachment B – Economic Vitality Action Plan Attachment C – Annual data Attachment D - Quarterly data Return to agenda Major Milestones by Action Plan Objective – Sept 10 – Sept 13 By September, 2011 By September, 2012 By September, 2013 Objective 1 – Improving Business Climate and Image All actions items in this objective complete Continued visibility, outreach and interaction efforts Continued visibility, outreach and interaction efforts Objective 2 – Simplify/Create Certainty in the Development Review process All actions items in this objective complete (ordinance items to the BOS) Initial components of small business assistance with development review in place Continued assistance to small businesses with development review process Continued assistance to small businesses with development review process Objective 3 – Supporting Quality Employment Opportunities Process/approach for target industry study approved by Board of Supervisors, funding identified, peer jurisdiction review complete More structured, targeted business retention program implemented Initial components of entrepreneurial/small business assistance in place Target industry study complete, integrated with Comp Plan update as necessary, beginning work on identifying demand occupations/workforce alignment Continued business retention program More focused program for entrepreneurial/small business assistance in place Demand occupations identified and aligned with target industry study, workforce training possibilities developed Continued business retention program Continued support for small businesses Objective 4 Increased Options for Industrial Land (LI) Users Zoning ordinance change for LI/HI uses completed Countywide voluntary rezoning completed Comprehensive Plan update process underway, including southern urban land use planning and evaluation of interstate interchange policy Comprehensive Plan update process completed for Planning Commission Objective 5 Economic Development that Recognizes Importance of Rural Economy Roundtables completed, findings presented to the Board of Supervisors Home occupation ordinance revisions complete for rural area home-based businesses Consider roundtable findings and Board guidance as part of Comprehensive Plan update Identify strategies and action items, begin implementation of approved strategies Continue implementation of approved strategies 1 Attachment B Economic Vitality Action Plan – Adopted August 4, 2010 by the Board of Supervisors PREAMBLE: The Economic Development Policy of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan has a stated purpose to “provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.” The policy notes that economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human, economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. The policy also states clearly that Albemarle‟s commitment to economic development should be accomplished within the framework of our growth management objectives. This Action Plan is intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy into concrete and measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to already established growth management objectives and natural resource protections. While this Plan is focused on accomplishing specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term commitment to economic vitality. This Plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long term health of our local economy. Broad-based community input is critical to the success of the Action Plan and is a key feature of many of the specific strategies and actions. The County‟s commitments to education, infrastructure and natural resource protection form s the cornerstone of Albemarle‟s quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. In partnership with the University of Virginia and the Piedmont Virginia Community College, Albemarle County Public School‟s education programming – ranging from the County “bright stars” kindergarten program to the Math-Engineering-Science Academy (MESA) magnet school – help ensure a very highly educated, capable local workforce. The County strives to manage growth in a manner that best uses its infrastructure dollars and protects and preserves the area‟s abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on those natural resources. With these commitments, the community strives to manage growth without sacrificing the quality of life. This Action Plan builds on t hese existing commitments. All objectives, strategies and action items in this Plan are intended to achieve outcomes that are consistent with the goals of the Economic Development Policy section and all other sections of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan as outlined below. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Action Plan is intended to work within the guidelines and stated goals and objectives of all relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including those listed below. While it is redundant to repeat all related sections of these chapters within this Action Plan, it is important to note the objectives and strategies of this plan will adhere to the important protections provided in these chapters: Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Rural Area Plan Land Use Plan PRIMARY GOAL: Increase the County‟s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. o The following measures will be utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on success in achieving this goal: The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax revenues* *Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate revenues. The following commercial revenues: Machinery and Tools Tax; Business, Professional & Occupational License Fees; Bank Franchise Tax and Public Service Tax. The following additional indicators: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Meals Tax and job growth by sector. 2 Agricultural/rural economy metrics. Other metrics that reflect job data, number of businesses, etc. Benchmark levels will be determined to enable measurement of the short term and long term effectiveness of the specific objectives and strategies of this Plan. A timetable will be developed for reporting back to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. OBJECTIVES: I. Improve the County’s business climate and image. (Supports Objective I of the Economic Development Policy – “Recognize the County’s place in the regional economy”) STRATEGIES 1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and other leadership of the Commonwealth that Albemarle County is committed to working with businesses to promote the Commonwealth‟s and the County‟s economic vitality: o Actions Work with appropriate entities to develop and implement a plan within six months to raise awareness and to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the VEDP that is compatible with the County‟s growth management strategies (e.g. Economic Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor‟s Opportunity Fund). Maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) programs. In 2010, continue an outreach program utilizing TJPED‟s prospect proposal system, which will create marketing collateral for business targets. This will include communicating economic development opportunities with target companies, VEDP, broker/consultant community, and the entrepreneur. 2. INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STAFF – Enhance the visibility and priority of economic development efforts by the County: o Actions Within the next three months, make the Business Development Facilitator a part of the County Executive‟s Office while still maintaining close coordination with the Community Development Department, and provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts. Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic development on the County‟s web site (underway). 3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of balancing overall quality of life, education and business development in contributing to the economic vitality of the community: o Actions Within the next three months, begin regular presentations by various business interests and economic experts to staff and the public, with a focus on how the County‟s land use regulations and policies affect business decisions. This will provide opportunity for staff and others to better understand the business community‟s issues and concerns and for the business community to hear other perspectives. 3 Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, provide the business community a quarterly update of emerging and current development issues. This will focus on staff or community identified concerns rather than project specific issues. As part of pre-application discussions, continue assigning a staff member to serve as a single point of contact for addressing new issues on projects. Also, provide handouts and webpage links for information on development review (e.g. review process flow-charts, points of contact) that help applicants better understand the processes for ZTA, ZMA, Rezoning, Special Use Permit, Zoning Clearance, Sign Review, ARB review Continue routine survey of applicants as to accuracy and ease of understanding of processes, tracking of application status, staff‟s assistance with the application and any other issues of concern. Survey results will be shared with the County Executive and the Board of Supervisors to determine effectiveness of programs and where changes should be considered. Establish a more standard notification process regarding proposed changes to ordinances including the process for receiving input on proposed changes. II. Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the applicant a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review when applicants are adhering to the regulations appropriately. (Supports Objective V of the Economic Development Policy – “Increase local business development opportunities”) STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL – Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new enterprises, eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administrative decisions without compromising environmental safeguards or other community values as defined by County policies: o Actions In the first half of 2010, hold a work session (already scheduled for May) with the Board of Supervisors on changes to the process for a Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB review). (completed) In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for ministerial applications (e.g. site plans, subdivisions). This will include timetables for recommended changes. (completed) In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning, special use permits). 2. ASSIST SMALL ENTERPRISES IN REACHING COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – Recognizing that small enterprises often lack the experience and knowledge to efficiently address County requirements, provide assistance during development reviews, including waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact: o Action As part of the proposed ordinance changes under strategy #1, include consideration of how staff assistance can be provided for small businesses that have no experience with development review. This should include consideration of how a single point of contact for those businesses may assist in the processing of an application. III. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, 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. 4 (Supports Objective VI of the Economic Development Policy – “Increase work force development opportunities, to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages”) STRATEGIES 1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County‟s aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses, including partnership with the University of Virginia‟s entrepreneurial community and other entrepreneurial organizations such as Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC): o Actions In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, UVA, the Small Business Development Center, the workforce network, the Albemarle County School Division and other representatives from the education community, and other interested stakeholders, identify & address existing business needs and implement regularly scheduled local business panels and provide a larger forum to collect information, identify and address workforce and other needs of local business clusters. 2. PROMOTE TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that supports companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County‟s business development objectives: o Actions Determine target enterprises; work with a broad-based task force to determine the region‟s target enterprise sectors. These enterprise targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts. The selection criteria should include consideration of fiscal and ecological impacts on the County (including whether the industry can help the County satisfy its infrastructure needs), transportation impacts and the likelihood that a prospective enterprise will remain in this area. Strongly cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, SBDC, the CBIC and others, provide technical support seminars to support entrepreneurs in targeted business clusters. By the first half of 2011, create a plan for developing workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center, UVA and the County school system) tied to target enterprises or key sectors. By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions‟ policies and practices in attracting targeted business and investment. Via continued support of local job fairs, continue to showcase our local workforce talent and local corporate partners. Utilize TJPED‟s ExecutivePluse CRM, JobsEQ and other tool s to provide an online feedback loop for policymakers. This should include trend analysis, identify key issues negatively affecting local companies, and strategies designed to address key negative issues. 3. CONNECT OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESIDENTS - Develop and connect the workforce to existing and new opportunities to serve the entire employment spectrum in Albemarle County through workforce programs and other strategies: o Actions Working with the Workforce Center, PVCC, and the County school division determine demand occupations for the retraining or training of dislocated workers and low-income adults, and youth populations in those occupations. Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce with a multi -channel approach Align targeted enterprises and demand occupations with student awareness, education and participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways 5 IV. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. (Supports Objective II of the Economic Development Policy – “Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth”) STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE – recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility, clarity and certainty through reliance on performance standards and lessening dependency on lists of specific uses: o Action In first half of 2010, bring proposed ordinance change to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. 2. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR INCREASING INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY WITHIN AREAS DESIGNATED AS DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - o Action In the second half of 2010, the County will initiate a county wide rezoning to LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the Development Areas that are designated as industrial use on the County‟s Land Use Plan. Only properties where the property owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will be included in this rezoning. Continue pursuing strategies to stop the conversion of properties zoned light industry (LI) to commercial, office and other uses that are not “core” industrial uses. As part of future master plans and updates to the County‟s Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land within existing development areas for industrial uses. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. As part of the current effort to update the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board‟s consideration a proposed modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that might allow lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. V. Work with stakeholders to promote agriculture, the local agricultural industry (at a scale compatible with the county’s rural areas) and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. (Supports Objective 1 of the Rural Areas Land Use Policy- “To support agricultural land uses and to create additional markets for agricultural products through creative economic and land use strategies.”, and Objectives I and V of the Economic Development Policy – “Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County” and “Increase local business development opportunities”) STRATEGIES 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM – Continue working with partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses: o Action Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals will complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agriculture, local agriculture industry and tourism in the County. These roundtables will also consider 6 innovative, sustainable rural businesses such as wetland banking and voluntary carbon banking. After completing the roundtables, County staff will present the roundtable findings to the Board of Supervisors along with any other data or findings that may assist the Board in setting policy direction. 2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM – Assure that policies, goals and objectives support current priority needs including consideration of areas such as cottage industries, heritage tourism, and agri-tourism: o Action Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include consideration of this information in updates of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan and in the agreement with the CACVB. 3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM – Build on existing assets and offerings to expand options for experiencing the beauty and heritage of the rural areas: o Action Based on the above Board direction, establish specific strategies and action items for promoting and supporting agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism in the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan. Resources: Adopted Board of Supervisors „2010 Albemarle County Action Plan – January 6, 2010‟ Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce letter of January 26, 2010 This „draft‟ economic development action plan builds on the 2009 adoption of the Updated Economic Development Policy, which focused on the following three short-term priorities: o Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural-support program and continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. o Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light-industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. o Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as: A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of “underemployed” and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA Employment Commission) as well as employer needs. A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. Adopted 08/04/2010 Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Annual Data September 29, 2011 2009-10 2010-11 Data Collected Annually by Calendar Year CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 Change Change Jobs & Income Per Capita Income $35,428 ------------------------ *Private Sector Jobs as % of Total Jobs 67.3%66.6%-------0.7 pp ------ Workforce Center Clients ------5,228 ------------------ Real Estate Market *Total Assessed Value of Taxable Real Property $15.894 B $15.318 B $15.189 B - 3.6%-0.8% Development Activity Home Occupation Zoning Clearances 255 275 ------+ 7.8%------ *Commercial Zoning Clearances 147 131 ------- 10.9%------ Agricultural Economy Liters of Wine Subject to State Excise Tax (a)------------------------------ Outreach Dept. of Comm. Develop. Process Statis. Survey (% Satisfied)------84%------------------ Econ. Development Facilitator Visits with Existing Businesses 12 40 ------+28 ------ '08/'09-'09/'10- '09/'10 '10/'11 Data Collected Annually by Fiscal Year FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Change Change *BPOL Tax $9.608 M $9.507 M ------(b)-1.1%------ Public Service Tax 1.668 M 2.121 M ------(b)+27.2%------ Bank Franchise Tax $604,515 $744,779 ------(b)+23.2%------ Machinery & Tools Tax $652,132 $676,255 ------(b)+3.7%------ *Resid. and Non-Resid. R.E. Tax Rev. as % of Total R.E. Tax Revenue 75%/25%75%/25%------(b)0 pp/0 pp ------ Notes: (a) See quarterly sheet for wine data; and (b) FY2010/11 tax revenue had not been closed out as of 09-20-11. Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data September 20, 2011 Time Period Beginning Ending Annual Comparison Quarter Quarter Change Tax Revenue *Sales Tax Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 2,834,355 3,224,167 (a)+ 13.8% Hotel/Motel Tax Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 312,735 316,915 (a)+ 1.3% Meals Tax Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 1,181,493 1,650,798 (a)+ 39.7% Jobs & Income *Unemployment Rate Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 5.5%4.7%- 0.8pp *Total Number of Jobs Q4 CY 09 & Q4 CY 10 47,963 48,551 + 1.2% Weighted Average Weekly Wage Q4 CY 09 & Q4 CY 10 $945 $1,004 + 6.2% Workforce Center Clients Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 1,612 2,237 + 38.8% General Business Activity *Total Number of Business Licenses Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 N/A 4,307 N/A Number of New Business Licenses Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 N/A 83 N/A *Small Business Development Center Clients Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 13 17 + 4 Small Business Development Center Training Participants Q1 CY 10 & Q1 CY 11 9 14 + 5 Real Estate Market Number of Single Family Homes for Sale Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 739 683 - 7.6% Monthly Average Number of Single Family Homes Sold Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 81.67 80.00 -2% *Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 9.05 8.54 - 0.51 Mos. FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 218.20 206.04 - 5.6% Residential Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 ------6.10 ------ Commercial Vacancy Rate ------------------------ Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data (Cont.) September 20, 2011 Time Period Beginning Ending Annual Comparison Quarter Quarter Change Development Activity *$ Value of New Commercial Building Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 $28.2 M $14.6 M - 48.2% *$ Value of New Residential Building Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 $29.5 M $28.8 M -2.4% Number of New Residential Building Permits Q2 CY 10 & Q2 CY 11 92 87 - 5.4% Agricultural Economy Wine Production (Liters Subject to State Excise Tax)Q2 of CY 10 & Q2 of CY 11 72,484 102,653 +41.6% (a) Q2 CY 11 tax revenues have not been closed out as of time of publication. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN WHEREAS, Virginia State Water Control Board Regulation 9 VAC 25-780, Local and Regional Water Supply Planning, requires all counties, cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Virginia to prepare and submit a water supply plan to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); and, WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is a participant in the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and Town of Scottsville Regional Water Supply Planning Group as reported to DEQ by letter before the November 2, 2008 deadline; and, WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 the County of Albemarle held a public hearing to accept public comment on the Regional Water Supply Plan for Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, and Town of Scottsville (Regional Water Supply Plan); and, WHEREAS, the adopted Regional Water Supply Plan will be submitted to the DEQ on or before November 2, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby adopts the Regional Water Supply Plan as it pertains to the County of Albemarle. Approval and adoption of this regional plan indicates support for and general agreement with the regional planning approach, but does not indicate approval or disapproval of conclusions and recommendations presented in the plan as they pertain to other localities. The County of Albemarle reserves the right to comment on specific water supply alternatives in the future even though such alternatives may be recommended in this adopted plan. The County of Albemarle will not be limited to specific water supply alternatives in this adopted plan and reserves the right to recommend additional alternatives for consideration in the future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors intends that the Regional Water Supply Plan shall be revised to reflect changes in relevant data at least once every five years and resubmitted to DEQ every ten years in accordance with the regulation and sound planning practice. 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 _________________________. _________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Snow ____ ____ Mr. Thomas ____ ____ Edits to the report “Regional Water Supply Plan for Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, and Town of Scottsville” Based Upon Public Comment – September 2011 1. Page 22, Section 2.2.1, paragraph describing the Observatory WTP: In Line 13, “140 acres” has been changed to “74 acres” to describe the existing surface area of the Ragged Mountain Reservoirs. 2. Page 36, Section 4.1.5: Add a paragraph following the paragraph beginning “The Virginia Department” and ending “current groundwater resources” to read as follows: Albemarle County released a report titled Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment Summary Report – Phase II: Groundwater Availability and Sensitivity Assessment with Proposed Groundwater Assessment Standards (December 2003) that included a proposed assessment program for obtaining more detailed data on groundwater in Albemarle County. 3. Page 42. Figure 4-1 has been revised to reflect the addition of new sections of the Rivanna River and South Fork Rivanna River as scenic rivers. 4. Page 46, A new Table 4-8 has been added that is titled “Places of Historical or Archaeological Significance in Charlottesville VA”. Subsequently, Tables 4-8 through 4-14 in the earlier draft have been renumbered Tables 4-9 through 4-15 to remain sequential. 5. Page 49, Section 4.8.1. A third paragraph has been added to this section to describe the City of Charlottesville’s riparian buffer zone requirements. Edits to the report “Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: Regional Water Demand Forecasts” 1. Page 28. Within the text box titled “University of Virginia”, Lines 2 and 3 of the 5th Paragraph are changed to credit the University’s Office of Management and Budget as the agency providing employment information on the University instead of the Academic Facilities Planning Department. 2. Page 44, Note 4 near top of page. The note was changed to recognize $400 as the additional cost paid by the homeowner to upgrade a clothes washer using the national averages for a rebate program within the context of this note. Page 1 of 9 Regional Water Supply Plan for Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, and Town of Scottsville Responses to Public Comments from September 13, 2011 Public Hearing and Written Comments Received in September 2011 Notice: All comments received will be entered into the record and will be submitted to DEQ. However, this response is limited to those questions or comments which were determined to be specifically related to the documents prepared for compliance with 9 VAC 25-780 of the Virginia Administrative Code for local and regional water supply planning. Some of the public comments that were received addressed issues regarding the permitting process for the Ragged Mountain Dam or dredging that are beyond the scope of this planning process and were not addressed in this response. Further, many comments and questions were very long in length and have been edited for brevity in this document. 1. How can population and employment figures be forecasted for 50 years hence when no one can predict the unemployment rate for 50 days? AECOM response: The Virginia Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulations require the demand forecasts (and therefore the population and employment forecasts) to extend for a minimum of 30 years and a maximum of 50 years. The 50 year timeframe was selected for this project. The forecasts will be revisited every 5 years and resubmitted every 10 years as outlined in the Regulation. 2. Is there a disparity between numbers cited in Section 8.2 and Table 8-1? Why does footnote 5 in Table 8-1 reference the assumption of a 1.1 MGD constant use by Crozet when Section 8.2 states the current water demand for the Crozet system is 0.43 mgd? RWSA response: No disparity exists; the two numbers are historical references to two different studies performed at two different periods of time. Table 8-1 is referencing a study performed by Gannett Fleming in 2004, including an assumption made in that 2004 study of a future water use of 1.1 mgd in Crozet, for the purpose of evaluating the potential future use of surplus water supply from the Beaver Creek Reservoir during drought conditions for the Urban system. The figure 0.43 mgd represents an existing use for the Crozet system as documented by AECOM in 2011. 3. What is the projected cost of the Beaver Creek Reservoir modifications to the existing outlet structure required to provide 2.6 MGD additional capacity? Are the reports: Analysis of Alternatives, completed by Vanesse Hangen and Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) in February 2000 and Water Supply Alternatives Supplemental Evaluation published in July 2004 by Gannett Fleming, on the RWSA website? RWSA response: Modifications to the Beaver Creek Reservoir withdrawal system to allow for measured releases to the Mechums River under drought conditions was completed in May 2007 at an actual total cost of $34,318.61. Page 2 of 9 The July 2004 report by Gannett Fleming is on the web site and can be accessed through the following link: http://www.rivanna.org/documents/community/Water_Supply_Alternatives_Evaluation_July_2004.pdf The February 2000 report is an older report that was not provided to RWSA in an electronic format. It is available for review as a hard copy at the offices of RWSA by contacting (434) 977-2970 Extension 101 and making an appointment. 4. Was the projected cost of the Beaver Creek Reservoir modifications required to provide 2.6 MGD additional capacity significantly lower than the projected costs of the proposed earthen dam to be built at Ragged Mountain Reservoir – to raise the pool height by 30 feet, providing an additional 1,086 million gallons of useable water supply storage. How do the two cost projections (BCR modifications vs. RMR dam raise) compare on the basis of price versus projected increase in water supply capacity? If that comparison shows price per capacity advantages to the Beaver Creek Reservoir modifications, why did RWSA not pursue the Beaver Creek Reservoir modifications? RWSA response: The Beaver Creek Reservoir release is a drought response measure under emergency conditions, not a continuous water supply for the Urban system. Therefore, we do not believe it is comparable to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion, which is dedicated to continuously serve the Urban system. The Beaver Creek Reservoir is owned by Albemarle County and is dedicated as the only water supply for the Crozet community. Some previous planning projections from Albemarle County have shown future growth that would ultimately use the entire Beaver Creek supply for Crozet. The RWSA Board policy is that the Beaver Creek Reservoir must serve Crozet first, but to the extent in any given year there is excess capacity not used by Crozet, the excess can be transferred to the Urban system during a drought emergency. 5. Why is a general "rule of thumb" assumption of 50% bed loss still being used [from a release of water from the Beaver Creek Reservoir to the South Fork Reservoir] rather than the actual observed stream bed loss? What bed loss was actually observed during the 2002 drought? Why are those actual observations not used for purposes of the Regional Water Supply Plan? RWSA Response: The release of water from the Beaver Creek Reservoir for drought response occurs during a severe drought when natural stream flows in the Mechums River are very low. Therefore, to make a successful observation the actual stream flows must be very low, and there needs to be a window of several days when natural stream flows are expected to remain nearly constant (i.e., no scattered or steady rainfall events). For these reasons, time periods when hydrological opportunities are present to reasonably simulate the effects of such release are extremely limited. The test has only been performed twice. Results from the first test indicated there may not have been any bed loss. Data from the second test was compromised by a beaver dam that was built during the test and backed up water at the Mechums River gage, rendering the results inconclusive. Further, the observations are not exact measures; but rather an indicator obtained from a single USGS gage on the Mechums River at the Garth Road bridge. Because anomalies can occur during stream gaging, multiple observations are important to validate the apparent results of any single observation. At this point there are not enough observations to conclude that the engineer’s assumed bed loss should be modified. The proposal to modify the Beaver Creek Reservoir withdrawal system for use as an Urban system drought measure was not developed until 2004; accordingly, no such release occurred in 2002. Page 3 of 9 6. Should the Regional Water Supply Plan report recognize the 2009-10 report by Virginia Groundwater, LLC under contract to the Alliance for Sustainable Albemarle Population that identified two high potential groundwater zones, the Eastern Blue Ridge Flank (EBRF) and Mountain Run Fault Zone (MRFZ), with a potential for sustainable extraction estimated to be approximately 3.9 to 7.8 million gallons per day (MGD)? This would appear to be a significant existing resource. RWSA Response: This question has been asked before in public discussion. The following is quoted from a response provided to the Charlottesville City Council when this question was asked in September 2010: “Groundwater was evaluated very early in the Community Water Supply Planning process but was eliminated early in the process as not practicable based on geological conditions of the Charlottesville- Albemarle area. There are references to this evaluation both in reports prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. between 1999 and 2001, and in Gannett Fleming’s analysis in 2004. These reports were thoroughly reviewed by regulatory agencies with appropriate expertise and the conclusions were accepted. From Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc report entitled Water Supply Project: Recommended Alternatives dated March 2001 – The Alternatives Analysis investigated two options for utilizing groundwater resources. The first, aquifer storage and recovery, involves seasonal underground storage of treated drinking water and subsequent withdrawal to meet demand during shortages. The second, conventional withdrawal of groundwater, includes installation of shallow wells and piping to the South Fork and North Fork water treatment plants. Because of geological conditions, aquifer storage and recovery appears to be technically unfeasible in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Conventional withdrawal of groundwater from 15 wells would provide 0.1 mgd of additional safe yield. Given the unfeasibility of aquifer storage and recovery, no costs were calculated. Installation of 15 wells conveys a very high unit cost of $12/gallon [Note: this cost information was performed in 1999]. From Gannett Fleming, Inc. report entitled Water Supply Alternatives: Supplemental Evaluation dated July 2004 – VHB #21. Conventional Withdrawal of Groundwater o VHB determined this project is not feasible o Not advanced [as an alternative for further consideration] ”Further, when the local organization called Conserv [Virginia Groundwater LLC] released a report in February 2010 suggesting that in their opinion there may be some feasibility to groundwater as a large community water supply, RWSA contacted the Albemarle County Department of Community Development for their thoughts, given the significant information this Department has on local groundwater. Their February 2010 response through the Director, Mr. Mark Graham, is copied below: To [the] finding in the study [referring to the Conserv report] about “mining” of groundwater as an alternative to reservoirs, I believe they are overlooking some key points. First, the East Blue Ridge Flank, EBRF, is within the reservoir watershed. That means the groundwater is already flowing into our reservoirs via the streams, with some loss in the stream reaches due to vegetative uptake and evaporation. During the 2002 drought, we saw these rivers totally dry, meaning all of the Page 4 of 9 "nonextractive" groundwater was gone. Thus, putting wells in the EBRF has two consequences in a drought: 1) It lowers the groundwater levels in the EBRF, meaning an increased risk that residential wells in this area go dry during drought periods, which increases calls for RA [Rural Area] water lines, and 2) it lowers the base flow in the streams between the EBRF and reservoir, increasing the number of stream reaches that “dry up” during droughts and affecting stream quality. One the other side of Charlottesville, if you mine water from the Southwest Mountains, the Mountain Run Fault Zone, it gets even crazier. There are areas on both sides of it where people currently have a very hard time finding adequate wells. If we start drawing down the water from the MRFZ, those people are going to claim we are harming them and the County should extend water lines to provide relief. Extending waterlines into the Rural Areas would be a huge issue for the County as it is perceived to promote growth in the Rural Areas. “Finally, with respect to the groundwater issue, RWSA staff again contacted Albemarle County Community Development following the September 2, 2010 City Council Work Session to confirm if the County’s position remained as described in February 2010. Not only was this position strongly confirmed, Mr. Graham provided additional comments to include the following: . . .[T]he County’s experience with central well systems reinforces that groundwater is not a good strategy for this area. While groundwater has proven adequate for small and well dispersed single family users, the County has seen repeated failures of central well systems that resulted in the Albemarle County Service Authority’s jurisdictional area being extended, resulting in conflicts with County land use policy. For this reason, the question of using groundwater wells has never been considered a viable option for the County. [The County has] no interest in repeating past failures at a much larger and more expensive scale. Finally, beyond the technical aspect, . . . this question [would] be “DOA” for [the County’s] rural area citizens who are now on private wells . . . . Many of those citizens limped through the 2002 drought by greatly restricting their water usage or saw their wells go dry and spent large sums of money drilling much deeper replacement wells. Using groundwater for the urban water supply would greatly impact private wells over a large part of the County’s rural area during the next drought . . . .” Based on the above, RWSA does not recommend that the Virginia Groundwater LLC report (also referred to above as the Conserv report) be included in the Regional Water Supply Plan report. 7. Should the Regional Water Supply Plan recognize a December 2003 report entitled: Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment Summary Report, Phase II: Groundwater Availability and Sensitivity Assessment with proposed Groundwater Assessment Standards, prepared by ENSAT Corporation and County of Albemarle Department of Engineering and Public Works staff? RWSA Response: This report summarized Albemarle County’s efforts at the time toward developing a more robust program for assessing groundwater conditions, and then using the results of such assessment when implemented to develop future groundwater policies. Since the state regulations for the Regional Water Plan do not require a description of proposed or potential future groundwater assessment programs, it is not necessary to reference this report in the Regional Water Supply Plan. However, in deference to the citizen request, a reference to the2003 report will be added to Section 4.1.5 of the Regional Water Supply Plan report. Page 5 of 9 8. The map on page 42 of the Regional Water Supply Plan does not show the correct scenic river status of the Rivanna, the map shows the scenic river status stopping at the foot of Monticello. I don’t have the exact date, but the VA Code was amended in 2009. RWSA Response: The classifications of the Rivanna River and South Fork Rivanna Rivers as a Scenic River were revised in approximately 2009 to extend the Scenic River designation from the former Woolen Mills dam to the base of the South Fork Rivanna Dam. The map has been revised for the final report. 9. Regarding VAC 25-780-90 B.4, sites of historic or archaeological significance in the City are not listed, please correct. AECOM Response: Table 4.8 has been added in Section 4.5 – Sites of Historic or Archeological Significance of the Regional Water Supply Plan to list the historic and archeological significant sites in the City of Charlottesville. 10. Regarding VAC 25-780-90 B.7), why are riparian buffers in the City not mentioned? AECOM Response: A paragraph has been added to Section 4.8.1 of the Regional Water Supply Plan referencing the City of Charlottesville’s Water Protection Ordinance and the City’s requirements for a 100-foot riparian buffer on each side of the Rivanna River, Moores Creek and Meadow Creek. 11. Has the report accounted for the role of price demand elasticity on water demand? AECOM Response: A price elasticity study is a specialized study usually performed in association with a rate study. A rate study was not performed as part of this analysis. A price demand elasticity study could be done in conjunction with the more aggressive “new mandatory water conservation program”, specifically the Adopt Aggressive Conservation Rate Structure measure, if the City chooses. 12. At the bottom of page 41 of AECOM’s report, it states that continuation of existing water conservation programs could result in a 3.9% reduction in total demand in 2060 compared to baseline. There are other references in the report to 2%, 6%, and 1.5%. How are they calculated to achieve the 3.9% reduction? AECOM Response: The baseline water demands were calculated and then the potential savings associated with water conservation were subtracted from this baseline demand. The 2% refers to the assumed replacement rate of old toilet fixtures of 2% per year (also called “passive conservation”), which is an industry standard. Currently, the City of Charlottesville toilet rebate program replaces 6% of its old toilet stock every year and Albemarle County replaces 1.5% of its old toilet stock every year. For the old toilets in the City of Charlottesville, every year the number of old toilets was reduced by 8% (6% for the rebate program and 2% for “passive conservation”) from the number of old toilets for the previous year. For the old toilets in Albemarle County, every year the number of old toilets was reduced by 3.5% (1.5% for the rebate program and 2% for “passive conservation”) from the number of old toilets for the previous year. Page 6 of 9 Old toilets were assumed to be 5 gallons per flush and through 2018 new toilets were assumed to be 1.6 gallons per flush. From 2018 and forward, the calculation assumed that 1.28 gallon per flush toilets would be installed. We also assumed 5.05 flushes per person per day, which is an industry standard total number of flushes per day (home and work). These savings were applied to the residential calculations, although some of these savings would likely be at a commercial or industrial location and not strictly residential. The toilet rebate program does not apply to commercial or industrial facilities and would not have been factored had the calculation been separated. 13. On page 22 of the report, it lists the surface area of the two Ragged Mountain Reservoirs, combined, to be 140 acres. I believe it is closer to 50 acres. RWSA Response: The existing surface area of the Upper and Lower Ragged Mountain Reservoirs is 74 acres. This will be corrected on Page 22 of the final report. 14. Does the water demand analysis account for future water conservation resulting from more efficient washers, and if so how? The report also lists the cost of top loaders at $200 vs. front loaders at $600, please check the accuracy of these figures and adjust as appropriate. AECOM Response: The analysis does not include water conservation savings associated with the replacement of less efficient clothes washers with more efficient clothes washers. At this time, credible data was not available for this calculation. If there is a strong interest in calculating this figure, we recommend a representative study (approximately 10% of households) of the current mix of low, medium, and high efficiency clothes washers combined with better sales data for the Charlottesville market (not a national sales number of appliances to retailers that would skew the results). If this data is available for the next update, then the savings can be quantified and considered. Pricing was reviewed at 2 large home improvement stores located in or near Charlottesville, Virginia on September 26, 2011. While there is a wide range of prices associated with washing machines; the lowest price end top loader (assumed less efficient) was in the $200 range and the lowest price front loader (assumed more efficient) was in the $600 range, with approximately $400 price differential at a minimum. For the purpose of this analysis, these prices considered representative. 15. Will the implementation of the expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir, as approved by the City Council and Board of Supervisors in February 2011 (referenced on Page 80 of the Regional Water Supply Plan report) result in grossly overbuilding what we need and has the City, County, ACSA, and RWSA ignored new information? RWSA Response: The short answer to both questions is no. The decision made in February 2011 provides for phased construction by initially raising the reservoir by 30 feet, which has been determined to provide a long-term safe yield of 15.3 mgd, which is less than the long-term forecasted demand of 16.96 mgd. The February 2011 decision also addressed the second phase of reservoir expansion to take place at a future time only if necessary after further pursuit of water conservation and dredging. This phasing actually shows a significant degree of flexibility to future uncertainty and demonstrates that new information is both considered and appropriately applied. Page 7 of 9 16. Has the water demand analysis accounted for the water efficiency gained by the requirement that all newly constructed residential units, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings must meet the current building and plumbing code? AECOM Response: All new toilets installed will need to comply with the plumbing code requirements. The calculations reflect almost all of the toilets in the Regional Water Supply area meeting the current plumbing code requirements and many exceeding current plumbing code requirements. 17. How has the water demand analysis accounted for the replacement of shower and faucet fixtures with more efficient new fixtures? AECOM Response: This question was answered in the “Response to Questions from Draft Water Demand Forecasts” dated August 17, 2011. This response is shown below. Showerheads and faucets were not explicitly calculated as part of the demand reductions (water conservation) associated with the National Energy Policy Act. The National Energy Policy Act limits the sale of showerheads to 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) of water pressure and faucets to 2.2 gpm at 60 psi. By law, anyone choosing to update these fixtures is limited to fixtures that meet or exceed these efficiency standards. The conversion of showerheads and faucets is more complicated than the conversion of toilet fixtures (see description below) and the demand reductions are less certain. The calculations for toilet replacements are conservative in terms of anticipated water savings, as described below, and were intended to account for savings from the converted showerheads and faucets. One very important difference between toilets and showerheads/faucets is their relationship with water pressure. The water use associated with toilet flushing is based on the number of flushes and not associated with water pressure. The water use from showerheads and sinks is strongly associated with water pressures and these fixtures are rated based on gallons per minute (gpm) at 60 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. If the system pressure is greater than 60 psi, the fixtures will operate at a higher flow rate and the water conservation savings are reduced. The connection to system water pressure presents an overall complication to calculating the potential savings of showerheads and sinks. Additional challenges specific to each fixture are presented below. Showerheads 1: Despite the requirements outlined in the National Energy Policy Act, there are still a number of new showerheads sold today that are non-conforming (i.e., exceed the 2.5 gpm standard). In some cases these fixtures are knowingly sold at higher flow rates, in some cases they are incorrectly tested and/or labeled, and in some cases the flow rate is adjustable with the lowest setting in conformance but higher non-conforming settings are optional. In addition to the availability of non-conforming fixtures, there is an increasing trend of the installation of multiple showerheads in a single stall (not illegal) and non-compliant showerheads due to tampering (removing the flow restrictor disk) to increase the flow rate. These challenges are also noted by the Alliance for Water Efficiency website; “Water savings will only be achieved if the new showerhead is retained and not altered to excessive flows.” Without the inspection and testing of a representative and random sampling of shower fixtures in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, the impacts of non-conforming and non-compliant fixtures on current and future water demand reductions cannot be reasonably estimated. It should also be noted that installing showerheads with flow rates less than 2.5 gpm is not recommended due to safety concerns. From the Alliance for Water Efficiency website; “As showerhead flow rates have decreased, the incidents of accidental scalding have increased; caused by the loss of thermal buffering in water volume 1 http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/a-08-07-022/amendedWorkpapers/SW-ResA/SF_WH_Kits/viewcontent.pdf and http://www.map-testing.com/info/menu/showerheads.html and www.a4we.org Page 8 of 9 when water supply temperatures change suddenly. Thermostatic mixing valves prevent this problem… to date, thermostatic mixing valves are only tested and certified for flows of 2.5 gpm or greater.” Faucets: The Alliance for Water Efficiency website states that “the water savings (from faucets) are small when compared to replacing toilets”. Several of the challenges associated with showerheads are also prevalent with faucets. For most faucets, it is as easy to alter the flow rate as it is to open a plastic bottle; simply turn the aerator until it is removed. Similar to the multiple spray showerheads, the automated shut-off faucets have become very popular but result in higher water use. Multiple studies have shown that the infrared automatic shut-off faucets use more water than the traditional fixtures. These fixtures are commonly preferred by consumers because they are convenient and reduce the exchange of germs (the consumer does not have to touch the fixture after washing). These automatic faucets are allowed under the plumbing code and the common installation of these fixtures also impacts the potential water savings associated with low flow faucet installation. Since the water savings from faucets are smaller than other fixtures there is insufficient data to appropriately quantify the future savings, the savings from faucets were not directly calculated. If additional data was collected on the existing faucets in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, then these savings may be able to be directly calculated for future water demand forecasting exercises. Toilets: The estimate for the potential for toilet rebates is conservative (i.e., may over-estimate the potential future water savings). The housing age was provided by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County (shown in Table 13 of the Draft Regional Water Demand Forecast memo). All of the homes built prior to 1994 were assumed to have older fixtures with the exception of the natural plumbing fixture conversion rate of 2- percent per year (applied from 1994 to 2060). In reality, the popularity of home improvement television shows and the recent availability of designer toilet fixtures have likely increased the fixture conversion rate to a rate greater than 2-percent per year. Typically, a building permit is not secured for a toilet replacement. While home improvement stores track fixture sales, these stores serve a greater region than just the Charlottesville and Albemarle County areas and therefore cannot be used to refine fixture age assumptions. Given the complexity with estimating the age of toilet fixtures, the fixtures were assumed to be the same age as the home with the exception of the 2-percent replacement rate applied from 1994 to 2060. In part this assumption was made with an understanding that some showerheads and faucets will be replaced, although the data is not available to calculate these anticipated savings. The savings associated with the conversion of showerheads and sinks were not explicitly calculated in part because of the conservative assumptions for the number of older, inefficient toilet fixtures that remain to be replaced (providing future reductions in water demands) and in part due to the complications with accurate calculations regarding the savings of these fixture replacements. If the City of Charlottesville or Albemarle County increases the understanding of the fixtures in a representative number of homes through site inspections and fixture testing, this data could be used to refine the estimates for future water conservation savings. 18. What is the basis for the assumption that all of the projected increase in UVA student population will be on the City’s water system? Will some portion of the students who live off- grounds be in housing that is on ACSA’s system? AECOM Response: Based on discussions with stakeholders (UVA, the City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County), the current percentage of students living off-grounds and in the City of Charlottesville was held constant throughout the planning horizon (approximately 65% of off-grounds students in the City limits and the remainder in the urban area of Albemarle County). Therefore, the increase in future students living off-grounds was projected both in the City’s water system and ACSA’s system. Page 9 of 9 19. Why is the data and text on pages 79-80 of the Regional Water Supply Plan report not updated to account for data in the HDR Dredging Feasibility Study? RWSA Response: The information on Pages 79-80 identifies a list of water supply alternatives and the estimated gain in future safe yield by each, based on the most recent study performed that was for the purpose of identifying water supply alternatives. That most recent study of alternatives was performed in 2004 by Gannett Fleming. The information in the report clearly references the source of the information. The HDR Dredging Feasibility Study was not an alternatives analysis; it looked at dredging the reservoir one-time based on current conditions. It did not forecast future safe yield, nor did it forecast what may happen in the future with respect to the useable storage of the reservoir. 20. Do the water demand forecasts take into account economic conditions, availability of jobs, housing, conservation measures in place now, future conservation measures, fluctuations in City population throughout the year, as students arrive and depart? AECOM Response: The water demand forecasts are long-range forecasts and reflect the overall trends through the timeframe. Slight annual variations should be expected throughout a 50-year time horizon. • Economic conditions and availability of jobs – the future employment forecasts maintain a the current number of jobs per household into the future • Water conservation (current and future) – these are considered and outlined in the Memorandum Fluctuations in city population throughout the year – the water demand forecasts are based on annual average demands which would naturally account for the variability over the course of a year 21. Is footnote 1 on Page 79 of the Regional Water Supply Plan suggesting that DEQ would require downstream releases equal in frequency and magnitude to those predicted under the terms of Permit 06-1574 if dredging or some other alternative had been requested as the preferred alternative instead of expanding the Ragged Mountain Dam? RWSA Response: The report is not speculating actions that have not been taken by DEQ. The footnote is simply providing reference information to the reader. It is informing the reader that the stream flow rules applied to how Gannett Fleming modeled safe yield in its alternative analysis in 2004 is different than what was later derived in a permit DEQ issued for the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion in 2008. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2011 Strategic Plan Strategy Session Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This report provides a summary of the outcomes from the Board of Supervisors’ Strategic Planning Session and the resulting Vision, Mission and Goals for FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Elliott, Graham, and Davis. Ms. Allshouse and Ms. Catlin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: October 5, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. The County’s FY07– FY10 Strategic Plan, in which the Board directed staff to focus on enhancing the County’s quality of life, protecting its natural resources, managing growth, developing infrastructure, and creating a long-range, comprehensive funding strategy formally ended on June 30, 2010. The on-going work to achieve those goals and objectives continues to be incorporated into the County’s regular operations. Last year, the County made adjustments to its strategic planning processes and time schedule to be more agile and to best position the County to address challenges created by difficult economic times. Based on the Board’s guidance, the County developed a more succinct two-year strategic action plan to focus Board and staff efforts on the County’s most immediate and critical needs. Work on the five goals identified by that strategic action plan continues through FY 11/12. Earlier this year, the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation to return to the County’s previous long-range strategic planning format beginning in FY 12/13. The Board provided direction and guidance for the dev elopment of the FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan during a strategic planning session held on June 30, 2011. DISCUSSION: At its June 30th strategic planning session, the Board reflected on past accomplishments, reviewed the results of the County’s 2011 citizen survey, conducted an environmental scan and participated in a visioning session led by Ron Carlee of ICMA. As a result of these activities, the Board reaffirmed the County’s mission and values and prioritized the County’s top strategic focus areas for the next five years and asked staff to bring back a draft vision statement and draft goal statements based on the guidance provided. The County’s FY 12/13 -- FY 16/17 Strategic Plan will be more comprehensive than past plans. While the Plan will continue to focus on setting broad community priorities as informed and directed by the Board (“external component”), it will also focus on the organization’s internal high performance efforts based on feedback and direction provided by both the Board and staff (“internal component”). To that end, County staff has also been developing an “internally- focused” goal for the organization. When complete, this information will be merged with the results of the Board’s strategic planning session and also provided for the Board review. It will include the two areas of emphasis identified by the Board at the Retreat: Assuring excellent customer service and increased efforts to support and recognize staff. At this time, staff recommends the following Vision Statement and six goals be approved to be included in the County’s FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan: Vision Statement: A thriving county, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system that honors its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural resources while fostering attractive and vibrant communities. Mission Statement: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds. AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors’ June 30, 2011 Strategic Plan Strategy Session Report October 5, 2011 Page 2 Values: Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship and Learning Goal Statements: Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy Protect the County’s natural and scenic resources Ensure the health and safety of the community Promote citizen ownership of community challenges After the Board’s approval of the County’s Vision and the six Goal Statements, staff will develop strategic objectives and action plans for every goal, while continuing its efforts to complete the work outlined in the County’s current two year strategic action plan. The County’s current Economic Vitality Action Plan, already underway, will be incorporated into this Strategic Plan, under the Goal entitled: “Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.” Staff will present draft strategic objectives for the remaining goals to the Board for the Board’s review and approval in January 2012. The final draft of the FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan will be provided to the Board for review and final approval in May 2012. BUDGET IMPACT: The FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Action Plan will provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and annual budget processes. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Vision and six Goals for inclusion in the FY 12/13 – FY 16/17 Strategic Plan. Return to agenda