Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-12 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 12, 21)1)0 January14,2000 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · Sherry lachetta invited the County to be a part of the Complete Count Committee for the Census 2000. Mr. Martin stated that the County would participate. · Paul Wdght expressed concerns about the staff presentations at the budget meetings that are being held in the Supervisors' districts. He also commented on the Compensation Study. 5.1 Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY99, $24,683 (Form f~9050). · APPROVED 5.2 Upgrade of Sun Ridge Road (Wakefield Road) in Northfields Subdivision. · APPROVED as recommended by staff. 5.3 Legislation -VDoT Purchase of Parkland. · APPROVED. 5.4 Contribution to High Growth Coalition for Lobbyist for 2000 General Assembly Session · APPROVED ZMA-99-01. Pantops Place (Signs #82&83). APPROVED as proffered in letter dated January 5, 2000, addressed to Elaine Echols, and signed by the owners. Public Heating on ACE Progam. HELD public headng. Board to continue discussion on February 2. Consensus of Board to address issue of biodiversity and ranking system. There was some concensus that the County Attorney proceed with drafting an ordinance. Mr. Perkins suggested staff start thinking about putting together an ACE Board. Ms. Thomas suggested staff explore the use of funds from the recordation tax to fund this program. Mr. Martin mentioned the previous position of the Board to take this issue to referendum. 9. Adjourn. · Meeting was adjoumedat 10:32 p.m. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: Acknowledge comments. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward memo to Bill Mawyer, with copy to Juan Wade, and send letter to Christine Stacy. County Executive's office: Forward letter to legislators. Clerk: Include appropriation request on January 19 agenda. None. Clerk: Include on February 2 agenda. /ewc "~'OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Dire~.o~f Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, January 14, 2000 Board Actions of January I2, 2000 5.1 At its meeting on January 12, 2000, the Board of Superxdsors approved the following: Appropriation: Law Enforcement Block Grant, $24,683 (Form #99050). Attached is the signed appropriation form. /ewc Attachment pc: Anne Gulati Robert Walters lohn Miller APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99~00 TYPE OF ApPRoPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X 99050 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT. CODE 1 1538 31013 1 1538 31013 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $22,929.00 210000 FICA ~ 1,754.00 CODE 2 1538 33000 2 1538 51000 TOTAL $24,683.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 300001 FEDERAL GRANT $22,215.00 512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND $2,468.00 TOTAL $24,683.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE DEC 29, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY 99 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99050 in the amount of $24,683.00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime in the northern/western areas of the County. It is a 2 year grant covering the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2001. This grant was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 1, 1999. The final grant award and local match has been received from the Department of ;Justice and are presented on the attached Appropriation Request. DISCUSSION: The federal grant is $22,929.00. The local match is $2,468.00 and will be funded out of current operations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99050 in the amount of $24,683.00. 99.238 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works Ella W. Carey, Clerk, C~~' January l4,2000 Improvements to Wakefield Road At its meeting on January 12, 2000, the Board of Supervisors supported staff's recommendation for improvements to Wakefield Road. The Board authorized construction of Phase I to complete the section of Wakefield Road serving current residents with the use of General Funds to expedite the process. Construction of Phase I to begin after a drainage easement is granted by residents or condemned by the Board. The Board also supported staff's position to not complete Phase II of this project since it would serve three vacant lots and it does not meet the criteria for the VDoT Rural Additions Program. /ewc cc: Juan Wade Bob Tucker COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Improvements to Wakefield Road SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Request to Provide Construction Improvements Required for Acceptance of the Road by VDOT STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer, Wade AGENDA DATE: January12,2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENT: Location and Construction Phasing Map BACKGROUND: or~fie Wakefield Road (recently renamed Sun Ridge Road) is located in the N Ids Subdivision between Northfield and Huntington Roads. Wakefield Road was platted and approved by the City and County Planning Commissions in 1960. The plat provides a 50' public right-of-way for construction of Wakefield Road. Stormwater drainage easements were not included with the plat. To date, the road has not been completed and has not been accepted by VDOT into the state secondary road system for maintenance. Four homes have been built on Wakefield Road and all of the residents have requested the County to provide construction improvements re(; uired to have the road accepted for maintenance by VDOT. The County does not hold a subdivision road bond to fund completion of this work. DISCUSSION: Reappropriation of $25,000 in year-end operating funds was approved by the Board on October 6, 1999, for construction improvements required to qualify the road for acceptance by VDOT. A meeting with the residents was held on October 12, 1999, and all in attendance agreed the work should be completed, although several residents were concerned about removal of trees and shrubs in the right-of-way and the location of a drainage easement. The owner of lot #17 requested an existing stormwater drainage channel be relocated from the center of lot #17 to the property line between lots #16 and #17. The owner of lot #17 is unwilling to grant a drainage easement for the existing drainage channel in the existing location. The owner of lot #16 does not support relocation of the channel and refuses to grant a drainage easement. An adequate drainage system with appropriate easements is required by VDOT as a condition of road acceptance. The road improvements are proposed to be completed in two phases as follows: Phase I: Pavement and drainage repairs for a 600' section of road starting at Northfield Road. These repairs will complete the road serving the current residents and allow this section of road to be accepted by VDOT. A construction bid of $22,000 has been received to complete the work. Phase I1: Road and drainage construction for a 300' section of road, which was never constructed and is required to serve three existing lots (#7, 8, and 14). Vacate the remaining right-of-way no longer required. Estimated cost $75,000. Both phases will require removal of vegetation in the right-of-way and 20' wide drainage easements to be dedicated to the County. The Engineering Department will attempt to develop clearing and easement alternatives which are satisfactory to all of the residents. If residents are unwilling to grant easements, condemnation of 20' wide drainage easements by the Board will be required to qualify the road for acceptance by VDOT. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize construction of Phase I to complete the section of Wakefield Road serving current residents. Although Phase I qualifies for the VDoT Rural Additions Program, the Board has approved that it be completed with General Funds to expedite the process. Construction of Phase I will begin in the near future after a drainage easement is granted by residents or condemned by the Board. Staff does not recommend completion of Phase II of this project because it would serve three vacant lots and does not meet the criteria for the VDoT Rural Additions Program. 00.005 NortMield Rd. t Tobin 8 Tobin END PHASE / / Block F Tobin 7 Tobin Jackson 14 Stacy 12 McKie 3 Gianniny 6 Gianniny 15 Stacy 11 Garrison 4 Grau 17 Faulconer Duns'tan Block E 8 Hogan g Cruz 10 Garrison DellwoOd Rd. Huntington Rd. Proposed Improvements to WAKEFIELD ROAD Tax Map 62A(1) Jan. 7, 2000 Attachment 1 ~RN-14-8000 14:43 FROI'I:HOUSE OF DEL 8~T866.3~0 T0:804 896 5800 P. 008~002 J~nu~ry 14, 2000 By Facsim~l¢ Charles S. Martin, Chairman Bcard of Supervisors County of Albemarle 804-296-5500 Dear Chairman Mart/ny We have received yo'ta' letter dated ]'anuary 12, 2000 concerning the Meadowcreek Parkway. Delegate Harris has spoken at some length with Actfiag Secretary Nottingham of Virginia Department of Transportation regarding the issue of the department's purchase of privately held land to replace Mclntire Park land taken for the roadwa),. It is Secretary Nottingham's opinion that it is currentJy within the discretion of bis department to purchase the required land ia accordance with previous agreements without any additional Iegislaive action. Delegate Harris has eormnunicated this information to Senator Couric and Delegate VanYahres and has coordinated a meeting with them, Secretary Nottingham, and David Blount of'the Thomas ~efferson Planning Commission for Wednesday, .ranuary 19a. At that time we will attempt to confirm that no additional enabling legislation will be required to carry out the agreement regarding the VDOT purchase of right-of-way propervd. Should you need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me al g04-698-1158. Vet3' respectfully, ~,¥. lq.. ~'anis~ .) Legislative A~stant COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Legislation -VDOT Purchase of Parkland SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of letter to local legislators requesting legislation to allow VDOT to purchase land to replace park land when it has been taken for a roadway project. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The attached letter to our legislators requests legislation in the 2000 General Assembly to allow VDOT to purchase land to replace parkland when it has been taken in a roadway project. RECOMMENDATION: If approved by the Board, the letter will be signed by the Chairman and sent to our legislators for consideration by the 2000 General Assembly 00.003 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Hurnph~ Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 · Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel l~ller January 12, 2000 FAX: (804.) 296-5800 The Honorable Emily Couric 25th Senatorial District P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905 The Honorable Paul C. Harris House of Delegates - 58th District P.O. Box 1276 Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres House of Delegates - 57th District 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902-5055 Dear'Senator Couric, Delegate Van Yahres and Delegate Harris: As you may know, during Meadow Creek Parkway negotiations between the City and the Virginia Department of Transportation, VDoT agreed to replace Mclntire Park land taken for the roadway with privately held land in the County alongside the Parkway. However, we have now been told that VDoT cannot legally purchase land beyond buying right-of-way property. To address this issue, the County would like to request your help in submitting legislation to the 2000 General Assembly that would allow VDoT, when they determine that it is appropriate, to purchase land to replace urban park land that has to be taken for a roadway project. This legislation would not bind VDoT, but it would at least give them the ability and flexibility to offer this land exchange should the appropriate situation arise. The Metropolitan Planning Organization has also voiced its strong support for this enabling legislation. Should you need additional information on this request, please do not hesitate to contact me or County staff, We look forward to hearing from you on this request and thank you for your continuing interest and support for local government issues. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/dbm 00.001 Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 January 6,2000 The Honorable Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Growth Coalition Funding Dear Mrses. Humphris, Thomas and Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm your discussion by consensus on Wednesday, January 5th to provide funding for a growth coalition lobbyist during the 2000 General Assembly. You agreed to contribute funding of at least $500 but not exceed $1,000 for lobbying services. Your approval of this Consent Agenda item will allow us to prepare an appropriation for this service once we know the exact amount. I have attached a copy of a memorandum that will more adequately explain the request. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive RWT,Jr/dbm 00.003 Attachment pc: Ms. Roxanne W. White De;-28-~9 05:31pm Frum-LOUDOUN CO ADMINISTRATION 17037770325 T-$12 P,02/03 F-4gl Memorandum DATE: December 29, 1999 TO: High Growth Coalkion members FROM: Scott York, Chairman-elect Loudoun County Board of Superviaors SUCCinCT: I~TAINING LOBBYIST FOR 2000 GENERAL ASSEMBLY S~,~$ION There were several individuals and tarns contactcd regarding interest in representing the High Growth Coalition before the 2000 General Assembly. The subcommit,,ee of Tom Woodward, $oe Winkclma~ assisted by Memory Porter axe recommending that thc High Growth Coalition retain the lobbying team at Sands Anderson Marks & Miller ( Jerry Kilgore, Ben Lacy, Stephani¢ Hammett and Chris Nolen). The lobbying team has proposed a fiat fee of $20,000. A full copy of the team's proposal will be faxed direcdy to your city manager or county adminis~ator. We are in the process of confmning that one locality, possibly Dinwiddie, is willing to become the fiscal agem for contracthl~ with r.he firm on behalf of the High Growth Coalition and k's members. A model agreement wil[ need to be drafted and rdaen endorsed by each locality.. We, in Loudoun, intend to officially adopt the high growth coalition Mission Statement at our first meeting on January 5, 2000 and at that time will authorize the County Administrator to contribute up to $3,000 towards retaining thc lobbyist for the Coalition. The goal is to officially re.in the lobbying firm prior to thc beginning of thc 2000 General Assembly Session, which begins on January 12, 2000. You may recall that was the recommendation of flae High Growth Steering Commim in December that k would not be required to conm'bute to thc lobbying fee to retain membership in the High Growth Coalition. It will be important, howevcr, that every local goverranent member of the Coalition formally establish its relationship with the lobbying firm ~hat, on the issues covered in the Mission statement, the lobbyists have the authority to represent your interests. Funding: There arc 24 localities that are members of the High Growth Coalition. We need to raise $20,000 for this lobbying effort. If each locality would contribute a base amount of $500, perhaps the larger localities would be willing to share the burden for the remaining $8,000. I need to hear back from you or your jurisdiction early the first week in January. 11 VIRGINIA COALITION OF HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITIES Mission Statement: "The mission of the Virginia Coalition of High Growth Comm unities is to advocate and support legislation that maintains and strengthens local authority to manage residential growth and its impacts." Bo Legislative Priorities: General Priorities: · Defend and expand existing local land use authority in order to' ~ore effectively manage and direct growth. · Support increased state funding to pay for growth impacts. Specific Priorities for 2000 Session: Improve Impact Fee statute and extend authority for all local governments. Obtain Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) authority for local governments in the subdivision and site plan process. Revise the 1998 Vested Rights bill to protect local government options. JURISDICTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE VIRGINIA COALITION OF HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITIES As of October 1, 1999 Albemarle County Augusta County Bedford County Chesterfield County Clarke County Culpeper County City of Chesapeake City of Fredericksburg City of Suffolk Dinwiddie County Fauquier County Fluvanna County Franklin County Gloucester County Goochland County Hanover County Isle of Wight County James City County Loudoun County Montgomery County Powhatan County Rockingham County Spotsylvania County Stafford C~unty 24 12/28/99 17:12 FAX 804 783 7291 SAt~_S ANDERSON ~002/012 PROPOSED ACTION PLAN for THE VIRG1NIA COALITION OF HIGH GROWTH COMMUNITI~.S Nothing in government happens in a vacuum. Every decision made in Richmond affects the futures of Virginia's counties, cities and, ultimately, each citizen. For this reason, it is imperative that county and city administrators keep on top of the legislative process. They need to know when some overlooked language in any given piece of legislation will have an adverse affect on them and their constituency. At the same time, local governments need to be acutely aware of the overall tenor of the General Assembly and have a close working relationship with the Members who will be passing legislation; The Lobbying Team at Sands Anderson Marks & Miller has the track record needed to take on a seemingly impossible task and making it happen. During the 1999 General Assembly Session our Team worked on behalf of a client to open up the juvenile competency evaluation system to the public, thereby giving their company the ability to compete for the state's business in 12/28/99 17:12 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~003/012 the private sector. Against tremendous odds, our Team was successful in obtaining such legislation for our client, the Cumberland-Brown Schools. Because of the many ways in which localities can be affected by the decisions made in Richmond, many cities and counties have chosen to do what businesses have done for many years-employ a government relations team with the expertise needed to develop and implement strategies that result in legislative victories. In today's environment, it is important to have the right contacts and the right information to compete for time and attention before the General Assembly. personal and working leadership in both the Marks & Miller's legisl government relations e: It is important to note that Jerry W. Kilgore has close ontacts with many members of the new Republican Tirginia State House and Senate. Sands Anderson ative team (the "Team") brings a wide array of rperience to obtain the right information for its clients. 12/28/99 17:13 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~004/012 THE SANDS ANDERSON TEAM For over 140 years, Sands Anderson Marks & Miller has been providing individuals and organizations with quality legal services and unprecedented personal attention. As one of the top medium-sized firms in Virginia, our priorities reflect both the needs of clients and the effects of the ever-changing legislative, political, judicial, and economic environments. The Attorneys of the Lobbying and Government Relations Group offer a wide variety of government relations experience. All have extensive experience in dealing with legislative and regulatory bodies in Virginia. The Attorneys have the ability to shepherd legislation through the complicated General Assembly process. They also understand the budget process, state contract bidding issues, and the RFP process in Virginia. If regulatory practice is necessary, the Attorney's need no on-the-job training. In short, the Attorneys possess the experience and ability to develop client-specific strategies based on the client's individual needs. 3 12/28/99 17:13 FAX 804 783 7291 3ANDS ANDERSON ~005/012 BEN R.~LACY, IV: Ben Lacy brings signilicant experience to the Sands Anderson Government Relations team. He represents life, property and casualty insurance associations, as well as other clients covering a broad array of issues before the Virginia General Assembly. He also advises these clients with regard to administrative and regulatory matters, and is active ia representations before the State Corporation Commission. While Ben has colleagues in both political parties, he has close ties to many Democrat Members of the General Assembly. JERRY W. KILGORE: Jerry Kilgore recently served as Virginia's Secretary of Public Safety under the Administration of Virginia Governor George Allen. As Secretary, he oversaw eleven state agencies, 16,000 employees and a one billion dollar annual budget. He was instrumental in Virginia's successful efforts to abolish parole and reform the juvenile justice system. As the Secretary of Public Safety, he led Virginia's efforts to privatize many public functions, including both adult and juvenile prisons. He un derstands the state system of awarding contracts, the RFP process and the state budget process. During his first two years on our Government Relations team, he effectively achieved major victories for our clients. A 12t~$/99 17:13 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~006/012 former statewide political candidate, he is also very active in local and statewide races, including serving as the Co-Chairman of the Gilmore for Governor campaign. STEPHANIE HAMLETT is the most recent addition to the Sands Anderson lobby team and brings an expertise in the areas of taxation, general business, and public finance. She comes to us from the Virginia General Assembly, where she served as counsel to the HoUse Appropriations Committee and co-counsel to the House ]Finance Committee. Ms. Hamlett is a graduate of Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg and received her law degree from the University of Richmond's T.Ci William's School of Law. CHRISTOPgri~.R IL NOLEN brings over ten years of political experience to the lobbying team. Chris has worked as a legislative assistant in the Virginia House of Delegates and is also a veteran of many political campaigns. Chris is the former executive director of George Allen's political action committee where he focused on fundraising, candidate recruitment and developing grassroots support for the Governor's legislative proposals. 12/28/99 17:13 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~007/012 Additionally, as a past vice-chairman of the New River Valley Community Services Board, Chris is experience in working with local and state agencies. In today's competitive political environment, it is important to have a government relations team that can work with ~11 elected officials. Because of their diverse backgrounds, our Team has experience working with both Democrat and Republican members of the General Assembly and with the Executive Office staff. It has always been the policy of our Team to seek out and maintain working relationships with members of both political parties. All donations from the Firm are based on the committees with which we most closely work and are evenly divided between Republican and Democrat members of the House and Senate. Years of government experience have given each member of our Team the ability to work effectively on both sides of the aisle and we are prepared to put that collective experience to work for you. In addition to the extensive political and legislative experience of our Team, the firm of Sands Anderson Marks & Miller has for years represented the interests of dozens of Virginia's local governments, many of which are 12/2~/99 17:13 FAX 804 753 7291 $A~$ MYI)ER$ON ~008/012 members of your Commission. an attachment to this proposal. A complete list of these clients are included as The firm's many years of local government experience, combined with our extensive political contacts makes our Team uniquely qualified to represent the Coalition in the advancement of its legislative agenda. ACTION PLAN FOR THE VIRGINIA COALITION OF HIGH GROWTH COMMU~~S The Coalition seeks approval for legislation giving localities the ability and the freedom to negotiate with developers to control the speed and size of growth in their communities. To that end, we propose the following: 1. Tracking. Reporting & Lobbying Tracking and reporting on legislation in your .area of interest is the only way to understand what is on the minds of the Administration and the Legislators. We will report to you on a weekly basis all pertinent legislation, then track each bill and report on 7 12/28/99 17:14 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~009/012 all actions taken in the various committees. Detailed reporting takes place every Friday. -Daily updates are provided on an as-needed basis. 2. In addition to the tracking detailed above, our Team will provide direct lobbying of legislators on specific bills that will affect The Coalition or potential legislation promoted by The Coalition. This option also expands the scope of issues covered by the Team by including any and all issues which would have a direct affect on the Coalition. The Team will implement the above strategies in the following manner: Stage I: The General Assembly Session During this period, the Team will draft bills and amendments to the budget bill, as necessary, find sponsors and have the bills and/or amendments ~ed, and continue to keep in contact with members of the appropriate House and Senate Committees. 8 12/28/99 17:14 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~010/012 In addition, we will make sure that the other members of the House and Senate are aware at all times of where the issue stands and where you need to be for your £mancial success. Stage 2 - General Assembly thr. ou~h Veto Session During this period various members of the Team will work with Committee members on a daily basis to make certain that both the House and Senate act on proposed legislation which is as similar in naturc as possible. Keeping both House and Senate on the "same page" will eliminate, problems that often occur when each recommends drastically different versions of the same bill. The Team will speak with a member of the Governor's staff to make sure that the Governor understands the need for the legislation and attempt to ensure that he will sign the appropriate legislation. In addition to the above, the Team will, each day, monitor and track any and all other legislation that might be of interest to the Coalition and report the status of those bffis to you. 9 12/28/99 17:14 FAX 804 783 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~011/012 With these three goals accomplished, the Coalition will be ready to defend its positions and make the General Assembly aware of its legislative goals. The Sands Anderson Marks and Mffier Government Relations team brings seasoned experience to get the job done. COST OF SERVICES Our legislative clients each have chosen a payment method which best suits their needs. Contracts can be drawn up on either an hourly basis or with a fiat fee. Hourly: Jerry W. Kilgore and Ben R. Lacy, IV each bill at $175/hour for their services. Stephanie Hamlett and Chris Nolen bill at $135/ hour. Flat Fee for Tracking. Reporting~ Lobbying: Working alone, the Sands Anderson Team will charge a fiat fee of $20,000. This amount would allow us to implement ali activities outlined in this Proposal, from any necessary pre-session items through the Veto Session. 10 12128/99 17:14 7291 SANDS ANDERSON ~012/012 Should the Coalition decide to put together a team of lobbyists, Sands Anderson's costs would be $15,000 for the same work for the same period. Because of Sands Anderson's ability to lobby both Democrat and Republican Members, the time spend on the lobbying effort would not be significantly reduced by the addition of another firm. Therefore, our fees cannot be significantly reduced when teaming with another firm. LIST OF CLIENTS Cumberland-Brown Schools Lifesafer Interlock PAIC (medical liability insurers) Commissioners of the Revenue Virginia Special Olympics Shenandoah Life Insurance Company American Council of Life Insurance Brown & Root REFERENCES Jay Ziehl. Cumberland-Brown Schools Maura Dunn - Brown & Root Senator William Wampler 800-368-3472 713-260-3492 540-669-7515 or 804-698-7540 Other references will be provided upon request. 11 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: October 1999 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: October 1999 Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Breeden, Walters, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2000 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: p< BACKGROUND: Attached are the October 31, 1999 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. Operations and General Fund reports show deficits awaiting December 5, 1999 collections. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the October 1999 Financial Report. 99.239 Ocm 0 ~Om zO m z nl --~ z z ~ m Z m z m Z 0 m z c: ITl 0 rrl X Z ~oO~ 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 m CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM ACTING COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ao~ eAST 8RO^D STREet RICHMOND. 23219-1939 November 22, 1999 Airport Road (Route 649) Proj. 0649-002-158, C-501 Fr: Route 29 To: Route 606 PPMS #: 2456 File #: D-9-99 Albemarle County Design Approval Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 501 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 The Cornmonwealth Transportation Board on November 18, 1999, approved the major design features as proposed and presented at the August 12, 1999, public hearing. Sincerely, State Location and Design Engineer 99 DECt5 ~ 1:20 SHELBY j, H,tRSH~LL, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place PRD SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to approve Pantops Place PRD with proffers and request for special use to allow for an Assisted Living Facility on 12.2 acres of land on Route 250 East adjacent to Westminster Canterbury. Property description is TM 78 Parcels 55A1 and A5. Existing zoning is R-l, R-6, and R-10. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Echols, Messrs. Cilimberg, Tucker, Foley BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: January 12,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: REVIEWED BY:f/~?/'''~ [ On December 7, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposals and recommended unanimous approval. After the Planning Commission meeting, the developer requested a minor modification to the proffers. DISCUSSION: In proffer number 2, the applicant's wording was originally as follows: Residential density limits will be as follows: Assisted Living Center Independent Living Quarters Independent Living Cottages Maximum 60,000 gross SF and 72 Beds Maximum 50,000 gross SF and 40 Apartments Maximum 30 Units This proffer is revised to say: Residential density limits will be as follows: The building(s) containing the Assisted Living area and the Independent Living units will be no greater than 110,000 square feet. The total number of assisted living units and independent living units together shall not exceed 100; however up to twelve of the assisted living units may be two-bedroom units. Reason for change: The applicant has asked for the ability to have a more flexible combination of assisted living center rooms and apartments. This change does not affect the total number of residents anticipated for the facility; rather it affects the mix slightly. The Application Plan shows roughly half of the main facility as available for Assisted Living and half available for Independent Living. This aspect of the plan Would not change. The change in the proffer would leave the exact mix open until time of site planning to better address market conditions at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the attached proffers. Staff believes that the changes are not significant enough to require additional review by the Planning Commission. 00.002 .3an-05-O0 04: 11P Va Land Co. 804 296 ~ME'~IC~q hOJ~ZNG Janu~rys, 200o ~510 Page 1 Ms, Elaine Echols Senior Planner Oepartmen! of Ptanning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mc_Jntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Pantops Place Dear Ms, Ect~ols: Tl~e undersigned applicant makes :he following proffers: Development of the site will be in genetal conformity with the plan entitled, "Pantops Place Preliminary Ptan', ~Jated February 22, lggg and revised October 18, 1999 herein referred to as the'.~pplication Plan. Residential density limits will De asifollows: The building(s) containing the Assii ;ted Living area and the Independent Living units will be ho. greater than 110,0~: 0 scluare feet. The total number of assisted living units and independer~t living inits tOgether shall not exceed 1013; however, up to twelve ofthe assisted living wits may be two-bedroom units. Independent Living Cottages ~ Maximum 30 Units A 13reliminary traffic analysis will be performed ~rk3r to preliminary site plan approval. The owner shall share ir the cost of any comprehensive traffic study deemed necessary subsequent to he review of the preliminary traffic analysis. The amount of partioipetion shall b b~sed on a pro-rala share of the traffic votume contributed to the site as ¢~termined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department, At the re~lueSt Of rOOT, the owner will enter into an agreement among ell parties whos~ property does or will contribute traffic to the Pantops Mountain Road/Route 25d. intersection, to make a pro-rata financial contribution toward the installation '~f improvements related to the signalization of the intersection. P.02 Jan-05-O0 04-' 12P Va Land Elaine Echols County of Albemarle January 15, 2000 BO¢ 2B6 3510 P.03 HOUSING P~Gk 04 P~e2 Vehicular access to the site single location, direotly opp~ office buiMing development Application Plan. from Route 250 East Sha}; be I~mited to a ~eite the new entrance to the Martha Jefferson on Pantopa Mountain Road, as shown on the (b) Prior to any development o~the property, the applicant shall record an access easement to serve ~he adjoining property described ara Albemarle County Tax Map 78, Parcet The owner shall provide an feet to connect to an permission is 9ra~ted by V~ The owner shall provide week tO convey assisted iiv~ other clestinations. 55A3. t maintain an asphalt I~ath of no less than 5 trail system at Westmi~mr Canterbury, if ~stminster Canterbury for sucll a connec~on. itlle service at a minimum of three times a n9 resicler~ts to appointments, shoppit~, and During construction of the first ph,flse of the development, the owner shall perform.grading in the r.o,w, for R~pute 260 or immediately adjacent to thiS r.o.w. tO faeilitate the future installation ~,a sideWalk which w~uld be pert of any recont'~guratio~ of Route 250 to ar~' ~rban droSs-section" roadway, ff the grading for the sidewalk would result in the sidewalk being on ~ Pantops Place property, lhen the owner will granl the necessary easements for pectestrtan acce~ along this ~Iction of hi~ p~ refleot the greeting to be performs The owner shall provide a 15 foot along its entire common bounclar~ the Application Plan, The easemt q::~y. The final site development plan shall with this proffer. >uffer easement in width uDon the property with the Glenorchy subdivision as shown on ~nt will be ;xovided at oormtruotion of improvements. The purpose of th s easement will be to ensure trte preservation of an existing mature hedgerow a~d fieldstone wall along this oommon boundary fine. No plant removal, other than dead, dLseased or noxious wgetation, shall take pla~e in this area, Only limitl ~i grading as shown on the approved site plans, and only that which does mtt requtre the removal o? trees, shall be permitted, New beneficial plant milterial may be sensitively intn:~u~ to augment the efficecy of the hedge row es a screening element. Pedestrian ac~es., s to this area shall not be r~)tricte(l. The owner shalt provide supplerne~ntal screening, to the S~tl~fab"tion of the Albemarle CoUnty planning staff, '.~ edditk~"t to that required in Section 32.7.g.8 of the Zoning Orctinanoe to ensure t~at tt'm service areas for proposed b, uiiding8 wilt be Droperly sctee~ from the Glqnorchy subclivislon. This landscapmng Shall be shown on the Landscaping Plan td be submitted with the final site development plan for this section. 04: 12P Va Land Co. 804 296 3510 P.04 Elaine Ecl~ols County Of Albem~e January 6, 2000 The owner wilt show tl~e 25% Ol0er and preserve and/or improve, for land which lies east of the i~terrnitl will remain in its current state exes oonstruotion of a tx)nd, walking installation of tenclacal0e treatment development plan. A community association will be areas outside of the building envek members of this commuflity spade on the preliminary and final site plans ~creationai and amenity puq~osas, all of that ant stream which transects the site. The land ~t as deemed rteceaaary for the i:x)tential ~a and other recreational features and es shown on the preliminary site 'mod for ownership and maintenance of all q~e$. Owners of he devek~pment shall be ntion. Virginia Land Truer, Owner Tax Map 78, Pareel 55-A-5 / _ / ~ By'. ~ ~~ . < ~ ~, : Charl~ W. Hun, M.D:, Tmst~ Individual Owners Tax Map '/~, Parcel December 10, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Developmem 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Mark Keller McKee/Carson 301 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA99-01 Pantops Place; Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A1 and 55A5 Dear Mr. Keller: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 7, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the attached proffers. The Commission also recommended that the Architectural Review Board examine the orientation of the cottages along Rt. 250 with an eye to improving the relationship between the cottages and the Entrance Corridor. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 12, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elaine K. Echols, AICP Senior Planner EKE/jcf g OARD OF SUPERVISORS Cci Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Bob Ball Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP DECEMBER 7, 1999 JANUARY 12, 2000 ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place -Revised Plan dated 10/18/99 and Revised Staff Report November 30, 1999 Applicant's Proposal: American Senior Living, L.C., represented by Mark Keller of McKee Carson, has requested a rezoning of the property for a retirement village to be called Pantops Place. Located on the north side of Route 250 adjacent to and east of Westminster Canterbury, the 12.3 acre parcel is zoned R-l, R-6, and R-10. The requested rezoning is to PRD Planned Residential Development and, if approved, the project will provide an assisted living center of 60, 000 square feetfor a maximum of 72 beds; an independent living section of the building with a maximum of SO, O00 square feet for no more than 40 apartments; and a maximum of 30 separate residential cottages. The institutional use of the assisted living center and independent living building require special use permit approval as part of the rezoning. The application plan for the rezoning is shown in Attachment A. Revised Proffers are attached to this staff report as Attachment B. These proffers address outstanding issues raised at the Planning Commission's July 6 meeting. Petition for Rezoning: The petition is to rezone 12.3 acres from R-I, R-6, and R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcels 55 A-1 and 55 A-5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Route 250 East, adjacent to Westminster Canterbury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free Bridge and the Charlottesville City limits. (See Attachment C) The property is located in an Entrance Corridor. The density of the development is 8.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood 3, Pantops. Petition for Special Use: A special use permit request is made with this rezoning for a "rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution" under Section 19.3.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. In this application, a maximum of l l O, O00 square feet for no more than 72 beds and 40 apartments is requested. No separate application is required when these uses are included in the original PRD rezoning petition. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the property is a rapidly urbanizing part of Pantops. To the west and north is Westminster Canterbury. To the east is an undeveloped parcel of land owned by the G.H. Land Trust zoned R-1 and an undeveloped portion of Glenorchy. Across Route 250 East is the Peter Jefferson Place commercial office development. Subdivision and Zoning History - There is no subdivision history for these parcels. Parcel 78 - 55 A-1 was rezoned from R-1 to R-10 with proffers in 1988 through ZMA 88-17. The proposed rezoning would replace the R-10 and proffers. The primary issue addressed in ZMA 88-17 was access from Route 250 which was addressed through a proffer that this property would gain access from Pantops Mountain Road. By-right Use of the Property_: With its three zoning classifications, the property could be developed residentially at three different densities. Maximum density, theoretically, could be approximately 80 dwelling units on 12.3 acres. With' bonuses for environmental preservation and provision of low-to-moderate income housing, density could be 124 dwelling units although area for roads and avoidance of critical slopes would likely reduce this number, The density for this proposed project is slightly lower than the 124 potential by-fight units. Forty apartments, thirty cottages, and 72 beds translates roughly into 106 dwelling units or dwelling unit equivalents (72 / 2 -- 36; 40 + 30 + 36 = 106). Specifics on the Proposal: Design of the proposed development is shown on the "Preliminary Plan" in Attachment A. The general layout consists of a principal entrance to the property from Pantops Mountain Road, which is the private road into Westminster Canterbury and five areas shown for'specific improvements. These areas contain: residential units adjacent to Route 250 East; a large three-story building for assisted living and the independent living units; two areas for 1 & 2 story cottages; and an outdoor area at the foot of the wooded slope. Associated parking for the development is also shown on the plan. Within the large three-story building, there would be an activity center and living areas. The cottages would be triplex and quadruplex type units. The outdoor recreational area would include a footpath to a pond. Regrading and slope reconstruction is proposed for this site. Architectural Review Board (AR~) approval for the buildings and site plan is required and the applicant presented the preliminary proposal to the ARB on May 3. The ARB further clarified their position on this proposal on June 21 (See Attachment D). They reiterated concern over the use of the "front parcel" as a fill site (now the location of residential units), The appearance of the fill site would not be appropriate for this area, which is adjacent to the Entrance Corridor. There was also some concern for the scale and orientation of the buildings on site and their visibility from the Entrance Corridor. However, in summary the ARB had no objection to the rezoning as submitted with the conditions as noted in the Attachment C. These conditions include providing adequate landscaping to soften the appearance of the overall development, providing streetscape landscaping along Route 250 with first phase of development, and meeting all ARB guidelines and receiving ARB final approvals. The applicant has consulted Monticello and residents and administration at Westminster Canterbury prior to completion of the proposed design. A letter from Westminster Canterbury is attached to this report (See Attachment E). A letter from Monticello is also attached to this report (See Attachment F). Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has requested the rezoning to provide for a retirement community with three different levels of housing and convalescent living for retirement age individuals. The applicant has said that the ctm'ent R-6 and R-10 zoning do not allow for cohesive development or efficient use of the property. The applicant believes that a planned development approach with special use permit approval provides for better opportunities to meet the needs of the retirement community at this location. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and with the changes submitted on October 19, 1999, now recommends approval. Staff also recommends approval of the requested critical slopes waiver. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be Urban Density, recommended for 6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre. In terms of density provided, this proposal would meet the recommended density requirement. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas (General Land Use Standards pp. 20 - 22) Development should be concentrated and clustered to protect environmental features. The site can be described as having three environmental areas. The area closest to Route 250 is a gently rolling grassy area with a few trees. About midway through the site, the rolling grassland becomes a young forest of deciduous trees. This area slopes back to a stream. The third area slopes up to the top ora hill past the northern boundary of the site. Areas of critical slope (slopes in excess of 25 %) are present on the northern part of the property which is shown on the application plan as "Preserved Hardwood Forest". The stream, located about 2/3 of the way to the rear of the site was used as a channel, to bring sediment from the Westminster site construction to a sediment basin on this site. The sediment basin is no longer in use and has been revegetated. A retention pond is shown in this area for the development. Major grading for the development is proposed to the site. In addition to the building and parking pads, the grading is proposed to change the drainage channels and force direct runoff to the rear of the parcel into the retention pond. The Engineering Department requires that stormwater management for the portion of the development that drains directly to Route 250 be addressed no later than the preliminary site plan stage. Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained.. The applicant proposes to preserve the forested area to the north of the parcel as open space, A hedgerow along the property to the east is proposed for "preservation and supplementation with screening". With grading up to this hedgerow, a conservation plan will be needed in order to assure preservation of vegetation at this location. Engineering staff comments previously indicated that a hedgerow and rock wall could not be maintained to allow for adequate erosion control measures to be installed. The applicant has now proffered a 15foot buffer easement to ensure preservation of the existing hedgerow and fieldstone wall along the common boundary line. Additionally, the applicant has proffered to remove only dead or diseased vegetation in this area and very limited grading that does not remove trees. The applicant has proffered to revegetate this area as well and provide supplemental screening. Engineering believes that these proffers and the additional distance from the hedgerow and rock wall will leave adequate room for erosion control measures. Limiting access points should minimize the impact of development on major roads. Access to this site will be limited to Pantops Mountain Road, which is owned and maintained by Westminster Canterbury. Westminster Canterbury has limited this property to a single point of signal; however, they have requested that a preliminary traffic analysis be performed prior to preliminary site plan approval. The applicant has proffered to participate financially in a comprehensive traffic analysis when it is necessary as well as to provide a prorata share of the costs of any intersection improvements and signalization when it is warranted. An interparcel connection through the office building area has been proposed which will assist in the development of the adjoining parcel. Water and Sewer: Public water and sewer would be extended to the property. No location or capacity issues are known at this time. Fire flow does not appear to be an issue; additionally, the buildings will be sprinkled. Stormwater Management: The property drains two directions -towards Peter Jefferson Place and towards the creek located near the rear of the parcel. The major regrading of the site will change the drainage patterns and it is the intent of the applicant that grades allow for drainage from the buildings and parking lots to go to the pond at the rear of the site. Stormwater management of the water flowing from the front of the site towards Route 250 will have to be addressed at the preliminary site plan phase. Fiscal impact to public facilities - The County has reviewed the anticipated fiscal impacts and that analysis is provided in Attachment H. The proposed development would not likely provide students to any of the schools because of the age of the population to be served. A by-right development of 124 units would add 58 new students to the public schools. Twenty- eight new students would be put in Cale Elementary; 14 new students would go to Burley Middle School; and 16 new students would go to Monticello High School. Cale is currently at capacity; Burley is over capacity; and Monticello High School is over capacity. CIP projects have been planned for Burley and Monticello to increase the capacity of those schools should by-right development occur. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - No impact is anticipated on cultural resources of the County. Impact on historic resources - Monticello shares concerns of the ARB on the visual impacts of the reconstructed slopes and the mass and scale of the 3 story ALC. TheARB, however, believes that it can deal with its design concerns after the rezoning is approved. Impact on environmental resources -- Environmental resources at this site include woods, steep slopes, and a small streams. Steep slopes - Construction on critical slopes is proposed. The Engineering Department can recommend a critical slopes waiver at this time. Issues of grading and erosion and sediment control where grading is shown up to the property line, must be resolved prior to preliminary site plan approval. Streams -An intermittent stream on the property is not shown as a significant feature on the County's Open Space Plan. Wetlands - There are no known wetlands on the property. Special use permit evaluation for the convalescent type care facility The Zoning Ordinance allows the requested special uses for the office use and the convalescent type facility to be evaluated with the PRD. The Zoning Ordinance has specific issues to be reviewed for the convalescent type facility which are discussed below: · Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are compatible to the particular area. Pantops Place would be developed with Westminster Canterbury on one side and low-density single family development on the other side. The physical surroundings would appear to be compatible for the ALC use. · No such use shall be established in any are either by right or by special use permit until the Albemarle County fire official has determined that adequate fire protection is available to such use. The Fire Official has determined that there is adequate fire flow available for the development. · Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response time to emergency medical and fire protection facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses. Emergency medical and fire protection facilities should easily serve the ALC. The facility is close to shopping, social, education and cultural uses. The applicant has proposed to provide van services at least three times a week for residents to medical appointments, shopping and the like. · No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case. It is clear that licensing for all aspects of the A_LC will be required; however, it is unclear which licenses will be pursued. Zoning has asked for clarification from the applicant on the licenses that will be pursued as each use has specific parking requirements. This information will be required for site plan approval: From the analysis above, it appears that the convalescent type use of the ALC can meet the supplemental requirements of Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, after clarification on licenses is provided. SUMMARY Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 2. 3. 4. A "planned" approach to the development of 12.2 acres in the Development Areas has been proffered. The full development of the property has been master planned in detail, rather than as "bubbles" on a map. By showing the detail now, future problems can be avoided. Access will be provided from an existing private road rather than from a new entrance on Route 250. A variety of housing options for retirement age persons is provided with the cottages, independent living center, and the assisted living center. Density is within the range promoted by Comprehensive Plan. The employment opportunities provided and the lack of school age children resulting from the development lessen the fiscal impacts of the development. Pedestrian access has been provided among and between the proposed uses on the site. The applicant has worked extensively with adjoining property owners to develop a pl.an, which is compatible with existing uses. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: The size and mass of the ALC does not work well with the existing topography because it causes the significant grading and reconstruction of slopes in excess of 25%. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff has worked with the applicant for this rezoningfor almost a year. Almost all issues relating to the rezoning have been resolved. With the exception of the creation of critical slopes by the regrading of the site, the site meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Because County regulations allow the reconstruction of slopes to a 50°/3 grade and those slopes can be revegetated to achieve stability, staff believes it is appropriate to recommend approval of this rezoning with proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A -- Application Plan B -- Proffers C -- Tax Parcel Map D -- ARB Letter E -- Letter from Westminster Canterbury F -- Letter from Monticello G -- VDOT Comments H -- Fiscal Impact Statement 10 PANTOPS PLACE Albemarle County, Virginia PRELIMINARY PLAN 18:45 7832472146 ANERIOAN HOUSING PAGE 82 Ms. Elaine Echols Senior Planner Department of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 2290~ RE: Pantops Place Dear Ms. Echols: November 30, 1999 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 1 The undersigned applicantlmakes the following proffers: Development of the site w~l! be in general conformity with the plan entitled, '~Panto~s Place Preliminary Plan", dated February 22, 1999 and ~ev~sed October 18, 1999, herein referred to as the Application Plan. Residential density limit~ will be as follows: ASSisted Li~ing Center ~ : Independent Living Qua~te~s IndeDendent Living Cottag~ A preliminary traffic ana preliminary site plan app the cost of any comprehen Maximum 60,000 gross SF and 72 Beds Maximum 50,000 gross SF and 40 Apartments Maximum 30 Units ~ysis will be performed prior to zoval. The owner shall shame in ~ive traffic study deemed necessary subsequent to the review ~f the preliminary traffic analysis. The amount of participation Shall be based on a prorata share of the traffic volume contributed to the site as deter~ined by the Albe~arle County Engineering Department. At the request of VDOT, the owner will enter into an agreement among a~l parties whose property does or will contribute traffic tp the Pantops Mountain Road/Route 250 intersection, to makela pro-rata financial contribution toward the installation o~ improvements related to the signalization of the intersection. (a) Vehicular access ~o ~he site from Route 250 East shall be limited to a singke location, directly opposite the new entrance to the Martha Jefferson office building 11/38/1999 18:45 7832472146 PAGE 2 development on Pantone Mountain Road, as shown on the Application plan. (b) Prior to any development of the property, the applicant shall record an access easement to serve the adjoining property described a? Albemarie County Tax Map 78,. Parcel 55A3. (c) The owner shall provide and mainsain an asphalt path of no less than 5 feet Fo connect to an on-si~e trail system at Westminste~ Canterbury, if permission is granted by Westminstp~canterbury for such a connection. ~ ~. . (d) The owner shall provide shuttle service a~ a mlnzmum of three times a week t~ convey assisted living residents to appointments, shopping, and other destinations. Durin~ construction of th the owner shall p~rform g. or immediately adjacent ~ future installation of a reconfi~uration of ~oute roadway. If the grading the sidewalk beinq on the owner will grant the nec~ access along this section development plan shall re with this proffor. The owner s~all provide a upon the property along i G!enorchy subdivision as easement will be provided The purpose of this ~ase~ preservation of an existi wall along this common bo other than dead, disea'sed place in this area. Only approved site plans, and the'removal of ~rees, sba plant material may be sen efficacy of the hedgerow access to this area shall The owner shall provide s ~ first phase of the development, ~adin~ in the r.o.w- for Route 250 o this r.o.w, to facilitate the sidewalk which would be part of any ~50 to an "urban ~ross-section" ~or the sidewalk would result in Pantops Place property, then ~he ~Sary easements for pedestrian of his property. The final site ~lect the grading to be Derformed 15 foot buffer easement in width ~s entire common boundary with the ~hown on the Application Plan. The at construction of improvements. ~nt will be ~o ensure the ~g matur~ hedgerow and fieldstone :ndary line. No plant removal, or noxious vegetation, shall take limited gradin~ as shown on )nly that which does not require ~I be permitted. New beneficial sitiveiy introduced to augment the as a screenin~ element. Pedestrian not be restricted. uppleme~tal screening, to the satisfaction of the Alber~arle County planning staff, in addition to that mequire~ in Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning 11/38/1999 18:45 7832472146 AMERICAN HOUSING PAGE 84 Ordinance to ensure that~ buildings will be properl subdivision. This la'nds~ Landscaping Plan to be su development plan for this The owner will show the 2 and final site plans and recreational and amenity lies east of the intermit~ si%e. The land will rema deemed necessary for the walking paths and other = installation of landscape. preliminary site developm A community association w maintenance of all areas ReSidents of the developR community. PAGE 3 ~he service areas for proposed ! ~creened from the Glenorchy ~p~ng shall be shown on the )mitred with the final site section. 5% open space on the preliminary )reserve and/or improve, for )urposes, all of that land which ~ent stream which transects the ~n in its current state except as ;otential construction of a pond, ~creationat features and treatments as shown on the ~nt plan. .!1 be for~ed for ownership and )utside of the building envelopes. ~nt shall be members of this :ant ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT C 'i'7 22A MONTICELLO ' SGOTTSVILLE AND RIVA NN A' - DISTRIGTS SECTION ATTACHMENT D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntir¢ Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: File Margaret Pickart, Design Planner ARB-P(SDP)-99-11: Pantops Place June 22, 1999 At its meeting on June 21, 1999, the ARB addressed Planning staffs concerns regarding the ARB's preliminary review of the above-referenced project. The Design Planner summarized that the ARB reviewed a preliminary application for this project on April 19, 1999 and made a number of comments, some of which addressed the size and mass of the proposed buildings, the orientation of the buildings on site, the character of the grading, the landscaping/screening, and the visibility of the proposed development. The ARB was informed that the applicant was moving forward with the rezoning and if the Board of Supervisors approved the request as proposed in the application plan, the ARB would be unable to modify the location of buildings on site. The ARB was asked to clarify their position. They indicated that although smaller buildings oriented in a different manner were preferred, they felt that the applicant had worked sufficiently to address site and project constraints, and they felt that the development could be made appropriate for the Entrance Corridor by working with the applicant on architectural and landscaping issues. The ARB did reiterate their concern with the front parcel, noting that the applicant had indicated that it would be used as a fill site, and that the appearance of a fill site was not appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. In summary: The ARB stated that they had no objection to the rezoning as submitted on the plan reviewed at the preliminary ARB conference, with the following conditions: 1. Adequate landscaping shall be provided to soften the appearance of the overall development and to make the development appropriate for the Entrance Corridor, 2. Streetscape landscaping for the parcel that fronts the Entrance Corridor shall be included as part of Phase 1, 3. The design of the parcel that fronts the Entrance Corridor shall meet all ARB guidelines, 4. All phases of the development shall receive final approval of the ARB. MAY i ? lg9§ PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT E PAGE 1 C. Henry Hinnant, III President and Chief Executive Officer BOARD OF DIRECTORS Donald D Sandridge, Chairman Arthur G. Kiser Vice-Chairman Mr. James _ Brown Mrs. Robert Bruner The Rev. Jeffrey Fishwick Dennis W. Good. Jr E. ~oward Goodwin Gerald B. Haecket Thomas C _yncn Mrs. Cary N. Moon. dr. Mrs. Bru~e Murray John A. Owen. dr.. M.D. Frank E. Taylor, Wendall _. Winn. Jr Westminster- Canterbury' of the Blue Ridge is firmly committed to being an advo- cate/or the elderl'~ through providing programs and a high quality en- uironment ~or a ministry, b~'. with and ]br the a,~mng persons of the Charlottesville~ Albemarle area. Oltr mission is to provide the leader- ship. resources and management necessar',, :o en- sure a WCBR community fldty responsive to the complete and d'~- namic needs of the aging of our area. May 14, 1999 Ms. Elaine Echols Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 McLutire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Pantops Place Dear Ms. Echols: I reviewed your files on Tuesday, May the il% 1999 regarding the Pantops Place rezoning as a planned residential development adjacent to Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. I have some comments which I would like to ask you to consider. I'm glad to see that the current site plans for the PRD show only one entrance, and that such entrance is directly across from the entrance into the Martha Jefferson Hospital Medical Office Building, which has just been completed. WCBR maintains, by deed restriction, control of curb cuts for entrances off of our main entrance, and this current location as shown on the Pantops Place site plan is appropriate, and will be approved by WCBR. Concern: It appears on the site plan that the originally- proposed Pantops Place commercial office building and parking lot along Route 250 has been carved out of the application for the PtLD. Our concern is access to that property. As mentioned above, WCBR will only approve one curb cut. This leaves the question of how access would be granted to this commercial office building in the future. This 250 PANTOPS MOUNTAIN ROAD CHARLO'I-I'ESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 TELEPHONE (804) 980-9100 FAX (804) 980-9173 A continuing care retirement community related to the Presbytenan and Episcopal churches ATTACHMENT E Elaine Echols May 14, 1999 page two PAGE 2 is an issue which I believe could most appropriately be resolved at this time if the Pantops Place site plan were to redraw its internal roads in order to serve this front portion. Again, I would refer to the deed restrictions held by WCBR in that we will not grant permission for a curb cut other than the one mentioned above. Our reasons are due to safety concerns for WCBR residents and the MJH office building visitors which would be posed by a second curb cut on the blind curve as one enters the property from the east. I hope that this issue can be resolved at the time of your rezoning. I note in staff notes regarding this site plan that reference is made to connecting pedestrian walkways of Pantops Place to those of Westminster- Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. Concern: We have adviSed the developers of ?antops Place that WCBR is a gated, private community. Residents of WCBR are medically admitted to this health-licensed facility, and our campus is open only to our own residents and their registered visitors. WCBR is not open to the general public and will not connect its pedestrian walkways to those of any surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned, we are a gated community, and we anticipate that for safety and security purposes at some point in the future, our campus may actually be enclosed with an attractive fencing. I hope that bringing these two matters to your attention at this early date will be helpful in your rezoning and site approval processes for P~tops Place. Sincerely, C. Henry Hinnant 1II CHH:kvc cc: Thomas Frank, American Housing Associates Mark Keller, McKee CarsOn MONTICELLO June 2, 1999 RE ATTACHMENT F .JUN n .4 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Elaine Echols Department of Planning County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 DANIEL P. JORDAN President Re: Pantops Place Assisted Living Facility Dear Ms. Echols, We have met with the developers of Pantops Place and have seen their plans for it. In general, we concur with the issues raised by the Architectural Review Board (ARB-P-SDP-99- l-l) at its meeting on May 3. Of particular concern to us would be the following: 1) The density of the proposed development and the alignment of buildings on the site require extensive earth moving and the creation of steep and unnatural slopes. The result no doubt will be the loss of existing trees -- certainly more than we understood from our meetings with American Senior Living on February l0 and March 12, 1999. 2) The three-story connected "independent living" and the "assisted living" buildings are massive. 3) Visitors to Monticello will see the southern half of the main facility, the three southernmost cottage units, and the Route 250 office building (proposed for a second phase). This assumption is based on discussions with the developer and their planners, who deployed balloons at the site on March 12 in order to gauge what might be seen from Monticello. We believe that we will see more than 50 percent of the development. If tttere are questions, please contact my colleague, Bill Beiswanger (984-9850). Thanks once again for the County's sensitivity to Monticello's viewshed. Sincerely, CC; Mr. Beiswanger Mr. Marshall Mr. Nichtmann THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 3~6 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 PHONE ,'304 984.98oI FaX 8oa 977.7757 e-mail d_iordanO monticello.org ATTACHMENT G PAGEI Mr. Ron Keeler Page 2 Public Hearing Submittals April 1999 SP 99-10 CV 159 Scenic Lookout, Route 690 See SP98-09 for comments. SP 99-11 CV 154 Ivy, 1-64, Route 708 See SP 98-09 for comments. SP 99-14 CFW CV 137, Route 250 West See SP 98-09 for comments. SP 99-15 CV 113, Red.. H ill, Route 29 South See SP 98-09 for comments. SP 99-17 Free Bridge Office, Route 250 This site should have intertparcel access with the site to the immediate east. The site should be served with a commercial entrance. It appears that a portion of the site will be in the 100 year flood plain. A minimum of a 25 foot dedication of right of way is recommended along Route 1421. ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place, Route 250 East The proposed development will generate, according to site plan figures, a traffic count of 720 +/- trips. An intersection analysis that reflects current background traffic will be needed and the growth of background with overlay of proposed site along with any further development that can access the private road needs to be included for Level of Service. The Peter Jefferson Site traffic, Pantops (Kroger) and Luxor should be included in projections. There is a proposed traffic signal at some time as warranted by the Peter Jefferson site, however, this may be some time off. In the event that a traffic signal would be warranted before the Peter Jefferson site develops, then the developer would be responsible for the traffic signal with the exception for the side on Peter Jefferson .,~"-entrance. ATTACHMENT G PAGE 2 Mr. Ron Keeler Page 3 Public Hearing Submittals April 1999 The traffic demand on the Route 250 Corridor is growing at such a rate that the need for a third lane is needed in both directions. Therefore, full frontage improvements adding the third lane will be required for this site development. A portion of this third lane can be the existing turn lane and taper, however, the paved shoulder will need to be strengthened for a traffic lane that will include curb and gutter. If you have any questions, please advise before releasing to the developer. ,/ Assistant Resident Engineer HWM/smk Attachments Cc: J.H. Kesterson COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT H PAGE I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner /~ June 16, 1999 Addendum to ZMA 99-01 (Pantops Place) As I mentioned in my e-mail of June 15th, I discovered that CRIM is set up so that institutional real estate is assumed not to be taxed by the County. In as much as the County wouM tax the 60,000 square foot, 72 bed facility at Pantops Place, I once ~agairt ran two scenarios for this proposed project, using a per square foot value of $66 for this type of institutional facility.~ As was the case with my previous memorandum, the first scenario calculated the fiscal impact that would occur under current zomg, while the second scenario estimated the fiscal impact under the proposed zoning. The results of these two separate analyses appear below. Fiscal Impact (Current Zoning) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $41,000 89,000 $130,000 ($187,000) (40,000) ($227,000) ($97,000) June 16, 1999 ZMA 99-01 (Pantops Place) Addendum Page Two PAGE 2 CH' Impact (Current Zoning) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CH' Impact ($o) (s71,ooo) (s71,ooo) (so) (so) (so) ($71,ooo) These figures are no different fi.om those found on my June 14th memorandum since, under current zoning, no institutional space would be developed. Fiscal Impact (Proposed Zoning) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $88,000 200,000 $288,000 ($314,000) (86,000) ($400,000) ($112,000) Italicized numbers are different fi.om those presented in my June 14t~ memorandum, and remit fi.om overriding CRIM's standard assumption about institutional development, i.e., forcing the model to treat the 60,000 square foot, 72 bed facility as taxable property. PAGE 3 June 16, 1999 ZMA 99-01 (Pantops Place) Addendum Page Three CIP Impact (Proposed Zoning) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) (] ] 8,ooo) ($ l ] 8,ooo) ($o) ($o) ($o) ($118,000) The net annual CIP impact is identical to the one presented in my June 14a' memorandum. Note that these proposed zoning CIP figures should be the same as those found in my previous analysis since forcing CRIM to tax institutional space affects the revenue side of the model, but not the cost side. According to these revised estimates, the differential net annual fiscal impact of approving ZMA 99-01 is negative $15,000. In my original analysis, this figure, was negative $39,000. As I mentioned in my June 14tu memorandum, the official results of the fiscal impact analysis for Pantops Place are problematic in as much as retirement communities would not have the same pupil generation factors as those found in more typical residential developments. For this reason, I ran a third scenario in which I modified certain formulae in CRIM. The resulting fiscal impact analysis, which appears on page four, is not official. According to this unofficial FIA, the differential net annual fiscal impact of approving ZMA 99-01 is {$61,000 - (-$97,000)) = $158,000. As I explained in my previous memorandum, I have the authority to alter CRIM's assumptions and formulae, without the consent of the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, only as long as I document the changes and present the resulting FIA as being unofficial. Running the third scenario involved two steps. First, since I assumed that the dwelling units at Pantops Place would not generate any pupils, I had to determine how many dwelling units and, by extension, how many pupils, would result from the 50 additional full-time equivalent (FTE)jobs that the developer estimated would be generated by the 60,000 square foot, 72 bed facility. CRIM officially estimated that such a facility would result in 149 FTE jobs, and 112 FTE secondary jobs. These estimates appear in DmdTaxBase:F31..Y31 and DmdTaxBase:F26..Y26 respectively of file ZMA9901B. I erased the formula in cells F26..Y26 and simply inserted the number 50 in each. From this number, CRIM calculated 38 secondary spin-off jobs. I then had to erase the formula in DmdTaxBase:F7..Y7 since CRIM would automatically calculate the total number of jobs based on June 16, 1999 ZMA 99-01 (Pantops Place) Addendum Page Four PAGE 4 Unofficial Fiscal Impact (Proposed Zoning) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Unofficial Net Annual FI $ 70,000 86,000 $156,000 $42,000 53,000 $95,000 Unofficial CIP Impact (Proposed Zoning) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Unofficial NA CIP Impact ($o) ($16,000) ($16,000) ($o) ($o) ($o) ($16,000) PAGE 5 June 16, 1999 ZMA 99-01 (Pantops Place) Addendum Page Five the 60,000 square feet times a preset factor, rather than just on the 50 jobs I inserted plus the 38 secondary spin-off:jobs. Consequently, I entered a formula in DmdTaxBase:F7..Y7 to add F26..Y26 to F31..Y31. Now, in DmdTaxBase:F11..Y14, CRIM estimates the number of dwelling units based on the number entered in Scenarios:F22..Y27 plus the total number of jobs resulting from the development (DmdTaxBase:F7..Y7). Since the goal was to determine how many pupils would be generated by the increase in dwelling units resulting from the increase in jobs only, the formula in TaxDmdBase:Fll..Y14 was changed to remove the reference to Scenarios:F22..Y27. CRIM estimated that 8 SFD's, I SFA/TH's, 2 MF's, and 1 MH would result from the increase in jobs and, as a result, a total of four pupils wOuld be generated (2 in elementary school, and 1 each in middle and high school). These results appear in file ZMA9901C. The second step involved making changes to file ZMA9901B and running this revised model. I entered the 50 institutional jobs and 4 pupils into DmdTaxBase:F31..Y31 and F33..Y35 respectively. I then entered in DmdTaxBase:F7..Y7 the formula mentioned in the previous paragraph, to obtain the total number ofjobs. Notice that the DmdTaxBase:F11..Y14 mils were not altered as part of the re-nm of ZMA9901B. This was because I already knew the number of pupils that would be generated by the increase in jobs alone, but now I needed the model to take into account the DU's of the Pantops Place development itself and the DU's resulting from the increased number of jobs (F7..Y7). Since CRIM would automatically calculate this total number of DU's, from the numbers entered in Scenarios:F22..Y27 and those appearing in F7..Y7, no formula alterations in DmdTaxBase:F11..Y14 were necessary. The results of running the revised model appear in file ZMA9901D. ~The County's Department of Finance supplied this figure as representing a typical market value, per square foot, of nursing homes. SAA/saa PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON ~¢ V · ' NAME(Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)  '" [ v vt,' PLEASE IGN BELOW IF Y TO ON v~.,j I _ NAME (Please print clearly) 23 PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) 1928 Arlington Blvd., Room 105, Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 970-1707 Phone (804) 971-1708 Fax January 12, 2000 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: League of Women Voters Re: Acquisition of Conservation Easements The League of Women Voters supports the Albemarle County Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program (ACE) and applauds the Board of Supervisors for its foresight in approving $1 million to launch this important initiative. The County displays fiscal wisdom in promoting ACE and slowing the costly expansion of residential development in rural areas. As trends of the past few decades have shown, preservation of the natural and cultural resources that constitute the wealth of our county will reqUire more than verbal support. The positive incentives of the ACE program will provide a means for citizens to participate in this preservation while continuing to own, use and enjoy their land. While we heartily support the preservation of the unique scenic beauty and rich historical heritage of our county for recreational and tourism purposes, the League places the highest premium on protection of critical natural resources. We have repeatedly voiced support for Comprehensive Plan provisions, land use decisions and other county efforts which would protect our watersheds, forests, mountain lands and diverse biological communities. In the long run, our community's good health depends on their remaining intact and viable. In light of this, we suggest that the ACE Commission include members with knowledge of area geology, surface and groundwaters, and biosystems. The Commission should actively employ expert advice in/ts annual review of the program's elig/bility criteria and point system. This consultation with authorities will help target areas with natural resources particularly valuable to protect. As the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan develops, the program should reflect goals and priorities of the updated Plan. We urge implementation of the ACE program now, and a commitment to securing ongoing funding. Ruth Wadlington, Co-President ~...a non-partisan organization dedicated to the_promotion of informed and active participation of citizens in government." 0 To Board of Supervisors, Jan. 12,. 2000 Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for taking up the important issue of the Counties Purchase of Development Rights.I am here to request your favorable action on this subject. This is a land management tool which is in use in 21 states. Maryland has had an active PDR progra~ since 1977, impelled by the concern for regional food security during the oil embargo. Removing development potential from farmland may: 1-facilitate the inheritance of family farms, 2-make the land more affordable to beginning farmers, 3-reduce real estate taxes or prevent them from rising by lowering the demand for new services and 4- provide for local food production in case of emergency. PDR can provide the farmer with capital with which to improve his farming operation and thus keep the family on the land. The reinvestment of PDR funds in farm improvements may also stimulate sales of local ag. related products such as trucks, farm machinery,livestock, feed and supplies. PDR also lets the urban areas share with farmers in the protection of the rural scene . Non farmers benefit in the continuation of agriculture in many ways such as: 1-making locally grown food available, 2-maintaining scenic and historic landscapes, 3-maintaining open space, 4-protecting watersheds and 5-wildlife habitat One of the most important assets of this county is the closeness of unspoiled open rural land. People come here, not only to see Monticello but to see the views of the countryside from there. People move here for the same reason- not because of the chain stores and franchised businesses but to get away from the endless sprawl in their former locations.Any one who has traveled to Northern Va.over the years is shocked by the changes there. One can get a chilling view of Albemarle's impending fate by visiting Loudoun County around Leesburg today. While there may be ways to manage the impact of development,first the County must limit the number of acres available. Once farms have been cut up into lots, roads paved and useful buildings razed the damage is done and can not be reversed. With the recent low rainfall we already have a water shortage and some developments are asking for the extension of water lines. The very processes of development contribute to the water shortage.e.g, too many dwellings and businesses are pumping out the ground water while the wholesale cutting of trees, piping of streams and covering of the ground with buildings, paved roads and parking lots prevents the recharge of rain water back into the ground. The surface water supplies are likewise in trouble with our largestreservoir having already lost much capacity to hold water due to siltation. It is ironic that the burge°ning population is causing the need for more water supply at the same time that our water resources are dwindling. Many of the present farmers are nearing retirement. If land taxes go up to provide new services (such as schools and teachers) for those new residents in the new developments, many of these farmers will be forced to sell to developers and the vicious circle will continue. If, however, the County can pay the farmer for his development rights, the farmer could stay on the land, leave it to his heirs or sell to someone else who will farm it, a win-win situation. While some land owners have voluntarily put their farms under permanent easements, others who may wish to _protect their family farms from development may need the money which the developers offer. This is where County funded purchase of development rights will make a big difference. We are fortunate to live in a modern day Eden.Lets try to hang on to it this time. Some information from "Saving American Farmland:What Works" from the American Farmland Trust Ann H. Mallek Currituck Farm P.O. Box 207 Earlysville, VA 22936 For presentation to the BOS, January 12, 2000 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, I heartily support the ACE program for Albemarle County. I am one of those people who has caused the Albemarle County population to rise, and have built a house on the "family 'farm," in order to live in the rural beauty of Earlysville. But I am also a native, who was glad to see that during my 16 year absence from the county many rural attributes had survived. It is those rural attributes which visitors notice immediately, the scenery, cows and horses, mountain views, on which our quality of life and the fortunes of landowners and developers depend. The loss of those attributes, combined with rising taxes to provide services to these visitors-become-residents will remove the appeal of the area for its current and future inhabitants. Let's plan ahead. Let's save ourselves. Our Supervisor informed us at a neighborhood meeting recently that a house must have an appraiSed value of almost $400,000 in order to offset the cost of eduating a child in the public schools. I have two daughters. My house is not appraised at $800,000. I can do the math. That is not a good equation for the County. As a voluntary program, the ACE program will be a valuable tool to aid landowners to provide stability in their futures. A landowner may realize needed cash without having to "sell the homestead." If the landowner invests the cash, then future returns can supplement the farming income. The cash might help expand the farming operation. Participation in an easement program will allow the farm to be inherited with reduced estate taxes under the American Farm and Ranch Protection Act and section 2031 of the Internal Revenue Code. In a mixed use environment such as Albemarle, where we have relatively small farms interspersed with residential plots, available nearby agricultural acreage, priced at farmland prices, will be a boon to a farmer needing to expand his pasture,hay, or crop land. Just think, those cows don't need to go to school. What a great ecology laboratory a farm can provide. Children and adults, invited to visit our farm, have explored streams, wetlands, upland forest, pine plantation, lakes and swamp, all on one 187 acre piece. From bear to crayfish, from skunk cabbage to duck weed, the variety makes daily life fascinating. As California's population begins to devour more of that state's food production, we will be more appreciative of locally grown, fresher foodstuffs. Encouraging preservation of these habitats, by ACE or by donation of the conservation easements will also provide stability to our viewscape. How appealing to a purchaser to know that the farm down the road will stay as agricultural land in the future. A leading realtor told me that clients are interested now in purchasing land with conservation easements. The future is secure and the purchase price is lower because there is to be no development. The ACE program seems to be a win for all. It is one tool among many to protect the quality of life we enjoy in Albemarle. The landowner receives value for his pledge to conserve his land, and his neighbors, those next door and others across the County, reap the benefits of reduced costs and scenic protection. Please vote to fund the ACE program. I think our future does depend on it. Thank you. E. A. R. L. A Community Association Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, Earlysvtlle Area Residents' League P.O. Box 684 Zadysvllle, VA 229~6 December 27, 1999 The Earlysville Area Residents' League supports funding for the Acquisition of Development 'Rights Program (ACE). We believe this program will be one more avenue to enhance the protection of open land in Albemarle County. Protection of the rural, scenic landscape and the rural quality of life are of utmost concern to our members. Around Earlysville, we can easily see farms that have already been lost to subdivision. Our population will certainly increase, as our children and some of the many annual UVA graduates may choose to live'here. However, if current planning trends continue, the County will lose 50% of its farmland in just 20 more years, according to Dr. William Lucy, Planning professor at the University of Virginia. Would it not be better to house these new residents in the urban core, where early ~ figures of UVA, City and County land can house up to 50,000 more residents? ~ ~ All this rural development costs taxpayers money. According to County fiscal impact planner Steve Allshouse, converting a 220 acre farm to residential development conservatively costs the County $441,197 over 20 years. That is bemuse the County spends more money providing services, such as schools and police protection, to new households than it collects in property taxes from the new construction. Buying development rights on the same 220-acre farm cuts these losses significantly. If the County buys the development rights and accepts a conservation easement on the property allowing construction of one house, the County would spend $264,594 over 20 years, says Allshouse. That expenditure includes the cost of buying the conservation easement. In other words, spending money to save this particular farm saves the County over $176,000 over 20 years. The land remains in private hands, with owners free to sell or to continue farming or other rural practices. Imagine the savings if ten or twenty similar farms were protected by easement. Conserving farmland saves money. More current residents will be able to retain their homes in Albemarle if costs and taxes are kept under control. Saving farmland preserves the natural and scenic resources we value. New farmers may be able to purchase land without competing with developers for needed acreage. The current landowner receives cash to invest or use now without selling the "homestead." Farm children may be able to inherit an intact farm, rather than having to sell much of the land in order to inherit the rest. Sincerely, Ann H. Mallek Conservation and Development Rights Committee COMMENTS ON ACE PROPOSAL Public Hearing-Albemarle County Board of Supervisors January 12, 2000 Trip Pollard Southern Environmental Law Center [ INTRO ] The Southern Environmental Law Center strongly supports the Acquisition of Conservation Easements, or ACE, proposal. We recently did a study called Smart Growth in the Southeast that examines innovative tools localities are using to try to address the economic, environmental, and social costs of sprawling development. We found that the purchase of development rights is one of the primary tools a growing number of communities throughout the South are adopting. And for good reason- it works. The County should adopt this proposal as one of the tools it uses to help preserve our farmland and natural areas. As Sherry mentioned earlier, the rate of land loss in Virginia has doubled in the past five years. The ACE program offers an important opportunity to protect the agricultural and natural resources that define this community and make it such an attractive place to live, work, and visit. One of the strengths of the ACE proposal is that it leaves land in private hands while systematically promoting conservation. I've heard some confusion on this point, and think it is important to stress that the ACE proposal involves the voluntary sale and retirement of a property's development rights through a conservation easement. We've also heard some concern tonight about putting money into such a program at a time when the County faces growing needs to fund schools and other services. These short-sighted concerns are misplaced. This program will save money in the long run by reducing the need to provide costly services to far-flung development, by helping to protect our water quality, and by helping to preserve the quality of life that is our major economic asset. The ACE proposal is a very modest and prudent investment in our future. Finally, we've heard some questions about the point system proposed to guide selection of properties to participate in the ACE program. The criteria probably should be refined further. We mustn't ignore the need to refine these criteria, but we also mustn't let this distract us from the need to get the ACE program in place. I urge you to implement this proposal as soon as possible, and I thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks. I am concemed that the draft document prepared by the PDR Committee ignores critical factors upon which such protections should be based. I am especially concerned that the underlying principles for protecting the county's biodiversity, which are of fundamental importance to our ecosystems, are given no consideration in this document. As I and others have argued on numerous. occasions before the County Planning Commission, the protection of biological diversity in the county is of great economic importance because of the natural srevices provided by healthy ecosystems. A dollar amount can be attributed to the benefits that we derive from these services, buth their real value lies in the healthy environment provided by clean air, a sustainable and clean water supply, and a diverse and healthy flora, fauna and microfauna which benefit our agricultural enterprises. I applaud Board of Supervisors for appointing the committee to develop means for protecting open space in our county; I would like to be assured that the appropriate, scientifically and aesthetically valid reasons for embarking upon this important program are adequately detailedin the final enabling document. Thank you for your attention in this critical matter. Sincerely, DeForest Mellon, Jr., Ph.D. Albemarle County Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program (ACE) Statement to the Board of Supervisors - January 12, 2000 The Piedmont Environmental Council We support the ACE proposal and hope that you will do the same. PEC's chief concern has been to insure that ACE complements one of the most successful conservation efforts in the country, an effort that has relied on the donation rather than the purchase of conservation easements. Donated easements account for the permanent protection of over 110,000 acres in Piedmont Virginia. In Albemarle County alone, landowners have donated easements on over 23,000 acres. Except for Fauquier County, no other county in the Commonwealth has more acres under easement. All this land has been protected at little cost to the County. In fact, the donation of conservation easements remains one of the most cost-effective ways to protect rural land. To insure that landowners continue to donate easements, ACE's ranking system should continue to award points to properties adjoining land that is already under easement. This creates an incentive for donation, and rewards landowners who have committed their land permanently to farming, forestry or open space. In our 26 years of experience with easement donors, we have talked to a number of landowners who wanted to protect their property, but lacked the income needed to make use of the tax deductions available. ACE can offer these landowners an alternative to selling or developing their land. By granting points for financial need and working family farms, the ranking system makes it more likely that ACE will target landowners of modest means who may not benefit from the income and estate tax incentives for easement donation. After you adopt this program and begin to buy conservation easements, we want to insure that landowners continue to donate easements to protect the watershed, critical habitat, mountain ridges, historic resources and all the other conservation values important to this community. That's likely to happen if you keep the points high for property near permanently protected land, for working farms and for property in the hands of owners with incomes at or below the median level. If you do decide to make changes to the criteria based on the comments you hear this evening, we ask that you consider strengthening the financial consideration category to insure that this program benefits easement prospects who cannot benefit from the income and estate tax deductions. Remarks concerning PDR'Proposal 12 January 2000 I strongly suPport Albemarle. County's ha~ng a program in place to.purchase .development rights. I hope you will amend the ACE Final Report of 3 November' 1999 by including the changes suggested by e-mail .from Tom Olivier, John I-Iermsmeier, and myself to better protect the county's bi0diversity resources. I have one'other con~ern: NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE CRITERL~,' number 2 seems to' make ,F. arm/foI'estland'' one categOry. 2. Working family farm '(includes forest.): At least one .family member's principal occupation (income) . (51% or greater) is farming this farm/forestland 5 At least one family member is producer of farm products ' 3 On.page 2 of the ACE Program' Ranking Sheet, under "lTl. Does that mean that.to'earn points for PDR, a parcel that is entirely in forest'must provide the. principal income for at least one family member? FOrestland may not produce income for years.- Forest that is .simPly growing seems to be undervalued here, even though it contributes to other open-space resources such as scenic values, natural habitat protection, and watershed protection. Perhaps the 51%-of-incOme rule should not aPply to forestland. I urge'you to.adopt an. ACE Program that includes the before-mentioned protections for biodiversity and believe that it wilL. in the long run,: save.manY.more tax dollars than it costs. I am here tonight to speak in favor of the purchase of development rights here in Albemarle county. I am a resident of this county and have been in favor of progressive zoning measures that will protect our area from the onslaught of sprawl, The PDR program is a win win program for the residents of this county. It can protect large areas from the threat of development while preserving peoples property rights. I am concerned with one aspect of the program - which deals with the selection criteria for the program. After reviewing the list of criteria for the selection of lands to be considered for the program - I was disappointed not to have seen biodiversity as a major criteria. How can we have a progressive PDR program if we exclude biodiversity from it? Please include biodiversity as one of the criterion for the program, Albemarle county needs a strong PDR program in place now and in the future, We cannot afford to let this program fail_~l only hope it is expanded in the future so we will be able to S~ave as much land as possible from sprawl and keep our rural areas truly rural. The purchase of development rights is a novel conservation measure that is becoming a reality all around this country. It is high time this county follows suit. Albemarle County needs to take stronger conservation measures if it is going to win the war on sprawl. The Purchase of Development Rights~i-S 'd'ertain-ty-one of those steps. - Thank you for your time. David Crouch 623 Taylors Gap Rd. Cville, VA 22903 Statement Regarding the 3 November ACE/PDR proposal by Torn Olivier, 4632 Green Creek Road, Schuyler, VA 22969 12 January 2000 Tel 831-2408 With our growing population, our cherished natural 'resources face escalating threats of damage and destruction. We have some effective protection measures but many resources need additional, active conservation if they are to survive. A purchase of development rights (PDR) program can provide direct protection for a wide range of open space resources as well as compensation for individual land owners who act in the public good. It is crucial that always, scarce dollars spent on such a program be directed strategically toward those resources of greatest value and in greatest need of additional conservation. For over a year, members of the local biodiversity community have had and have expressed concerns about the scant treatment of biological resources in drafts of the Albemarle PDR program. Areas of concern remain in the final draft. As a result, Jean Kolb, John Hermsmeier and I have proposed revisions to the proposal in the 3 November report. Our first proposal is a statement of purpose that firmly decrees that the core purpose of the program is protection of important open space resources, including biodiversity. We also propose that biodiversity be included among the comprehensive plan goals listed on page 5, that the ACE Commission specify inclusion of a biologist and that biodiversity protection be a goal of forestry management in Appendix D. Road frontage often is detrimental to wildlife habitat. We ask that road frontage be deleted as factor contributing to parcel ranking in Appendix A and that protected native forest stream buffers add to parcel rank. Finally, we seek a firm commitment to use of findings of the County biological advisory committee in future revisions of ranking criteria. An extensive scientific literature exists on use of stream buffers as a biodiversity and water quality protection measure. County water resource staff are quite familiar with issues surrounding design of native forest stream buffers, as are staff at the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. All of the proposed changes could be spliced quickly and simply into the 3 November document. I also should make clear that the proposed revisions are in the nature of "patches" to a document that needs to undergo additional progressive evolution. It is important that this program be revised and improved when the rural areas chapter of the comprehensive plan is completed and findings arrive from the biodivesity committee and water resource office. A purchase of development rights program will make a strong and high value addition to the tools available to our county to protect its precious open space resources. I urge you to put a good, strong program in place. Proposed Revisions to the 3 November 1999 Albemarle County ACE Proposal prepared by Tom Olivier, Jean Kolb, John Hermsmeier 1/9/2000 Issue 1. The "on the ground" objectives of the program are not sufficiently spelled out. Propose deletion on p. 4, of paragraph 4 (after "Purpose and Application: ") and insertion of the following paragraph: "The purpose of Albemarle County's program to acquire conservation easements is to permanently protect important open space resources, including water, biodiversity, forestry and agriculture. Albemarle County's history of according weight in its public policy to protecting a broad spectrum of natural resource values, such as those outlined in the Open-Space Plan, suggests a similarly broad application of the ACE program toward the protection of open space resources. Given that it is one tool among several, the ACE program should aim to protect important resources with an emphasis on those that have not been sufficiently protected by existing forces in the public and private sector. The program should seek to protect important resources that are largely unprotected because they do not generate income." Issue 2. Biodiversity protection is not mentioned as a goal of the comprehensive plan, despite recent addition of a major new plan section on biodiversity. Propose insertion on p.5, paragraph 2 of "biodiversity' in the list of goals specified in the sentence beginning "Among the goals of the County Comprehensive Plan are ...' Issue 3. ACE Commission does not specify inclusion of member with expertise in biology. Propose insertion in page 6, paragraph 5, in the sentence beginning "The ACE commission will have general oversight over the ACE program and should include members knowledgeable in relevant areas such as ..." of "biologist" in the list expertises to be present. Issue 4. There is undue emphasis on scenic resources, with possible harmful effects to natural resources. Road frontage generally is a detriment to wildlife habitat. Propose deletion of "Frontage on public road" as factor contributing to parcel ranking in Appendix A, p.2, "111. Natural/Cultural Resource Criteria". Issue 5. Riparian habitat protection is needed to protect aquatic and terrestrial species and water resources. Propose addition of new criterion under"Ill. NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE CRITERIA." "Riparian habitat protection. One point for each 1000 ft of permanent native forest buffer to perennial or intermittent streams, with buffer excluded from livestock grazing and at least 35 feet wide. Two points for each thousand feet of similar buffer at least 100 feet wide." Issue 6. The work of the County Biodiversity Committee should generate recommendations for biological resources to be protected. The existing proposal only indicates in a footnote in Appendix A, page 2 that "A County Biological Inventory may supply addtional data and categories for ranking in the future". Propose deletion of this footnote and replacement with "Ranking criteria will be revised periodically to remain consistent with recommendations from the Albemarle County Biodiversity Committee." Issue 7. Protection of biodiversity is not included in goals of forest management. Propose insertion of "protect biodiversity" in list of goals in Appendix D, page 3, item 4, last sentence. 11, 2000 Mr. Charles S. F~nrt~n FAX: 296-5800 Chairm.~ Albe,~vle County Board of Supervisors Albem~rle County Office Building Dear Mr. Martin: I am out of town on Wednesday, J~uary !2, _~d will be unable to Cestify at the-public hearing on t~e proposed Purchase of Develo~m/ent ~ig~ts Conservation E~emenC Program. Therefore, I am writing ~his letter for the record, since ! support the Tec~endation~ of the PDR Committee. One can bode that this will be the beginnin~ of a concerted an~ long term effort to preserve the z-~ral ~/~litles of most of our Co~nlty. In one respect, I suggest a clarification of emphasis. I =hlnk this pro,ram should, certainly ~n its early stages, be directed primarily to purchasing develoument rights from lower income families who se'ek to m~ntainworking farms in the County. As the Agricultural Committee chaired by Uhe lane David Tice pointed out several years ago, agriculture remains a significant co~ponen~ of the economic life of our Count~, particularly case of cattle, orchards, vi~yards a~d b~wdwoodtimber. As such, farming has contributed' mightily to both the enviro~ent~l and social characteristics of our County. Nevertheless,. we are steadily losin~ farms, particularly fam/ly farms~ In its careful consideration of the criteria for ranking prforitiesunderthe~DR Procjr*~, ~he Committee has awarded points to ~orkin~family farms, as well as, ~or=antly, recognizing t~e f~a~cial needs of rural residents with less ~=an median ~nco~es for the County. while it is di£f±cult ~o anticipate how this somewhat ~tricate pointsystemwill work in practice, ~rese_~vation of the Albemarle work~ family fa~ should be a most i~port*~t objective of ~he Drogram. I urge the Board of SuDervisors to adopt Che propose~ PDR ProgT~m*n~d/rect its a~plic&tlonin large part to those residents in our County who wi~h to continue fs~m/ng but who find themselves unable Uo do ~o because of the continuing pressure of sprawl deve!opmen=. It seems most appropriate that th~s program shculd IO0~ H~qHHHa QIAY~ 9t~'~ ~,X, 6~, t'g:gI O0'/Tl[:/TO ~a~uarlr 1t~ 2000 · Page 2. thus recognize the needs of those f~lies who have contributed so much over the yea~s to the m~rvelous livability o~ cur CounTy and, if they are so allowed, will continue to do so in the future. Sincerely, Reuben Clark CC: Mr. David Bowex~n_ MS. Charlotte ¥. Humphris Ms. Sally H. Thomas Mr. Lin~say G. Dottier, Jr. M~. Walter F. ~erki~s PAX: 973-0302 FAX: 296'7806 ~AX: 296-006? FAX: 286-2163 FAX: 82~3-7059 H~H~Ha ~IIAYG 00/TI/T0 12:40 PM P.O1 E. A. R. L. ,4 Community Assoc~n Dear Members o~ the Board of Supervisors, ~rarlysvme ~ Ze~de~' Z~aue ~ysrlUe, VA ~S~ December 2?, ~999 The Earlysvllle Area Residents' League supports funding for the Acquisition of Development Rights Program (ACE). We believe this program will be one more avenue to enhance the protection of open land irt Albemarle County. Protection of the rural, scenic landscape and the rural quality et life are of utmost concern to our members. Around Earlysville, we can easily see farms that have already been lost to subdivision. Our population will certainly ~crease, as our children and some of the many annual UVA graduates may choose to live here. However, if current planning trends continue, the Cotmty will lose 50% of its farmland in just 20 more years, according to Dr. William Lucy, Plamting protessor at the University of Virginia. Would it not be better to house these new residents in the urban core, where early DISC figures of UVA, City and County land can txouse up to 50,000 more residents? All this rural development costs taxpaye~ money. According to Cotmty fiscal impact planner Steve Allshouse, converting a 220 acre farm to residential development conservatively costs the County $441,I97 over 20 years. That is because the County spends more money providing services, such as schools and police protection, to new households than it collects in property taxes from the new construction. Buying development rights on the same 220-acre farm cuts these losses significantly. If the County buys the development rights and accepts a conservation easement on the property allowing construction of one house, the County would spend $264,594 over 20 years, says Allshouse. That. expenditure includes the cost of buying the conservation easement. Irt other words, spendillg money to save this particular farm saves the County over $176,000 over 20 years. The land remains in private hands, with owners free to sell or to continue farming or other rural practices. Imagine the savings if ten or twenty similar farms were protected by easement. Conservinl~ farmland saves money. More current residents will. be able to retain their homes in Albemarle if costs and taxes are kept under control. Saving farmland preserves the natural and scenic resources we value. New farmers may be able to purchase land without competing with developers for needed acreage. The current landowner receives cash to invest or use now without sellinl~ the "homestead." Farm children may be able to inherit an intact farm, rather than having to sell much of the land in order to inherit the rest. Sincerely, Ann H. Mallek Conservation and Development Rights Committee CARY WINGFIELD RADITZ 06 January 2000 The Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Board of Supervisors, It has come to my attention that you will be voting on a PDR program next week. As a resident of Maryland, I am familiar with some of the land preservation programs in place here, especially in Baltimore County. Our family owns a family farm in Albemarle Country that we have farmed continuously from before the American Revolution until today. We are now in danger of losing this land and fear that despite its historical value, it could be destined for breakup and development. The initiative that you now are considering might help us to preserve this family land and its historical buildings. We pray that you will approve the program. Sincerely yours, Cary Wingfield Raditz, CFA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 CREST PARK COURT · SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND- 20905 PHONE: 301 445-8282 · FAX: 301 445-8383 Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition Management Committee Carol Clarke Treasurer Sam Craig Jane Dittmar Katie Hayes Dave Phillips I¥o Romenesko Chairman Dave Rothwel[ Frank Stoner Vice Chairman Deborah van Eerset Don Wagner Secretary Governmental Affairs Director Bob Watson December 14, 1999 Mr. Charles Martin Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: I am attaching the Position Statement of the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition on the proposed Acquisition of Conservation Easements program. Also attached is a list of States, Cities, and Counties that during 1998 and 1999 secured voter approval for large-scale P.D.R. type programs. I hope you will consider our points objectively as you examine the many complexities of the A.C.E. proposal. This is a vital component of land use and fiscal planning in Albemarle County. I will be very glad to meet with you to discuss the rationale for our position. Sincerely, Robert F. Watson Government Affairs Director BW/ns Attachments (2) CC: Members of Albemarle County Planning Commission Robert Tucker; County Executive Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning BOARD OF SUPERVISORy; 0O63 SS0 Hillsdale Drive. Charlottesville, VA 22901 · Phone (804) 817-2380 · Fax (804) 81 7-2836 · Emaih calac@calac.org A cr>Mition of the: Blue Ridge Home Builders Association . Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce · Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS~D POSITION STATEMENT of the CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA LEGISLATIVE ACTION COALITION on ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS or PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CALAC favors maintaining and improving the attractive~ness and desirability of Albemarle County, but we equally favor market-based property rights of individuals. Accordingly, we support the concept of the Acquisition of Conservation Easement program, which encourages the voluntary sale of individual's property rights for the well being of the general public. CALAC does not, however, support the proposal in its present form, because many aspects of it demand further objective consideration. , The A.C.E. program should ndt be a "no growth" tool. It is CALAC's position that the goal of the A.C.E. program should be the preservation of logical open space and the protection of wetlands, historic sites, or scenic vistas. The A.C.E. Commission must resist buying the first rights volunteered if they do not fit the above criteria. · CALAC believes that only actual rights, not theoretical rights, should be purchased. A landowner should not profit from non-existent rights. If the A.C.E. program is enacted by the Board of Supervisors, CALAC believes it should not be effective until the current Rural Area Study is completed and endorsed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The study may result in a rural area downzoning (i.e.: 21-42 acres), which could affect the number of rights to be sold. It would be unfair treatment of land owners after the downzoning. Carroll County, Maryland, which has a viable P.D.R. program, downzoned the rural area prior to enactment of their ordinance. In addition, the current DISC study would be completed concurrently. Without deferment, enactment of A.C.E. now would be a classic example of piecemeal planning and perhaps spawn a public relations fiasco. The conservation easements are effective "in perpetuity" according to the A.C.E. proposal. This could have a profound affect on future planning for Albemarle County. CALAC believes that the legal aspects of removing that provision in the future should be explored. Nevertheless, it provides emphasis to the point that only logical strategic development rights should be purchased. CALAC is vitally concerned about the proposed makeup of the 10 member AiC.E. Commission. With the exception ora real estate professional, the private sector seems to be excluded. We would recommend that the private sector have 5.0% of the seats on the A.C.E. Commission. · CALAC's major concerns with the proposed A.C.E. program are in regard to the funding aspects. First, the Board of Supervisors voted to fund the program temporarily using monies from the general fund and the Tourism Budget. Taking monies from other sources and the general fund, when Albemarle County is close to a fiscal crunch, does not seem to be prudent money management. Furthermore, to endorse a program of this magnitude, based on an interim committee repOrt, without examining, the many facets an~d, problems of implementation, raises concerns about the way to formulate sound public policg.' CALAC understands that the money is "earmarked", not appropriated, but the public hearing process should be adhered to before funding for A.C.E. is cast in stone. CALAC strongly suggests that if an A.C.E.-type public policy is to be enacted it needs a large dedicated revenue stream. Use of existing generated funds simply will not do the job. A rush to enact A.C.E. without careful consideration of other funding mechanisms could lead to failure. During the 1998 elections, 6 states, and numerous counties throughout the USA, enacted large scale Purchase of Development Rights programs with millions of dollars allocated. In all cases these expenditures were voted on and approved by the public and were funded by either a tax increase or by a bond referendum. Contrary to the A.C.E. Committee report, counties in Virginia may incur long- term debt. CALAC supports the idea ora public referendum, as outlined in Mr. Tucker's memorandum of December 2, 1998 to the Board of Supervisors, as the proper way to provide monies for a dedicated revenue stream. If the public wants to purchase development rights to promote open space, to protect the rural areas, scenic vistas, historic sites and wetlands, then it is CALAC's position that the public should have the opportunity to vote on the necessary revenues to properly fund the A.C.E. program. In addition, xvith the State of Virginia's fiscal surplus, a state program should be promoted concurrent with enactment ora local policy. Carroll County, Maryland's PDR program would not be nearly as successful without the infusion of state funds fi.om Maryland, which has a statewide program. Albemarle County simply does not have · the funds even with a tax increase or bond referendum to parallel Carroll County's success. In conclusion, CALAC firmly believes that the entire A.C.E. program, including various funding scenarios, must be subjected to the public hearing process. If A.C.E. is designed tO protect the public domain, the citizens of Albemarle County should have a voice in its formulation. After all, it is their community and their assets that are affected. CALAC also suggests that a review clause be added, if the A.C.E. program is enacted, at the end of two (2) years to evaluate its progress, to measure its impact on the County Budget, and to evaluate the strategic choice of easements purchased. This review can be conducted by the A.C.E. Commission. Respectively Submitted, I3o4(omenesko Chairman CALAC Management Committee Dated ,//"/~' "~/~ 0048 NATIONWIDE VOTER APPROVAL OF P.D.R. PROGRAMS Columbus, OH - The push to limit opportunities for development continues as voters in Franklin County, Ohio approved increased taxes to fund the purchase of open space and farmland on May 4, 1999. The new .65 mill will cost the average owner ora $100,000 home about $20 per year. The new leD' is expected to raise $125 million over the next 10 years to purchase and preserve thousands of acres of land. New Mexico -Voters in Bemalillo County approved a one-half mill increase in property taxes, which will generate $7.1 million to help buy agricultural fields, arroyos, wetlands, bosque, archaeological and historical sites. In addition, voters in Santa Fe County p. assed a $12 million general obligation bond, which will go toward purchasing open space. Rhode Island - Voters passed a statewide referendum that authorizes $5 million in bonds to fund the purchase of open space, forests and farmland. In addition, voters in Bristol and Warwick approved $1.5 million and $3 million respectively to fund open space purchases. New York- Voters in Suffolk County approved issuing $62 million in bonds to fund the purchase and preservation of open space. Voter~ in the towns of Huntington, Southold and East End also approved new funding for purchases of undeveloped land. Alabama - Approved issuance of up to $110 million in bonds to acquire open space. Arizona - Passed Proposition 303, known as "Growing Smarter," which authorizes using $220 million in state funds over the next 11 years to buy and preserve open space. This proposal, however, specifically prohibits cities and counties from adopting urban growth boundaries and was adopted in lieu of the Citizens Growth Management Act, which would have required cities and towns to adopt growth management plans (including urban growth boundaries). Colorado - Jefferson County approved issuing $160 million in bonds to fund the acquisition of up to 23,400 acres of open space. Florida - Passed a statewide constitutional amendment that authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance the state's acquisition of open land to protect wildlife habitats, parks, beaches and archaeological sites. Illinios - Homer Township residents passed an open-space proposal that allows the town to buy 300 acres of open space for up to $8 million. Massachusetts - Voters on Cape Cod approved the creation of the Cape Cod Space Land Acquisition Program, which will fund the purchase of open space and conservation land through a 3% charge on property tax bills. Minnesota - Voters approved a statewide p[oposal that authorizes a bond issue that will raise $140 million in two years for open space protection. Missouri -Voters in Johnson. County approved spending up to $6 million to buy 1,400 acres of parkland between Edgerton and Gardner. New Jersey - Voters approved a statewide referendum that authorizes the state to spend $98 million over the next 10 years to purchase and preserve [ million acres of open space, farm[and and historic sites. This acreage represents more than one-half of New Jersey's current open space. In addition to the statewide measure, six counties (Bergen, B~urlington, Camden, Essex, Mercer, Morris) and 43 towns passed measures that authorize increased taxation'to fund the purchase of open space. Over $ I00 million per year in county and local funds will be available for open space purchases. 0049 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Information and Public Comment on the Recommended Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program as Proposed by the Purchase of Development Rights Committee. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Catlin AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.'d'.~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Purchase of Development Rights Committee, appointed by the Board of Supervisors in April, 1997 to develop a purchase of development rights program consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, has completed its final report outlining key elements of such a program for Albemarle County. This public hearing will be the first opportunity for public comment before the Board on the program as detailed in the committee's final report. DISCUSSION: Sherry Buttrick, Chairman of the Purchase of Development Rights Committee, will make a brief presentation outlining key program components as described in the final report dated November 3, 1999. As explained in the report's introduction, an acquisition of conservation easements program allows landowners to voluntarily enter into agreements with a public agency or private organization to sell the development potential of their properties. In turn, the agency pays the landowners the difference between the value of the land for agricultural, forest, open- space or estate (rural) use and the value of the land for its "highest and best" (generally residential) use. The owner thus sells the right to convert the land to a non-rural use. The legal mechanism used to restrict development is a conservation easement. Key elements of the program to be outlined by Ms. Buttrick include eligibility and ranking of land, the program's administrative structure, and marketing and funding of the program. The public hearing will allow citizens the opportunity to bring their thoughts about the program to the attention of the Board. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required from the Board at this time. Attached is a copy of the final report dated November 3, 1999, which will serve as background information for the public hearing. 00.001 ACQUZSTrZON OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS' (ACE) PROGRAM FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY · What is the ACE Program? Tn an acquisition of conservation easements program, landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with a public agency or private organization to sell the development potential of their properties. In turn, the agency pays the landowners the difference between the value of the land for agricultural, forest, open-space or estate (i.e. rural) use and the value of the land for its "highest and best" (generally residential) use. The owner sells the right to convert the land to a non-rural use. The legal mechanism used to restrict development is a conservation easement. · What is a Conservation Easement? A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and an easement holder such as the County to restrict the amount of development that can occur on a property. The ACE Program would pay landowners for the easements they offer. · Who Can Apply? Any landowner whose land should remain in open-space according to the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County. The County is not legally obligated to accept any application for purchase. The landowner is not obligated to accept the County's offer to purchase. The Board of Supervisors makes the final determination to accept each proposal to purchase made by a landowner and the individual purchase must reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of acceptance of the proposal. · How do they choose the properties? There is a ranking sheet that gives points for open-space value (such as size and number of usable development rights) and conservation values (such as frontage on scenic rivers or roads, mountain ridges, rare species habitat, watershed protection, good soils, or historic significance). The properties with the highest total points get first priority. A minimum score is needed to quality for consideration. · Ts there public access? No. · How do the citizens benefit from this? There is increasing recognition that farm and forest land, clean water and air shed, scenic vistas and rural character have public value as well as private value. The ACE Program provides a method of attaining a balance between landowners' rights and responsibilities and the public value of rural land. The ACE Program supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, promoting the continuation of the available agricultural and forestal industry and resource base, and protecting the County's surface water and ground water supplies. · Who decides how much the landowner is paid? A qualified appraiser will appraise the value of the easement. · Who administers the program? The program is recommended to be housed within the Planning and Community Development Department of the County government for at least the first two years of the program, with a program administrator who will work with a citizen ACE Commission and who wilt oversee the day-to-day operations of the program. . /: , ::; ' ; -...', Pg. 3 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET 7. Public D."~g~iWaJ~er SulS~l¥ Watershed Protection a. '?rgper~in the-:..Watershed?. '~ · ~. ~ b. Ripariim. fron~ge~'[,.I .vy. Creek/Me'chum, Moomans,' Doyle, Buck. M.t:. Creek, &?ivann'~ R..;.'..-Iacob's?' Run frontage (one-half point for ever)f 10130 ft. of fiver boundary) 8. Designated Scenic Rivers protect/on: Property contains frontage on State Scenic River (one-half point for 'every 10(K} ff. of river boundary) points Avail. 3 points Earned IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: If you would like financial need to be considered and your income is equal to or below the current median income for Albemarle County in previous tax year: If your income is less than median income minus 20°70 If your income is less than median income plus 20070 10 15 5 V. LEVER. AGING OF COUNTY FUNDS State, Federal, or Foundation funding exist to assist landowner with funding of purchase of easement (ex's: Open-Space Preservation Trust Fund, CREP, Farmland Protect/on Program, Forest Legacy) The following extra points are given to those applicants who make use either of one of the above options or of bargain sale (partial gift) to provide leverage for the County's funding: For each 10% of leveraged funds: 1 point: total available pts: 10 Total Points in this Ranking sheet: points This Ranking Sheet prOvides a priorit~d ranking among the Applicants for Albemarle County's consideration. Notes for tabulation: Fractional points to the first decimal rounded should be tabulated. CHARGE TO COMMITTEE: To develop a draft policy consistent with existing legislation and authority regarding purchase of development rights for the Board of Supervisors' possible implementation.. The Committee's scope of work should include: *develop program goals consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Identification of resources that it would be desirable to protect by mean'S-of this program. *develop criteria for eligibility to partidpate in the program and ranking system(s) for such lands. *develop possible funding mechanisms, including State, federal and private sources. *develop "consensus among local interest groups and interested citizens. *develop recommendations for administration of the program. *develop informational literature on the program for the public's use. *develop recommendations to encourage voluntary sale and gifts of conservation easements and to maximize the effectiveness of the program and the protection of identified resources; and *provide periodic progress reports to the Board of Supervisors. SAMPLE FORM for Deed of Easement Exempted from recordation tax under the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, Section 58.1-811 (A) (3-), 58.1-811 (D) and 10.1-1803 · .,.. .'....~ ~ ~ -. ~:: .. THIS DEED OF ~ GIFT EASEMENT, 'made Chis day of ,1999, between # herein called the Grant'crs, the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY,, herein called the Grantee, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Virginia, 22903, and , herein called the Bank. WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act of 1966 (Chapter 17, Title 10.1, SS 10.1-1700 to 10.1-1705 of the Code of virginia, as amended) declares that the preservation of open-space land serves a public purpose by promoting the health and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by curbing urban sprawl and encouraging more desirable and economical development of nacura! resources, and aunhorizes the use of easements in gross to maintain the character of open-space land; and WHEREAS, (INSERT CODE CITATION FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY) WHEREAS, [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC VALUES]; WHEREAS, [INSERT OTHER STATUTORY REFERENCES OR REFERENCES TO CITY OR COUNTY PUBLIC LAN/DUSE PLAN, IF APPLICABLE] WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners of the fee of real property hereinafter described which they desire preserved as open space land in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein and the acceptance by Grantee, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the Grantee an open-space easement in gross over, and the right in perpetuity to restrict the~se of the real estate consisting of -. '. acres ~scribed below, and '-located in Magisterial District of County, Virginia, near and fronting on .'state route(s) . and hereinafzer referred to as the "Property:" [PROPERTY DESCRIPTIO~ AND SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the restriction that the Grannee or its successors and assigns may not transfer or convey the open-space easement herein conveyed to the Grantee unless the Grantee conditions such transfer or conveyance on the requirement that (1) all restrictions and conservation purposes set forth in the conveyance accomplished by this deed are to be continued in perpetuity, and (2) the transferee is an organization then qualifying as an eligible donee as defined by section 170(h) (3} of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable Treasurf Regulations promulgated thereunder. This conveyance is further made subject to all matters of record which may affect said parcel of land. Restrictions are hereby imposed on uses of the property pursuant to the' public policies set forth above. The acts which the Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns, covenant to do and not to do upon the Property, and the restrictions which the Grantee is hereby entitled to enforce, are and shall be as follows; 1. Accumulation of trash, refuse, junk, or any other unsightly material is not permitted on the Property. 2. Display of billboards, siqns,.or other advertisements · 'is~. not ~ermitted oh..ior~6verrtheoProperty except to 's~ate the h~me--~nd/6~ '~ddress of~ the owners, to ~.~adve~tise the?'~le 6r .lease of the ProDerty, to advertise the sale of .goods or services produced incidentally to ~ permizted use of the Property or to provide notice necessary for th~ protection of the Proper~y and for giving directions to visitors. No such sign shall exceed three by ~hree feet in size. 3. Subdivision of the Property in any manner is prohib- ited. (See Guidelines for variations based on parcel size.) o Managemenn of fores~ resources shall be in accord wi~h a forest managemenn plan approved by the Grannee. Best Management Practices, as defined by ~he Depar5menn of Forestry, shall be used ~o con~ro! eroszon and pronec~ wa~er qua!i~y. Grading, blasting or earth removal shall no~ materially alter the ~opography of the Proper~y except for dam construc[ion no create private conservation ponds or lakes, or as required in construction of perminned buildings and connecting private roads described in paragraph 6, below. Mining on the Proper~y is prohibited. No permanent or temporary building or structure shall be built or maintained on the Property other than (i) a single family dwelling and non-residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, (ii) secondary dwellings and non- residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, .and (iii) farm buildings or structures. Farm buildings or structures exceeding 4',500 sqBare fee~ .in ground area may not be const=ucte~ on.~. th~.~roper~y .unless prior written per~%s~%0n for'said:.P.~il~ing, or structure is obtained in wyit~ng from ~ran~e. ..(a~d~if'.appropriate: In the event of.subdivision of the Property as provided in Paragraph 3, above,, permitted buildings and connecting private roads may be constructed on each subdivided parcel.} Industrial or commercial activities other than the following are prohibited: 1. agriculture, silviculture or horticulture, 2. temporary, or seasonal activities which do not permanently alter the physical appearance of the Prope~ .~y and which are consistent with the conservation values herein protected, 3. activities which can be and in fact are conducted within oermitted buildings, without material alteration to the external appearance thereof. Temporary outdoor activities involving 100 people or more shall non exceed seven days in duration unless approved by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. [Optional additional language: Notwithstanding any other provision of this easement, no commercial recreational use (except for de minim~s commercial recrea~iona! uses) shall be permitted on the Property.] Represennatives of the Grantee may enter the Property from'time to time for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of the terms of this easement after permission from or reasonable notice to the owner or the owner's representative. o Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns shall notify Grantee in writing prior to closing on any proposed transfer or sale of the Property. In any deed conveying all or any part of the Property, this easement shall be · referenced by Deed Book and Page Number in the deed of conveyance. , here[R, the Bank, is the Note holder under a certain Deed of Trust dated and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of County, Virginia in Deed Book at page which subjects the Proper5y to th~'~Bank's lien. The Bank and the Trustee (under the Deed of Trusn), hereby consent to the ~erms and intent of this Easement, and agree than the lien represented by the Deed of Trust shall be held subject uo ~his Deed of Gif~ of Easement. Although this easemen~ in gross will benefit the public as described above, no~hing '~in s _ n~_~ hall be construed ~o convey ~o ~he public a righ5 of access to or use of the Proper5y. Grantors, Eheir heirs, successors, personal represenna~ices and assigns hereby re5ain exclusive right to such access and use, subject uo uhe terms hereof. Accepuance of 5his conveyance by uhe Grantee is aunhorized by S ~' ec~Aon 10.1-t801 of the Code of Virginia and is evidenced by the signasure of its Executive Director hereto. Assignmen[ of this easemen~ is governed by Secsion 10.1-1801 of ~he Code of virginia. WITNESS ~he following signatures and seals. ,Grantor ,Grantor Bank: By: Its: , Trustee Accepted: PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACiLT~r~c AUTHORITY, By: ( SEAL ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, , .a Notary 'Public for the Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby c'ertify that , Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and of{'icial seal this day of . . , 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) COHMON~;EALTH OF ViRGINiA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, , a Notary Public for the commonwea!nh aforesaid, hereby cernify that Chairman, Public Recreational Facilities Authority, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this ,1999. day o f Notary Public My. commission, expires: (.SEAL):. ' ~: . -. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF Commonwealth ~'~ aforesaid, hereby certify that , TO WIT: , a Notary Public for the , as of persona!!v appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing insnrumenn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day ,1999. My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, , a Notary Public for the Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that Trustee, personally as aDpeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of ,1999. Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: EJla Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk Subject: Reading fist for January 12, 2000 I)ate: January 6, 2000 September I, 1999 Pages I- 19 (Item #8) - Mr. MartJn Pa~es 19 (Item #8) - end - Ms. Thomas November I0, ~999 - Mr. Perkins /ewc