Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-10CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for Eldercare Gardens. 5.2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for financing of infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. 5.2a. Prodamation proclaiming Thursday, December 18. 1997. as United Way Holiday Spirit Day. FOR INFORMATION: 5.,3. Copy of staff report for CPA-97-01, Brass. Inc.. a request to change the Land Use Plan designation from Industrial Service to a Regional Service commercial designation. 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November 1 I. November 18 and December 2. 1997. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivarma Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors meeting of October 27. 1997. 5*6. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors meeting of October 16. I997. 5,7. Copy of letter dated December 2, 1997, from Robert H. Connock. Jr., District Construction Engineer. Department of Transportation. to Robert W. Tucker, Jr.. County Executive, indicated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major design features for the Route 250 at Canterbury Road Project (Proj. 0250-002-112,PE-101. RW-201, C-501). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.. County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk ~Z.(--~" December 12. 1997 Board Actions of December 10. 19~7 At its meeting on December I0. 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. (All Board members were present.) Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Vince Scoffone, owner of Silver Thatch hm. located in Hollymead, asked the Board to consider allowing a discount for collection of the occupancy tax. Currently the tax is five percent, which exceeds the amount of the sales tax. and is collected quarterly by the County. Businesses receive a discount on other taxes that are collected. If this was allowed, he would be willing to pay the tax on a monthly basis. Mr. Turner said staff could bring back some information at the Janua .fy 7. 1998 Board meeting. Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for Eldercare Gardens. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution Autborizing the Issumrce of Industrial Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for financing of infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5.2a. Proclamation prodaiming Thursday, December 18, 1997, as United Way Holiday Spirit Day. ADOPTED the Proclamation. Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Removed from the agenda, Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December t2~ 1997 Page 2. Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to mnend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by adding Artide XV, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, which shall levy and impose on the purchase of food a four percent tax on the amotmt paid for all foods served, sold or delivered for human consumption in a restaurant, as defiued and set forth in the Ordinance, and further shall provide for the administration and enforcement of the tax. Mr. Randy Kohr, President of The Kohr Brothers, asked if ice cream is considered a snack food and applicable to the meals tax. Mrs. Humphris asked that Mr. Breeden provide a respOnse to Mr, Kohr. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to enact a meals tax rate of four percent, with an effective date of January 1, 1998. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-34. Frost Montessoti School (Signs #72&46). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish private school, to serve approximately 90 children, on 1.5 acs atong Stony Point Rd. Loc on E side of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20N) approx 1 ml N of Rt 250 E. Znd R-6. TM78,P57. (Property designated for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) in Urban Neighborhood 3 in Comp Plan.)Rivanna Dist. APPROVED SP-97-34 subject to the following six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewalk and playground areas shall be located in general accord with the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed November 10, 1997 (copy attached); The playground shall be fenced and located as far away from the power lines as possible; The final site development plan shall not be approved Until a subdivision plat creating the property is recorded Or adequate bonding for road, utility and drainage improvements is provided; 4. The school shall be restricted to 90 students and shall be for year-round use; Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space Shall be located doser than ten feet to any public street right-of-way; and Existing vegetation shall be maintained or replaced if removed, except as noted on site plan. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-51. US Cellular [Goodiow Mountain] (Signs #46&47). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct wireless telecommm~ication tower & associated support facilities. Loc on Goodlow Mountain on existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. Application will allow for removal & reconstruction of existing tower on property. Znd RA_ Memo To: Robert W. Tud<er, Jr. V. YVayne Cilimberg Date: December i2. I997 Page 3. Property consists of 121 acs. TM36.P19. (Property not located in a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist. DEFERRED until January 7, 1998, and asked staff to amend the proposed conditions to reflect Board concerns. This item is to be added to the Consent Agenda for approval. Mr. Davis noted that there is no written documentation that the property owner has consented to this application. A requirement of the special use permit is that the applicant, if his is not the owner, must have the written consent of the owner. Mrs. Thomas asked that the conditions distinguish the difference between "panels" and "droms'. Clarify condition #4 as to whether it is the intent to require any additional co-locators to have a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked that staff provide the Board with a pictorial depicting different types of antennae. Mrs. Humphris said the conditions should be all inclusive, i.e., amend condition gel to include the heigth of the whip antenna. Suggested language was: "Tower height shall not e~xceed 120 feet plus the whip antenna for Columbia Gas of eight feet." Mrs. Thomas suggested amending condition #3 to eliminate all lighting. Suggested language was: "There shall be no lighting of thetower __~.~oo ............ ~'~**~'~ L_~y ~- ~..~-~--~ "~"~y. ....... All lighting of the utility building shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility ~ .... ~ .......... Mrs. Thomas 'suggested that condition gel2 be amended as follows: "The tower shall be of lattice-type construction designed to accommodate at least three co-locators. Mr. Cilimberg suggested including the language that "The tower shall be of lattice-type construction, self- supporting, without guides. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board wants the tower constructed to allow as many users as feasible. Mr. Gartley said the applicant intends to withdraw the application for a tower on Strawberry Hill. Agenda Item No. 10, SP-97-52. Nigel BrayAnimal Medical Center (Sign #48). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct vet clinic on approx 1.4 acs. Loc on N side of Rt 250. W of & adjacent to Aunt Sarah's Pancake House. Znd C-1 & EC. TM78.P55D. (Property recommended for commercial in Neighborhood 3.) Rivanna Dist. APPROVED SP-97-52 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential iot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on thc final site plan. Such construction standards may include, but are not limited to. building material ty-pes, location and material of doors, windows and other building opemngs; Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December I2, 1997 Page 4. 2. No outdoor runs or pens; 3. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the Lmxor development as shown on the site plan tided "Animal Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95 (copy attached); 4. A public entrance to the animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided; 5. Ddineation of an exercise area on the final site plan including appropriate signage to inform the public of the intended use of the area: and 6. Waiver of Section 5.1.11 .b to allow structure to be located less than 200 feet from residential lot line. Agenda Item No. l I. ZTA-97-01. Add Off-site Parking for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas. PUBLIC HEARING to amend §10.2.2 of Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking for motor coaches in conj w/operation of tourist-related historical businesses Sc neighboring support services by special use permit in RA district. ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking for motor coaches in conjunction with the operation of tourist-related historical businesses Sc neighboring support services by special use permit in the RA district. Amended Zoning Ordinance sheets will follow under separate cover. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas asked the County Executive to provide the Board with a response to the request for a full cost accounting of solid waste management at the Ivy Landfill. This request came out of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters, At 9:34 p.m.. motion ~vas offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a specific legal matter concerning reversion and a specific legal matter concerning a School agreement. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 10:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session, Motion was offered by Mr, Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to certify the Executive Session. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker. Ir. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December 12. 1997 Page 5. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to December 19, 1997, 2:30 p.m., Room 235, for meeting with Congressman Bliley. At 10:15 p.m.. the Board adiourned to December 19, 1997, 2:30 p.m., for a meeting with Congressman Bliley. /ewe Attachments(5) cc: Richard E. Huff. II Roxarme White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinlde Yadira Amarante File RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS. the Industrial DevelopmentAuthority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") has been requested by the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Foundation"), whose principal business address is P.O. Box 9023, 2333 Old Ivy Road. Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. to approve the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County, Virginia (the "Louisa Authority") of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950. as amended. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to assist the Foundation in financing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design, engineering and project management costs for portions of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project") to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29, approximately 6 miles north of the dry limits of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent to the Charlottesville~gUbemarle Airport. bordering the North Fork of the Rivanna River in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"). The proceeds of the Bonds will also be used to pay costs of issuance; and WHEREAS. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986_ as amended (the "Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950. as amended (the "Virginia Code"i, provide that the highest elected governmental unit of the locality having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. The Proiect is located in the County, and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County, The Bonds will be issued by the Louisa Authority, and the Board of Supervisors of Louisa County, Virginia has given its approval to the ~ssuance of the Bonds on December 1. 1997. Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code provides that if a locality has created an industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second locality may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by the industrial development authority of the second locality. The Louisa Authority adopted its inducement resolution on November 20, 1997 (the "Louisa Inducement Resolution"); and WHEREAS,following the public hearing held by the Authority on December 1. 1997. the Authority adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it recommended and requested that the Board approve of the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa Authority. A copy of the Resolution. a brief summary of the Authority's public hearing, the Foundation's Fiscal Impact Statement and the Louisa Inducement Resolution have been filed with the Board. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA THAT: 1 The Board concurs with the Louisa Inducement Resolution and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa Authoriwin a principal amount now estimated to be $9.500,000 for the benefit of the Foundation. as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Louisa Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Foundation, and, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code_ the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f. 103-2 (f) (1), this resolution shall remmn in effect for a period of one year from the date of ks adoption. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of slx to zero, ar a regular meeting held on December 10_ 1997. / C~I~;2d of CouTnty Su~'rvisors ORDINANCE NO. 97-8(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. that Chapter 8. Finance and Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax, as follows: CHAPTER 8 FINANCE AND TAXATION ARTICLE XV. PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX Sec. 8-75. Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following respective meanings except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Beverage: Any alcoholic beverages as defined in section 4-2(2) of the Code of Virginia and nonalcoholic beverages, any of which are served as part of a meal. Caterer: A person who furnishes food on the premises of another for compensation. Director of Finance: The director of finance of the county and any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. Food: Any and all edible refreshments or nourishment, liquid or otherwise, including beverages as herein defined, purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, except snack foods. Person: Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm. partnership or any group of individuals acting as a unit. Purchaser: Any person who purchases food in or from a restaurant or from a caterer. ( 1 ) Any place where food xs prepared for service to the public whether on or off the premises: or (2) Any place where food is served to the public. Examples of a restaurant include, but are not limited to, a dining room, grill, coffee shop, cafeteria, cafe, snack bar, lunch counter, lunchroom, short-order place, tavern, delicatessen, confectionery, bakery, eating house, eatery, drugstore, catering service, lunch wagon or truck, pushcart or other mobile fadlity that sells food, and a dining facility in a public or private school or college. Seller: Any person who sells food in or from a restaurant or as a caterer. Snack food: Chewing gum. candy, popcorn, peanuts and other nuts, and unopened prepackaged cooldes, donuts, crackers, potato chips and other items of essentially the same nature and consumed for essentially the same purpose. Sec. 8-76. Levy of tax; amount. In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or hereafter imposed by law. a tax is hereby levied and imposed on the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered for human consumption in the county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restaurant or not. or prepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (z}) percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any fraction of one-half cent ($0.005/or more shall be treated as one cent ($0.01). Sec. 8-77. Exemptions. The following purchases of food shall not be subject to the tax under this article: {a) Food sold by grocery stores and convenience stores except for prepared sandwiches and single-meal platters ready for human consumption sold at a delicatessen counter. (b) Food and beverages sold through vending machines. © Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States. (dt Food sold by nonprofit cafeterias in public schools, nursing homes and hospitals. (el Food sold by churches, fraternal, school and sodal organizations and volunteer fire departments and rescue squads which hold occasional dinners and bazaars of one-day or two-day duration, at which food prepared in the homes of members or in the ldtchen of the organization is offered for sale to the public. ~ Food furnished by churches which serve meals for their members as a regular part of their religious observance. (gl Food furnished by boardinghouses that do not accommodate transients. (h) Food sold by cafeterias operated by industrial plants for employees only. (I) Food furnished by a hospital, medical clinic, convalescent home, nursing home. home for the aged. infirm or handicapped or other extended care facility to patients or residents thereof. (j) Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable organization to elderly, infirm, handicapped or needy persons in their homes or at central locations. (k) Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or benevolent organization on an occasional basis as a fund-raising activity or food sold by a church or religious body on an occasional basis. (l) Food furnished by restaurants to employees as part of their compensation when no charge is made to the employee. (m) Any other sale of food which is exempt from taxation under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act, or administrative rules and regulation issued pursuant thereto. Sec. 8-78. Tips and service charges. (al Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee or employees of a selter, and the amount of the tip is wholly in the discretion of the purchaser, the tip is not subject to the tax imposed by this article, whether paid in cash to the employee or added 3 to the bill and charged to the purchaser's accotmt, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the tip is turned over to the employee by the seller. (b) An amount or percent, whether designated as a tip or a service charge, that is added to the price of the meal by the seller, and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed by this article. Sec. 8-79. Payment and collection of tax. Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied under this article shall collect the amount of tax imposed under this article from the purchaser on ~vhom the same is levied at the time payment for such food becomes due and payable, whether payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means of a credit card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed by the purchaser shall be added to the cost of the food by the sdler who shall pay the taxes collected to the county as provided in this article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust by the seller until remitted to the county. Sec. 8-80. Deduction for seller. For the purpose of compensating sellers for the collection of the tax imposed by this artide, every seller shall be allowed three (3) percent of the amount of the tax due and accounted for in the form of a deduction on his monthly return not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per monthly return; provided, the full amount shall be due if any part of the payment is delinquent at the time of payment. - Sec. 8-81. Reports and remittances generally. Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such forms and setting forth such information as the director of finance may prescribe and require, showing the amount of food charges collected and the tax required to be collected, and shall sign and deliver such report to the director of finance with a remittance of such tax. It shall be presumed that all food served, sold or delivered in the county in or from a restaurant is taxable under this article and the burden shall be upon the seller of food to establish by records what food is not taxable. Such reports and remittance shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each month, covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding month. Sec. 8-82. Preservation of records. 4 It shall be the duty of any seller of food liable for collection and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to keep and preserve for a period of three (3) years records showing gross sales of all food and beverages, the amount charged the purchaser for each such purchase, the date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax required to be collected by this article. The director of finance shall have the power to examine such records at reasonable times and without unreasonable interference with the business of the seller for the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of this article and to make copies of all or any parts thereof. Sec. 8-83. Duty of seller when going out of business. Whenever any seller required to collect or pay to the county a tax under this article shall cease to operate or otherwise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this article shall become ~mmediatelydue and payable and such person shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due. Sec. 8-84 Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohibited. No seller shall advertise or hold our to the public tn any manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any part of the tax imposed under this article will be paid or absorbed by the seller or anyone else. or that the seller or anyone else will relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the tax. Sec. 8-85. Enforcement: duty of director of finance. The director of finance shall promulgate rules and regulations for the interpretation, admiuistrationand enforcement of this artide. It shall also be the duty of the director of finance to ascertain the name of every seller liable for the collection of the tax imposed by this artide who fails, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports and remittances required by this article. The director of finance shall have all of the enforcement powers as authorized by Article 1. Chapter 31 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia for purposes of this article. Sec. 8-86. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fall or refuse to collect the tax imposed m~der this article and to make, within the time provided in this article, the reports and remittances mentioned in this article, the director of finance shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the director of finance shall procure such facts and 5 information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any seller ~vho has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such seller the tax and penalties provided for by this article and shall notify such seller, by registered mail sent to his last kno~vn place of address, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten I10 ) days from the date such notice is sent. Sec. 8-87. Collection. The director of finance shall have the power and the duty of collecting the taxes ~mposed and levied hereunder and shall cause the same to be paid into the general treasury for the county. Sec. 8-88. Penalty for late remittance or false return. { a ) If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file any report required by this article or to remit to the director of finance the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time and in the amount spedfied in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of £mance a penalty in the amount of ten (10/ percent of the total amount of the tax owed if the failure is not for more than thirty (30) days, with an additional penalty of ten (I0) percent of the total amount of the tax owed for each additional thirty (30) days or fraction thereof during which the failure continues, such penalty not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the tax owed. provided, however, the minimmn penalty shall be ten dollars ($10.00 I. (b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to defraud the county of any tax due under this article, a penalty of fifty (50) percent of the tax owed shall be assessed against the person required to collect such tax. Sec. 8-89. Violations of article. Any person violating, failing, refusing or neglecting to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes or penalties provided for in this article. Any agreement by any person to pay the taxes or penalties provided for in this article by a series of installment payments shall not relieve any person of criminal liability for violation of this article until the full amount of taxes and penalties agreed to be paid by such person is received by the director of finance. 6 Each failure, refusal, neglect or viOlation, and each day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 8-90. Severability. If any provision of this article, or any application of such provision to any person or under any circumstances, shah be invalid, the remainder of this article, or the application of such provisions to persons or under circumstances other than those to which it shall have been held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1998. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of slx to zero. at a regular meeting held on December i0, 1997. ~erk, ~3oard of-Cou~f'Supervisors ORDINANCE NO. 97-20(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20. ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding New: Section 5.1.38. By Amending: Section 3.0. Section 4.12.3.3. Section 4.12.3.4. Section 10.2.2. Article II. Basic Regulations Off-site parking for historic structures and sites. Article I. General Provisions Definitions. Article II Basic Regulations (Untitled) (Untitled) Article 111. District Regulations By special use permit. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Historic structure orsite: Any structure or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled) Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or. in the case of cooperative prows~on of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination, n the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special use permit to allow off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. Sec. 4.12.3.4. (Untitled) Whether off-street parking is provided on the same lot or not, the following shall apply: For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays, no parking space shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling such space serves. For non-residential uses, no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in (a) and (b) above may be increased in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that in no case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet. The distance limitations established in this section shall not apply to off-site parking for a historic structure or site authorized by sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. 2 Sec. 5.1.38. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites. In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or to provide additional parking, off-site parking for a historic structure or site may be authorized only when (1) the provision of on-site parking would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the historic structure or site to be served; (2) the level of use of the property on which the historic structure or site is located, which necessitates the provision of off-site parking, will not degrade or detract from the integrity of the historic structure or site or adversely change the character of the surrounding area; and (3) the provision of off-site parking does not change the character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is proposed and does not require substantial alteration to roads. To ensure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to section 1012:2.46 is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the following requirements: a. The applicant shall demonstrate that on-site parking cannot be provided without substantially degrading or detracting from the historic structure or site. The parking lot shall be located designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate s~gnificant visual in: pacts from al public streets, pdvate roads and adjacent properties, and to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff. degradation of water quality and other similar disturbances. The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with its application for a special use permit. The conceptual plan shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on the property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its distance from the historic structure or site, and shall identify how persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the off-site parking to the historic structure or site. The conceptual plan shall also show all features of the parking lot which will ensure that the parking lot will not degrade or detract from the historic structure or site to be served by the parking lot, will not adversely change the character of or s~gnificantly impact the area surrounding the property on which the parking lot ~s proposed, and will impact to the least extent practicable the property on which the parking lot is proposed. The features which shall be shown on the conceptual plan, and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include: Visual and noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain and/or vegetative screening; 3 Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust. glare, and runoff and which will protect water quality and protect trees designated to be preserved; and A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be sh[elded in such a manner that all light emitted from the fixture either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture. Changes proposed to the entrance and public road including any necessary road-widening, or grading and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance. The off-street parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply to off-site parking for a historic structure or site, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. Sec. 10.2.2. By special use permit 46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, at a regular meeting held on December 10. 1997. ~;"~oa~d of C~)unty S~ervisors / I:\OENERAL\SHARE\CLEILK\OFFSITE2.ORD 4 / ~ROST MONTESSORI SCHOOL ELLA'S WORK LIST FOR DECEMBER 10, 1997 Agenda ltem No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pan., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphtis. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegtance Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Vince Scoffone, owner of Silver Thatch Inn. located in Holl)mread, asked the Board to give consideration regarding the occupancy tax. Currently the tax is five percent and is collected quarterly by the Cotmty. The receive a discomtt on other taxes collected. There is a proposal they receive a discount for collection of the meals tax. Since the occupany tax exceeds the mount of the sales tax. he asked the Board to allow a discount to collect the tax for the County. As a trade off_ he would be willing to pay the tax on a monthly basis, the same as he does with the sales tax. Mr. Tucker said staff could bring back some information at the January 7. 1998. Board meeting, Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman. seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.2a. and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was caJled and the motion carried by the follow/rig recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bo,verman_ Mrs. Humphris. Mr. MarshalE Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Regmandng of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for Eldercare Gardens. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of industria/Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for financing of infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5.2a, Prodamation proclaiming Thursday, December 18. 1997. as United Way Holiday Spirit Day. ADOPTED the Proclamation. Item No. 5.3. Copy of staff report for C1~A-97-01. Brass, Inc.. a request to change the Land Use Plan designation from Industrial Service to a Regional Service commercial designation, was received for information. Item No. 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November t 1, November 18 and December 2, 1997, were received for information. Item No. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors meeting of October 27, 1997, was received for information. Item No. 5.6, Copy of ~nutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors meenng of October 16, 1997. was received for information. Item No. 5.7. Copy of letter dated December 2. 1997. from Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer. Deparnnent of Transportation: to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, indicated that tire Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major design features for the Route 250 at Canterbury Road Proiect (Proj, 0250-002-112.PE-101, RW-20]. C-501 ,. was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Removed from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reordaln Chapter 8. Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by adding Article XV. Prepared Food and Beverage Tax. which shall levy and impose on the purchase of food a four percent mx on the antotmt paid for all foods served, sold or delivered for human consumption in a restaurant, as defined and set forth in the Ordinance. and further shall provide for the administration and enforcement of the t~x. ,Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24. 1997., Mr. Randy Kohr~ President of The Kohr Brothers. asked if ice cream is a snack food. Mrs. Humphris asked that Mr. Breeden provide a response to Mr. Kohr. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman. seconded by Mr. Martin, m adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Fianance and Taxation. of the Code of the County of Albemarle. Virginia. to enact a meals tax rare of four percenL with a2~ effective date of January 1. I998. Roll ~vas called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP~97-34, Frost Montessori School (Signs #72&461, PUBLIC HF~RING on a request to establish private school, ro serve approximately 90 children, on 1,5 acs along Stony Point Rd. Loc on E side of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20Nj approx 1 ml N of Rt 250 E. Znd R- 6. TM78.P57, (Property designated for Neighborhood DensiLv (3-6 du/ac in Urban Neighborhood 3 in Comp Plan,) Rivanna Dist. {'Advertised in the Dali), Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1997.~ Motion was offered by Mr. Martin_ seconded by Mr. Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-97-34 subject to the six conditions recormnended by the Plamting Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs, Humphris, Mr, Marshall_ Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins, NAYS: None. The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1 The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewalk and playground areas shag be located in general accord with the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed November 10, 1997 ~copy attached): 2. The playground shall be fenced and located as far away from the power hnes as possible: 3. The final site development plan shag not be approved until a subdivision plat creating the property is recorded or adequate bondng for road, utility and drainage improvements is provided; 4. The school shall be restricted to 90 students and shall be for year-round use: 5. Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any public street fight-of-way. No off- street parking or loading space shall be located doser than ten feet to any public street right-of- way; and 6. F~xisting vegetation shall be maintained or replaced ff removed, except as noted on site plan. Agenda Item No. 9, SP-97-51, US Cellular [Goodlow Mountain; (Signs #46&47L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct ~vireless telecommtmication tower & associated support facilities, Loc on Goodlow Mountain on existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. Application will allow for removal &reconstruction of existing tower on property. Znd RA. Property consists of 121 acs. TM36.P19. (Property not located in a designated growth area. Riva~ma Dist. ~Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24. 1997.) DEFERRED until January 7, 1998. Mr. Davis noted that there is no written documentation that the property owner has consented to this application. A requirement of the special use permit is that the applicant, if not the owner, must have the written consent of the owner. This item is to be added to the Consent Agenda for approval. The Board made the following recommendations on the propsed conditions: Mrs. Thomas asked that the wording in the conditions distinguish the difference between -panels" and "drums". Clarify condition #4 as to whether it is the intent of the Board to require any additional colocators to have a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked that staff provide the Board with a pictorial depicting different types of antennae. Mrs. Humphris said the conditions should be all inclusive. Amend condition #1 to indude the following language: "Tower height shall not exceed 120 feet plus the whip antenna for Columbia Gas of eight feet.- Mrs. Thomas suggested that condition #3 be mended as follows: "There shall be no lighting of the tower zapco; required by a federal agent?. All lighting of the utility building shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility ,~;oni t~c ground. She thiulcs that if a federal agency requires light/nb then the tower goes done. Mrs. Thomas suggested that condition # 12 be amended as follows: "The tower shall be of lattice type construction designed to accommodate at least three co-locators, Mr. Cilimberg suggested including the language that "The tower shall be of lattice-type construction, self-supporting, without guides. The staff needs to know ff you want to specify structurally built to provide for a adnimal of some number of users. Mrs. Humphris said we want it to be as many as feasible for that particular tower. Mr. Gardey said the applicant intends to withdraw the Strawberry Hill application. Agenda Item No. lO. SP-97-52. Nigel Bray Animal Medical Center (Sign 4*48). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct vet clinic on approx 1,4 acs. Loc on N side of Rt 250. W of & adjacent to Aunt Sarah's Pancake House, Znd C-I & EC, TM78.P55D. (Property recommended for commercial in Neighborhood 3. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24. 1997. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-97-52 subject ro the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowem~an. Mrs. Humphtis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins, NAYS: None. The conditions of approval are set out below:. The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest resident/al lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7:00 a,m. to 10:00 p,m. or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction standards may include, but are not limited to. building material types, location and material of doors, windows and other bnilding openings; No outdoor runs or pens; Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adiacent to the Luxor development as shown on the site plan titled "Animal Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95 [copy attache&: A public entrance to the animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided; 5. Delineation of an exemise area on the final site plan induding appropriate signage to inform the public of the intended use of the area: and Waiver of Section 5.1.11 .b to allow structure to be located less than 200 feet from residential lot line. Agenda Item No. I 1. ZTA-97-0I. Add Off-site Parldng for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas. PUBLIC HEARING to amend §10.2.2 of Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking for motor coaches in conj w/operation of tottrist-related historical businesses & neighboring suppor~ services by spedal use permit in RA district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24. 1997,, Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall. seconded by Mr. Bowerman. to amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking for motor coaches in coniunctionwith the operaiton of tourist-rdated historical businesses & neighboting support services by special use permit in the RA district. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow~ng recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: October 8, 1997. Mr. Marshall read the minutes of October 8. 1997, and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall offered motion_ seconded by Mrs. Thomas, co approve the ~ninutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follo~ving recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Htunphris. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas asked the County Executive to provide the Board with discussion at a subsequent meeting about something dealing with the Ivy Landfill that came out of the Citizens Advisory Committee in which they asked for a ftdl cost accounting of solid waste management. It seems to her a way so put into dollars and cents. This is something that was proposed in January, before Mr. Mawyer was appointed County Engineer. Agenda Item No. 14. F, xecutive Session: Legal Matters. At 9:34 p.m.. motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman. that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1 ~344¢A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection 7~ to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a specific legal matter concerning reversion and a specific legal matter concermng a School agreement. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas. Mr, Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perl4ns. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 10:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr, Bowerman. seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify the Executive Session. Roi1 was called and the motion carried bv the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall_ Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16 Adjourn to December 19. 1997, 2:30 p.m.. Room 235, for meeting with Congessman Bliley. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, adiourn to December 19, 1997, 2:30 p.m.. for a meeitng with Congressman Bliley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melv/n A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC-~ ~'' December 16. 1997 Board Actions of December 10, 1997 At its meeting on December 10_ 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Vince Scoffone. owner of Silver Thatch Inn. located in Hollymead. asked the Board ro consider allowing a discom~t for collection of the occupancy tax. Currently the tax is five percent. which exceeds the an~ount of the sales tax. and is collected quarterly by the County. Businesses receive a discount on other taxes that are collected. If this was allowed, he would be willing to pay the tax on a monthly basis. Mr. Tucker said staff cou/d bring back some information at the January 7. 199& Board meeting, ltem No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing of Industrial Development Authority Bonds for Eldercare Gardens. ADOPTED the Resolution. Item No. 5,2. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for financing of infrastructure improvements at the Universik¥ of Virginia Research Parle at North Fork. ADOPTED the Resolution. Agenda Item No, 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by adding Article XV. Prepared Food and Beverage Tax. which shall levy and impose on the purchase of food a fora' percent tax on the amount paid for all foods served, sold or delivered for human consttmpnon in a restaurant, as defined and set forth in the Ordinance. and further shall provide for the administration and enforcement of the tax. Mr. Randy Kohr. President of The Kohr Brothers, asked if ice cream is considered a snack food and applicable to the meals tax. Mrs, Humphris asked that Mr. Breeden provide a response to Mr. Kohr. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation. of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to enact a meals tax rate of four percent, with an effective date of/anuary 1. 1998. /ewc Attachments (2) cc: Robert Walters COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE.: University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation Bond issue through the Louisa IDA SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of UREF Bond Issue STAFF CONTACTfS): Messrs. TuckeflDavis AGENDA DATE: December 10, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation desires to borrow up to 9.5 million dollars in the form of tax exempt bonds to be issued by the Louisa County Industrial Development Authority. The bonds are to be used to assist the Foundation in financing infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. Louisa's IDA has agreed to issue the bonds because Albemarle has exceeded its limit for issuing tax exempt bonds in this calendar year. DISCUSSION: On December 1st, the Albemarle IDA held a public hearing and approved this request. In order to proceed, the proposal must also be approved by the Board of Supervisors. A complete explanation for the request and background information is attached. Approval by the Board does not create any liability for the bonds by the County, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds by the Louisa Industrial Development Authority. 97.232 David R Bowerman Rk, Charlot~ Y. Humphr~s Ion'est R. MmshalI. J~ COUNTY OF ALBEMAR! lq Offic~ of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlotteafille. V~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX [~)4) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins !~Vh ~e Hal Sally H. Thorna~ December 12. 1997 Mr. Stephen L Johnson Mays&Valentine PO Box 1122 Richmond. VA 23218-1122 Dear Mr. lohnson: At its meeting on December 10, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution authorizing the issuance of Industrial Development Authority Bonds by Louisa Industrial Development Authority for the financing of infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC Clerk 7 tachment Printed on recycled paper ~O/~RD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVZSORS OF ALBEHARLE COUNTY~ VTRGINrA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority'9 nas been requested by the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Foundation"), whose principal business address is P.O. Box 9023, 2333 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906, to approve the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County, Virginia (the "Louisa Authority") of its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to assist the Foundation in financing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design, engineering and project management costs for portions of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project'~ to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29, approximately 6 miles north of the city limits of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, bordering the North Fork of the Rivanna River in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"). The proceeds of the Bonds will also be used to pay costs of issuance; WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code''), provide that the highest elected governmental unit of the locality having jurisdiction over the issuer of private actMty bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. The Project is located in the County, and the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "13oard'~ constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County. The Bonds will be issued by the Louisa Authority, and the Board of Supervisors of Louisa County, Virg]nia has given its approval to the issuance of the Bonds on December 1, 1997. Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code provides that if a locality has created an industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second locality may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by the industrial development authority of the second locality. The Louisa Authority adopted its inducement resolution on November 20, 1997 (the "Louisa Inducement Resolution''); and WHEREAS, following the public hearing held by the Authority on December 1, 1997, the Authority adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it recommended and requested that the Board approve of the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa Authority. A copy of the Resolution, a brief summary of the Authority's public hearing, the Foundation's Fisca Impact Statement and the Louisa Inducement Resolution have been filed with the Board. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE i'T RESOLVED BYTHE BOARD OF SUPERVi'SORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,, VTRGI'NTA THAT: 1. The Board concurs with the Louisa Inducement Resolution and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa Authority in a principal amount now estimated to be $9,500,000 for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f') of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Louisa authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Foundation, and, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income Tax Regulations Section 5f. 103-2(f)(1), this resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to on December 10, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors (804) 69%1216 MAYS &'VALENTINE L.L2. ~ December 2, 1997 BY UPS Larry W. Davis, Esquire County Attorney Comity of Albemarle 401 McImtire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: U~niv~r~l E. stat_e Fo_undati_~jg_~on COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dear Larry: In accordance with your letter dated November 19, 199'7 and our conversation yesterday, I have enclosed, for distribution to the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle County, the following lrems:l. Letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining the proposed financing, 2. Resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia after a public hearing held on December l, 1997, 3. Summary Statement of Public Hearing, 4. Fiscal Impact Statement and 5. Original of the Inducement Resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County ar its meeting on Novenaber 20, 1997. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosures. 1 appreciate assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Johnson your 181/743 Enclosures cc: Mr. RobegW-Tucker, 3r, CountyExecutive EllaW. Carey, Clerk, County Board of SuperVisors (804) 697-1216 I /IAYS &VALENTINE 111 t EAST MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 1122 (804) 697-1200 FAX: [804) 697-1339 BOARD OF 8U?ER¥ISORS ~,L~ NO. 19432.001 December 2, 1997 BY UPS Larry W. Davis, Esquire County Attorney County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation Dear Larry: In accordance with your letter dated November 19, 1997 and our conversation yesterday, I have enclosed, for distribution to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, the following items: 1. Letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining the proposed financing, Resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia after a public hearing held on December 1, 1997, 3. Summary Statement of Public Hearing, 4. Fiscal Impact Statement and Original of the Inducement Resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County at its meeting on November 20, 1997. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the enclosures. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Johnson 181/743 Enclosures cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, Clerk, County Board of Supervisors · MAYS & VALENTINE L.L.P. I ! I I EAST MAIN STreet (804) 697~1~00 FAX: (804) 697-1339 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 1122 RICHMONB, VIRGINIA 23a!8-1 la~ (804) 697-1216 19432.001 December 2, 1997 TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Re: University of Virglnia Real Estate Foundation Ladies and Gentlemen: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Foundation") is requesting that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"} furnish its governmental approval, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), with respect to the issuance of up to 9.5 million dollars in aggregate principal mount of bonds (the "Bonds") by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County (the "Louisa IDA") to assist the Foundation in financing infrastructure improvements at the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project"). The Bonds, which are qualified 501(c)(3) bonds because the Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization, are eligible to be designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Code. In order for bonds to be designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations," the issuer thereof must be a "qualified small issuer" within the meaning of Section 265(b) of the Code, meaning that it cannot issue ~10,000.000 or more in tax-exempt obligations, as determined pursuant to Section 265(b)(3)(B), in a calendar year. Governmental bonds and 501 Ic)(3) bonds issued by industrial development authorities must be aggregated with bonds issued by the governmental units creating them when calculating the small issuer limitation. Because of bond issuances by Albemarle County (the "County"), the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") is not able to ~ssue such "bank- qualified" debt for the Foundation in calendar year 1997. On the other hand, the Louisa IDA does have that ability, and, consequently, the Foundation is seeking to use the Louisa IDA as its financing vehicle for the Project. Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code provide that the highest elected governmental unit of the locality having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. Because the issuer of December2,1997 P~e2 the Bonds is the Louisa IDA, the Board of Supervisors of Louisa County (the "Louisa Board") must approve the issue. Likewise, because the Project is located in the County, tkis Board has to approve the issuance of the Bonds. The regulations that were promulgated with respect to the public approval process require that the governmental unit approving the issue must do so following a public hearing held in a location which is convenient for the residents of the unit and for which there is reasonable public notice. Consequently, the Authority held a public hearing in cormection with the issue on December 1st. The resolution adopted by the Authority requesting tiffs Board's approval is included in your package, along with the Board Resolution, a Fiscal Impact Statement, a Summary Statement of the Public Hearing and a copy of the Inducement Resolution adopted by the Louisa IDA. The Louisa IDA held its public hear'mg on November 20th, and the Louisa Board gave its approval to the issue at a meeting on December 1st. In addition, Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code states that ifa locality has created an industrial development authority, "no other such authority, not created by such locality, shall finance facilities.., with'm the boundaries of such locality, unless the governing body of such locality in which the facilities are located or are proposed to be located, concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by the [issuing] authority and shows concurrence in a duly adopted resolution." In order to satisfy this Virginia Code requirement, the enclosed Board Resolution states that this Board concurs with the Inducement Resolution adopted by the Louisa IDA on November 20th. I hope that the foregoing discussion adequately explains the public notice and public approval process requirements and also the reasons for the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa IDA. The issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa IDA will not adversely impact the County in any way, and the County will ultimately reap the benefits from the development of the research park. If you would like additional information prior to the meeting, please call me at (804) 697-1216. Very truly yours, Stephen L. Johnson 181/743 RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Developmem Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Authority"), has received a request fi:om the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation [the "Foundation") that the Authority hold a public hearing on the issuance of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County (the "Louisa IDA") in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Foundation in (a) financing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design, engineering and project management costs for portions of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project") to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29, approximately 6 miles north of the city limits of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent ~o the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, bordering the North Fork of the Rivanna River in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and (b) financing certain costs of the issuance of the Bonds; and WltEREAS, the Project has been described to the Authority and a public heating has been held as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2~4906 of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Authority hereby recommends and requests that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board') approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisa IDA. The Authority hereby directs the Secretary of the Authority to submit to the Board this Resolution, the Foundation's Fiscal Impact Statement, and a summary of the public hearing held by the Authority prior to the adoption of this Resolution. 2. Ail other acts of the Authority that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and the undertaking of the Project are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 3. The Foundation agrees to pay any costs incurred by the Authority and the Board, including the fees and expenses of the Authority's counsel. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED: December 1, 1997 -2- SUMMARY STATEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") conducted a public hearing at 4:00 p.m. on December 1, 1997 in the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, 4th Floor, Conference Room, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 on the issuance of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County in an mount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"), pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, to assist the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, a non-profit Virginia nonstock corporation (the "Foundation"), in financing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design, engineering and project management costs for portions of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project") to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29, approximately 6 miles north of the city limits of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, bordering the North Fork of the Rivamm River in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The public hearing was properly advertised for two successive weeks in The Daily Progress, a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle County. Stephen L. Johnson ofMays & Valentine, L.L.P., Bond Counsel, explained to the Authority the nature and location of the Project. He also explained that the Bonds were being issued as "bank-qualified" obligations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Mr. Tim R. Rose, Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation, described the Project to the Authority. No members of the public spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the Bonds or the Project. #471984 FISCAL iMPACT STATEMENT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGiNIA December 1, 1997 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA RESEARCH PARK AT NORTH FORK Maximum amount of fmancing sought Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property m be acquked, constructed and improved in Albemarle County, Virginia Estimated real property mx per year using present mx rams Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis Average annual salary per employee $9,500,000** $. -0-* #471943 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA While the infrastructure improvements themselves will not result in a f'zscal impact on Albemarle County, they will enable the research park to be fully utilized. Based upon projections of the full ufiilzation of the research park, real estate taxes are estimated to be $1,296,000; sales taxes are estimated to be g2.459,000: the total number of jobs to be created is estimated to be 13,800; and the average salary of those employees is estimated to be $40,000 - $45,000. "The Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County will actually be issuing the Bonds. CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the directors of the Industrial Developmem Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on December 1, 1997, and that such Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended, but is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this [$~ day of December, 1997. [SE'ALl Secretary - - ¥ Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia #467475v2 -3- RESOLUTION OF INDUCEMENT OF TI-I~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF LOUISA COUNTY WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1 (and on and after December 1, 1997, Chapter 49, Title 15.2), Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing facilities for use by an organization (other than an organization organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes) which is described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and which is exempt from federal income marion pursuant to Section 501 (a) of the Code; WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, a non-profit Virginia nonstock corporation exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code and having its address at P. O. Box 9023, 2333 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 (the "Applicant"), that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist the Applicant in fmancing roadways, erosion control, sanitary and storm sewers, water mains, storm water management, earthwork and grading, landscaping, entrance features, street lights and traffic signals, common and park areas and all related design, engineering and project management costs for portions of the University of Virginia Research Park at North Fork (the "Project") to be located on the west side of U.S. Route 29, approximately 6 miles north of the city limits of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and adjacent to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, bordering the North Fork of the Rivarma River In the County of Albemarle, Virginia; WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth') through the increase of commerce and through the promotion of the welfare, convenience and prosperity of its citizens; WHEREAS, the Project has been described to the Authority, and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and by the Act; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has represented that the estimated cost of the Project and all expenses of the issue payable from bond proceeds will require an issue of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,500,000 (the "Bonds"); NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF LOUISA COUNTY: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the financing of the construction of the Project will be In the public interest, will benefit the citizens of the Commonwealth and will promote their commerce, welfare, convenience and prosperity. The Project is an "authority facility" within the meaning of the Act. 2. To induce the Applicant to locate the Project in the Commonwealth, the Authority hereby agrees to assist the Applicant in financing the construction of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its Bonds in an mount not to exceed $9,500,000 upon terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the Authority and the Applicant. The Bonds shall be issued in form acceptable to, and pursuant to terms to be set by, the Authority. The Bonds may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time. The proceeds of the Bonds shall be loaned to the Applicant pursuant to a loan agreement or similar agreement, the terms of which shall obligate the Applicant to make payments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the Project. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the planning and construction of the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Applicant may proceed with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for construction, materials and equipment for the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Applicant to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the Applicant may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and other applicable state and federal laws. 4. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the construction of the Project, including the fees and expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds or funds provided by the Applicant. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Applicant and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. 5. In adopting this Resolution, the Authority intends to take "official intent" to allow for the use of the proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the Applicant for "original expenditures" associated with the development or financing of the Project to the full extent permitted by Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2. The Applicant reasonably expects that it will reimburse the "original expenditures" with the proceeds of the Bonds. 6. The Applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Authority, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against all liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, losses, costs and expenses in any way connected with the Project that are caused by the Applicant, any application submitted by the Applicant or the issuance of the Bonds. 7. At the request of the Applicant, the Authority hereby appoints Mays & Valentine, L.L.P., as bond counsel to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the Bonds. -2- 8. Neither the Authority, including its officers, directors, employees and agents, nor Louisa County, Virginia (the "County") shall be liable, and each hereby disclaims all liability to the Applicant and all other persons or entities for, any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from the failure of the Authority to issue the Bonds for any reason. 9. The Authority hereby (a) recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board') approve the issuance of the Bonds to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code and by the Act within sixty days of the date of the adoption of this Resolution by the Authority and (b) directs the Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Authority to file with the Board this Resolution, the Applicant's Fiscal Impact Statement and a reasonably detailed summary of the statements made at the public hearing held by the Authority on November 20, 1997. 10. The Applicant hereby agrees to pay at closing to the Authority a fee equal to one-e~ghth of one percent (1/8%) of the face amount of the principal of the Bonds. 11. All other acts of the Authority that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the undertaking of the Project are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 12. The issuance of the Bonds shall be contingent upon the approval thereof by the Board and by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. 13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -3- CERTIFICATE The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County [the "Authority") hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a Resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a meeting duly called and held on November 20, 1997, in accordance with law, and that such Resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on the date hereof. WITNESS the following signature thisbe day of November, 1997. #468667 Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Louisa County -4- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Eldercare Gardens, L.P, Bond Refinancing Through Albemarle IDA SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Elderoare Gardens Bond Refinancing STAFF CONTACT(Si: Messrs. TuckedDavis AGENDA DATE: December 10, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Eldercare Gardens, L.P. received bond financing through the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority in 1979 in the amount of $4,385,000, It now desires to refinance the outstanding bonds by the issuance of refinancing bonds in the amount of $3,153 000. The original maturity of the 1979 bonds will not be extended. DISCUSSION: On December 1st, the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority held a public hearing and approved this request. In order to proceed, the proposal must also be approved by the Board' of Supervisors. A further explanation of the request and bacl~ground material is attached. Approval by the Board does not create any liability for the bonds by the County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reCOmmends that the Board approve the attached Resolution authorizing the issuance of the refinancing bonds through the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority. 97.233 WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the request of Eldercare Gardens. L.P. (the "Borrower") for the issuance of the Authority's First Mortgage Medical Facilities Refunding Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1997, in the original principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollm's ($3,155,000) (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of refunding those certain $4,385,000 First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1979A, issued by the Issuer as of January 1, 1979 (the "Prior Bonds"), the proceeds of the Prior Bonds having been used to finance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facilities facility located in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board") to approve the issuance of the Bonds m comply with Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and Section 15.24906 of the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Virginia Statute"); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's Resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a "Fiscal Impact Statement" with respect to the Eldercare Gardens Project have been filed with the Board. 0454215.01 027751~001 12/04/97 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2- 4906 of the Virginia Statute, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Chairman or the Co-Chairman of the Board and the County Clerk are hereby further authorized to take such steps and actions as may be required and necessary, in order to cause the Issuer to issue the Bonds, including but not limited to the execution and delivery of the "TEFRA Approval" which has been filed with the Board. 2. Approval of the issuance of the bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Code does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower, but, as re~ired by Section 15.2-4909 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither Albemarle County nor the Authority shall be able to pay the bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and monies pledged therefore, and neither the faith or credit, nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Albemarle County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take affect immediately upon its adoption. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA Date 0454215.01 0277514101 12/04/97 By: Chmrman -2- Via FedEx Larry Davis, Esq. Albemarle County Attorney's Office Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 CONNF_RS &BERRYpm LAW OFFICES 414 UNION STREET. SUITE 1600 POST OFFICE BOX [98062 N~HVILLE~ ~ESSEE 37219 December 2. 1997 COUNTY OF ALBE~.RLE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Re: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY $3,155,000 FIRST MORTGAGE MEDICAL FACILITIES REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 1997 (ELDERCARE GARDENS PROJECT) Dear Larry: I appreciate your meet'rog with me yesterday concerning the above referenced bond issue. As we discussed, this is a proposed refinancing of bonds issued in 1979 by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority. The 1979 bond issue was approved by the Albemarle County Board of Superwsors. in the same fashion as we are seeking such approval at this time. As you know, this approval is necessary to comply with both Virgufia and Federal law, and must be obtained before the end of the year to comply with the redemption provisions of the 1979 bonds and the time line established with the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County (the "Issuer"). Eldercare Gardens, L.P. has proposed, and yesterday the Issuer approved, a refinancing of bonds originally issued in December. 1979, by the Issuer, know as its $4,385,000 First Mortgage First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1979, and this firm has been retained to serve as Bond Counsel. I understand the approvals we need from the Board of Supervisors is on the "Consem Agenda" of the Board for its meeting to be held at 7:00 PM on Wednesday, December 10, 1997. Based on my meeting with you yesterday, I will not be attending your meeting, but will be available by telephone if any questions arise. If anything changes whereby you think my presence would be beneficial, please let me know as soon as possible. I have arranged for the administrator of the facility, Vernon Baker. to be present at the meeting, to answer any questions concerning the facility. 0454528.01 0277514)01 12 D2/97 Larry Davis, Esq December 2. 1997 Page 2 The proposed refinancing bonds are considered "Revenue Bonds." and are payable only from mounts pledged to the Issuer by the borrower, Eldercare Gardens. L.P. As is typical ha Revenue Bond financings of this type, there is no obligation of the Industrial Development Authority, Albemarle Cotmty, or any other governmental body or agency as ro the payment of these bonds. The original maturity of the 1979 Bonds will not be extended. Additionally, the total of the new Bonds, $3.155.000 does not exceed the amotmr of the 1979 Bonds which are being refinanced. This information is being provided to you, along with copies of the Bond Resolution and Fiscal Impact Statement adopted by the Issuer yesterday, and the Resolution, TEFRA Approval and Certificate we will need to have executed by the Board. If you have any questions as to the documents approved by the Issuer, or would like to discuss any changes to the documents proposed for execution by your client, please call me. All the details of the proposed refinancing are contained in the documents previously distributed to the Issuer and its counsel, and those can also be provided to you if you so desire. If you or any of the Board members have any questions, or need anything further, please let me know. Thank you in advance for your asststance in this matter. Very truly yours, BOULT, CUMIVIINGS, CONNERS & BERRY, PLC Michael D. Brent MDB/ CC: Mr. James B. Murray James Bowling, Esq. Vernon Baker 0454528.01 027751-001 12/02/97 TEFRA APPROVAL The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is an elected legislative body of Albemarle County, Virginia, and that as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. she has been informed as follows: That the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (the "Issuer") has approved the issuance of its First Mortgage Medical Facilities Refunding Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Projec0 Series 1997. in the original principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($3,155,000) {the "Bonds"), for the purpose of refunding those certain $4,385,000 First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1979A, issued by the Issuer as of January 1, 1979 (the "Prior Bonds"), the proceeds of the Prior Bonds having been used to finance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facilities facility located in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Project"). ii. That the designee of the Issuer, after giving public notice at least fourteen (14) days in advance thereof, held a public hearing on the 1st day of December. 1997, at which a reasonable opportunity to be heard was provided for persons with differing views on both the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and the location and nature of the facilities which were financed with the proceeds of the Prior Bonds. The undersigned has been informed of the substance of such public hearing. Based on such understanding and information, the undersigned hereby approves the issuance by the Issuer of such Refunding Bonds in the amount and for the purposes indicated above. This approval is given pursuam to Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This day of December, 1997. Chairman Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgima RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ¢$3,155,000) FIRST MORTGAGE MEDICAL FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (ELDERCARE GARDENS PROJECT) SERIES 1997, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING THOSE CERTAIN $4,385,000 FIRST MORTGAGE MEDICAL FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1979. ISSUED BY THE ISSUER AS OF JANUARY 1. 1979, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SERIES 1979 BONDS HAVING BEEN USED TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF THE ACQUISITION CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPING AND INSTALLATION OF A CERTAIN 180-BED MEDICAL FACILITIES FACILITY LOCATED IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. WHEREAS, the Issuer is a political subdivision and body politic and corporate of the Commonwealth of Virgima, and is authorized under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Sections t5.1-1373 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS. Issuer has been created pursuant m the Act and is authorized and empowered pursuant to the Act m issue revenue bonds: and WHEREAS, as of December 1, 1979. the Issuer issued its $4.385.000 First Mortgage First Mortgage Medical FaciY~ties Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1979 (the "Series 1979 Bonds"), the proceeds of the Series 1979 Bonds having been used to f'mance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facility located in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Project"): and WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Issuer issue its refunding bonds ro refund the Series 1979 Bonds, and the Issuer desires to do so; and WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to now definitively authorize and approve the issuance, execution, sale. and delivery of its interest-bearing revenue refunding bonds as tax-exempt Series 1997 Bonds in the original principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($3,155,000) First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1997 (the "Series 1997 Bonds"), to be dated as of the date of closing, to be issued under this Resolution and to be secured as set forth below, the proceeds of the Series 1997 Bonds to be used to refund the Series 19~/9 Bonds; and WHEREAS. the Issuer hereby finds and determines that the issuance of the Series 1997 Bonds will be in accordance with the provisions, and will further the purposes and the policies of the Act: and 0452429.02 )27751-001 12102/97 WHEREAS. pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Issuer has agreed to issue its bonds and to lend the proceeds therefrom (the- "Loan") to Eldercare Gardens, L.P., a limited partnership duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Borrower"); and WHEREAS. the Issuer has further determined that the financing for the Project by the issuance and sale of revenue bonds will be consistent with and effectuate the public purposes of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virgmia, particularly the Act: and WHEREAS. the following documents have been presented to the Issuer for approval in connection with the issuance, sale. and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds: 1. The proposed form 2. The proposed form 3. The proposed form The proposed form 5. The proposed form 6. The proposed form 7. The proposed form of the Indenture: of the Series 1997 Bonds; of the Loan Agreemem; of the Promissory Noteg of the Mortgage; of the Bond Purchase Agreement: and of the Investment Letter: and WHEREAS, it appears to the Issuer that all of such documents are in due form and that the execution, delivery, and implementation thereof, and the execution, issuance, and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds. will be necessary and advantageous to the Issuer iix furthering the purposes of the Act. NOW, THEREFORE. be it resolved by the Board of Directors of The Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County (Vkginial as follows: Section 1. Findings. It is hereby authorized, determined and declared as follows: a. Issuer is authorized and empowered by the Act to finance all or any part of the costs of projects such as the Project. meamng of the Act. The Project constitutes and will constitute a "project" within the c. The costs to be paid from the proceeds of the Series 1997 Bonds shall be "cost of project" within the meaning of the Act. Section 2. Authorization of the Issuance of the Series 1997 Bonds. Under and pursuant to the provisions of the Act. the Issuer hereby authorizes the execution, issuance, sale, and delivery in consideration of payment therefor, of the Series 1997 Bonds. the proceeds thereof to be used to refund the Series 1979 Bonds, and there is hereby authorized and the Issuer shall issue the Series 1997 Bonds pursuant to the terms of that certain Trust Indenture -~etween 0452429.02 027751-001 12/02/97 the Issuer and Norwest Bank Minnesota (the "Trustee") dated as of December 1, 1997 (the "Indenture"). The Series 1997 Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds in the denomination of not less than $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof, shall be numbered as provided in the Indenture. shall be dated as of the interest payment date to which interest has been paid, or, unless otherwise provided in the Indenture. if authenticated prior to a date on which interest has been paid, they are proposed to be dated December 1. 1997. and bear interest payable semiannually on June 30 and December 31 of each year, beginning June 30. 1998. The forms, terms and provisions of the Series 1997 Bonds and the provisions for the execution, authentication, payment, registration, transfer and exchange shall be as set forth in the Indenture. Section 3. Maturi~ Schedule for Series 1997 Bonds. The Series 1997 Bonds shall bear interest annually at the rates set forth in. the Indenture and. unless otherwise provided in the Indenture, shall mature in the principal amounts set forth in the Indenture, the exact rates and maturities to be approved by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Issuer, whose execunon of the Indenture will be conclusive evidence of such approval. Section 4. Redemption of Series 1997 Bonds. The Series 1997 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity in the manner and with the effect provided in the Indenture. Section 5. Repayment of Series 1997 Bonds: Limited Obligations. The principal of, premium, ff any, and interest on the Series 1997 Bonds shall be secured to the extent provided in that certain Loan Agreement between the Issuer and the Borrower dated as of December 1, 1997 (the "Agreement"), the Indenture, and that certain Second Deed of Trust and Security Agreement from the Borrower to the Trustee dated as of December 1, 1997 tthe "Mortgage"), and shall be payable solely from the revenues and proceeds to be derived by Issuer from Borrower pursuant to the Agreement (except to the extent payable from the proceeds of the Series 1997 Bonds, income from the temporary investment thereof, and. under certam circumstances, the proceeds of insurance and condemnation awards). THE SERIES 1997 BONDS SHALL NOT BE A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE ISSUER. AND SHALL NOT BE AN INDEBTEDNESS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA. THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF. NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE ISSUER. ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA. THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SERIES 1997 BONDS OR THE INTEREST THEREON OR OTHER COSTS INCIDENTAL THERETO. THE ISSUER HAS NO TAXING AUTHORITY. Section 6. Authorization of Execution and Delivery of Indenture. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman and Secretary of Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, simultaneously with the execution and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds, the Indenture in substantially the form now before Issuer, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Issuer, whose execution thereof will be conclusive evidence of such approval. )452429.02 )27751-001 i2/02/97 Section 7. Authorization of Execution and Delivery of Agreement. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman and Secretary of Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver, simultaneously with the execution and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds, the Agreement in substantially the form now before Issuer, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Issuer, whose execution thereof will be conclusive evidence of such approval. Section 8. Approval of Form of Mortgage. Issuer hereby approves the form of the Mortgage, in substantially the form now before Issuer. Section 9. Approval of Form of Promissory Note. Issuer hereby approves the form of the Promissory Note, in substantially the form now before Issuer. Section 10. Authorization and Execution and Delivery of Bond Purchase Agreement. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Issuer is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreemem for the Series 1997 Bonds (the "Bond Purchase Agreements") among the Issuer, the Borrower and Bond Johnson Bond, Inc. ~the "Purchaser"). in substantially the form now before the Issuer. with such changes, insertiol~s and omissions as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Issuer, whose execution thereof will be conclusive evidence of such approval. Section 11. Negotiated Sale of Series 1997 Bonds. The sale of the Series 1997 Bonds by negotiated sale to the Purchaser is hereby authorized upon payment of the purchase price or other compensation set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. Section 12. Authorization of Execution and Delivery of Series 1997 Bonds. The Series 1997 Bonds shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Issuer and attested to by the manual signature of the Secretary of Issuer. A facsimile of the corporate seal of Issuer shall be duly impressed, imprinted or lithographed on each of the Series 1997 Bonds. Section 13. Acceptance of the Investment Letter, The Investment Letter. as presented to this meeting of the Issuer, is accepted, and the Chairman and the Vice Chairman. or either of them. is hereby authorized and empowered m accept delivery of the Investment Letter in the name. and on behalf, of the Issuer. The Investment Letter is to be in substantially the form of the Investment Letter now before this meeting of the Board of Directors, or with such changes therein as shall be approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Issuer, the execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all such changes or revisions. Section 14. Appointment of Trustee. Norwest Bank Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, is hereby designated Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent for the Series 1997 Bonds under the Indenture. The Trustee is hereby requested to authenticate and deliver each series of the Series 1997 Bonds to or ar the direction of the Purchaser upon the payment by the Purchaser and the Iultial Purchaser to the Trustee of the respective purchase price for the Bonds 0452429.02 027751-001 12/02 97 Section 15. Compliance with Section 149(e) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as Amended. The Issuer hereby authorizes the execution and delivery to the Secretary of Treasury of all documents necessary to comply with the "information reporting requirements" of Section 149{e) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986. as amended; and the Chairman and Vice Chairman, or either of them, are hereby authorized. empowered and directed to mice any and all further action which may be required to comply with the provisions of Section 149(e) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder; and all acts heretofore taken in this connection are hereby ratified and confn'med. Section 16. Election Pursuant to Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The Issuer hereby elects to have the provisions as to the Ten Million Dollar ($10,000,000~ limitation in Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect prior to adoption of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. applied to the Series 1997 Bonds: and the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, or either of them, and the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to take any and all further action which may be required to implement and to effectuate such election, including without limitation the taking of any action as may be deemed by them to be necessary or advisable in order to comply with the procedure set forth in Section 1.103-10(b)(2)(vi) of the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under Section 103 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and all acts heretofore taken by them in this connection are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 17. Miscellaneous Acts. The appropriate officers of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to do any and all such acts and things, and to execute, acknowledge, deliver, and, if applicable file or record, or cause to be filed or recorded, in any appropriate public offices, all such documents, instruments, and certifications, certifications hereinbefore authorized and approved, as may, in their discretion, be necessary or desirable to implement or comply with the intent of tiffs Resolution. or any of the documents herein authorized and approved, or for the authorization, issuance, and delivery by the Issuer of the Series 1997 Bonds or for the redemption of the Series 1979 Bonds. Section 18. Limited Obligation and Liability. The Series 1997 Bonds. and the interest payable thereon, are limited obligations of the Issuer, and shall not be deemed to constitute a general debt or liability of the Issuer. except insofar as the same is payable solely from such special sources and funds provided therefor in accordance with the provisions thereof and the provisions of the Indenture and the Loan Agreement. Neither the County of Albemarle. Virginia, nor the Commonwealth of Virginia. nor any other political subdivision thereof, shall be liable for the payment of the principal of or the interest on the Series 1997 Bonds or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation, agreement, or certification, of any kind whatsoever of the Issuer and neither the Series 1997 Bonds nor any of the pledges, mortgages, agreements, obligations, or certifications of the Issuer shall be construed to constitute an indebtedness of the County of Albemarle, 0452429.02 027751-001 1g/02/97 Virgima, or the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any other political subdivision thereof, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory prowsions whatsoever. No recourse under, or upon any statemem, obligation, covenant, agreement, or certification, contained in any of the foregoing documents, including, without limitation, the Series 1997 Bonds. the Indenture, the Loan Agreemem, the Promissory Note, the Mortgage, or any other document or certification whatsoever: or under any judgment obtained against the Issuer or by the enforcement.of any assessment or by any legal or equitable proceeding or by virtue of any constitution or statute or otherwise, or under any circumstances, under or independent of the foregoing documents, including, without limitation, the Series 1997 Bonds, the Indenture, the Loan Agreement. the Promissory Note, the Mortgage or any other document or certification, whatsoever, shall be had against any incorporator, member, director, or officer. as such. past, present, or future, of the Issuer, either directly or through the Issuer. or otherwise, for the payment for, or m the Issuer, or any receiver thereof, or from, or to, the holders of the Series 1997 Bonds. for any sum that may be due and unpaid by the Issuer upon the Series 1997 Bonds, or the interest payable thereon. Any and all personal liability of every nature, whether at common law or m equity, or by statute or by constitution or otherwise, of any such incorporator, member, director or officer, as such, to respond by reason of any act or omission on his or her part or otherwxse for, directly or indirectly, the payment for, or to. the Issuer or any receiver thereof, or for, or to, the holders of the Series 1997 Bonds, or the interest payable thereon, shall be deemed to have been waived and released as a condition of, and consideration for. the execution of the aforesaid documents and the issuance of the Series 1997 Bonds. Section 19. Authorization of Execution of Other Documents. The Chairman or Vice-Chairman and Secretary of Issuer are hereby further authorized, empowered and directed, either jointly or individually, to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents and certificates on behalf of Issuer as may be necessary to conclude and close the issuance and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds. All costs incurred by the Issuer related to the ~ssuance and delivery of the Series 1997 Bonds, including but not limited to fees and expenses of it's counsel, shall be reimbursed to the Issuer by, or otherwise paid by, the Borrower. Section 20. Severability of Invalid Provisions. If any one or more of the covenams, agreements, or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be deemed null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaimng covenants, agreements and provisions hereof and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other prowsions hereof or of the Series 1997 Bonds. Section 21. Meetings and Deliberations. The Issuer hereby finds and determines that all formal actions relative to adoption of this Resolution were taken ~n open meetings of the Issuer, and that all deliberations of the Issuer and its committees, if any, which resulted in formal action, were taken in meetings open to the public in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements. 0452429.02 027751-00I 12/02/97 Section 22. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions, All resolutions or ordinances or parrs thereof of Issuer in conflict with the provisions herein contained are. to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and repealed. Section 23. Effective Date. Tiffs Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1st day of December, 1997. Chairman ATTEST: (SEAL) Secretary 0452429.02 027751~001 12/02/97 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Eldercare Gardens, L.P. Applicant Eldercare Gardens Facliity DATE: December 1, 1997 Maximum amount of financing sought: Estimated Taxable Value of the Facilities Real Property to be constructed in the murdcipality: Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates: Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates: Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using presem tax rates: Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally: Estimated number of regular employees on a year round basis: Average annual salary per employee: $3.155.000.00 Not Applicable No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change No Change Chairman Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County )454049.01 027751-001 12/02/97 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the request of Eldercare Gardens, L.P. lthe "Borrower") for the issuance of the Authority's First Mortgage Medical Facilities Refunding Bonds [Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1997, in the original principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($3,155,000) (the "Bonds" }. for the purpose of refunding those certain $4,385,000 First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Projectl Series 1979A. issued by the Issuer as of January, 1. 1979 (the "Prior Bonds"). the proceeds of the Prior Bonds having been used ro finance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facilities fadlity located in Albemarle County, Virginia Ithe "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"l ro approve the issuance of the Bonds ro comply with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986/the "Code") and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act {the "Virginia Statute"}: and 0454215.01 027751-001 12/15/97 WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's Resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a "Fiscal Impact Statement" with respect to the Eldercare Gardens Project have been filed with the Board. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY. VIRGINIA: 1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Statute, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. The Chairman or the Co-Chairman of the Board and the County Cleric are hereby further authorized to take such steps and actions as may be required and necessary in order to cause the Issuer to issue the Bonds, including but not limited to the execution and delivery of the "TEFRA Approval" which has been filed with the Board. 2. Approval of the issuance of the bonds as required by Section 147(0 of the Code does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower, but, as required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Code of Virginia of 1950. as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither Albemarle County nor the Authority shall be able to pay the bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto except frmn the revenues and monies pledged therefore, and neither the faith or credit_ nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Albemarle County nor the Authority shall be pledged thereto. 027751-001 12/15/97 3. This Resolution shall take affect immediately upon its adoption. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Date 0454215,0t 027751m01 TEFRA APPROVAL The undersigned hereby certifies that she is the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is an elected legislative body of Albemarle County, Virginia, and that as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, she has been informed as follows: ii. That the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (the "Issuer") has approved the issuance of its First Mortgage Medical Facilities Refunding Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1997, in the original principal amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty,Five Thousand Dollars ($3,155,000) (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of refunding those certain $4,385,000 First Mortgage Medical Facilities Revenue Bonds (Eldercare Gardens Project) Series 1979A, issued by the Issuer as of January l, 1979 (the "Prior Bonds"), the proceeds of the Prior Bonds having been used to finance the costs of the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of a certain 180 bed medical facilities facility located in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Project"). That the designee of the Issuer, after giving public notice at least fourteen (14) days in advance thereof, held a public hearing on the 1st day of December, 1997, at which a reasonable opportunity to be heard was provided for persons ~vith differing views on both the issuance of the Refunding Bonds and the location and nature of the facilities whict~ were financed with the proceeds of the Prior Bonds. iii. The undersigned has been informed of the substance of such pttblic hearing. Based on such understanding and information, the undersigned hereby approves the issuance by the Issuer of such Refunding Bonds in the amount and for the purposps indicated above. This approval is given pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of t 986, as amended. This __ day of December, 1997. Ch~ ~' Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia UNITED WAY HOLIDAY SPIRIT DAY WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the United Way-Thomas leffersonArea ~vas founded by community volunteers 44 years ago for the purpose of helping neighbors in need; and the United Way-Thomas JqJ:ferson Area continues to be a volunteer-driven organization that raises and distributes funds to programs that serve at-risk adults and children in our community; and WHEREAS, the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area is completing its most ambitious fundraising Campaign ever as part of its commitment to make an important and lasting difference in the lives of those in need in our community; and the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area accomplishes its work because of the generosi~ of hundreds of volunteers and thousands of contributors each.~ear; and the United Way Holiday Spirit Day represents an opportunity for people throughout the community to join their neighbors in supporting the veork of the United Way and helping the organization reach its fundraising goal; and WHEREAS, the United Way Holiday Spirit Day is' an opportunity to ackno~vledge and thank all ~vho have worked as volunteers and all ~vho have provided financial support to the United Way during 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, L Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim DECEMBER 18. 1997, as UNITED WAY HOLIDAY SPIRIT DAY and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the United Way CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER VISORS TO: Etla-cagey ~ '" ' Albemarle COunty Board '~ ~W:o~d!ngfor' Problam~t on ' , 1:997 ~ un'i,ted ,Wa~ Holiday SpiH~ Day. .risk;adults and ' 12-1J-199~ ~:18AH FROM UNITED WAY TJA 804 972 I719 United Way Thomas Jefferson Area MEMORANDUM BOARD OF SUPERVIS©~S TO: FAX: Kg: DATE: FROM: Ella Carey, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Office 804/296-58OO Wording for Proclamation Decembgr 18, 1997~ United Way Holiday Spirit Day December 11.1997 Cathy Smith Train WHEREAS, the United Way-Thomas 3refferson Area was founded by community volunteers 54 years ago for the purpose of helping neighbors in need. WHEREAS. tho United Way-Thonms Jefferson Area continues to be a "grazs roots" organization that mobilizes community volunteers w rai~ and distribute funds to support programs focused on Rose people in our community who are in greatest need or at 8ream~ risk. WHEKEA$, the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area is completing its most ambitious fundralsing Campaign ever as part ofit$ commitment m make an importam a~d lasting difference in the lives of those ia need in our eommanity. WHEREAS. the United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area serves our community through the extra- ordinary generosity of hundreds of volumeers and thousands of contributors each ye, ar. WHEREAS, the Un/ted Way Holiday Spirit Day repremnts an oppommky to residents throughout the community to join their neighbors in supporting the work of thc United Way and helping the ~ization reads ks ~ndrai~ing goal. WI-~KBAS, the United Way Holiday Spirit Day is an opportunity to acknowledge and thank all who have volunteered and all who have provided fiztan¢ial support to the United Way during 1997, 2560-D Ivy Road Charlot'~svlll*~ Virgkfia 22903-4615 972. 1701 Fa~ 972. 1719 1LmalI: uwaytja@aot.¢om http:/]awnu~.orgPaattedway COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 '804} 296-5825 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors David B. Benisti, Chief of Community Development November 13, 1997 CPA-97-05 Brass, Inc The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 1997, unanimously adopted a Resolution of Intent to study the request to change the Land Use Plan designation from Industrial Service to a Regional Service commercial designation. Attached please find a staffreport which outlines this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. DB/jcf ATTACHMENT CC: Steve W. Blaine, Esq STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: CPA 97-02, N & S LC and CPA 97-05, BRASS, INC. DAVID BENISH NOVEMBER 11, 1997 Request: Requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are first forwarded to the Planning Commission for a determination as to whether or not a public purpose would be served by further considering the requests. Ifa positive detarmination is made, the Commission passes a resolution of intent and staff evaluates the requests and provides its reeommendatiom The Commission and Board then consider the requests at public hearings. The two requests are as follows (see map, Attachment A): CPA 97-02. N & S LC - Proposal to change the Land Use Plan designation from Transitional to Regional Service and/or Community Service commemial land use designations. The property, totaling 41 acres, is located on Fifth Street Extended, in the southwest quadrant of the 1-64 interchange (Tax Map 76, Parcels 46A, 54, 54A, 55B, 55D). (See Attachment B). CPA 97-05, Brass, Inc. - Proposal to change the Land Use Plan designation fi-om Industrial Service to a Regional Service commercial designation. The property totals 54 acres and is located on the east side of Fifth Street, just north ofi-64 (Tax Map 7.6M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B). This property borders the City of Charlottesville along the northern and western border. (See separate bound document). Both sites are in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The N & S LLC site consists of rolling topography with a mix of open fields and wooded areas. There are two streams valleys on the site. One is close to the western border of the property. The other stream runs through the middle of the property and splits the site into two areas of development. The site is bordered on the north by 1-64 and on the east and south by Fifth Street Extended. Old Lynchburg Road and The Covenant School are located on the western border of the site. The Jefferson National Bank Office building is under construction on the south side of the Fifth Street Extended directly opposite this site. Single family residential development/is also located on Fifth Street in the area, The Open Space Plan identifies the need to provide buffer areas along the northern boundary adjacent to 1-64. The Brass, Inc. property consists of a rolling topography and is primarily wooded. Moore's Creek establishes almost all of the eastern, northern and western boundary, and there is flood plain associated with the creek on the property. The site can .generally be described as a hill with the high point of the property at the center of the site The site is bordered by the Willoughby residential subdivision to the north, 1-64 to the south, and commercial development in the City to the west 0tardees, Taco Bell, eonvemence/gas station). The Grand Piano warehouse is located at the southeastern comer adjacent to the site (access to the warehouse is through this property). Access to the property in question is from an existing entrance on Fifth Street in the City currently serving the previously noted fast food restaurants and convanience/gas station. This entrance is located in the City. The Open Space Plan identifies the Moore's Creek stream valley for protection and Greenway development, and buffer areas along 1-64 and to the adjacent residential area to the north (Willoughby). 1-64 and Fifth Street are designated as Entrance Corridor Routes. Backg_ round: N & S LLC - Based on a request by the property ovmer of the N 8: S LLC property~ this area was considered by the Commission for Regional Service designation during the Cgunty's 1996 update of the Land Use Plan. The Staff and Commission recommended that this area be designated for Regional Service commercial use based primarily on the des/re to provide some commercial opportunities in the southern Urban Neighborhoods. It was fell saeh a designation would provide a better balance of commercial areas in the urban area, reducing dependence on (and vehicle trips to) the Route 29 North corridor for commercial services and would also provide an opportunity to establish a core area for a community level commercial/service/employment center in Neighborhood 5 (along with the adjaeear JNB building and Covenant School site). However, during their review of the Land Use Plan the Board of Supervisors approved the Land Use Plan with a this area designated for Transitional uses. The Transitional designation permits a mix of Urban Density Residential, Office Service, and Neighborhood Sarvice (commercial) uses. The Board's concerns with the Regional Service designation were the potential traffic and a~sthetic impacts of larg~ scale/highway oriented development in this area, and concerns '~th the its compatibility with the flearby residential areas. Concern with the potential economic impact to existing commercial areas in the City was also expressed. The Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning this year on a portion of this property to R-t0, Residential. The property owner had requested R-15 zoning. The Board approved a lesser zoning density due to concerns with the impact of additional traffic on the level of service of the 1-64 interchange. Brass. Inc. - This property was designated for high density residential use (11-34 du/ac) in the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. A proffered rezoning of the property to LI, Light Industrial was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1985. The 1989 C~mprhensive Plan and 1996 Land Use Plan h~ve since recognized the existing zoning. There have been no major development proposals reviewed by the Cbunty on the site since that rezoning. Th~r~e were no land use changes proposed, or considered, on the site during the County's review of the Land Dsc Plan. Availability/Condition of Public Utilities and Facilities: Primary access to both sites would be from Fifth Street Extended. The N & S LLC site also has the potential for access from Old Lynchburg Road. The City Planning staff has identified traffic as a major issue ofconcern for the City. Fifth Street carries 15,693 vehicles north ofi-64 and 7,141 vehicles south ofi-64. The level of service on 1-64 interchange is failing ha certain situations, particularly for left turn movements onton Fifth Street from the 1-64 ramps during peak hours. The County staffand VDOT are currently attempting to program improvements to the interchange (traffic signals) in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. The Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study does indicate the potential need to upgrade the interchange off-ramps and construct a third lane southbound on Fifth Street. The impact of additional traffic from either of these requests would be a major component of any further study. Fire and rescue service are adequate to this'area. This is due in part to service provided by City fire stations. The Community Facilities Plan does identify the need for a fire/rescoe station in the southern Urban Area. Water and Sewer service IS available to both of these sites. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Both areas are currently located within the designated Development Area and are shown for either non- residential or mixed uses. These requests would increase the available acreage of commercial land designated in the Plan, particularly in the southern Urban Area. Although the amount of commercial land designated in the Plan is sufficient for short term needs (5-10 years), there are limited large tracts of 40+ acres currently zoned or designated for enmmercial uses. In the southern Urban Neighborhoods there are relatively limited areas currently designated for commercial uses. In Neighborhood 5 there is a total of approximately 50 acres designated for commercial use, 40 acres of which is located in the southwest quadrant of the Route 29/I-64 interchange (Seig Distributors site).' There are limitations to providing water and sewer to that loation. A total of 12 acres is designated in Neighborhood 4 on for commercial use (on Avon Street, adjacent to Lakeside apartments). Other Issues - The owner of the N & S LLC property has offered to allow the County's fiscal impact model to be used on a trial basis to evaluate this proposal. The Brass, Inc. property owners are also willing to allow the model to be used to evaluate the impact of the proposed land use changes. Although a fiscal impact staff person has not been hired to manage and operate the model, and resources do not currently exist for general operation of the model, it may be possible to use existing staff to conduct this evaluation as a test case. There has also been a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning request submitted to change the land use designation on the Sperry residue property on Hydraulic Road and Route 29 North from Industrial Service to Regional Service. This proposed change was considered by the Board during its review of the Land Use Plan. The Board did not designate the residue Sperry property for commercial use with the adoption of the Plan, but directed staffto review a Comprehensive Plan amendment request when submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the Commission and Board will be considering this proposal in the near future. Staffhas had preliminary discussions with the City planning staffregarding these requests. Although they do not have any specific comments or recommendations at this time, they did indicate that important issues for the City will be local and regional traffic impacts, impacts to City neighborhoods, and possible economic impacts to commercial areas in the City. Summary and Recommendation: Staffopinion is that there is merit in further studying both of these requests. This opinion is based on the following: The County will already be considering a similar type of Comprehensive Plan amendment for a Regional Service designation on the Sperry property. It would be useful to consider all possible alternatives for possible new commercial designations concurrently. There is a relatively limited amount of commercial area designated in the southern urban area. Further evaluation of these requests could consider the overall need for additional commercial areas in the County as well as the distribution of commercial areas within the designated Development Areas (and City). · There is an opportunity to conduct fiscal impact analysis on these proposals as a test case. Therefore, Staff recommends the Commission adopt a resolution to further study CPA 97-02 and CPA 97-05. / J / / J f -.~-~ J J ,1!, ~, ® / Y I ~ ~.~" ~ .=~ ( ~, ,~= _ _ _ ATTACHMEN'" Eli L661 ~ (I]~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Application for a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan A. PPL!CANT SECTION Name: N & s, LLC Phone: (804'1971-9764 Address: P, o. Box 7324 Charlottesville, Va. 22906 Signature: \ _/~--~ · . ------~ for N&$,L[,g Date: sept. 2~ 1997 CO-APPLICANT OR AGENT, (IF AN~ SECTION Name: ~. S. Tatum (Land Planninq & Des~qn Assc~hoR8:~804) 296-2108 Address: P. o. BOX 1606 Charlot~escille, Va. 22902 AN AMENDMENT OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 1982-2002 IS HEREBY REQUESTED WITH REGARD TO: [] A'. Goals and Objectives, Standards [] C. Land Use Maps [] E. Scenic Roads, Rivers, Vistas [] G. Other (Please Specify) PROPERTY LOCATION; 5th. and Old Lynchburg Road. Lynchburg Road, [-] B. Community Development Plan r-] D. Transportation Plan r-] F. Facilities and Utilities Plan Street Extended. Bounded by 5th. St., 1-64 Also, a portion of Parcel 46A, west of Old is included. Total acreaqe is 4].035. TAX MAp(s)-PARCELNUMBER(S): TH 76, P46A, P54, PSZIA, P55B & P55D BRIEFLY STATE AMENDMENT REQUESTED: Change to Regional Service to allow for Hotels and Restaurants near 1-64. From the Storm Water basin west would be developed as Community Service t. vDP.~ laundry, supermarket~ etc. ~ oriented to adjacent and nearby ne]ghbnrhoods~ J FOR STAFF USE ONLY: RESOLUTION OF INTENT ADOPTED: [] YES [] NO DATE OF ACTION: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2 t997 September 2, 1997 Planninr Dept. SOUTItPOINTE: Bonnded by 5th. Street Extended, 1-64 and Old Lynehburg Road. Request submi~tted by N & S, LLC, as represented by; Mr. S. W. 'Bill' Heischman. P. O. Box 7324 Charlottesville, Va. 22906 Tel: (804) 971-9764 Designated Agent: R. Start TatUm, ASLA, CLA (Land Planning & Design Associates, Inc.) 310 E. Main St., Suite 200 P. O. Box t 606 Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Tel: (804) 296-2108 Criteria responses for requested change. A. This area has been studied several times over the past few years and is currently designated as 'Transitional'. The requested change will allow for a truly transitional development with highway oriented facilities near 1-64 surrounded by heavy screening and buffering from nearby residences. These highway oriented facilities will extend only to the existing storm water pond and will encompass approximately thirteen (13) acres of the total of approximately 41.036 acres. (The portion of Parcel 46A lying west of Old Lynchborg Ro'fid'is also included in this request.) The remaining portion of this tract would be developed with Community oriented commercial and retail facilities which would address the needs of the existing and developing neighborhoods in the area. B. This requested change would, we believe, more effectively support and implement the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, for this area. C. Roadways and utilities are in place in this area and are adequate to support this request. D. Some changes to the Land Use Plan, for this area, would be required and would seem to make 'transitional' more obvious and effective. E. 1. In discussions with adjacent and nearby residents, the land owner has determined that there is a strong desire for significant community services in. this growing area. At this time, most of the neighborhood associations and individuals support the concept of this change and its implications for change. We interpret this as a significant change in circumstance. Sunset Ave. 0 0 SEP P- t997 \ © DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER GOU.~J~v_ OF ALBEMAFtLE-" BOARD OF SUP[~ .g~,'~ nil m.,~z ~ ~ ~ECUT~VE OFFICE COMMONWEALTH o[ IR INIA DEPARTMENT OF ~ANSPORTATION 2- ~ 9 - 9 7 A ~ ): 2 ~ ~xu~ '/~- ~ 1601-ORANGE RO~ CULPEPER, 22701-3819 DONALD R, ASKEW DIS~ICT ADMINIS~ATOR December 2, 1997 Route 250 ar Canterbury Road Proj. 0250-002-112, PE-101, RW-20i, C-501 Fr: 0.07 Mile West of Int. Route 809 To: 0.12 Mile East of Int. Route 809 Albemarle County Mr. Robert W. 'Tucker, Jr. County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: The Commonwealth Transportation Board, on November 20, 1997. approved the location and major design features of the above project as proposed and presented at the September 16, 1997, public hearing. The minor modifications required as a result of the public hearing comments for this project will be incorporated by the project designer in the final design phase of this project. Robert H. Connock, Jr., P.E. District Construction Engineer wlr TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Meals Tax Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing and presentation of ordinance implementing the Meals Tax. AGENDA DATE: December 10, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: County voters approved, by referendum, a Meals Tax for Albemarle County during the November elections. A public hearing has been set for December 10, 1997, to adept an ordinance implementing this tax. DISCUSSION: The County would join many of its neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Nelson and Greene, by instituting a Meals Tax. It is projected that implementation would result in annual revenue of approximately $2.3 million. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board elect to adopt the attached ordinance, staff would recommend an effective date of January 1, 1998 and a tax rate of 4 percenL 97.234 CHAPTER 8 FINANCE AND TAXATION ARTICLE XV. PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX Sec. 8-75. Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following respective meanings except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Beverage: Any alcoholic beverages as defined in section 4-2(2)of the Code of Virginia and nonalcoholic beverages, any of which are served as part of a meal. Caterer: Aperson who furnishes food on the premises of another for compensation. Director of Finance: The director of finance of the county and any of his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. Foo& Any and all edible refreshments or nourishment, liqttid or otherwise, including beverages as herein defined, purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, except snack foods. Person: Any individual, corporation, company, association, finn, partnership or any group of individuals acting as a unit. Purchaser: Any person who purchases food in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, Restauram: (1) Any place where food is prepared for service to the public whether on or off the premises; or (2) Any place where food is served to the public. Examples of a restaurant include, but are not limited to, a dining room, grill, coffee shop, cafeteria, cafe, snack bar, lunch counte~, lunchroom, short-order place, tavern, delicatessen, confectionery, bakery, eating house, eatery, drugstore, catering service, lunch wagon or track, pushcart or Other mobile facility that sells food, and a dining facility in a public or private schoot or college. Seller: Any person who sells food in or from a restaurant or as a caterer. Snack food'. Chewing gum, candy, popcorn, peanuts and other nuts, and unopened prepackaged cookies. donuts, crackers, potato chips and other items of essentially the same nature and consumed for essentially the same purpose. Sec. 8-76. Levy of tax; amount. In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed on the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered for human consumption in the county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restaurant or not, or prepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (4) percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any fraction of une-half cent ($0.005) or more shall be treated as one cent (SO.OD. Sec. 8-77. Exemptions. The following purchases of food shall not be subject to the tax under this article: (a) Food sold by grocery stores and convenience stores except for prepared sandwiches and single- meal platters ready for human consumption sold at a delicatessen counter. (b) Food and beverages sold through vending machines. (c) Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States. (d) Food sold by nonprofit cafeterias in public schools, nursing homes and hospitals. (e) Food sold by churches, fraternal, school and social organizations and volunteer fire departments and rescue squads which hold occasional dinners and bazaars of one-day or two-day duration, at which food prepared in the homes of members or in the kitchen of the organization is offered for sale to the public. (f) Food furnished by churches which serve meals for their members as a regular part of their religious observance. (g) Food furnished by boardinghouses that do not accommodate transients. (la) Food sold by cafeterias operated by industrial plants for employees only. (i) Food furnished by a hospital, medical clinic, convalescent home, nursing home, home for the aged, infirm or handicapped or other extended care facility to patients or residents thereof. (j) Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable organization to elderly, infrrm, handicapped or needy persons in their homes or at central locations. (k) Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or benevolent organization on an occasional basis as a fund-raising activity or food sold by a church or religious body on an occasional basis. (I) Food furnished by restaurants to employees as part of their compensation when no charge is made to the employee. (m) Any other sale of food which is exempt from taxation under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act. or administrative rules and regulation issued pursuant thereto. Sec. 8-78. Tips and service charges. (a) Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee or employees of a seller, and the amount of the tip is wholly in the discretion of the purchaser, the tip is not subject to the tax imposed by this article, whether paid in cash to the employee or added to the bill and charged to the purchaser's account, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the tip is mined over to the employee by the seller. (b) An amount or percent, whether designated as a tip or a service charge, that is added to the price of the meal by the seller, and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a pan of the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed by this article. Sec. 8-79. Payment and collection of tax. Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied under tiffs article shall collect the amount of tax imposed under this article from the purchaser on whom the same is levied at the tune payment for such food becomes due and payable, whether payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means ora crefftt card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed by the purchaser shall be added to the cost of the food by the seller who shall pay the taxes collected to the county as provided in this article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust by the seller until remitted to the county. Sec. 8-80. Deduction for seller. For the purpose of compensating sellem for the collection of the tax imposed by this article, every seller shall be allowed three (3)percent of the mount of the tax due and accounted for in the form ora deduction on his monthly return not m exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per monthly return; provided, the full amount shall be due if any part of the payment is delinquent at the time of payment. Sec. 8-81. Reports and remittances generally. Every seller of food with respect m which a tax is levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such forms and setting forth such information as the director of finance may prescribe and require, showing the amount of food charges collected and the tax required to be collected, and shall sign and deliver such report to the director of £mance with a remittance of such tax. It shall be presttmed that all food served, sold or delivered in the county in or from a restaurant is taxable under this article and the burden shall be upon the seller of food to establish by records what food is not taxable. Such reports and remittance shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each month, covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding month. Sec. 8-82. Preservation of records. It shall be the duty of any seller of food liable for collection and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to keep and preserve for a period of three (3) years records showing gross sales of all food and beverages, the amount charged the purchaser for each such purchase, the date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax required to be collected by this article. The director of finance shall have the power m examine such records at reasonable times and without unreasonable interference with the business of the seller for the purpose of admiuistering and enforcing the promsions of tlfis article and to make copies of all or any parts thereof. Sec. 8-83. Duty of seller when going out of business. Whenever any seller required to collect or pay to the county a tax under th/s article shall cease m operate or otherwSse dispose of his business, any tax payable under this article shall become immediately due and payable and such person shall immediately make a report and pay the tax due. Sec. 8-84. Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohibited. No seller shall advertise or hold out m the public in any manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any part of the tax imposed under this article will be paid or absorbed by the seller or anyone else, or that the seller or anyone else will relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the tax. Sec. 8-85. Enforcement; duty of director of finance. The director of finance shall promulgate rules and regulations for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of this article. It shall also be the duty of the director of finance to ascertzin the name of every seller liable for the collection of the tax imposed by this article who falls, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports and remittances required by this article. The director of finance shall have all of the enforcement powers as authorized by Article 1, Chapter 31 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia for purposes of this article. Sec. 8-86. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fall or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and m make, within the time provided in this article, the reports and remittances mentioned in th/s article, the director of finance shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which 3 to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the director of finance shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any seller who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such seller the tax and penalties provided for by this article and shall notify such seller, by registered mail sent to his last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax and penalties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date such notice is sent. Sec. 8-87. Collection. The director of finance shall have the power and the duty of collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall cause the same to be paid into the general treasury for the county. Sec. 8-88. Penalty for late remittance or false returm (a) If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fall or refuse to file any report required by this article or to remit to the director of finance the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time and in the amount specified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of finance a penalty in the amount often (10) percent of the total amount of the tax owed if the failure is not for more than thirty (30) days, with an additional penalty of ten (10) percent of the total amount of the tax.owed for each additional thirty (30) days or fraction thereof during which the failure continues, such penalty not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the tax owed, provided, however, the minimum penalty shall be ten dollars ($10.00). (b) In the case of a false or fraudulent remm with intent to defraud the county of any tax due under this article, a penalty of fifty (50) percent of the tax owed shall be assessed against the person required to collect such tax. Sec. 8-89. Violations of article. Any person violating, failing, refusing or neglecting to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of the taxes or penalties provided for in this article. Any agreement by any person m pay the taxes or penalties provided for in this article by a series of installment payments shall not relieve any person of crim'mal liability for violation oflkis article until the full amount of taxes and penalties agreed to be paid by such person is received by the director of finance. Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 8-90, Severability. If any provision of this article, or any application of such proxasion to any person or under any circumstances, shall be invalid, the remainder of this article, or the application of such provisions m persons or under circumstances other than those to which it shall have been held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1998. I:\GENERAL\SItARE~a~NANCE~FOOD&BEV.TAX BOND OF SUPERVI$OI~S Department of Finance Telephon; I804:296-5855 December 15, Dear Food/Beverage Server: As you are probably aware, county voters passed a referendum approving a Meals Tax for Albemarle County during the November elections and the Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance on December t0, 1997, imposing the tax. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed for your information. The County will join many of its neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Greene and Nelson, in instituting a Meals Tax. We are very anxious to make the implementation of this new procedure as convenient and simple as possible for establishments such as yours that w'fll be involved in collecting Meals Tax revenues. Enclosed you will find a brochure designed to provide you with basic information and to answer common questions we have been hearing about the administration of the Meals Tax. I would like to highlight a few of the more important details of the tax for you. I'he tax rate will be 4% with an effective date of Jaunary 1, 1998. Meals Tax revenue collected for each month will be due by the 20th day of the following month. It is currently planned that the County will use a Meals Tax Coupon Booklet very similar to the booklet used for reporting Virginia Sales & Use Tax. A sample copy of the coupon is on the reverse side of this letter. The coupon booklets will be mailed around January. 31. 1998. in time for the first filing date on Febrtmo' 20. 1998. Please complete the enclosed registration form and return to the County of Albemarle by January 5 , 1998. in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact the Finance Department at 296- 5852. Again. we hope this process will be as trouble-free as possible for you and your staff and we look forward to working with you on any concerns or issues that may ar~se. Sincerely, Melvin A. Breeden Director of Finance MAB/bn Enclosures m r'n -4 0 For Office Use Only County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902-4596 Sepaxa~e Registration Form Required For Each Location Registration for Meals Tax Federal Identification Number 1 Trade Nme 2. Owner 3. Physical Location of Business 4. Type of Business 5. Mailing Address Telephone Number_( ~Iype of Ownership Name of Officials stgning if Corporation Date started, or to start at this location Restaurant. Cafeteria. Delicatessen. Snack Bar. Drive-Ira Grocer)' Store. etc. If mailing address is different than physical location [] Individual Partnership ID Corporation Date Sign Here Title ~ INAL 7:00 P.M. Decmnber 10, 1997 ROOM 2,1:1. COUNI'Y O[;FICE BUILDING 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet's. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8. Finance and Taxation of the Albemarle County Code by adding Art/de XV. Prepared Food and Beverage Tax. which shall levy and impose on the purchase of food a four percent tax on the amount paid for all foods served, sold or delivered for human consumption in a restaurant, as defined and set forth in the Ordinance, and further shall provide for the administration and enforcement of the mx SP-97-34. Frost Montessori School Signs #72&46 ,. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish private school, to serve approximately 90 children, on 1.5 acs along Stony Point Rd. Loc on E side of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20N) approx 1 ml N of Rt 250 E. Znd R-6. TM78.P57. (Property designated for Neighbothood Density [ 3-6 du/ac in Urban Neighbothood 3 in Comp Plan.) Rivanna Dist. SP-97-51. US Cellular [Goodlow Mountain] (Signs #46&47 PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct wireless telecommunication tower Sc associated support facilities. Loc on Goodlow Mountain on existing Columbia Gas pipdine easemen~ Application will allow for removal & reconstruction of existing rower on property. Znd RA. Property consists of 121 acs. TM36,P19. (Property not located in a designated growth area. Rivanna Dist. SP-97-52. Nigel Bray Animal Medical Center (Sign #48~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct vet clinic on approx 1.4 acs. Loc on N side of Rt 250. W of Sc adjacent to Aunt Sarah's Pancal<e House. Znd G-1 Sc EC. TM78.P55D. (Property recommended for conunercial in Neighborhood 31.~ Rivaima Dist. ZTA-97~01. Add Off-sim Parking for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas. PUBLIC HEARING to amend § 10.2.2 of Zoning O~dinance to allow off-sim parlrlng for motor coaches in conj w/operation of tourist-related historical businesses Sc neighboring support services by special use permit in RA district. Approval of Minutes: October 8, 1997. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. Adjourn to December 19, 1997.2:30 p.m.. Room 235. for meeting with Congressman Bliley. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMBiNED STATE SALES (4½%) AND COUNTY PREPARED FOOD & BEVERAGE TAX (4%) Sales Bracket Amount of Sale .12 13 33 .34 37 .38 .55 .56 .62 .63 77 .78 .87 88 .99 04 1.00 1.12 05 1.13 - 1.22 05 Effective January 1, 1998 s ss Tax 01 .01 .02 .33 .29 .62 02 .01 .03 .33 .30 .63 02 .02 04 .34 .30 .64 03 .02 05 .34 .31 .65 03 .03 .06 .35 31 .66 04 .03 .07 .35 .32 .67 .04 08 36 .32 .68 .04 .09 .37 .32 .69 .05 .10 37 .33 .70 1.23 - 1.37 06 .05 11 1.38 - 1.44 ,06 .06 12 1.45 - 1.62 .07 .06 .13 1.63 - 1.66 07 .07 .14 1.67 - 1.87 .08 .07 .15 1.88 .08 .08 .I6 1,89 -2.11 .09 08 .17 2.12 10 .08 .18 2.13 -2.33 10 09 19 2.34 - 2,37 . I 1 .09 .20 2.38 -2.55 .1I .10 .21 2.56 -2.62 .12 10 .22 2.63 - 2.77 12 .I 1 .23 2.78 -2.87 .13 .11 .24 2.88 -2.99 .13 12 .25 3,00 - 3.12 .14 .12 .26 3.13 -3.22 .14 .13 .27 3.23 - 3.37 .15 .I3 .28 3.38 -3.44 .i5 .14 .29 3.45 -3.62 .16 .14 .30 3.63 -3.66 A6 .15 .31 3.67 -3.87 .17 .t5 .32 3.88 .17 .16 33 3.89 -4.1I .I8 .16 34 4.12 .19 .16 .35 4.13 -4.33 19 .17 ,36 4.34 -4.37 .20 .17 .37 4.38 -4.55 .20 .18 38 4,56 - 4.62 .21 18 .39 4.63 -&77 .21 19 .40 4.78 -4.87 .22 .19 41 4.88 - 4.99 .22 .20 .42 5.00 - 5.12 .23 .20 ~43 5.13 - 5.22 .23 .21 .44 5.23 - 5.37 .24 .21 .45 5.38 - 5.~4 .24 .22 .46 5.45 - 5.62 25 .22 47 5.63 - 5.66 .25 .23 .48 5,67 - 5.87 .26 ,23 .49 5.88 .26 .24 .50 5.89 -6.1l .27 .24 .51 6.12 .28 .24 .52 6.13 - 6.33 .28 .25 .53 &34 - 6.37 .29 .25 .54 6.38 -6.55 .29 .26 .55 6.56 - 6.62 .30 .26 .56 6.63 - 6.77 .30 .27 .57 6.78 -6.87 .3i 27 .58 6.88 - 6.99 31 .28 .59 7.00 - 7.12 .32 .28 .60 Sales Bracket ~: Amount of Sale Tax 7.13- 7.22 7.23- 737 7.38- 7.44 7.45- 7.62 7.63- 7.66 7.67- 7.87 7.88 7.89- 8.11 8.12 8.13- 8.33 8.34- 8.37 .37 33 .7l 8.38- 8.55 .38 .34 .72 8.56- 8.62 .39 .34 .73 8.63- 8.77 39 .35 .74 8.78- 8.87 .40 .35 .75 8.88- 8.99 .40 .36 .76 9.00- 9.12 .41 .36 .77 9.13- 9.22 .41 37 .78 9.23- 9.37 .42 .37 .79 9.38- 9.44 42 .38 .80 9.45- 9.62 .43 .38 .81 9.63- 9.66 .43 39 .82 9.67- 9.87 .44 39 .83 9.88 .44 .40 .84 9.89 - 10.11 .45 .40 .85 10.12 .46 .40 .86 10.13 - 10.33 .46 .41 .87 10.34- 10.37 47 .41 .88 t0.38 - 10.55 .47 .42 .89 10.56 - 10,62 .48 .42 .90 10.63 - 10.77 48 .43 91 10.78 - 10.87 49 .43 .92 10.88 - 10.99 49 .44 .93 11.00 - I 1.12 50 .44 .94 11.13 - 11.22 50 .45 .95 11.23 - 11.37 51 .45 96 I1.38- 11.44 51 .46 .97 11.45 - 11.62 .52 .46 .98 11.63 - 11.66 52 .47 .99 11.67 - 11.87 53 .47 1.00 li.88 53 .48 1.0l 11.89 - I2.11 54 .48 1.02 12,12 55 .48 1.03 12.i3 - 12.33 .55 .49 1.04 12.34- [2.37 56 49 1.05 12.38- I2.55 56 .50 1.06 12.56- 12.62 57 .50 1.07 12.63 - 12.77 57 51 1.08 12,78 - I2.87 58 .51 1.09 12.88- 12.99 58 .52 1.10 13.00- 13,12 59 .52 I,I1 13.13 - I3,22 59 .53 1_12 I3.23 - 13,37 60 .53 1.13 13.38 - 13.44 .60 54 1.14 13.45 - I3.62 61 .54 1.15 13.63 - 13.66 61 .55 1.16 I3.67 - 13.87 .62 .55 1.17 13.88 62 .56 1.18 13.89 - 14.11 63 .56 1_19 14.12 64 .56 1.20 For use on or after January 1, 1998 Sales Bracket g w Sales Bracket &mount of Sale Tax Tax Amount of Sale 14.13 - 14.33 .64 .57 1.21 22.38 - 22.55 1434 - 14.37 .65 .57 1.22 22.56 - 22.62 14.38 - 14.55 .65 58 1.23 22.63 - 22.77 14.56 -14.62 .66 58 1.24 22.78-22.87 14.63 - 14.77 .66 .59 1.25 22.88 -22.99 14.78 - 14.87 .67 59 1.26 23.00 - 23.I2 14.88 - 14.99 .67 .60 1.27 23.13 - 23.22 15.00 - 15.12 .68 .60 1.28 23.23 - 23.37 15.13 - 15.22 .68 .61 1.29 23.38 -23.44 15.23 - 15.3- .69 .61 1.30 23.45 - 23~62 15.38 - 15.44 .69 .62 1.31 23.63 - 23.66 15.45 - 15.62 .70 .62 1.32 23.67 - 23.87 15,63 - 15.66 .70 .63 1.33 23.88 15.67 -15.87 ,71 .63 1.34 23.89-24.11 15.88 .71 .64 1.35 24.12 I5.89 - I6.11 .72 .64 1.36 24,13 - 24.33 16A2 .73 .64 1.37 24.34 - 24.37 16.13 - 16.33 .73 .65 1.38 24.38 -24.55 i6.34- 16.37 74 .65 1.39 24~56 -24.62 I6,38 - 16.55 74 .66 1.40 24.63 -24.77 1.11 16.56- 16.62 75 .66 1.41 24.78 -24.87 1.12 16.63 - 16 -- .75 .67 1.42 24.88 - 24.99 1.12 16.78 - 16.87 .76 .67 1.43 25.00 - 25.I2 1.13 16.88 - 16.99 76 .68 1.44 25.13 - 25.22 I 13 17.00 - 17.12 77 .68 1.45 25.23 -25.37 1.14 17.13 - 17.22 ~- .69 1.46 25.38 -25.44 1.14 17.23 - 17 37 78 .69 1.47 25.45 - 25.62 1.15 17.38 - i7 aa 78 .70 1.48 25.63 - 25.66 1.15 17.45 - 17.62 79 .70 1.49 25.67 - 25.87 1.16 17.63 - I7.66 79 .71 1 50 25.88 1.16 17.67 - 17.87 .80 .71 1.51 25.89 - 26 [ 1 1.17 17.88 .80 .72 1.52 26.12 1Ag 17.89 - 18.11 .81 .72 1.5-: 26.13 - 26.33 1.I8 18.12 .82 .72 1.54 26.34 -26.37 1.19 I8.13 - 18.33 .82 .73 1.55 26.38 - 26.55 1.19 18.34 - 18.37 -83 ,73 1.56 26.56 - 26.62 1.20 18.38 - 18.55 .83 .74 1.57 26.63 - 26.7- 1.20 18.56 - 18.62 84 74 1.58 26.78- 26.87 1.21 18.63 - 18,77 84 75 1.59 26.88 - 26.99 121 18.78 - 18.87 85 75 1.60 27.00 - 27.12 [8.88 - 18.99 .85 76 1.61 27.13 -27.22 19.00- 19.12 .86 76 1.62 27.23 -27.37 19.13 - 19,22 .86 77 1.63 27.38 - 27.44 19.23 - 19.37 .87 77 [.64 27.45 -27.62 19.38- 19.44 .87 78 1.65 27.63-27.66 [9.45 - 19.62 .88 78 1.66 27.67 - 27:87 19.63 - 19.66 .88 .79 1.67 27.88 19.67 - I9.87 .89 .79 1.68 27.89-28.11 19.88 .89 .80 1.69 28.12 19.89-20.11 .90 .80 1.70 28.13-28.33 20.12 .91 .80 1.71 20. i3 - 20.33 .91 .81 1.72 20.34 - 20.37 .92 .81 1.73 20.38 - 2(, 55 .92 .82 1.74 20.56 - 20.62 .93 .82 1.75 20.63 - 20.77 .93 .83 1.76 20.78 - 20.87 .94 .83 1.77 20.88 -20.99 .94 .84 1.78 21.00-21.12 .95 .84 1.79 21.13-21.22 .95 .85 1.80 21.23 - 21.37 .96 .85 1.81 2138 - 21.44 .96 .86 1.82 21.45-21.62 97 .86 L83 21.63 - 21.66 97 .87 1.84 21.67-21 87 .98 .87 1.85 21.88 .98 .88 1.86 21.89-22.11 .99 .88 1.87 22.12 [.00 .88 1.88 22.13 - 22.33 1.00 .89 1.89 22.34 - 22.37 1.01 .89 1.90 28.34 - 28.3 - 28.38 - 28.55 28.56 - 28.62 28,63 - 28.77 28.78 - 28.87 28.88 - 28.99 29.00 - 29.12 29.13 - 29.22 29.23 -29.37 29.38 - 29.44 29.45 - 29.62 29.63 - 29.66 29,67 - 29.87 29.88 29.89-30.11 30.12 30.13 - 30.33 30.34 - 30.37 30.38 - 30.55 30.56 - 30.62 T~x Tax LOI .90 1.91 1.02 .90 1.92 1.02 .91 1.93 1.03 91 1.94 1.03 ,92 1-95 1.04 92 1.96 1.04 .93 1.97 1.05 93 1.98 1.05 94 1.99 [.06 94 2.00 1.06 95 2.01 [.07 95 2.02 1.07 96 2.03 1.08 96 2.04 1.09 96 2.05 1.09 97 2.06 1.10 .97 2.07 1.10 .98 2.08 1.11 .98 2.09 .99 2. i0 .99 2.11 1.00 2.12 1_00 2A3 L0i 2.14 1.01 2.15 1.02 2.16 1.02 2.17 1.03 2.18 1.03 2.19 1.04 2.20 1.04 2.21 1.04 2.22 1.05 2.23 1.05 2.24 1.06 2.25 1.06 2.26 1.07 2.27 1.07 2.28 1.08 2.29 1.22 1.08 2.30 1.22 1.09 2.31 1.23 1.09 2.32 1.23 1.10 2.33 1.24 1.10 2.34 1.24 I.I1 2.35 1.25 1.11 2.36 1.25 [.12 2.37 1.26 [.12 2.38 1.27 1.12 2.39 1.27 1_13 2.40 1.28 1.13 2.41 1.28 1.14 2.42 1.29 1.14 2.43 1.29 t.15 2.44 L30 1.15 2.45 1.30 1.16 2.46 [.31 1_16 2.47 [.31 1.17 2.48 t.32 1.17 2.49 1.32 LI8 2.50 1.33 1.18 2.51 1.33 1.19 2.52 1.34 1.19 2.53 1.34 1.20 2.54 1.35 1.20 2.55 1.36 1.20 2.56 1.36 t.21 2.57 1.37 1.21 2.58 1.37 1.22 2.59 1.38 1.22 2.60 DRAFT: November 17, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. that Chapter 8. Finance and Taxation. is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Prepared Food and Beverage Tax. as follows: CHAPTER 8 FINANCE AND TAXATION ARTICLE XV. PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX Sec. 8-75. Definitions. The following words and vhrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following respective meanings excevt where the context clgarl¥ indicates a different meaning: Beverage: Any alcoholic beverages as defined in section 4-2(2'~ of the Code of Vireinia and nonalcoholic beveraees, any of which are served as vart of a meal. Caterer: A person who furnishes food on the premises of another for compensation. Director of Finance: The director of finance of the county and any of his duly authorized devuties, assistants, employees or a~ents. Food: Any and all edible refreshments or nourishment, liquid or otherwise, indudin~ beveraees as herein defined, purchased in or from a restaurant or from a caterer, exceot snack foods. Person: Any individual, comoration, company, association, fimx. oartnershin or any erouD of individuals acting as a trait. Purchaser: Any verson who purchases food in or from a restaurant or from a caterer DRAFT: November 17, 1997 Restaurant: (1) Any vlace where food is orevared for service to the public whether on or off the premises; or (2) Any place where food is served to the public. Examvles of a restaurant include, but are not limited to. a dinin~ room, grill, coffee shop, cafeteria, cafe. snack bar. Itmch counter, lunchroom, short-order place, tavern, delicatessen, confectionery, bakery, eating house, eatery, drugstore, caterin~ sermce, lunch waEon or track, oushcart or other mobile facility that sells food, and a dinin~ facility in a public or private school or college. Sd[er: Any person who sells food in or from a restaurant or as a caterer. Snack food: Chewing gum. candy, popcorn, peanuts and other nuts, and unopened vrepackaged cookies, donuts, crackers, ootato chips and other items of essentially the same nature and consumed for essentially the same purpose. Sec. 8-76. Lew of tax; amount. In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or hereafter imposed by law. a tax is hereby levied and imposed on the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered for human consumption in the county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restaurant or not. or orepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (4~ percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any fraction of one-half cent ($0.005} or more shall be treated as one cent ($0.01 ). Sec. 8-77. Exemptions. The following purchases of food shall not be subject to the tax under this artide: (a) (b)_ Food sold by ~rocerv stores and convenience stores except for prepared sandwiches and single-meal olatters ready for human consumption sold at a delicatessen counter. Food and beverages sold through vending machines. 2 (c) (d) (e DRAFT: November 17, 1997 Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States. Food sold bv nonvrofit cafeterias in vublic schools, nursinq homes and hospitals. Food sold by churches, fratemal, school and social oreanizarions and volunteer fire departments and rescue souads which hold occasional dinners and bazaars of one-day or two-day duration, at which food prepared in the homes of members or in the ldtchen of the organization is offered for sale to the public. Food furnished by churches which serve meals for their members as a reeular Dart of their relieious observance. Food furnished by boardinghouses that do nor accommodate transients. (h) Food sold bv cafeterias operated by industrial olants for employees only. (i) Food furnished bv a hospital, medical clinic, convalescent home, nursin~ home. home for the aeed. infirm or handicapped or other extended care facility to patients or residents thereof. Food furnished by a nonprofit charitable organization to elderly, infirm, handicapped or needy uersons in their homes or at central locations. Food sold by a nonprofit educational, charitable or benevolent organization on an occasional basis as a fund-raising activity or food sold by a church or relieious body on an occasional basis. Food furnished bv restaurants to employees as Dart of their compensation ~vhen no charee is made to the employee. (m! Any other sale of food which is exempt from t~xation under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act, or administrative roles and retmlation issued rmrsuant thereto. 3 DRAFT: November 17, 1997 Sec. 8-78. Tips and service charges. (a) Where a purchaser orovides a tin for an employee or employees of a seller, and the amount of the tin is wholly in the discretion of the mtrchaser, the tin is not subiect to the tax imoosed by this article, whether raid in cash to the employee or added to the bill and charged to the ourchaser's account, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the tin is turned over to the emnlovee by the seller. (b) An mount or percent, whether desienated as a tin or a service charee, that is added to the price of the meal by the sdler, and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed by this article. Sec. 8-79. Pavmeur and collection of tax. Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied trader this article shall collect the amount of tax imposed under this article from the ourchaser on whom the same is levied at the time payment for such food becomes due and payable, whether payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means of a credit card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed bv the purchaser shall be added to the cost of the food bv the seller who shall Day the taxes collected to the county as provided in this article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust by the seller until remitted to the cotmw. Sec. 8-80. Deduction for seller. For the Durvose of compensating sellers for the collection of the tax imposed by this article, every seller shall be allowed three (3) percent of the amount of the tax due and accounted for in the form of a deduction on his monthly return not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) Der monthly return: provided, the full amount shall be due if any part of the oavment is delinoueur at the time of oavment. Sec. 8-81. Reports and remittances eenerallv. Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is levied under this artide shall make out a reDort, upon such forms and setting forth such information as the director of finance may orescribe and reouire, showing the amount of food charges collected and the tax reouired.to be collected, and shall sim and deliver such report to the director of finance with a remittance of such tax. It shall be presumed that all food served, sold or delivered in the county in or from a restaurant is taxable under this article and the 4 DRAFT: November 17, 1997 burden shall be upon the seller of food to estabhsh bv records what food is not taxable. Such reDoFFs and remittance shall be made on or before the twentieth day of each month, covering the amount of tax collected during the preceding month. Sec. 8-82. Preservation of records. It shall be the duty of any seller of food liable for collection and remittance of the taxes imoosed by this article to keet) and t)reserve for a t)etiod of three (3'~ years records showing gross sales of all food and beverages, the amotmt charged the mtrchaser for each such t)urchase, the date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax reouired to be collected by this article. The director of finance shall have the power to examine such records at reasonable times and without unreasonable interference with the business of the seller for the vumose of administering and enfordng the provisions of this article and to make cot)ies of all or any Darts thereof. Sec. 8-83. Duty of seller when going out of business. Whenever any seller reouired to collect or pay to the cotmw a tax under this article shall cease to ot)erate or otherwise distmse of his business, any tax pavane under this article shall become immediately due and t)avable and such t)erson shall immediately make a ret)oFF and pay the tax due. Sec. 8-84. Advertising t)awnent or absomtion of tax prohibited. No seller shall advertise or hold out to the t)ublic in any manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any t)art of the tax imoosed under this article will be t)aid or absorbed bv the seller or anyone else. or that .the seller or anyone else will relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the tax. Sec. 8-85. Enforcement: duty of director of finance. The director of finance shall t)romulgare rules and regulations for the interpretation, administration and enforcement of this article. It shall also be the duW of the director of finance to ascertain the name of every seller liable for the collection of the tax ~mt)osed bv this article who fnils, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the ret)orts and remittances required by this article. The director of finance shall have all of the enforcement Dowers as authorized by Artide 1, Chanter 31 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia for t)urooses of this artide. DRAFT: November 17, 1997 Sec. 8-86. Procedure unon failure ro collect, reoort, etc. If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make. within the time vrovided in this article, the renorts and remittances mentioned in this article, the director of finance shall oroceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the director of finance shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax oavable by any seller who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remittance, he shall nroceed to determine and assess against such seller the tax and penalties provided for bv this article and shall notify such seller, by registered mail sent to his last known place of address, of the total mount of such tax and venalties and the total amotmt thereof shall be navable within ten (10) days from the date such notice is sent. Sec. 8-87. Collection. The director of finance shall have the nower and the duty of collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall cause the same To be naid into the general treasury for the county. Sec. 8-88. Penalw for late remittance or false return. (a! If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to file any report reouired by this article or to remit to the director of finance the tax reouired to be collected and oaid under this article within the time and in the amount soecified in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the director of finance a venaltv in the amount of ten (1 O) nercent of the total amount of the tax owed if the failure is not for more than thirW (30~ days. with an additional penalW of ten (10) percent of the total amount of the tax owed for each additional thirw (30) days or fraction thereof durin~ which the failure continues, such venaltv not to exceed thirty (30~ percent of the tax owed, vrovided, however, the minimum oenaltv shall be ten dollars ($10.00). (b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to defraud the counW of any tax due under this article, a nenaltv of fifty (50~ ercent of the tax owed shall be assessed against the person reouired to collect such tax. 6 DRAFT: November 17, 1997 Sec. 8-89. Violations of article. Any verson violating, failing, refusing or neglecting to comply with any provision of this artide shall be guilty of a Cla§s 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not relieve any v_erson from the v~avment, collection or remittance of the taxes or venalties vrovided for in this aa-tide. Any agreement bv any t)erson to pay the taxes or oenalties orovided for in this article by a series of installment oavments shall not relieve any verson of criminal liabiliw for violation of this article until the full amount of taxes and venalties agreed to be paid by such person is received by the director of finance. Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 8-90. Severabilitv. If any orovision of this article, or any aoolication of such vrovision to any person or under any circumstances, shall be invalid, the remainder of this article, or the application of such provisions to versons or under circumstances other than those to which it shall have been held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. BE IT FURTHER ORDAiNED that this Ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, I998. I:kDEPT tATTORNIgYkORDINA NCkFOOD&BEV.TAX 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Deparrmem of Finance 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5855 November 25, 1997 Dear Food/Beverage Server: As you are probably aware, county voters passed a referendum approving a Meals Tax for Albemarle County during the November elections. The county will join many of its neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Greene and Nelson, in instituting a Meals Tax. We are very anxious to make the implementation of this new procedure as convenient and sLmple as possible for establistunents such as your that will be involved in collecting Meals Tax revenues. Enclosed you will find a brochure designed to provide you with basic information and to answer common questions we have been hearing about the administration of the Meals Tax. I would like to highlight a few of the more important details of the t~x for you. We anticipate at this time that the tax rate will be 4% with an effective date of January 1, 1998. Meals Tax revenue collected for each month will be due by the 20th day of the following month. The Board will not formally approve the Meals Tax until after a public hearing which will be held on Wednesday, December 10, at 7:00 pm in the County Office Building. Pending the results of that hearing, we will be sending you more detailed information about Meals Tax procedures including registration forms and final inslructions. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please feet free to contact the Finance Department at 296-5852. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the Fknance Department. Again, we hope this process will be as trouble-free as possible for you and your staff and we look forward to working with you on any concerns or issues that may arise. Sincerely, MAB/bn Enclosure Melvin A. Breeden Director of Finance FAX 1804 296-5811 TDD 8041 9722t012 o_ D ~2-!6-977,2:26 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Finance 401 Mclntire Road Charlo~tesville. Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5855 December 15, 1997 Mr. Randolph L. Kohr, President Kohr Bros., Inc. 2115 Berkamar Drive Charlottesville VA 22901 DearMr. Ko~: After review of the Albemarle County Ordinance and surveying other localities which impose a meals tax, it is my opinion that the sale of castard, ice cream, etc., is subject to the meals tax. This decision is based on the determination that such items are prepared foods and both State and County codes define restaurant as any place where food is prepared for service to the public or where food is served to the public. The exemption for snack foods would be applicable to these items only if they are prepackaged and sold unopened. Please feel free to comact this office if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Melvin A. Breeden Director of Finance cc: Larry Davis, County Attorney Board of Supervisors TDD 804) 972~-012 FAX 804) 296-5811 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 17-01-97P03:25 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 '(804) 296-5823 November 26, 1997 Bruce R. Wa~dell, Architect 113 4th Street, NE Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE; SP-97-34 Frost Montessor School Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 Dear Mr. Wardell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 18, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewalk, and playground areas shall be located in general accord with the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed November 10, 1997. 2. The playground shall be fenced and located as far away from the power lines as possible. The final site development plan shall not be approved until a subdivision plat creating the property is recorded or adequate bonding for road, utility, and drainage improvements is provided. 4. The school shall be restricted m 90 students and shall be for year-round use. Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any public street tight-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten feet to any public street right-of-way. Existing vegetation shall be maintained or replaced if removed, except as noted on site plan. Page 2 November 26, 1997 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10. 1997. 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 heating 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 CC: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Ella Carey Larry Frost STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE lC ECHOLS, AICP NOVEMBER 18, 1997 DECEMBER 10, 1997 SP 97-34 THE FROST MONTESSORI SCHOOL Applicant's Proposal The applicant. Lawrence Frost, represented by Brace Wardell Architects, proposes to construct and operate a Montessori school on property located at the comer of Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) and Gamett Center Drive. The school would be approximately 7400 square feel and, at capacity, serve approximately 90 children ages two through six. The proposed hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and the school would operate year round. Although the project is located on an Entrance Corridor, the Zoning Administrator has determined that landscapmg on Route 20 will screen the facility from view and no Architectural Review Board approval is required. At present, the Montessori school is operating out of the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church under a special use permit granted on April 16, 1997. That special use permit was for 18 three and four year-olds. It was cond/tioned for three years at the Broadus Church location with the understanding that approval for a permanent facility would be requested in the upcoming year. The applicant believes that the proposed use will provide an education program for children east of the Rivarma River. Noting that the area along Stony Point Road conta'ms a mixture of residential and residential support facilities, such as parks, churches, and a fraternal organization, the applicant expects the use to "reinforce the residential and public mixture of development already precedent in the area." (See Attachment C). Although the hours of operation do not include use of the school at night, the applicant would like to make the facility available for neighborhood and community needs. A preliminary site development plan for the property is included with this report. (See Attachment D,) Petition The petition is for approval ora special use permit for a private school under Section 16.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance on the property described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 which is located in Urban Neighborhood 3 (Pantops). It is 1.5 acres in size, is located on Stony Point Road (Route 20 North) on proposed Fontana Drive, and abuts two rights of way, a power line and easement, and an undeveloped parcel. It is located in the Rivarma Magisterial District, is zoned R6 and is in an Entrance Corridor. Character of the Area Nearby and surrounding land uses consist of the Wilton Farms single family residential and multifamily residential developments, parks, churches, and undeveloped lands. The property under consideration is undeveloped and is proposed as part of the Fontana Subdivision which shows single family uses and undeveloped areas. (See Attachment E.) RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History.: The property in question is zoned R6 and is part ora larger parcel owned by Hurt Investment Company which was rezoned with proffers in 1995. With the special use permit application and the preliminary site development plan, the own.er also submitted a preliminary subdivision plat called Fontana. That plat creates 160 residential.lots, the lot for the Montessori School. and leaves twelve acres of residual land zoned R-6 and R-4. The lot for the Montessori School will be included in the first phase of the final subdivision plat. Comprehensive Plan The property is shown for neighborhood density residential on the 1996 Land Use Plan and is included in the Pantops (Neighborhood Three) Study. Recommendations from that study which relate to this project include providing for pedestrian access in residential developments, along Route 20, and provid'mg a landscaping plan for Route 20. The landscaping plan called for in the Comprehensive Plan has not yet been designed, but major landscaping is proposed for the site which includes supplemental trees on Route 20. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ord'mance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad_iacent property, The proposed special use is not anticipated to have a detrimental effect on adjacent property. The entrance to Darden Towe Park is across Route 20 from the site; the closest residential properties are single family homes on Wilton Farm Road and these properties should not be affected by the school. Furore residents in the Funtana subdivision will have access to the school with'm walking distance. Additionally, the building may offer a communi .ty meeting place for the neighborhood. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The character of the residential district is not expected to change with the new school. 2 and that such use will be:in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The purpose and intent of the R-6 zoning district is to provide for compact, medium-density development; permit a variety of housing types; and provide incentives for clustering of development and provision oflocational, environmental and developmental amenities.. Private schools, like churches, are considered to be uses which support the moral fiber of a community. They are permitted in residential zoning districts after review of the relationship of the proposed use to the residential area and surrounding uses. with the uses permitted by right in the district. By-right uses include single family detached and attached dwellings, multi-family dwellings; cluster development; rental of guest cottages; homes for developmentally disabled persons; boarding houses; tourist lodging; utilities and facilities; public uses; temporary construction uses; and accessory uses, including home occupations. Private schools, at appropriate locations, are considered generally to be in harmony with the uses permitted by-fight in R-6. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.Oofthe zoning ordinance contains supplementary regulations. Private schools have no supplementary regulations. and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare. Provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare is critical to approval of requests for private schools. Issues of importance to this particular site include the location of the school on a comer lot next to a primary road; the location of the playground in relation to the roads; safe and convenient access for pedestrians to nearby and surrounding properties, the location of adjacem power lines in relation to the playground and building; and the circniation pattern of the parking lot. Although the school is located on a comer lot next to a primary road, the entrance will be off of the planned Fontana Drive, the secondary road. The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented on the site development plan and will require a left turn lane to the private school from Fontana Drive. The playground is adjacent to the secondary road but fenced. Alternatives for the location of the playground would be next to the power lines; next to the parking lot; or next to Route 20. Staff believes that the site configuration and the location of improvements on the site servesto protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the childran attending the school. Site Plan Issues: A preliminary site development plan has been submitted with this special use permit request. The site development plan is dependent on approval of the subdivision plat and recordation of the first phase which creates the lot for the use. 3 In residential districts, yard requirements have been set primarily for residential structures. Often, staff recommends larger yard reqff~rements for nonresidential uses. These larger yard requ'rrements m'rrror the yard requirements for structures in commercial districts in order to provide for maximum protection of adjoiffmg residential uses. Staff is recommending that yard requirements for commercial structures and parking lots be in accordance with standards for commercial buildings which adjoin residential districts. The preYlminary site development plan shows building and parking lot locations that are in keeping with these requirements. The preliminary site development plan is in its final review at the present time. A waiver of the two- way circulation pattern requirement by the Planning Commission is needed before the preliminary site plan can be approved. No major problems are anticipated prior to preliminary site plan approval by the Site Review Committee. Request for Planning Commission to Waive the Two-Way Circulation Requirement Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires two-way circulation for parking lots, "except that the Commission may approve one-way circulation in such case where the same is necessitated by the peculiar character of the site or of the proposed use.." The applicant is proposing to have a one-way circulation pattern in order to facilitate the "drop- of[" of students at the front door. The design of the parking lot sets up the circulation pattern around a central landscaped area in the parking lot. Two-way circulation would result in conflicts at the entrance of the lot, at the front door where students are being dropped off, and where cars back out of parking spaces. (See Attachment F). The Planning and Engineering Staff have reviewed the request and believe that the park'mg lot configuration necessitates a one-way pattern in order to provide for safe and convenient automobile and pedestrian access. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The Comprehensive Plan supports locating private schools in residential areas. The location of the site at the entrance of the project makes for safe and convenient access to the school without causing additional traffic to flow through the proposed neighborhood. The site layout ensures maximum safety for the children on the site as well as traffic to and from the private school. Construction of the private school as part of the first phase of the subdivision development ensures that future residents of the subdivision will know about the school prior to deciding to locate in the subdivision. Staffhas identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request with the following conditions: The building, parking, driveway entrance, sidewallc and playground areas shall be located in general accord with the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed November 10, 1997. 2. The playground shall be fenced and located as far away from the power lines as possible. The final site development plan shall not be approved until the first phase of the subdivision is recorded. 4. The school shall be restricted to 90 students and shall be for year-round use. Building setbacks shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten feet to any public street right-of-way. Staffalso recommends that the Planning Commission waive the two-way circulation requirement of Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance with the following condition: One-way circulation shall be provided as shown generally on the preliminary site development plan dated and initialed November I0, 1997 to ensure safe and convenient access for pedestrians and children being dropped off directly from the cars. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Request D ~ Preliminary Site Development Plan for Frost Montessori School E - Reduced Copy of Proposed Fontana Subdivision Layout F - Applicant's Request to Waive Two-Way Circulation Pattern A:\SP9734.RPT MTN. 0 SP 97-34 ~/ The Frost Montessori School SP The Frost Montessori School DA RD[N TOW~ 77 $o ~ATTACHMENT C~l SPECIAL USE PERMIT THE FROST MONTESSORI SCHOOL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST - by We are requesting a Special Use Permit for the operation ora Montessori School in a building to be constructed on the subject property. The operators of the school are contract purchasers of the property subject to approval of the Special Use Permit and other conditions agreed to by the Owner and Contract Purchaser. The school will occupy a building of approximately 5800 sf that will have the capacity to expand to 7400 sr. The school, when fully developed, will serve approximately 90 children, ages 2 - 6 years old. There will be associated outside play areas with some eqmpment. The development of the site will provide 18 parking spaces, areas for automobile queuing during drop off and pick up, a covered entrance canopy for children to wait, and new street/ornamental trees for visual screening from the internal road. There is an existing spruce/pine visual barrier between the site and Stony Point Road. The siting of both the building and the parking will retain the majority of this visual barrier such that the building will be largely concealed from the road. The Frost Montessori School has coordinated the purchase and development of this property in conjunction with the developer of the Fontana subdivision being planned on the adjacent property. The siting, street access, landscaping, and architectural design have been cooperatively developed between the two groups to ~nsure the highest level of compatibility. Provision of a high quality private Montessori school serving the pre-school and kindergarten ages is seen as a benefit to the development of the subdivision on the adjacent property. JUSTIFICATION The Frost Montessori School will provide an educational program for children in this district of significant growth east 0fthe Kivanna. This area along Stony Point Road has developed carefully providing additional residential and public facilities. Darden Towe Park, Broadus Memorial Church, The Elks Club, and commercial development adjacent to the intersection with Route 250 East have given this district a mixed residential and public character. The careful design of the facilities along this road, respecting its status as an Historic Place, is critical to maintaining its integrity. The development of the Frost Montessori School at the entrance to the proposed Fontana development would reinforce the residential and public mixture of development already precedent in the area. This use is consistent with the character of the district of churches, public parks, clubs, housing and historic properties. In a rather unique relationship the design, siting, and landscaping of this project is being coordinated with the development of the Fontana residential development being proposed on the adjacent property. The design of the facility will reference the historic materials, siring, and landscaping as required in an Entrance Corridor Overlay District, while preserving the existing tree screening along the road. A Special Use Permit has already been granted by the County to The Frost Montessori School to operate temporarily in the facilities of Broadus Memorial Church a short distance from this proposed permanent location. These characteristics of this proposal merit the granting ora Special Use Permit for the permanent development of a facility for the Frost Montessori School. FROST MONTESSORI SCHOOL Albemarle County, Virgima PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN !1 McKEE CARSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND PLANNERS 10 November 1997 Ms. Elaine Echols County of Albemarle Department of Plarming and Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Re: Frost Montessori School, One Way Traffic Circulation Waiver Request and Justification Dear Elaine: Our office has resubmitted the Preliminary Site Development Plan after receiving Site Review comments and revisions requested by oar client. One comment that we addressed involved the traffic circulation, which as previously submitted involved two-way traffic. This plan uses one-way traffic circulation. The facility requires space for parents dropping off and picking up children in the morning and afternoon. The plan shows ample space for pulling over for drop-offs and pickups, and a lane foz passing the temporarily stopped vehicles. This request for the one-way circulation is in accordance with section 4.12.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and in response to the Planning and Engineering departments' request for one-way circulation. Therefore, we trust that Staff can support this waiver request. If you have any questions or reqmre additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. ~rely, ~ ,, i'Stdven L. Dr~'~. L~- McKee/Carson cc: Bruce Wardell 301 East High Street · Char~otzesw~e.. 'gin~a 22902 · 804-979-7522 · Fax: 804- 977-1194 · mc@mcKeecarson.com · ww¥c. moKeecarson.corr November 26, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesw[le. V~rginia 22902~4596 (804} 296-5823 . OARD Or SUPERVISORS 12-31-PTP05:33 2C'V~ Mark Keller McKee/Carson 301 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-97-51 U S Cellular (Goodlow Mountain) Tax Map 36, Parcel 19 Dear Mr. Keller; The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 18~ 4997, by a vote 4-3, recommended approval of the above-noted petition tg~!he Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 120 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinanbe. 3 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the grotmd. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No admi?strative ?~pmval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the Iocatioll of addit~ohal towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the game t~etw(~k or as any antennae administratively approved under this ~ectioit, The tower must be designed and adequate separatiori provided to ptbpetty such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and c6mpof~er~ts Will r~mait~ within the lease area. The tower sh~ll be disassembled and removed from the site withitl 90 day§ the discontinuance of the use Of the tower f6¢ wireless tete(~mt~aici~tiOh purposes. Tow.er shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Proposed Cellular Antenna Site and initialed WDF November 7, 1997 and on Untitled topographic map initialed WDF November 7, 1997, Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation AdminiStration of tt-ie Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray,. blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers [o locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence Of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for rebiprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider Within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent pdoi~ to final Site plat~ approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and Will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site, 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state the current user status of the tower Specifical y the repbrt shall state fthe tower ~s being used for w re ess te ecommumcat on service. 12. The tower shall be of lattice type construction. 13. Access road improvements shall be limited to drain~age improvemehts and minimal grading necessary to improve travel surface and the application of gravel Please be aware that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 10, 1997. Any new or additional information must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne ¢limberg J ) ) Director of Plannit& ~u'nity Development vvvc/jcr cc: ,EIl~a Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey CN S Microwave, Inc Charlottesville Cellular Partnership STAFF PERSON; PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WILLIAM D. FRITZ, AICP NOVEMBER 18, 1997 DECEMBER 10, 1997 SP 97-51 US CELLULAR [GOODLOW MOUNTAIN]. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to consuuct a 120 foot guyed lattice tower to provide improved cellular phone coverage for northern Athemarle County and portions of Greene and Orange. Currently US Celhilar's service is available in the area. However, significant areas of weak signal or even. no signal exist. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. This tower is located on Goodlow Mountain on the Columbia Gas Pipeline and replaces an existing tower located on the site. Petition: Proposal to construct a wireless telecommunication tower and associated support facilities [10.2.2(6)]. The proposed location is on Goodlow Mountain on the existing Columbia Gas pipeline easement. This application will allow for the removal and reconstruction of the existing tower located on the property. The property is described as Tax Map 36, Parcel 19 and consists of 121 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. Character of th~ Area: The location for the tower is near the peak of Goodlow Mountain on the Columbia Gas Pipeline. The property to the south is located within an Agriculturat/Forestal District. Attachment D is a topographi¢ map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby house structures, the quarry and the railroad. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 1,380 feet ASL, Above Sea Level. The peak of the mountain is at an elevation of 1,504 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, is approximately 2,300 feet (0.4 miles) distant and approximately 600 feet lower in elevation. No houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. No existing towers are located in the area, other than the tower to be replaced. [The tower to be replaced is currently 80 feet tall. However, prior to October 1996 this tower was 123 feeT. The tower was hit and damaged by a tractor and only the undamaged portion was replaced.] The nearest identified structure capable of supporting telecommunications is a water tank located in the Town of Gordonsville approximately 4 miles to the east. The nearest US Cellular Facility is located in Greene County approximately 8 miles west of this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History.: A special use permit allowing the installation of an additional gas pipeline was approved by the Board in 1991. [SP 90-111] Comprehensive Plan: Staffnotes that in order to reconstruct the proposed tower no clearing for access and the promsion of eleclxical service will be required. Therefore, the impact of the tower itself is the 0nly factor which has been reviewed by staff for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance .... Staff gan identify no provision in the Comprehensive Plan which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communications. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan, and the Southwest Mountains National Register Rural Historic District as identified in tho Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently, the Land Use plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Mountain Resource Area, Critical Slopes and Southwest Mountains National Register Rural Historic District. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts in the Mountain Resource Areas are currently being reviewed in detail by the Mountain Protection Committee. Although detailed standards for potential allowable impacts are not completed, staff has determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is still appropriate. Information as to the impact of locating outside of the Mountain Resource Area on another parcel is not available. Most of Goodlow Mountain is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan. However, the location of the proposed tower is on the crest of a ridge of Goodlow Mountain no disturbance of critical slopes will occur for the reconsu'uction of the tower. The existing access to the tower crosses areas of critical slopes. The only~Smprovements proposed are drainage improvements and the placing of grayel in the existing roadbed to aid in stabilization. It is the opinion of staff that no adverse impact on areas of critical slopes as identified in the Open Space Plan will occur. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at the 700 foot contour. The proposed tower is ar an elevation of approximately 1,380 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that, "Mo.untaius are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains 2 include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, tmique soils for orchards, natural areas Cmcluding geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and annuals), and headwaters." (page 5) The ppen Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources'~ (page 2). This application is to permit the reconstruction of an existing tower. The tower on the site is eurr ~ently approximately 80 feet high. The original height of the tower was 123. However, the tower was damaged during maintenance of the right of way which resulted in the partial collapse of the tower. [The damaged was Caused while bushogging the Columbia Gas right of way. D~ing the bushogging a guy wire for the tower was hit and a portion of the tower was pulled over.] Typically staff considers that the location of a tower in the Mountain Resource Area as pormanently altering the visible appearance of the resource and, without additional guidance as to acgeptable impacts in the Mountain Resource Area, staff opinion is that locating towers in the Mountain Resource Area is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. However, in this case the request allows for the reconstruction of a tower which was on this property for a number of years and which had limited visibility from surrounding areas. Therefore, staff does not find that approval of this request would have an adverse impact on the M0k!g..tahl Resource Area. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwil! address the issues of this request in three sections: !. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O;dinance. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(i)(ID of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 3. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The proposed tower complies with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on a gently sloping area on the crest of the ridge located at the treeline adjacent to the Columbia Gas Pipeline. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on a field visit/:staff opinion is that the trees in the area of the tower are approximately 70 to 80 feet tall. The proposed tower is located approximately 2,300 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property. Staff opinion is that the cleating for the gas line has created the only visibility of the tower and, based on a field visit, this toWbr will be visible from dwellings located to the east and west of Goodlow Mountain. Visibility from north or south of Goodlow Mountain is extremely limited due to the existing tree cover and topography ofthe region. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under the height standard for lighting, but staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless .required by the FAA or other federal officials. This tower does not p~netrate the Airpor[ Oy~efiay District. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staffis not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. In fact the distance to dwellings and the fact that this request is for the reconstruction of a tower that has existed mifiga3~s the visual impacts caused by the tower. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. Staffis unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The applicant has not submitted evidence that the impact from this development will not be substantial. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, In determining the impact on the character of the district staff has taken into consideration the character of the district as described in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Plan. A topographic map is attached to this report which shows the location of dwellings, the gas pipeline and other features. The property immediately m the south is located in an Agricultural/Forestal District. Staff opinion is that approval of this request would have no adverse impact on the use of the adjacent property for either agriculture or forestry. Visibility of the tower from this Agricultural/Forestal District and land in an Agricultural/Forestal District to the west is extremely limited and it is the opinion of staff that no negative impact on the aesthetics of the District will be caused by the approval of this request. As this request is for the reconstruction of an existing tower this result will not result in a significant change in the appearance of the Rural Area or Mountain Resoume Area. Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staff resulted in a change in the charocter of the Rural Areas to this point. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain and the recent approval for CFW on Piney Mountain. Staff opinion is that this request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Stmffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1 A, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4,4, and t .5 (Attachment F). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The me of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony wi~ the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. The reconstruction of~ ,this site will allow Columbia Gas to restore its communication network. [The quality of this network was reduced when the tower was damaged.] This tower serves as a link in its emergency communication network. Staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses, other by-right uses available on this site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safe~ and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general wel£are by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and inca'easing~oyerall general communication services. As noted previously this tower also serves as a link in the Columbia Gas emergency communication network and therefore this request may be considered as consistent with the publics safety. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(g)(7)(b)(i)t!I) of the TelecOmmunications Act of 1996. The re_inflation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instmmantality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibitin~ the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff opinion is that the County has no ban or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities and that decisions regarding the approval of facilities to provide service is done on a case-by-case basis. Staff offers as support for this statement the following evidence. Since 1990 the Board of Supervisors has acted on 16 requests and has approved 11 ofthese requests. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this appliqafion has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations with'm the proposed area af service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staffin an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Akemate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. No potential collocation sites were identified which would alleviate the need for reconstruction of the tower on the site under review. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The text of Section 32.2.2 is attached. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if req~ring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. The site review committee has reviewed the request for a site plan waiver. Based on this review staff is unable to identify .~y propose which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to one conc[ition: 1. Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity and emergency communication which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. The tower is considered to be a collocation site as it will support both US Cellular and Columbia Gas Communication facilities. 4. This proposal is for the reconstruction of an existing tower. ,¸ Approval of this tower will not require the construction of an access road or clearing for electrical service. The request is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 6 Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: This site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. 2. Options for alternative sites have not been exhausted. 3. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of the ordinance and the Comprchensive Plan. Staff has noted that this tower is located within the Mountain Resource Area identified in the Open Space Plan. However, as this is a replacement of an existing rower staff opinion is that this unfavorable factor is mitigated. The limited amount of activity associated with this tower and impact on the surrounding area is, in the opinion of staff a factor which tends m favor this application. Few if any other locations are available which would allow such a limited activity for the installation ora communication facility. Therefore, staff is able to support this application. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. In the event that the Board chooses to denny this application staff offers the following commem: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffrecommends approval of this request and offers the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 120 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to mhfirnize visibility from the ground. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. 7 10. 11. 12. t3. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain with'an the lease area. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Proposed Cellular Antenna Site "and initialed WDF November 7, 1997 and on untitled topograph~z map initialed WDF November 7, t997. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration of the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to'locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal fights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it wilt make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state the current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. The tower shall be of lattice type construction. Access road improvements shall be limited ~o drainage improvements and minimal grading necessary to improve travel surface and the application of gravel. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver. A waiver of the drawing ora site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2.subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Letters from the pubhc F - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance A:\SP9751.RPT ~ ~ IATTACHMENT Al O4, SP 97-51 US O IATTACHM ENT BI ALBEMARLE COUNTY SP 97-51 U.S. Cellular (Goodlow Mnt.) 9 50 · ~.__o .... "',, ,:,, RIVANNA DISTRIOT SECTION .~6 Applicant requests a '~.~rlance with regard to the setba~ . ~nsofar as the existing outparcel is of limited size. The adjacent areas are mountainous and not developed. Special Usc Permit Application g setback of 25' is desired. Applicant also wi~hes to 2 request a waiver of the site plan requirement - see attached. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Please attach additional information as needed) Applicant wishes to ~nstall a w~reless communications facility consistIng of a tower, antennae, small mechanical Building and fencing on the Nk corner of Goodlow Mountain, immediately adjacent to ~n existing clear-cut gas transmission .easement. Columbia Gas owns and maintains the easement which traverses the mountain on its north face in an east/west direction. CNS Microwave, Inc. maintains an existing fee simple ou~parcel adjacent to the easement at t~e high point of the easement where a 120' lattice tower exists. The existing tower pre-dates the County ordinances an~ consequently does not have a permit. In teiu of attaching to the older existing tower, the applicant desires to replace the old tower with a newer rowe? of similar, but stronger design of the sme height which will accommodate co- location of U.S. Cellular antennae. All improveme~st to be located on current ownership, JU~IF!CAT!ON; (pease attach additional information as needed) Curren~ service levels alonq both SR 231 and ~O are inad~quato_Th~ location of th~e road corridors ~n low valleys on either ~de of the Southweqt Motlntaqnq makmq th~m oifficult to serve. The proposed location, very near tho [County lin~ will ~nahl~ ~he applicant to serve the northern limits of these two roadways from a qinglm lnc~tion which currently exists. The site is currently, accessed, and will cnntinuo to b~ accessed b.¥ existinq qravel roadways to the site. No additional Clearing will h~ required for the installation. The existin~ towpr will h~ rpmnv~d ~nd fh~ mirrnwave units installed on the new 120' tower. OFFICE USE ONLY TAX MAp/PARCEL: 121 ,'L~i$ dJ. xa~ !.OSbeo -e~o - ~o -otqoo 2. __ __ 3. __ 4. - - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ZONED IzA MAG DIST: REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION: e o , 'L- EXI~ STING USE: 'To ~.,~ ~ HISTORY: [] SP~: [] ZMAs and Proffers: [] VAs: [] LetterofAuthorization I:\GENERAL~I:IAREXZONING~STAC'~SPUSE. FRM Last Revised 4130196 November 2, 1997 Mr. William Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. pf Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Fritz: ! am writing this letter in regards to the telecommnnications tower Columbia Gas operates at Goodlow Mt. ( SP 97-51) near Gordonsville, VA. This tower was hit in by a tractor October t996. The tower fell and was dmnaged. The lower portion of the tower was m-erected to provide radio coverage for Columbia field personnel until the tower could be replaced. Columbia was approached by US Cellular who offered ro replace the tower for us, in exchange for them being able to mount antennas at this site. Columbia would hope that the planning board would approve US Cellular to build a new tower, so that Columbia can avoid rebuilding their rower. Allowing US Cellular m rebuild the tower has several advantages over Columbia Gas rebuild'rog the tower including: Tho tower would be rebuilt more quickly, improving service and safety for Columbia Gas customers. The radio system Columbia operates off of this tower in an integral part of its emergency connnuuicarion system. The cost of the tower would be borne by US Cellular, and therefore not get passed along ro Columbia Gas's customers. An aging, Ytgl~weight tower would be replaced with a commercial grade tower, increasing safety and reliability in the future. Other wireless companies would be allowed to locate on the new tower, elim'mafmg the need for additional towers in the future. Columbia would sincerely apprefftate any action this board could take to allow the tower to be built before we have to rgly on the current tower through another winter heating season. If the board has arxy questions, I can be reached at (304) 357-3154. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, y Cipnani Engineer CNS Microwave, Inc. - 1700 MacCorkle Avenue S.E., P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, WV 25325 - 1273 ALBEMARLE C0Uh~'r''' IATTACI--il,4ENT C / i / / / ? *OB 5O '~'"'"'"' RIVANNA DISTR~GT SECTION 36 ~ATTACHMENT C 660 000 FEET (SOUTHI Heavy-duty Medium.duty Revisions shown in purple and woodland compiled in cooperation with Commonwealth of Virginia agencies from aerial photographs taken 1984 and other sources, This information not field checked. Map edited 1986 ROAD CLASSIFICATION Light-ou[y ~U. S. Route 38'07'30" °15' Unimoroved dirt C) State Route BARBOURSVILLE, VA. 38078-B3-TF-024 1 964 PHOTOREVlSED 1986 DMA 5560 Ill NE -8F~RIES ¥834 II ..... II -'--- .4 -%1 Planning Dept. 6621 Sam Mundy Road Barboursville, Va. 22923 November 7, 1997 Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Mr. Fritz~ We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the construction of a cellular tower on Goodlow Mountain adjacent to our property - SP 97-51 U.S. Cellular (Go0dlow Mountain). The Southwest Mountains in northern Albemarle County are virtually .Unspoiled by twentieth century technology and the accompanying visual blight. Routes 20 and 231 that straddle thes~ mountains are noted scenic routes and help make our area the desirable destination it is. The proposed tower at 120 feet will most certainly be visible from our property~ the existing tower is not, and will be an eyesore from both routes 20 and 231. The resulting marginal improvement in area cellular phone service does not, in our opinion, warrant a large reduction in the inherent asthetics of our area. Other less objectionable sites are available like the radio towers in Ruckersville. We ask you to reconsider approval of this project. Sincerely, Ja l w. P arce Cynthia C. Pearce JATTACHMENT E j Ms. Mary JOY Scala Department of Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Frank L. Robinson Jr. 7090 Gordonsville Rd Gordonsville, VA 22942 October 27, 1997 Dear Ms. Scala: I~'~-z,~ .... ;%.. ~ I want to state my protest of the proposed cellular towers on Strawberry Hill Farm and Goodloe Mountain in Albemarle County. The proposed location, of which Route 231 is a scenic byway, is in the Blue RUn Agricultural and Forestal District and adjacent to historic Edgeworth Farm. The Routes 231 - 22 corridor, between Gordon~ville and ~hadwell, has many historic estates and farms that Should be Preseryed and protected from such encroachments. Thgse towers, ig ~h~olutely necessary, should be located elsewhere SO a~ to n°t ~etract from the beautiful views of these historical estates and the Southwest Mountains. I would appreciate your support in the denial of this request. Sincerely, ~ ~ MANGHAM MANOR MOHAIRS 901 Hammocks Gap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Phone: (804) 973 2222 Facsimile: (804) 973 7108 E-mail: MangManor~aol.com October 23, 1997 Wil!i~jn Fritz 8e~0r Ptan3qer for Albemarle County 401 Mc!n0re Rd. Ch~r!ot, t0s¢lle, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Fritz: We are writing to Ox, press our disagreement with the 2 proposed Centel Towers on our scenic Keswick road. We understand the need for towers in high metro population areas but lets try & leave the countryside unblemished - or as undisturbed as possible. Lets work with the facilities in the neighboring ,cities ofCharlQttgsville & Culpeper & reduce sprawl & construction. The East side of the Southeast Mo~unt~n Range around Edgeworth Farm akeady looks like its wired & bunkered for the next war. Imagine not just the monstrosity power sub-station to gaze upon & the government hillside installation but two monolithic phone towers. Lets consider keeping this in check, huh? We are phone canymg citizens & work well within the "dead air" zones. Thank you for your consideration, Mich¢le Mangham j ATTACHI"IENT EJ Ms. Mary Joy Scala Department of Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Ernest W. Dun~a~~': ~'~ '': ' Glenda L. Duncan 7090 Gordonsville Rd Gordonsville, VA 22942 October 27, 1997 Dear Ms. Scala: We want to state our opposition to, and protest of, the proposed cellular towers on Strawberry Hill Farm and Goodloe Mountain. These unsightly and monstrous towers will distract from the beautiful pastoral views of the Southwest Mountains. The Route 231 - 22 corridor between Gordonsville maBy beautiful and historic estates and farms protected and preserved at all costs. and Shadwell has that should be We would appreciate your support in denying this request. Sincerely, /~ 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is in[ended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapger 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code}'this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convemence and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the furore development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of SUpervisom of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the futor~e development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference ahd declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, atr, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational fac'titles, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community 'facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or toss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers: 1.4.7 To encourage economic developmem activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.t0 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of ¥irgiuia; and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. ~Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance ~s designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for th~ existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and furore land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the connty. (Amended 11-1-89'} 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation ofthe Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agriculmral/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended 11-1-89) ~ui!0ing Code Information (804} 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of:l~?ilding Code and Zoning Services 401 M~Intire Road. Room 223 Charlottcs',Alle, Virginia 22902-4596 : FAX (804) 972-4126 TDD (804) 972-4012 Zoning Information (804) 296,5875 MEMORANDUM TO~ ~gOM: D~T~; Wayne Citimberg Director of Planning & Community Development Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator ~q~' S.P. 97-51 Goodlow Mountain Tower - Determination Relating Restoration of Tower December 10, 1997 Th~s iS to comSrlal that with the yerifica0~on of first-hand testimony and/or et.her documentation, this~ tower may be restored to substantially the same as that which existed prior to the accident in October, !996. The tower may be returned to the same or lower height, the same or smaller size, and a similar structure type with modem building components. This determination does not grant pertmssion for expansion or other change in scale or character from that which predates the accident. Tl~s decision is based on Section 6.6.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section within the nonconforming regulations permits repair and/or restoration in the event of damage beyond the control of the owner, provided certain time limits are met. It is my opinion that commencement of repair and/or restoration has begun. The ordinance stipulates that work shall be completed within twenty-four months of the date of the damage. The facts upon which this decision is based are as follows: The tower was erected prior to the date that zoning was adopted in Albemarle and it has not been discontinued for more than two years, It is a legally nonconforming use. The tower was damaged by a tractor doing routine maintenance somethne in the month of October, 1996. This was an accident which was beyond the control of the owner and/or lessee. Repair and restoration was commenced within twelve months of the date of the damage. The tower was,repaired at its present lower height to restore service, with the intention and future pl~il to eventually restore it to the licensed height of 120 feet. Page 2 December 10, 1997 Memo to Wayne Cilimberg S.P.97-51 Goodlow Mountain Tower Restoration 1 understand that there will be someone present for the Board of Supervisors' meeting tonight, who is able to speak with first-hand knowledge about the damage and the restoration of the tower. This testimony and/or some other information should document these facts: what damage occt!rred; that it was accidental; what restoration has been completed to-date and what had been the plans for future completion of the project. Please let me know if you have questions. DATE{: December 9~ I997 TO: Mr. Bill Fritz FROM: Andy Cipriaui 1~; Goodlow Mt, Radio Site (SP-97-51) Follow/ng thi~ cover is a letter from Jerry ?elkey. a Superintendent at Columbia Gas, In it he answers aome il'the questions ral~ed by the PJan.~ng Board last month. I realize that we did not meet the 7 day dea411~e, but if possible, I would like ro have it included in the information pack, If you have any questions please feel free m glve me a call at 004) 357-3154. Thanks yon. Andy ipfiaui CN$ Microwave, Inc. · 1700 MacGorlde Avenue 8.E., Re. Box 1273, Charlestor~, WV 25325 - 1273 MEMORANDUM TO: 8 De~cember, 1997 And)' Ciprlani From: JERRY PELKE¥ Gordonsville Radio Tower at Gcodlos Mountain Wee 'riced to restore the radio antares at Goedloe mountain to the proper height as d. signeted on !he license of 120 feet Which wa refer to ' er 37 meters. The radio site on Goedloe mountain, as Gorderlsville Radio is pert of a radio repeater system that tncJude radio repeatara et Ga~onsville,car~ be select, ed remotelyEmp°ria'to Rfchmond and Suffolk, Va~ Any of these ~p,eatera provide communication to thai ' his radio system provides ,,~ .,.~,~,..; __., ..... . r respective areas dlS~Ct offices and personnel in the fiafd ,, -, .... _~... n~cations between area and ve~'lclert, an-~-g venlcleL'; tO' OffiCe.-- - .... ,, ,=~=u prey;ecs communfcetJon from veh~e' to _When the tower at Goodloe was lost we made an emergency repair and only put up enough tower, to get the antenna above the trees. The lack of the proper height provided fair coverage but resulted in some ;lead spots. We waited to replace this t ~ow~r because it .was scheduled to be replaced as part of phase 4 of the microwave replacement project, This would have entailed installing a 120 aa Goedioe Mountain that would h=~,,, ~.-,.~- ,.--., ........ ~ t microwave tower at ....o~, .~uvlar ~1~ nel~er higher nor lighted. Columbia gas re-engineered in 1995/96 and plans were dropped for microwave through Goedloe mountain. The fact still remains that in order to communicate effe~vely With mobiles in the Gordonsville area it is imperative that the GoodJoa site ba restored to 120 feet. Transmitter power (in watts output), receiver sensitivity, and antenna heights are the main factors that determine how well a radio system works, Mathematical calculations wilt show that antenna height has far more effect than any ether factor in determining coverage area for a radio system, We limped along with the antennas where they are now, but we nee~ t~ get therrl back to the license height to batter provide I~or the safe and efficient operation of the pipeline in the Gordonsvllle. Boswe~ls Tavern area and provide effective radio comrnuni~tions to other areas, /~T lecommuni~ons Superintendent Fax No!e 767'1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ,, -, 7-97P0~: 23 RCYa Dept. ot Planning & Communit9 Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-~% (804) 296-5823 November 13, 1997 W. Thomas Muncaster Muncaster Engineering & Applications 1740 Lambs Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 SP-97-52 Nigel Bray Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D Dear Mr. Muncaster: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7 am to 10 pm or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction standards may include, but are not limited to, building material types, location and material of doors, windows and other building openings. 2. No outdoor runs or pens. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the Luxor development as shown on the site plan titled "Animal Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95 (copy attached). A public entrance to the animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided. Delineation of an exercise area on the final site plan including appropriate signage to inform the public of the intended use of the area. Page 2 November 13, 1997 Waiver of Section 5.1.11.b to allow structure to be located less than 200 feet from residential lot line. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meefing on December 10, 1997. 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, David B. Benish Chief of Community Development DB/jef cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Nigel Bray COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE ,SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Nigel Bray-Animal Medical Center SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Re-approval of special use permil STAFF CONTACT(S/: Messrs. Wade AGENDA DATE: November 11, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Dr. Nigel Bray requests a special use permit to allow an animal center on Richmond Road (Route 250 ~ west of the Aunt Sarah's Pancake House near the State Farm Boulevard intersection with Richmond Road {Route 250). Dr. Bray originally made this request in 1995. A copy of the staff report is can be found on Attachment A and the Board of Supervisors action letter on Attachment B. This special use permit was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1995 in conjunction with a zoning map amendmenT. DISCUSSION: The special use permit expired on October 7, 1997. It is staff position that no significant changes have taken place to warrant change of prior staffrecommendation and Board action. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the Planning Commission re-approve the special use permit (SP-97-52~. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ AUGUST 22, 1995 SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 ZMA 95-11 AND SP 95-21 NIGEL BRAY A~TACHMENT ~ Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone this site to C-1 with proffers [Attachment C], These proffers are intended to minimize the uses of the site such that the C-I zoning will result in a level of uses similar to that permitted under the existing CO zoning. The applicant is also proposing the construction ora veterinary el'uric. [It is the proposal for a vet clinic which has led to a rezoning request as vet clinics are not a permitted use in the CO district.] A site plan has been processed with these applications and staff can administratively approve the site plan subject to approval of the rezoning and the special use permit. The site plan is included as Attachment D. Petitions: ZMA 95-11 and SP 95-21 Nigel Bray petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.4 acres from CO, Commercial Office to C-l, Commercial [proffered] and the applicant petitions for special use permit approval of a veterinary clinic [22.2.2(5)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, is located on the north side of Route 250 west of and adjacent to Flynn's Restaurant in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential use (10.01- 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Character of the Area: The property under review is vacant and has been previously graded in the 1970's such that the site is mostly level. Access to the site is through the existing entrance which serves Flyim's Restaurant and will serve the recently approved Luxor development. The Luxor development borders the site to the north and west. The Montessori School is located west of the site but is not adjoining. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the rezomng request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Staff has reviewed the special use permit under the assumption that the rezoning request has been approved and for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to approal of the rezoning. Plannin~ and Zoning History_: C:\WP51\BOSACT.FP~M January 7, 1980 - The plat creating the parcel under review was approved. April 15, 1981 - A request, ZMA 81-02 to rezone this site from R-15, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial was withdrawn. March 21, 1984 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 84-03 which rezoned the site from R-15 to CO. April 28, 1988 A request, ZMA 88-08, to rezone the site from CO to HC was with&awn. STAFF COMMENT: ZMA 95-11: Comprehensive Plan: This discussion addresses the relationship of the rezoning request to the Comprehensive Plan. The relationship o£the special use pennit request to the Comprehensive Plan wilt be discussed latter in this report. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will need to take separate actions on the two requests. Each request has been reviewed by staff on the merits of the specific request and issues of the appropriateness of the special use permit request should be considered seperately from the rezoning request. This site is recomnaended for High Density Residential Use. The property surrounding the site is also recommended for High Density Residential. The existing zoning and the proposed zoning are not consistent with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of the 1984 rezoning this site was recommended for high density residential. Staff has included/he staff report for ZMA 84-03 as Attachment E. The rezoning in 1984 was in recognition of the site's physical separation from other residentially designated property, small size of the site and relationship of the site to adjacent commercial sites. The land designated for commercial uses along Route 250 East is considered sufficient for the overall commercial needs. Since the residential land use designations envision non-residential uses that are more limited than allowed in the CO district, any rezoning should make the uses allowed on this property more compatible with residential uses, and, therefore, more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, than the existing zoning. While the uses allowed under the proposed zoning and proffers would closely correlate with the uses allowed under the existing zoning, the rezoning does not appear to make the uses allowed on this property more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan nor with residential uses than the exist'mg zoning. SUMMARY OF ZMA 95-11 The primary ~ssue regarding the proposed rezoning ~s the Comprehensive Plan. Other issues regarding access and trip generation.Were discussed in the prior rezoning of the site and staff is unable to identify any changes which require amendment of the prior conclusions. Staff notes the existing CO zoning provides a buffer between residential uses and more intensive land uses. Staffhas identified the following facto? which is favorable to this request: The provided proffers retain only those by-fight uses similar to those allowed in the CO district, thereby not increasing the intensity of by-right use on the property and maintaining the buffer potential provided for by the existing CO zoning; Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable .to this request: The proposed (and existing) zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Recommendation (High Density Residential); The proposed zoning does not make uses allowed on this property more compatiable with residential uses and, therefore, more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recomended Action: Approval of this request further reduces the probability that the site will be utilized for residential purposes which is the use recommended for in the Comprehensive Plan. As this request does not increase the consistency of the zoning with the Plan, staff is unable to recommend approval of the request m rezone the site. Should the Board choose m approve this request staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer. The applicant's proffer is included as Attachment C. SP 95-21 All of the analysis for the Special Use Permit assumes approval of the rezoning request. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The proposed layout of the adjacent Luxor development will result in the location of lots which are adjacent to this site. The proposed use of this site as a veterinary clinic does have the potential of umpacting residential land. The prov~sious of Section 5.0 include regulations for vet clinics. Staff will address these provisions in later portions of this report. The applicant is proposing to locate fencing and landscaping adjacent to the proposed lots in the Luxor development. Access to this site will be shared by this use, Flynn's Restaurant and the Luxor development. As the traffic for this site will not cross any portion of the residential development nor increase traffic in the residential development the mixture of the traffic from this site and Luxor is not viewed as a negative factor. The applicant is proposing and will be required by conditions to design the facility to limit noise and no outdoor runs are proposed. Based on the provision of lent'rog, landscaping, building design to mimmize sound and the lack of outdoor runs, impact on residential areas should be no greater than would occur with a standard office building. that the character of the district will not be.chanced thereby, As stated previously this site is recommended for Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent siteis occupied by a restaurant and, the proposed Luxor Residential development; and the Montessoti School is located nearby. The introduction ora veterinary clinic on this site as proposed results in no peculiar design which would differentiate this site from any other office building. In fact, the site plan submitted for this site includes two buildings which are identical m size and configuration. Only one building will be used for the vet service, but either could easily accommodate the use. As no unusual exterior building is proposed the character ofthe area will not be changed based on building design. The use of an outdoor exercise area does represent the only visible exterior activity of the use. This use is limited in area to the rear and center of the site. The activity itself is limited to a few animals at a time under the control of one or more individuals. The provision of landscaping and fencing will mitigate any potential impacts (such as noise and loose animals) of this exterior activity. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Staff is unable to identify any conflict between this request and the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Approval of this request will not impact the permitted uses on this site. The provision of mitigation measures on the site will not result in any impact on the permitted uses of adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.11 contains additional regulations [Attachment F]. Staff has identified the need for modification of these provisions. The animals are proposed to be housed only in soundproof confinements and no outdoor runs are proposed. Section 5.1.1 l(b) states "For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural of residential lot line. For soundproof confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural of residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels," The applicant is proposing to locate the structure approximately 53 feet from the nearest residential lot line. Along this lot line the applicant is proposing a 8 foot tall solid wood fence and screening trees. Staff opinlon is that the required200' setback is intended to minimize the potential conflict (such as noise or loose animals) of animals and residential lots. The provision of a barrier between this site and residential property will likely prevent any potential conflict caused by animals which are briefly outside. (The barrier will help keep any animals which may escape their owners from entering the Luxor development.) The provision of a fence and landscaping will substantially screen all activity on this site from the residential areas. In past requests for vet clinics involving the reduction of this setback, the primary issue has been the limiting of sound impacts. Staff has included a condition which will provide for limits on sound generated by the vet clinic. The applicant has not requested a reduction or modification of the sound provisions of the Ordinance. However, the Zoning Administrator has recommended alternative sound limits. The Zoning Administrator has been working on a revised sound ordinance which provides for more easily interpreted and enforced provisions. The Zoning Administrator has recommended that the sound limits for this site be in accord with the proposed sound ordinance which would require "County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7 am to 10 pm or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on the fmal site plan," The construction standards may include information on the thickness and material of walls and the roof, as well as window and door locations and materials. Staff opinion is that with the provision of fencing, landscaping, and provisions minimizing sound the approval of a reduction in setback will not result in any impact which is greater than would be generated by office use of the site. Section 5.1.1 l(d) stores "In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may reqmre among other things: - separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; - area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means." Staff has included a condition which will provide for an entrance to the vet clinic which is separate from any other entrances to other uses in the building. Staff has also included a provision which will provide for the designation of an outside exercise area which is delineated as such in the field. Staff opinion is that due to the layout of the site the rear portion of the property may be used as an exercise area and the area adequately delineated with signs as it is remote from other areas which will be frequented by the public. and with the public health, safety and ~eneral welfare. Staff opinion is that with the conditions reference above that this request will not result in any increase risk to the public health, safety and general welfare. SUMMARY OF SP 95-21: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The use is generally in accord with the provisions of Section 31.2,4.1; 2. With the design as proposed and conditions of approval the use will not result in impacts to adjacent property which are greater than would be generated by office use. Staffhas identified the following factor which is urffavorable to this request: 1. Approval of this request requires modifications of the setbacks from residential property. The reduction of the setbacks for this site will be addressed by the inclusions of conditions which will provide for physical improvements to the site which minimize impact. Recommended Action: Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions approval of this request will result in no negative impacts and therefore staffrecommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: [These conditions assume approval of ZMA 95-11.] The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at t h e nearest residential lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7 amto 10pm or55z~a at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction standards may include but are not limited to, building material types, location and material of doors, windows and other building opemngs; 2. No outdoor tans or pens; Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the Luxor development as shown on the site plan tiffed "Animal Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95; A public entrance to the animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided; Delineation of an exercise area on the final site plan including appropriate s~gnage to inform the public of the intended use 0fthe area. A - Location Map B - Tax Map Location Map C - Description and Justification of Request D- Landscaping Plan E- StaffReport ZMA-84-3 Wolfgang Oehme F- Section of Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Veterinary Hospitals IATTACHPIENT A I SP-95-21 Nigel Bray ALBEMARLE COUN'I Y 62 ZMA-95-11 Nigel Bray / /,: MONTICELLO ,,*~ ...... SGOTTSVILLE AND '~--'..-' .... ~" RIVANNA DISTRIGTS SECTION IATTACHMENT C I DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST: The purpose of my application to rezone from C0 to C1 the property on tax map parcel 07800-00-00-055- DO is for the construction of a Veterinary Clinic. The present location of my veterinary clinic in the Pantops Shopping Center is already too small to accommodate my needs. Since my practice is growing rapidly, I will soon be desperate for more space. I feel it is vitally important to relocate to a larger establishment which my clients will still find convenient to visit. Since the vast majority of my clientele resides either on the east side of the city of Charlottesville or in eastern Albemarle County, the proposed location would be one of very few available sites which has suitable proximity to both of these areas. I have searched thoroughly for a suitable site and I find that my options are very limited. However, the property which is the subject of this application would be entirely suitable for my needs. Since the establishment of a veterinary clinic in Albemarle County can only be made on a site zoned Cl, it would be necessary to rezone the proposed site from its present C0 designation. The site is adjacent to and shares an entrance~with "Flynn's" restaurant (formerly "La Hacienda") which is designated HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. The site is immediately opposite to a mixed commercial zone, on which a branch of Guarenty Savings and Loan is soon to be built. Therefore, I feel that the nature of the area would not be significantly changed by the building of a veterinary clinic. J A TTAcHI~IENT C j . JPag'e 3l Since the establishment of a veterinary clinic also requires a special use permit, this application is also being made concurrently. The veterinary clinic would be located at its closest point approximately 65 feet from the adjacent property line. [ request a modification of the Section 5-1-11-b regulation to allow for this. At the time of the final site plan approval, verifications of adequat~ sound limitation will be explained, including details of building .design, sound proofing, animal housing design and dense landscaping planting pattern. Yours Sincerely, Nigel C. Bray ! / i shelter associates ltd MASTER BUILDERS p.o, box 39 · Iree union, va. 22940 (804) 973-8307 ,,/ i/ shelter associates ltd MASTEI~ BUILDERS STAFF REPORT ZMA-84-3 Wolfgang Oehme March 13, 1984 Requested Zoning: ~xi~ti~ Zoning: Location: CO Commercial Office 1.377 acres R-15 Residential Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, is located on the north side of Route 250 East, west and adjacent to the Odyssey Night Club. Character of the Area The Odyssey Night Club is to the east, across an access road to Ashcroft PRD. Other properties in the immediate area are undeveloped. Properties east of the Ashcroft access r~ad are zoned HC Highway Commercial and R-6 Residential. PropeYties west of the access road are zoned R-15. This sit~ which appears to have been graded and filled some years ago, as open and flat. A deep ravine separates the site from R-15 property to the west. Summary and Recommendation While the Comprehensive Plan recommends high-density residential in this area, staff recommends that, due to other considerations, CO Commercial Office zonang would be reasonable an this particular case. Staff Comment While 5he Comprehensive Plan recommends high-density resadential this area, staff would note aspects suppor~ave of CO Commercial Office zoning: 1. Location adjacent to the Odyssey Night Club is a deterrent to residential usage. While other large properties in the area could develop under a cluster alternative with open space buffering from the night club, the small size of this lot is not conducive to such an approach; 2. CO Commercial Office zonang could provide a reasonable transitional use in the area; 3. Traffic generation under CO Commercial Office zoning is to higher-density residential. similar 4. Access to the site is restricted to the existing access road by prior subdivision approval. Staff recommends approval. IAI'TACHMEN1 I- 1 5.1.9 5.1.10 5.1.11 Exits and aisles and passageways shall be kep~ adequately lighted at all times when open to the public. Artificial lights shall be provided wheneve~~ natural light is inadequate. -~ FIRE, AMBULANCE, RESCUE SQUAD STATION (VOLUNTEER) Any such use seeking public funding shall be rew[ewed by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5. Specifically, the commission shall find that the proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such facility. In addition, the commission shall consider: growth potential for the area; relationship to centers of population and to high-value property concentrations; and access to and adequacy of public roads in the area for such use. The commission may request recommendation from the Albemarle County fire official and other appropriate agencies in its review; Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles and auctions shall be conducted in an enclosed building only. Noise generated from such activity ~hall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. JUNK YARDS Ail storage and operational areas shall be enclosed by ' a solid, light-tight, sightly fence not less than eight (8) feet in height or alternative screening and/or fencing satisfactory to the commission; bo Storage yards and access to public roads shall be maintained in a dust-free surface. COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ANIMAL HOSPITAL am Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air- condxtioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non- soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confine- ment and shall be composed of concrete bl~ck, brick, or otner material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89) -62- (Supp. ~52, 11-15-89) IAI ~,CHMENT FIIPa, ge 2j 5.1.12 For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproot confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricul- tural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89) In all c~ses, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89) In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may. require among other things: (Amended-Il-15-89) -Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89) -Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means. (Added 11-15-89) PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES/USES The proposed use at the location selected will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the devel- opment of same; Public utility buildings and structures in any resi- dential zone shall, wherever practical, have the exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall have landscaping, screen planting and/or fencing, whenever these are deemed necessary by the commission; In addition, trespass fencing and other safety measures may be required as deemed necessary to reasonably protect the public welfare; In cases of earth-disturbing activity, immediate erosion control and reseeding shall be required to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator; Such structures as towers, transmission lines, trans- formers, etc., which are abandoned, damaged or other- wise in a state of disrepair, which in the opinion of the zoning administrator pose a hazard to the public safety, shall be repaired/removed to the satisfactio of the zoning administrator within a reasonable time prescribed by the zoning administrator; -63- (Supp. ~52, 11-15-89) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. ot Planning & Communily Development 401 Mclnlire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22~02-4596 (804) 296-5823 [ATTACHMENT October 18, 1995 Nigel Bray Rt. 1, Box 176 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: SP-95~21 Nigel Bray ZMA-95-11 Nigel Bray Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D Dear Mr. Bray: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on October 4, 1995, took the following actions: 5t'~95-21 NIGEL C. BRA Y- APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval ora certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 55 dba at all other times. Construction standards shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction standards may include but are not limited to, building material types, location and material of doors, windows and other building openings; 2. No outdoor runs or pens; 4 Fencing and landscaping si]all be provided adjacent to the Luxor development as shown on the site plan titled "Animal Medical Center" initialed WDF 8/9/95; Page 2 October 18, 1995 4. A public entrance to thc animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided; Delineation of an exercise area on the final site plan including appropriate signage to inform the public of the intended use of the area; Waiver of Section 5 1.11.b to allow structure to be located less than 200 feet from residential lot line. APPROVED ZMA-95-11. NIGEL C. BRAY. WITH THE FOLLOWING · PROFFER DATED JIJNE 26, 1995. SIGNED BY HORACE F. JACKSON ON SEPTEMBER 27. 1995: (1) The only permitted uses of the property shall be those listed in Section 22.2.1, b.1, b.4, b.5, b.6, b.12. b.13. b.17. bAS, b.19, b.2(}, b.23. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above~noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayn C$1imberg [ _ ~ Direct,or of Planning ~ Commq~dty Development VWC/jcw cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Horace Sackson COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~ February 17, 1998 Supplement No. 85 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. This supplement was occasioned by amendments made on December 10, 1997. Attachments CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Richard E. Huff, II Larry Davis Water Resources Manager V. Wayne Cilimberg Amelia McCulley Clerk Historic structure or site: Any surucuure or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Regisuer CAdded 12-10-97' Hog Farm: A place where hogs are kept and raised primarily for sale. Home Garden: An activity accessory to residential usage of a property involving the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, fruit and~'or other plants primarily for the consumption or enjoymenn of the residents of such properuy, but expressly excluding the keeping of livestock and/or poultry. (added Home for Developmentally Disabled Persons: A building or group of buildings containing one (1) or more dwelling units designed and/or used for housing mentally retarded or otherwise developmentally disabled persons not related by blood or marriage. Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unin for profit in connection with which no person other than members of the family residing on the premises is engaged in such occupation. Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures, for profit, in connection wit~ which there are employed not more than nwo (2) persons other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition tc such family members. Hospital: A building or group of buildings designed, used or intended to be used, for the care of the sick, aged or infirmed, including the care of mental, drug-addiction or alcoholic cases. This terminolo95; shall include but not be limited to, sanitariums, nursing homes and convales- cent homes. Hotel: A building containing six (6) or more gnest rooms intended or designed to be used, or which are used, rented or hired out to be occupied or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by guests. Indoor Athletic Facility: A building or s~rucuure in which are conducted recreational, therapeutic or athletic activities, whether or not under instruction, such as but non limited no: tem~is and other courn games, swi~znlng, aerobics, and weightlifting but excluding such uses as: bowling alley, billiard hall, bingo, minauure golf, amusement center and dance halls, (Added 9-15-93) Inoperative Motor Vehicle: Any monor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, as such are defined in Virginia Code Section 46.1-1, which is not in operating condition; or which for a period cf sixty (60) days or longer has been partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the engine, or other essential parts required for the operation of the vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates nor a valid inspection decal. ~Added 6-10-87) -15- (Supp. ~85, 12-10-97) 4.12.3 LOCATION OF PARKING 4.12.3.1 For the purpose of determining minimum yard requirements of the various zoning districts, the uerm "off-street parking space" shall be deemed 5o include parking space or stall Eogether with adjacent aisle and turnaround. %Amended 6-14-89 4.12.3.2 (~mlended 6-14-89) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurzenanm except as herein after provided. 4.12.3.3 (Amended 12-10-97) Where practical difficulties prevenu location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use ~o which such space is appurtenanc or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special use p~rmit to allow off-site parking for a historic ssrucuure or site pursuant ~o sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. 4.12.3.4 {Amended 6-14-8S) Whether off-street parking zs provided on the same lot or nom, the following shall apply: For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays, no par~ng space shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the enzrance of the dwelling such space serves. For nonresidential uses, no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in (a) and (b) above may be increased in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such increased distance: that the allowance of a grea~er distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design pracuice; and that the allowance of e greauer distance would otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that zn no case shall the maximum distance from the enurance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet. The distance limitations established in this section shall not apply no sff-site parking for a historic structure or site authorized by sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. (Added 12-10-97) 4.12.4 COOPERATIVE PARKING Parking space required under the provisions of this ordinance may be provided cooperatively for two or more uses in a development or for uwo or more individual uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the permanent availability of such space as such arrangements are approved by the commission. The amount of such combined space shall be equal to the sum of the amounts required for the separate uses; provided, ~hat the commissmon may reduce the amount of space required for a church or for a meeting place of a civic, fraternal or similar organization or other uses under the provisIons of s combined parking area by reason of different hours of normal activity than those of other uses participating in the combination. -34- ($upp. ~85, 12-10-97) 4.12.5 AVAILABILITY 4.12.5.1 NO required off-street parking or loadinB area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicle, equlpmenE, materials or supplies, or obstructed in any other fashion unless specifically approved by the commission. This provision shall hOE be applicable ~o single-family dwelling units. 4.12.5.2 Where off-street parking and loading spaces are required by these regulations, no owner or occupanE of any land or building shall discontinue, change or dispense with such facilities without establishing alternative facilities complying equally with the requlremenus of these regulations. -34.1- (Supp, ~85, 12-10-97) 5.1.38 (Added 12-10-97 OFF-SITE PARKING FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES OR SITES In order to provide the minimum parking required by seculon 4.12 or to provide additional parking, off-site parking for a historic structure or site may be authorized only when (1) the provision of on-site parking would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the historic structure or site to be served; (2) the level of use of the properuy on which the historic structure or site is located, which necessitates the provision of off-site parking, will not degrade or detract from the integrity of the historic structure or site or adversely change the character of the surrounding area; and (3) the provision of off-site parking does nor change the character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is proposed and does not require substantial alteration to roads. To ensure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site parking for a historic s~ruc~ure or site pursuanu ~o section 10.2.2.46 is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the following requir~ements: The spplicant shall demonstrate that on-siue parking cannou be provided without substantially degrading or detracting from the historic surucEure or site. The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed ~o reduce or eliminate significant visual impacts from all public streeus, private roads and adjacent properties, and uo reduce or eliminate other s!gi/ificant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff, degrada- tion of waser quality and other similar disturbances. The applicant shall submi~ a conceptual plan with its application for a special use permit. The conceptual plan shall show the approximaue location of the parking lot on the properuy; its dimensions, its access to s public sureee, its distance from the historic structure or site, and shall identify how persons will be uransported or will transport themselves from the off-site parking uo the historic surucuure or site. The conceptual plan shall also show all features of the parking lot which wilt ensure that the parking lot will nou degrade or detract from the historic structure or site to be served by the parking lot, will not adversely change the character of or significantly impac~ the area surrounding the proper5y on which the parking lot ts proposed, and will impacu ~o the least exuenu practicable the properuy on which the parking lot is proposed. The features which shall be sho~u~ on the conceptual plan, and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include: Visual and noise harriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain and/or vegetative screening; Proposed construction elemenus, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust, glare, and runoff and which will protect water quality and protect trees designated to be preserved; -69.10- (Supp. ~85, 12-10-97) A lightin~ plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and demon- strates that all outdoor ii~hts will be shielded in such a manner that &ll light emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is pro]ected below the horizontal plane of the fixture; end Chan~es proposed to the entrance and public road, including any necessary road-widening, or gradin~ and removal of trees to accommodate sight dista~ce. The off-streeE parking and loading requirements sen forth in secnion 4.12 shall apply to off-site parking for a historic serucnure or site, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. -69.%1- (Supp. ~85, 12-10-97) 10.3 38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82) 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26 (Added 4-28-82) 40. Borrow area, borrow pit non permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83) 41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87; 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district ireference 5.1.27), {Added 12-2-87) 43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added i2-2-87) 44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92) 45_ Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95) 46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38). (Added 12-10-97' APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record au 5:15 p.m., the tenth day o~ December, i980 (reference 6.5). (Amended 11-8-89) -91.1- (Supp. %85, I2-10-97) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC~ Clerk~tJ~ February 17, 1998 Supplement No. 85 to the Zoning Ordinance Attached are new sheets to be inserted in your copy of the Zoning Ordinance. This supplement Was occasioned by amendments made on December 10, 1997. /ewc Attachments CC: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr. Richard E. Huff, II Larry Davis Water Resources Manager V. Wayne Cilimberg Annelia McCulley Clerk Hog Farm: A place where hogs are kept and raised primarily for sale. Home Garden: An activity accessory to residential usage of a property involving the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, fruit and/or other plants primarily for the consumption or enjoyment of the residents of such property, but expressly excluding the keeping of livestock and/or poultry. (Added 12-2-87) Home for Developmentally Disabled Persons: A building or group of buildings containing one (1) or more dwelling units designed and~or used for housing mentally retarded or otherwise developmentally disabled persons not related by blood or marriage. Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit for profit in connection with ~hich no person other than members of the family residing on the premises is engaged in such occupation. Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures, for profit, in connection with which there are employed no= more than two (2) persons other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition to such family members. Hospital: A building or group of buildings designed, used or intended to be used, for the care of the sick, aged or infirmed, including the care of mental, drug-addiction or alcoholic cases. This terminology shall include, but not be limited to, sanitariums, nursing homes and convalescent homes. Hotel: A building containing six (6) or more guest rooms intended or designed to be used, or which are used, rented or hired out to be occupied or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by quests. Indoor Athletic Facility: A building or structure in which are conducted recreational, therapeutic or athletic activities, whether or not under instruction, such as but not limited to: tennis and other court games, swimming, aerobics, and weightlifting but excluding such uses ss: bowling alley, billiard hall, bingo, minature golf, amusement center and dance halls. (Added 9-15-93) Inoperative Hotor Vehicle: Any monor vehicle, trailer or semitrail- er, as such are defined in Virginia Code Section 46.1-1, which is not in operating condition; or which for a period of sixty (60) days or longer has been partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the engine, or other essential par=s required for the operation of the vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates nor a valid inspection decal. (Added 6-10-87) -15- (Supp. #73, 9-15-93) 4o 12.3" 4.12.3.1 4.12.3.2 (Amended 6-14-89 ) 4.12.3.3 (Amended 6-14--89 ) 4.12.3.4 ( Amended 6-14-89) 4.12.4 4.12.5 4.12.5.1 4.12.5.2 LOCATION OF pARKING For the purpose of determining minimum yard requirements of the various zoning districts, the term "off-street parking space" shall be deemed to include parking space or stall together with adjacent aisle and turnaround. (Amended 6-14-89) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant except as herein after provided. Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. Whether off-street parking is provided on the same lot or not, the following shallapply: For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays, no parking space shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling such space serves. For nonresidential uses, no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in (a) and (b) above may be increased in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that in no case shall the maximum distance from the en=rance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet. COOPERATIVE pARKING Parking space required under the provisions of this ordinance may De provided cooperatively for two or more uses in a development or for two or more individual uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the permanent availability of such space as such arrangements are approved by the commission. The amoun= of such combined space shall be equal =o the sum of the amoun=s required for the separate uses; provided, that the commission may reduce the amount of space required for a church or for a meeting place of a civic, fraternal or similar organization or other uses under the provis~ons of a combined parking area by reason of different hours of normal activity than those of other uses participating in the combination. AVAILABILITY No required off-street parking or loading area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicle, equipment, materials or supplies, or obstructed in any other fashion unless specifically approved by the commission. This provision shall not be applicable to single-family dwelling units. Where off-street parking and loading spaces are required by these regulations, no owner or occupant of any land or building shall discontinue, change or dispense with such facilities without establishing alternative facilities complying equally with the requirements of these regulations. -34- (Supp. #82, 1-3-96) 10.3 38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82) 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82) 40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83) 41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87) 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related =o, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87) 43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87) 44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92) 45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95) APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record at 5:15 p.m., the tenth day of December, 1980 (reference 6.5). (Amended 11- 8-89) -91.1- (Supp. #80, 10-11-95) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors V. Wayne Cilimberg; Director of Plauning & Commm~ity Development/}jD~/ December 5, 1997 ZTA-97-01 Add Off-Site Parking for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment. Attached please fred a staff repor~ which outlines this proposal. The County Attorney's office will provide the ordinance under separate cover. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. EKE/jcf ATTACHMENT STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD' OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K, ECHOLS, AICP DECEMBER 2,1997 DECEMBER 10, 1997 ZTA 97-01(Offsite Parking for Motor Coaches) Origin and Description of Request: Mr. Richard Carter, on behalf of Historic Michie Tavern, has requested that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow "Offsite parking for motor coaches in conjunction with the operation of tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support services" as a special use in the Rural Areas under Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Michie Tavern, in particniar, is experiencing difficulty in accommodating motor coaches because its parking lot is not designed for or large enough for tour buses. Currently, the Tavern is leasing space from the Fraternal Order of Police for motor coach parking. The Tavern would like the ability to apply for a special use permit to create a stand-alone parking lot on a parcel that would be nearby but separate from the Michie Tavern property. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow stand-alone or offsite parking lots in any zoning district where the parking lot would be the only improvement or use of the property. Michie Tavern has requested that off-site parking lots be allowed only for motor coaches in conjunction with the operation of tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support sermces. Definition of "tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support services": The applicant did not provide a definition for the term "tourist related historical business". Taken literally, it could mean any longstanding tourist business [a business with a history) in the rural area that draws tourists to Albemarle County. It could also mean any new business in a historic structure which would draw tourists. From conversations with the applicant, what is meant by the term is any business which operates primarily as a tourist destination because of the historical aspect of the use, such as Michie Tavern or Monticello. Parking for motorcoaches vs. parking for any _type of vehicle: The applicant has requested that the text amendment apply only to parking lots for motorcoaches (tour buses). The reason this request is .made is to narrow down the possibilities in which off-site parking might be allowed. The staff has reviewed this request, however, in terms of parking lots for vehicular parking of any type. Staff believes that the principle issue here is whether or not parking lots should be allowed off-site in relation to use of historical structures and sites, not whether or not the parking lots should be for motorCoaches only. Relationship to Historic Structures and Sites in the County_: Albemarle Coumy has 62 designated historic structures, sites, or districts by vn'tue of those structures, sites, or districts being on the National Register of Historic Places or listed as Virginia Landmarks. Many more structures potentially are eligible for national or state recognition. 3_ Applicant's Justification for the Request: The application states, "Albemarle County has historical sites and businesses that are popular tourist destinations. Many of these tourists travel by motor coaches. The sites and businesses do not have space to accommodate parking for the motor coaches on site. The motor coaches present safety problems as well as the parking congestion. Many of the historical sites and historical businesses can't expand their on-site parking because of the size of the properties. However, in RA zones, there is often suitable property in close prox'unity which could provide for the safe and orderly parking of motor coaches." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the text amendment which is Attachment A. Comprehensive Plan: The goal for rural development in the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related to a bona fide agricultural use. The limited amount of residential development which is permitted in the Rural Areas is to be located in a manner to minimize impact on rural resources and to minimize conflict with agricultural/forestal activities. The four major elements involved in achieving those goals are (1) preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to the Rural Areas; and (4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. In the Comprehensive Plan, landowners are encouraged to preserve and protect historic properties through designation on the National Register or listing as a Virginia Landrfffirk. As one strategy m help protect and preserve historic properties, an Historic Preservation Committee was formed in 1995 with the task of devising the preservation plan and developing a historic district ordinance. That Committee is completing the preservation plan which will include new recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan regarding historic resources. /'he Historic Preservation Committee, to date, has recommended that owners of historic structures and properties adaptively reuse those properties to preserve and draw attention to the County's heritage. The zoning text amendment, as proposed by the applicant, was taken to the Historic Preservation Committee for commem on November 3 and discussed again on November 17. ~See Attachment B.) The elements of the text amendment were reviewed and modified by the Historic Preservation Committee prior to staff's rewording of the amendment. The recommendations of the Committee are contained in Attachment C. Relationship to Entrance Corridor Requirements: At present there is no historic district ordinance in place to enable design review of modifications to historic structures and sites. A historic district ordinance likely will be recommended to the Board of Supervisors in early 1998 with the Preservation Plan. Any parking lot such as one proposed as a result of this ZTA for a property in an entrance corridor would be reviewed by the Architecture Review Board. Proposed parking lots or modifications to existing historic structures in a designated historic district would go an historic architecture review board, if one is established ttrrough an historic district ordinance. Any proposed parking lots relating m historic sites that are not in entrance corridors or historic districts would not be referred by the staff to the Architecture Review Board for comments or to a citizen committee which deals with historic preservation, such as the Historic Preservation Committee. STAFF COMMENT: Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district - The zon/ng text amendment would apply to the Rural Areas zoning district only. Thc Rural Areas purpose and intent is to preserve agricultural and forcstal lands and activities, protect the water supply, limit servmc delivery, and conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. Historic structures and sites in the rural areas may be used for a variety of uses such as but not limited to: By-right uses detached single family dwellings and guest cottages side-by-side duplexes wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products accessory uses public facilities owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies veterinary services agricultural service occupation tourist lodging farm winery commercial stables Special ~ses community centers clubs, lodges, civic, pmriotic, fraternal fire and rescue stations private schools day care; child care or nursery facility horse show grounds sawmills group homes day CamP country store church building and adjunct cemetery gift, craft, and antique shops, convent; monastery agricultural museum theater, outdoor drama restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. While the applicant has proposed that off-site parking be allowed for "tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support services", there are many possible uses of historic structures which may or may not have a tourist component. The alternate zoning text amendment proposed by the staff recognizes the potentialneed for off-site parking m support use and adaptive reuse of a historic building or site. The alternate text amendment would not limit off~site parking to tourist related historical businesses only. Public need and justification for the change There may be instances in which a stand-alone parking lot makes sense, especially in relation to a historic structure and a property owner's desire to maintain the integrity of the setting yet provide access from a nearby parking area. Historically, stand-alone parking lots have not been allowed in any district. With the zoning text amendment proposed to allow off-site parking as a special use, any impact could be controlled by the special use permit process. The special use permit process assesses the need for the parking lot, the appropriateness of the proposed location, proposed configuration of the parking lot as well as construction materials and landscaping. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Water and Sewer - No impact would be expected. Roads - Any impact on roads would be managed and controlled through the special use permit process. Stormwater management - Stormwater management is currently controlled through the runoff control ordinances. Any additional stormwater problems couldbe mitigated through the special use permit process. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources-The impact ora "by- right" off-site parking lot on these resources could be negative or positive, depending upon the characteristics of the parking lot. With the special use permit process, any negative impact could be addressed. At a minimum, it could provide alternatives to certain types of parking needs which could minimize the effect of that parking on the historic site. Anticipated impact on other uses in the zoning district - One question raised regarding off-site parking in the rural areas is whether or not the opportunities for off-site parking lots would intensify uses in the rural areas. Added to that question is how does the County balance the agricultural and forestal purposes and intent of the rural areas with the desire to preserve and reuse historic structures and sites in those same areas. The Historic Preservation Committee did not comment on how the proposed text amendment might affect the rural areas. They endorsed the concept that adaptive reuse of historic structures could provide for preservation of historic properties and that opportunities to construct off-site parking lots could enhance adaptive reuse. Their endorsement contained the reservation that any off-site parking should be controlled m protect the historic integrity of structures and sites and the integrity of the character of the surrounding community. It is staff's belief that requests for off-site parking for historic structures would be requested in very few instances, Even in those instances, the request would be reviewed as to the appropriateness of the location and configuration of the parking area in relation to the historic structure or site. Any potential negative impact could be addressed through the special use permit process. Staff notes that the relationship of intensity of use of historic structures in rural areas deserves further discussion in view of the other goals for the rural areas. Along with the Historic Preservation Committee's recommendation, staffrecommends that the Comprehensive Plan review for the rural areas include issues of balancing adaptive reuse goals for historic preservation with other goals for the rural areas. It is also important to note that, although 90% of the County's historic properties are in the rural areas, there are historic properties in the developmem areas which might wish to take advantage of similar opportunities for off-site parking. This zoning text amendment does not address historic properties in developmem areas, however. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: Preservation of historic resources involves adaptive reuse which may be achieved better if opportunities for constructing parking lots are available. The instances in which additional parking areas are needed are very limited and requests can be scrutinized through the special use permit process. The Historic Preservation Committee supports the concept for off-site parking in relation to preservation of historic structures and sites in order to provide more oppommities for adaptive reuse and tourism. The Comprehensive Plan and the Rural Areas Zoning District support preservation and use of historic structures. The opportunity to provide parking lots in relation to use of historic buildings supports the tourism aspects of the County's and nation's heritage. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: The request changes a longstanding requirement that off-site parking lots are not allowed as a singular use on an parcel of land in any zoning district. 2. Discussion of the relationship of historic preservation activities to other rural area goals has not occurred in conjunction with the update of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the text amendment as proposed by staff. ATTACHMENTS: A - Proposed Text Amendment by Staff B - Memoranda to Historic Preservation Committee C - Policy statement from Historic Preservation Committee I:\GENERAL\SHARE~ECHOLS~ZMALMI CHiE.ZTA {ATTACHMENT Al Draft: November 25, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding New: Section 5.1.38. By Amending: Section 3.0. Section 4,12,3.3. Section 4,12.3.4. Section 10.2.2, Article II. Basic Regulations Off-site parking for histodc structures and sites. Article I. General Provisions Definitions. Article II. Basic Regulations (Untitled) (Untitled) Article Ill. District Regulations By special use permit. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec, 3.0. Definitions. Histo/fc structure or site: Any structure or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virqinia Landmarks Re(lister. Draft: November 25, 1997 Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled) Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3,2 or where the pubiic safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot. the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a soecial use permit to allow off-site parking for a h stor c structure or site pursuant to sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. Sec. 4.12.3.4. (Untitled) Whether off-street parking is provided on the same lot or not, the following shall apply: For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays, no parking sp~ce shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling such space serves. b= For non-residential uses, no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in la) and lb) above may be increased in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that in no case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet. The distance limitations established in this section shall not apply to off-site parking for a historic structure or site authorized by sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46~ 2 Draft: November 25, 1997 Sec. 5.1.38. Off-site parkinq for historic structures or sites. Off-site parking for a historic structure or site is authorized only when the provision of on-site parking would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the historic structure or site to be served. To ensure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site parkinq for a historic structure or site pursuant to section t 0.2.2.46 is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the following requirements: The applicant shall demonstrate that on-site parking cannot be provided without substantially deqrading or detractin(~ from the historic structure or site. This demonstration may consist of a report pertaining to the structure or site prepared by the Virginia Department of Historic Landmarks or other oualified a(]encv or person. The parking lot shall be located, desi§ ned and constructed to reduce or eliminate visual impacts from all public streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and to reduce or eliminate other impacts to adiacent properties resultin(3 fro vehicular noise, dust, artificial liqhtinq, glare and other similar disturbances. The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with its application for a special use permit. The conceptual clan shall show the approximate location of the Darkin(~ lot on the property, its dimensions, and its access to a public street. The conceptual plan shall also show all features of the parking lot which will ensure that the parkinq lot will not deqrade or detract from the historic structure or site to be served by the Darkin(] lot, and will not otherwise de(~rade or detract from the site on which the Darkina lot is proposed and adjacent properties. The features which shall be shown on the conceptual Dian. and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include: Visual and noise barriers such as earthen berms, existing or the planned terrain and/or veqetative screeninq; PrOposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution dust runoff and glare; and A liahting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor liqht structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such a manner that all light emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal Dlan_e of the fixture. 3 Draft: November 25, 1997 The off-street Darkina and Ioadin(~ reauirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply to off-site parking for a historic structure or site, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. Sec. 113,2.2. By special use permit 46. Off-site parking for histodc structures or sites Creference 5.1.38). 4 ~TTACHMENT BI TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Developrnem MEMORANDUM 804/296-5823, ext. 3252 fax 804/972-4035 Historic Preservation Committee Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Senior Planner ~,~ (~ October 28, 1997 Request by Staff for Comments on Request by Michie Tavern to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for off-site parking for tourist related historical businesses Michie Tavern has submitted a zoning text amendment to ask the Board of Supervisors to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for: Offsite parking for motor coaches in conjunction with the operation of tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support services" as a special use in the Rural Areas under Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning OtCdinance. Michie Tavern has made this request because its existing parking lot does not reasonably accommodate motor coaches (tour buses) and the Tavern cannot acquire adjacent property on which to expand the parking lot. It can acquire a nearby property on which m construct a parking lot for parking tour buses, if the zoning ordinance allowed such a use. Since the zoning ordinance does not allow a stand-alone parking lot in the rural areas, the applicant has requested the zoning ordinance be changed so it can then apply for a special use permit to construct a parking lot. Because of the potential impact on historic structures in the County, staff would like comments from the Historic Preservation Committee to forward on to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in conjunction with the request for approval of the zoning text amendment. Specifically, staff would like comments on the following questions: Should a historic structure be allowed to have off-site parking if it has a tourist component? 2. Should that off-site parking be just for motor coaches or should it be for cars as well? Backgro. und Information: Albemarle County. has 62designated historic structures by virtue of those structures being on the National Register of Historic Places or registered as a Virgima Landmark. Many other properties potentially are are eligible for national or state recognition. The Historic Preservation Committee, m date, has recommended that owners of historic structures and properties adaptively reuse those properties to preserve and draw attention to the County's heritage. One aspect of reuse is tourism. And a structure which draws tourists must provide parking. Parking lots can support a use of an historic structure. And parking lots can detract from the use of an historic structure, if sited or constructed in a way that is inappropriate to the setting. Definition of"tourist related historical businesses and neighboring supnort services": The applicant did not provide a definition for the term "tourist related historical business". Taken literally, it could mean any longstanding business (a business with a history) in the rural area that draws tourists to Albemarle County. It could also mean any new business in a historic structure which would draw tourists. From conversations with the applicant, what is meant by the term is any business which opermes primarily as a tourist destination because of the historical aspect of the use, such as Michie Tavern or Monticello. Use of Historic Buildings in the Rural Areas: Historic buildings can be used for the following permitted and special uses in the Rural Areas: By-right uses detached single family dwellings and guest cottages public uses and building owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies veterinary services tourist lodging farm winery commercial stables Special uses community centers clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal fire and rescue stations private schools day care; child care or nursery facility sawmills day camp country store church building and adjunct cemetery gift, craft, and antique shops, convent; monamery agricultural museum theater, outdoor drama restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. For the primary use of an historic building for tourism, only the following uses are allowed by special use permit: agricultural museum restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. The special use permit process allows for controls over the appropriateness of an off-site parking lot for a use, the location, configuration, construction materials, and landscaping of parking lots. With the request for the ability to have off-site parking lots by special use permit only, the principal questions asked are as follows: Should stand-alone parking lots be allowed in conjunction with a primary tourist use of an historic structure? Should stand-along parking lots be allowed for any use of an historic structure? If yes, should the parking lots be for motor coaches only, or should they be for any type of vehicle? Your comments and recommendations on these questions are requested and appreciated. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM 804/296-5823, ext. 3252 fax 804/9724035 Historic Preservation Committee Elaine K. Echols, AICP, Senior Planner November 4, 1997 Discussion on off-site parking for historic buildings Thank you for meeting with me yesterday to discuss issues relating to off-site parking lots for historic buildings in the rural areas. Mary Joy tells me that you continued to discuss the issue after I left and Ixeally appreciate your thorough review of this issue. As we discussed at the meeting, the proposed zoning text amendment as it stands, leaves terms undefined and implies more than was intended, perhaps, by the applicant. Modifying the text to reflect better what the applicant means and to be compatible with our existing zoning regulations, staff is considering the following concepts: The zoning text, "Off-site parking in conjunction with use of an historic structure", be added to the list of special uses in the Rural Areas under Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The definition of "historic structure" be added to the Zoning Ordinance as "Any structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register Under the Article II. Basic Regulations, Section 4.12 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements add the following special standards: "The following items shall be considered prior to determining the appropriateness of approving an off-site location of parking for a use in an historic building: The historic aspect of the property to which the parking use belongs and whether or not additional parking on that site would damage the integrity of the site. Any surrounding agricultural uses and the impact of the parking area on the integrity of those uses. 3. The amount of increase in traffic that the additional parking lot would generate. 4. The relationship of the proposed parking area to nearby and surrounding uses. Specific consideration should be given to traffic and Visnal impacts. 5. The orientation of the parking area on the lot and any additional screening needs to reduce visual impacts. 6. Pedestrian access and safety. 7. Safety of the roadway from which the parking lot takes access. 8. Environmental resources on the site proposed for the parking lot. Your committee suggested that the following additional considerations be added: 1. A demonstrated need for the off-site parking lot 2. Any proposed lighting for the parking lot 3. Addition of "other visual barriers such as berms or terrain" to #5 above. I noted your concerns about the proposed zoning text amendment which includes "neighboring support services". If you support the proposed amendment, your desire to limit off-site parking to uses in existing historic structures would be in keeping with your proposed Historic Resource Preservation Plan. I also noted your agreement that the amendment should focus on parking lots for any type'of motor xtehicle, not just for motor coaches. It would be helpful to me if you would comment on the following items: 1. Should tourism be encouraged as an aspect of adaptive reuse of historic structures? 2. For existing historic structures with a tourist component, should opportunities be available for the tourist business to grow?Think about Monticello, Michie Tavern, Boyd's Tavern and Piney Knob. But also consider that the special use permit exists to allow the Planning Commission and the Board to deternfine if the proposed parking lot is appropriate at the location requested. Thank you again for your consideration of this matter. I ATTACHPIENT ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Plannins & Comrnuniw Developmen/ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-'~596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner ~/~ November 18, 1997 Historic Preservation Committee Recommendation Regarding ZTA 97-01 The Historic Preservation Committee at its meeting on November 3, 1997, discussed this proposed zoning text amendment as outlined in your memo dated October 28, 1997, and requested additional information. The Committee again discussed the amendment request at its November 17, 1997 meeting, as outlined in your memo dated November 4, 1997, and made the following recommendation: The Committee noted in making its recommendation that it was addressing the concept of "off- site parking in conjunction with use of an historic structure" in general, and not specifically Miehie Tavern's future request. The Committee endorsed off-site parking as a concept with reservations, that it needs to be controlled to protect 1 ) the historic integrity of the structure and site, and 2) the existing character of the surrounding community. The Committee recognized that protection of much of the community is beyond their charge as a historic preservation committee. Therefore, the Committee stated that it supports historic tourism but did not attempt to address impacts on the Rural Area. They recommended that a fuller discussmn of that important aspec~ be folded in with the upcoming discussion of the Rural Area for the Comprehensive Plan review. They requested that the written discussion of the issues prepared by W.J. Eddins dated 11/17/97 (attached) be made an attachment to the staffreport. W.$. Eddins 11/17/97 Historic Preservation Committee OFF-SITE PARKING }'OR HISTORIC STRUCTURES General Principles, In general, the adaptive use of historic structures can be commended as a means of preserving the structure, and if the adaptive use is as a tourist attraction, it can also contribute to the community's economic base. This is a classic example of combining preservation with progress. The basic rationale for preserving and protecting historic resources in a community is re foster that profound sense of continuity and belonging which differentiates the community from other localities. This is the commo~ be~efit which justifies the imposition of regulatory burdens on the owners of historic properties. Commercial or tourism adaptations face balance issues at two levels: (1) The commercial/tourism component should not overwhelm the historic integrity of the structure andits site; and (2) The operation of the commercial or tourism site should not jeopardize the existing character of the surroundit~g community Historic Structures and Parking, For historic structures that pre-date motor vehicles, visible parking tots infringe on historic integrity. For that reason, parking is normally provided at the rear and screened by earthen berms, vegetation, or both. lfthe site does not permit such treatment, then off-site parking is an attractive option to mamtmn or restore historic integrity at the site itsel£ Off-site parking, however, requires an assessment of its impact on the character of the surrounding community. Even if current need is clear and the community impact neglible, the assessment should also examine the extent to which off-site parking might also provide an irresistible temptation for growth of the venture beyond that which is appropriate for its own historic integrity and community values. Moving the location ufa parking lot would change the traffic pattern, but not necessarily increase its volume. Absent some constraint on future expansions however, the temptation for an increased tempo of operation (and thus a greater economic return) would result in increased traffic flow and other impact on the community. Specific Comments on special standards (Tube discussed at meeting) · Stem statement · Standards number 2 and 3. · Additional standards. Piedmont Environmental Council Statement to Board of Supervisors on ZTA-97-01, Offsite Parking for Motor Coaches December 10, 1997 We remain concerned about the road improvements which may be triggered by this zoning text amendment and the effect of that construction on the rural landscape. The traffic improvements required to move buses safely from road to parking lot could be substantial, depending on the sites chosen by this applicant and others. Achieving sight distance alone would require substantial cleating and grading along most of the County's rural roads. The supplementary regulations proposed by staff might serve to make the parking lot less visible; however, the real impact on the landscape will come from changes to the road itself. At the Planning Commission's request, staff revised the proposed zoning text amendment to state that off-site parking would be authorized only if it "does not change the character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is proposed." We suggest adding "or substantial alteration to scenic rural roads" to encourage future applicants to consider the impact of changes to the road before they apply for a special use permit. We also ask you to insure that future applicants give staff, the Planning Commission and you the information you need to decide whether the parking lot and related construction changes the character of the area. We suggest adding the following language to the list of features required to be shown on the conceptual plan: (4) Changes proposed to the entrance and public road, including any necessary road- widening, or grading and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance. With this information, you can better determine when off-site parking lots and their related construction would require significant and unwanted alterations to scenic rural roads and the surrounding landscape. P.O./Box 460 o '~'arrentol~. Virginia · 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 Rose Hill Drive · Suite One · Charlottesville. Virginia o 532903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-977~306 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~2-c~-97P0/4:42 RCVD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding New: Section 5.1.38. By Amending: Section 3.0. Section 4.12.3.3. Section 4.12.3.4. Section 10.2.2. Article II. Basic Regulations Off-site parking for historic structures and sites. Article I. General Provisions Definitions. Article II. Basic Regulations (Untitled) (Untitled) Article III. District Regulations By special use permit. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article I, General Provisions Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Historfc structure orsite: Any structure or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks Register. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec, 4.12.3.3. (Untitled) Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or, in the case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special use permit to allow off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections 5.1.38 and 10,2.2,46__ Sec. 4.'12.3.4. (Untitled) Whether off-street parking is provided on the same lot or not, the following shall apply: For residential uses, where parking is provided in bays, no parking space shall be located further than one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling such space serves. For non-residential uses no parking space shall be located further than five hundred (500) feet from the entrance of the use such space serves. Distances in Ia) and (b) above may be increased in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance: provided that in no case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed two hundred (200) feet, The distance limitations established in this section shall not apply to off-site oarkina for a istoric structure or site authorized b sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46. 2 Sec. 5.1.38. Off-site Darkinq for historic structures or sites. in order to provide the minimum Darkina reauired bv section 4.12 or to orovide additional parkina, off-site parkina for a historic structure or site may be authorized only when the provision of on-site parkin9 would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the historic structure or site to be served, the level of use of the property on_ which the h storic structure or s te is located, which necessitate~ the provision of off-site parking, will not deqrade or detract from the inteqritv of the historic structure or site or adversely change the character of the surroundinq area, and the provision of off-site Darkina does not change the character of the area surroundinq the properS, on which the off-site oarking is proposed. To ensure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to section 10.2.2.46 is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the followinq requirements: The applicant shall demonstrate that on-site parking cannot be provided without substantially deqrading or detractinq from the historic structure or site. The parkin(~ lot shall be located, designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate si(~nificant visual imoacts from all public streets, private roads and adiacent properties, and to reduce or eliminate other siqnificant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff, deqradation of water quality and other similar disturbances. The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with its application for a special use oermit. The conceptual plan shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on the nrooertv, its dimensions its access to a public street, its distance from the historic structure or site, and shall identify how persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the off-site parkinq to the historic structure or site. The conceptual plan shall also show all features of the parking lot which will ensure that the parkinq lot will not degrade or detract from the historic structure or site to be served by the parking lot, will not adversely change the character of or significantly impact the area surrounding the property on which the parking lot js proposed, and will impact to the least extent practicable the property on which the parkinQ lot is proposed. The features which shall be shown on the conceotual plan. and which may be required as a condition of approval of a special use permit, include: Visual and noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain and/or veqetative screeninq; 3 Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust, qlare, runoff and which will protect water (~ualit_v: and A li(~htina olan which identifies the location and desiqn of all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights complv with section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such a manner that all li(~ht emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture. The off-street parkinq and Ioadinq requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall aDolv to off-site oarkin(~ for a historic structure or site, except as expressly provided otherwise therein. Sec. 10.2.2. By special use permit 46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38), I:~I)EPT~kTI'ORNEY~GK\OIeFSITE2.DOC 4 To: Members Board of Supervisors From: Ella Washington Cater, CMC, Clerk :.~~ Subjett: Reading List for December 10. 1997 Date: December 5, 997 October 8, 1997 - Mr. Marshall ewe DECEMBER I O, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. [-344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING A SPECIFIC LEGAL MAi'TER CONCERNING REVERSION AND A SPECIFIC LEGAL MA! !ER CONCERNING A SCHOOL AGREEMENT. BI097.WPD