12SN0134
FY2012 6/15/2011
C.a,.,~ ~a5Nvi3~
B. Methodology and Policy Terms
1. There are five "components" involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will
cost the County in terms of providing public facilities. The components are as
follows:
a. Demand generators -Staff uses the weighted average of single family and multi-
family persons per household (2.72 for FY06) and an average number of students
per household (0.53 for FY06) to calculate demand generators (number of people
and number of students) associated with a new dwelling unit.
b. Service levels -Staff calculates existing service levels for each type of facility for
which a cash proffer will be accepted. Examples of service levels are: 5.53 acres
of park land per 1,000 people, 2.341ibrary books per person, and 99 square feet of
space per elementary school child. (Service levels are calculated annually)
Gross cost of public facilities -Staff calculates the gross cost of public facilities.
The gross cost is used because a credit (described in (d) below) for anticipated
future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against the gross cost.
For example, to calculate the gross cost of park facilities, multiply the average
persons per dwelling unit by the cost per acre of park land plus improvement cost
per acre of park land times the acres per capita.
d. Credits -Staff calculates a credit to apply against the gross cost for each public
facility. Chesterfield has issued and plans to continue to issue general obligation
bonds to finance the construction of public facilities. Residents of new
developments will pay real estate taxes to the County and a portion of these taxes
will go to help retire this debt. So that new dwelling units are not paying twice
(once through payment of a cash proffer and again through real estate taxes) a
credit is computed.
e. Net cost -Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash
proffer. This is the gross cost [(B)(1)(c)] per public facility minus the applicable
credit [(B)(1)(d)] per public facility.
2. There must be a relationship between the rezoning itself and the need for a public
facility. In order to ensure that money proffered by an applicant is used to fund the
public facilities necessitated by the development, geographic service areas or districts
are established across the County.
Since parks, libraries, and fire stations serve the entire County, the geographic
service districts for these facilities are determined to be countywide. Rezoning
3
FY2012 6/15/2011
requests can be analyzed on a countywide basis to determine their impact on these
facilities and proffers maybe spent to fund these facilities countywide.
b. Rezoning requests can be analyzed on a countywide basis to determine their
impact on schools. In order to ensure that money proffered by an applicant is
used to fund the public facilities necessitated by the development, the county is
divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the attendance
zones of grouped high schools. District one corresponds to the combined
attendance zones for James River, Midlothian and Monacan High Schools,
District two corresponds to the combined attendance zones for Clover Hill,
Cosby, Manchester and Matoaca High Schools and District three corresponds to
the combined attendance zones for Meadowbrook, Bird and Thomas Dale High
Schools. Funds collected from a development within a District will be spent on
school improvements within that District or for any school improvement that
provides relief for the District the development is in.
c. With respect to roads, rezoning requests are analyzed based on two geographic
service districts, one north of Route 360 and one south of Route 360, to determine
costs and impact. These service districts are used to calculate a road cost per
dwelling unit. The Transportation Department has identified 19 traffic sheds
across the County and money collected from a development within a particular
shed will be spent on road improvements within that shed or on roads that provide
relief to that shed.
3. The Board may prefer that a rezoning applicant mitigate the development's
calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating property or doing in-kind
improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. For property
designated for dedication (excluding roads) staff will follow the County's
procedure for "Acquisition of Private Property for Public Use". The value of
donated land generally will be based on the current assessed value of the property,
not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The value of
improvements shall be the estimated cost as determined by the County and
calculated as if constructed by a governmental entity. If the dedication or in-kind
improvement does not fully mitigate the development's calculated impact on
public facilities, then the dedication and/or improvement's value may be applied
as a credit against the development's calculated impact on the applicable public
facility. The credit cannot exceed the development's calculated impact on the
applicable public facility. If the value of the dedication or improvement is more
than the calculated impact for the applicable public facility, the County may pay
the difference. Credit for roads may be allowed for off-site land dedication or
improvements, as recommended by the Transportation Department.
4
Below please find the projected enrollment for the three schools relative in Case 12SN0134 (Ironbridge
Corner) based on Planning's Development Potential Database.
First, this database captures the number of planned (tentatively approved) lots. The database is updated
quarterly with the last update being in 12/2011. Planning uses the planned lots because the total of
planned lots is a more realistic number for projections. As you know, zoned properties may or may not be
developed. I understand this database is made available for schools. Existing/recorded lots are counted
in the current enrollment.
Ecoff Elementa
Existing Conditions: Capacity - 838; Enrollment - 763 (per Schools in staff report)
Number of planned lots within attendance boundary: 808
Number of proposed lots in this case: 100
Total Potential Additional Lots: 908
Total Potential Additional Students: 908 X 0.21 = 190
Total Potential Enrollment: Current 763 + Potential 190 = 953 students (over capacity)
Salem Middle
Existing Conditions: Capacity -1,112; Enrollment - 826 (per Schools in staff report)
Number of planned lots within attendance boundary: 705
Number of proposed lots in this case: 100
Total Potential Additional Lots: 805
Total Potential Additional Students: 805 X 0.12 = 97
Total Potential Enrollment: Current 826 + Potential 97 = 923 students (under capacity)
Bird High
Existing Conditions: Capacity -1,947; Enrollment -1,803 (per Schools in staff report)
Number of planned lots within attendance boundary: 1,673
Number of proposed lots in this case: 100
Total Potential Additional Lots: 1,773
Total Potential Additional Students: 1,773 X 0.16 = 284
Total Potential Enrollment: Current 1,803 + Potential 284 = 2,087 students (over capacity)
CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr
~~~~~°°y
~,~
F" -- ~`~,
5~~,,~~
ha~~~
February 22, 2012 BS
ADDENDUM
12SN0134
Ironbridge Corner LC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Northeast corner of Ironbridge Parkway and Iron Bridge Road
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Middle and Bird High Schools Attendance Zones
RE UEST: Amendment of conditional use (Case 07SN0375) relative to age restriction in a
Community Business (C-3 District). Specifically, the applicant proposes to delete
Proffered Condition 5 which limits occupancy to older persons.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Multi-family residential and commercial uses are planned.
On February 22, 2012, the applicant's representative submitted two (2) proffered conditions.
Specifically, Proffered Condition 1 would limit the number of dwelling units permitted with
more than two (2) bedrooms to a maximum of fifteen (15) units and would not permit dwelling
units with more than three (3) bedrooms. Proffered Condition 2 offers a cash payment equal to
the FY2012 Schools portion of the cash proffer for dwelling units initially constructed with more
than two (2) bedrooms or for a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units (Proffered Condition 1
caps the maximum of permitted units with more than two (2) bedrooms). Budget continues to
recommend that the applicant fully address the impact of all units on capital facilities. Budget's
comments were revised in lieu of these recent proffers and are provided below.
In addition, Schools submitted revised comments which are provided below. The revised
comments update the number of elementary and middle school students that would be generated
by this request and clarify the trailers at Salem Middle School.
Budget
The applicant is requesting the age restriction proffer be eliminated and has offered
limited measures to address the impact of this development on capital facilities in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy.
There continue to be the following differences between the maximum cash proffer as
outlined in the Board of Supervisors' policy and the applicant's proposal.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
• Impact on capital facilities for 80 units. The Policy allows the County to assess the
impact of all dwelling units in previously approved zoning cases that come back
before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors using the calculated
capital facility costs in effect at the time the case is reconsidered. In this case, cash
proffers at the current maximum of $18,966 for all 100 proposed dwelling units
would adequately address impact on capital facilities. The applicant continues to offer
cash proffers for roads, parks, libraries and fire stations for units in excess of 80 (or
20 units).
• Impact on capital facilities with FY2012 maximum cash proffer amount. As
stated above, the Policy allows the County to assess the impact of all dwelling units in
previously approved zoning cases that come back before the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors using the calculated capital facility costs in effect at the
time the case is reconsidered. The current maximum cash proffer for one dwelling
unit is $18,966; the applicant has offered $10,269 escalated by Marshall and Swift
Building Cost Index to $12,320. The $12,320 excludes the Schools portion of the
cash proffer; the FY2007 cash proffer maximum escalated by Marshall and Swift is
$18,716.
• Impact on Schools. Because the applicant is requesting the age restriction condition
be eliminated, it is appropriate to accept the maximum amount on all dwelling units,
including the Schools portion of the cash proffer. The applicant has not offered a
Schools cash proffer on units with two or fewer bedrooms. For the remaining units,
the applicant has offered to pay the FY2012 Schools portion of the cash proffer
($5897). The current Policy states that each dwelling unit creates a certain impact on
capital facilities and does not distinguish between units based on, for example, the
number of bedrooms or age restriction. To adequately address the development's
impact on Schools, it would be appropriate to accept a cash proffer of $5897 on all
100 units.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been
reviewed, and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash
proffer in this case. The case as proffered would provide $334,855; the case under the
current Policy would provide $1,896,600. Staff recommends the applicant fully address
the impact of all units on capital facilities.
'The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors through their consideration of
this request may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request
that may justify approval of this case without adjusting the cash payment proffered with
Case 07SN0375.
2 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-ADD
.+
Schools:
Based on the cash proffer methodology, approximately 49 (Elementary: 21, Middle: 12,
High: 16 new students will be generated by this development. Currently, this site lies in the
Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 838, enrollment - 763; Salem Middle
School zone: capacity - 1,112, enrollment - 826; and Bird High School zone: capacity -
1,947, enrollment = 1,803. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2011 and the capacity
is as of 2011-2012.
There are currently (2) trailers at Ecoff Elementary, (5) trailers at Bird High and (14) trailers
at Salem Middle. Most of the trailers at Salem Middle are being used to accommodate the
current renovation.
However, it is possible that over time this case combined with other tentative residential
developments, infill developments and zoning cases in the area, will continue to push these
schools to their capacity. The previous case was for age restricted housing, however this was
changed. Therefore, the 100 units are subject to full cash proffers, to mitigate the impact that
this case will have on schools.
NOTE: SINCE THE REVISED PROFFERS WAS SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
ADVERTISEMENT OF THE CASE, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO
SUSPEND THEIR PROCEDURES TO CONSIDER THIS REVISED PROFFERED
CONDITIONS.
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. A maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling units shall be permitted to contain more than
two (2) bedrooms. No dwelling units shall have more than three (3) bedrooms.
Unit types shall be designated on building permits. (BI)
2. For all dwelling units initially constructed with more than two (2) bedrooms, the
applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County of
Chesterfield, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for school improvements
within the service district for the property; provided however that for the period
from June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 the applicant, sub-divider, or assignee(s) shall
pay the following to the County of Chesterfield, immediately after completion of
the final inspection:
a. $5,897.00 per dwelling unit, if paid prior to July 1, 2012; or
b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed
$5,897.00 per dwelling unit adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between July 1, 2011 and July 1
of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 2011.
(B)
3 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-r~DD
CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr
i`~T-v`P2i~2r~~, 2z~c
February 22, 2012 BS
BS Time Remaining: STAFF'S
365 days REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
12SN0134
Ironbridge Corner LC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Northeast corner of Ironbridge Parkway and Iron Bridge Road
Ecoff Elementary, Salem Middle and Bird High Schools Attendance Zones
REQUEST: Amendment of conditional use (Case 07SN0375) relative to age restriction in a
Community Business (C-3 District). Specifically, the applicant proposes to delete
Proffered Condition 5 which limits occupancy to older persons.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Multi-family residential and commercial uses are planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reason:
The proffered conditions do not adequately address the proposed development's impacts
on capital facilities. Consequently, the County's ability to provide adequate facilities to
its citizens will be adversely impacted.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS.)
CONDITION
With the approval of this request, Proffered Condition 5 of Case 07SN0375 shall be deleted.
All other conditions of Case 07SN0375 shall remain in force and effect.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Ironbridge
Parkway and Iron Bridge Road. Tax ID 774-656-6268.
Existing Zoning:
C-3
Size:
19.8 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant/wooded
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - C-2 with CUPD; Commercial or vacant
South - C-2 with CUPD; Commercial, public/semi-public, multi-family residential or vacant
East - R-TH; Vacant
West - C-3, R-7 and I-2; Commercial or office
UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for schools, parks, libraries, fire stations, and transportation facilities in this area is
identified in the County's adopted Public Facilities Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and Capital
Improvement Program and further detailed by specific departments in the applicable sections of
this request analysis.
Fire Service:
The 2004 Public Facilities Plan indicates that fire and emergency medical service (EMS)
calls are expected to increase forty-four (44) to seventy-eight (78) percent by 2022. Six
(6) new fire/rescue stations are recommended for construction by 2022 in the Plan. In
addition to the six (6) new stations, the Plan also recommends the expansion of five (5)
existing stations. Based on 100 dwelling units, this request will generate approximately
twenty-eight (28) calls for Fire and EMS each year. The applicant has not fully addressed
the impacts of this development on Fire and EMS.
12SN0134-FEB22-B OS-RPT
The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and
emergency medical service. When the property is developed, the number of hydrants,
quantity of water needed for fire protection, and access requirements will be evaluated
during the plans review process.
Schools:
Based on the cash proffer methodology, approximately 49 (Elementary: 22, Middle: 11,
High: 16) new students will be generated by this development. Currently, this site lies in
the Ecoff Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 838, enrollment - 763; Salem
Middle School zone: capacity - 1,112, enrollment - 826; and Bird High School zone:
capacity - 1,947, enrollment = 1,803. The enrollment is based on September 30, 2011
and the capacity is as of 2011-2012.
This request will have an impact on all schools involved. There are currently two (2)
trailers at Ecoff Elementary, fourteen (14) at Salem Middle and five (5) trailers at Bird
High. This case combined with other tentative residential developments and zoning cases
in the area, will continue to push these schools over capacity. The previous case was for
age restricted housing, however this was changed. Therefore, the 100 units are subject to
full cash proffers, to mitigate the impact that this case will have on schools.
Libraries:
Consistent with Board of Supervisors' policy, the impact of development on library
services is assessed county-wide. Based on projected population growth, the Chesterfield
County Public Facilities Plan (2004) identifies a need for additional library space
throughout the County. The development noted in this case would most likely affect the
Chester Library or the Central Library. The 2004 Public Facilities Plan identifies a need
for additional library space in the Chester area. The applicant has failed to fully address
the impacts of this request on library facilities.
Parks and Recreation:
The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for three (3) new regional parks, seven (7)
community parks, twenty-nine (29) neighborhood parks and five (5) community centers
by 2020. In addition, the Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for ten (10) new or
expanded special purpose parks to provide water access or preserve and interpret unique
recreational, cultural or environmental resources. The Plan identifies shortfalls in trails
and recreational historic sites. The applicant has not offered measures to fully address the
impacts of this proposed development on the infrastructure needs of Parks and
Recreation.
County Department of Transportation:
Area roads need to be improved to address safety and accommodate the traffic increase
generated by this residential development. The applicant's request for this residential
3 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
development is not consistent with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy. As
development continues in this part of the County, traffic volumes on area roads will
substantially increase. Cash proffers alone will not cover the costs of the improvements
needed to accommodate the traffic increases. Without the applicant addressing the traffic
impact of the residential development, the Transportation Department cannot support this
request.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT~:
VDOT has no comment on this immediate request. VDOT does note that the requisite
commercial entrances to be proposed for access to the site will be subject to the appropriate
access management regulation and will be so reviewed at time of site plan submittal.
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential Number of New Dwelling Units
100 1.00
Population Increase
262.00 2.62
Number of New Students
Elementary
21.00 0.21
Middle
12.00 0.12
High
16.00 0.16
TOTAL
49.00 0.49
Net Cost for Schools
$ 888,200 $ 8,882
Net Cost for Parks
$ 116,400 $ 1,164
Net Cost for Libraries
$ 34,100 $ 341
Net Cost for Fire Stations
$ 68,600 $ 686
Average Net Cost for Roads
$ 1,749,400 $ 17,494
TOTAL NET COST
$ 2,856,700 $ 28,567
* Based on a proffered maximum of 100 dwelling units (Proffered Condition 7 of Case
07SN0375). The actual number of dwelling units and corresponding impacts may vary.
As noted, this proposed development will have an impact on capital facilities. Staff has
calculated the fiscal impact of every new dwelling unit on schools, parks, libraries, fire
stations and roads as $28,567 per unit. The applicant has been advised that a maximum
4 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
proffer of $18,966 per unit would defray the cost of the capital facilities necessitated by
this proposed development.
Since previous zoning on the subject property permitted eighty (80) dwelling units and
the maximum number of dwellings units proposed in Case 07SN0375 was 100 dwelling
units, Proffered Condition 6 of Case 07SN0375 offered a cash proffer payment for only
the additional twenty (20) dwelling units proposed with that case. In addition, since
Proffered Condition 5 of Case 07SN0375 limited occupancy of the dwelling units to
housing for older persons, the proffered cash payment was reduced by excluding the
school portion of the maximum cash proffer amount allowed by the Board of
Supervisors' Policy (Proffered Condition 6 of Case 07SN0375). The Board of
Supervisors approved Case 07SN0375 and accepted the cash proffer at the reduced rate
which is equivalent to paying $2,054 per dwelling unit on each of the 100 units.
The applicant is requesting the age restriction proffer be eliminated but has not offered
measures to fully address the impact of this development on capital facilities in
accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Cash Proffer Policy. The Policy allows the
County to assess the impact of all dwelling units in previously approved zoning cases that
come back before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors using the
calculated capital facility costs in effect at the time the case is reconsidered. Because the
applicant is requesting the age restriction condition be eliminated, it is appropriate to
accept the maximum amount on all dwelling units. Proffered Condition 6 of Case
07SN0375 which would remain in force for this development if this request is approved
does not adequately address the proposed development's impact on capital facilities.
Consequently, the County's ability to provide adequate facilities to its citizens will be
adversely impacted.
Note that circumstances relevant to this case, as presented by the applicant, have been
reviewed, and it has been determined that it is appropriate to accept the maximum cash
proffer in this case. Staff recommends the applicant fully address the impact of all units
on capital facilities.
The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors through their consideration of
this request may determine that there are unique circumstances relative to this request
that may justify approval of this case without adjusting the cash payment proffered with
Case 07SN0375.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan, which
suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use.
5 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
Draft Comprehensive Plan:
The Revised Draft Comprehensive Plan (as recommended by the Chesterfield County
Planning Commission on November 15, 2011) designates the subject property as a
Community Corridor Area. This proposed land use designation encourages single use or
integrated mix of residential, office, public, open space and commercial uses. It should be
noted that the revised draft plan is pending review by the Board of Supervisors, has not
been approved, and does not provide land use guidance for the subject property at this
time. The recommendations of the revised draft plan are provided for informational
purposes only.
Area Development Trends:
Surrounding properties to the north, south and west are zoned commercially and are
occupied by commercial and office uses or are vacant. Property to the east is zoned
Residential Townhouse (R-TH) and is currently vacant. Community-scale commercial and
office use with integrated higher density residential use may continue in the area as
suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
In 1979 the Board of Supervisors, granted zoning for the Ironbridge mixed use
development (Case 78 S 105). A portion of the subject property was included in that
zoning. Subsequently, several other zonings and amendments occurred which included
portions of the subject property which permitted commercial and office uses, and up to
eighty (80) dwelling units limited as "housing for older persons."
On October 24, 2007 the Board of Supervisors upon a favorable recommendation from
the Planning Commission, approved rezoning of the request property from Neighborhood
Business (C-2) to Community Business (C-3) with conditional use approval to permit
multi-family residential uses plus conditional use planned development approval to
permit multi-family residential uses and exceptions to Ordinance requirements (Case
07SN0375). Conditions of approval addressed road improvements, utilities, impacts on
capital facilities, limited density to a maximum of 100 dwelling units and restricted
occupancy of dwellings to "housing for older persons."
Current Proposal:
The subject property may be developed for a maximum of 100 multi-family dwelling
units on the eastern portion of request property (Case 07SN0375, Proffered Condition 7).
Occupancy of these proposed dwelling units is limited to housing for older persons as
defined by the Virginia Fair Housing Law (Case 07SN0375, Proffered Condition 5). The
applicant proposes to delete Proffered Condition 5 of Case 07SN0375 to eliminate the
occupancy limitation.
6 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
CONCLUSION
The applicant has not offered measures to adequately address the impacts of this development on
necessary capital facilities as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Specifically, the needs for roads, schools, parks, libraries and fire stations are identified in the
Public Facilities Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Capital Improvement Program, and the
impact of this development is discussed herein. No conditions have been offered in this case to
mitigate the impact on capital facilities in accordance with the Board of Supervisors' Policy,
thereby insuring adequate service levels are maintained and protecting the health, safety and
welfare of County citizens.
Given the foregoing, staff recommends denial of this request.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (ll/15/ll):
On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their January 17, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (11/16/11):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than November 21, 2011 for consideration at the
Commission's January 17, 2012 public hearing.
Staff (12/15/11):
To date, no new or revised information has been received.
Staff (1/12/12):
On January 12, 2012 schools submitted revised comments for this case. Specifically, schools
comments were modified to provide updated enrollment and capacity numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/17/12):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
7 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
In response to questions from the Commission, School's staff clarified that reported
school capacity is functional capacity; that the cumulative impact reported considers
other zoned and planned developments in a school district; and, that functional capacity
reported for Salem Middle School includes the current renovation.
The applicant's representative stated that the proposed amendment is minor and should
be reviewed on its own merit to determine impact on school facilities. She added that the
schools impacted by this request are not over capacity, and that the County should view a
case's impact based on building capacity (not functional capacity) since functional
capacity changes based on school programs.
The Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful if the "Staffs Request Analysis"
included data to clarify cumulative impacts of developments within a given area on
schools; that it would be beneficial if the Cash Proffer Policy included definitions of
minor and major revisions; that they would like schools to clarify the difference between
building and functional capacities; and, that using countywide averages to determine
capital facility impacts make modifications to approved cases, as with this case, more
complicated. The Commissioners stated that they believed this request is a major
modification to the original request, not minor. Mr. Patton and Dr. Brown stated they
may have supported the case if the full cash proffer had been offered on the twenty (20)
units approved in 2007.
On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended denial
of this request. Their motion included a request that staff inform the Board Of
Supervisors that the Commission would like to review the Cash Proffer Policy in its
entirety and make recommendations to the Board for Policy updates and revisions.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
8 12SN0134-FEB22-BOS-RPT
/ ~ ~ \
N ~ '` l
/'~ V
N
\/~'
I
I~
' ~ Y
~ ~~ ~
' ` o
m
`~ ~,
l ~
la
~ z~ _ .
1 i
w
N~
~ ~W U ~
~
W ~
" oa
¢¢ 1
, ~~
:::::::::::a: 2 ~'
~
~ I ~
U ::::::::::::::: ~r q~::::::::~"
::::::r :::::::~ `
1
~ ~, ~
~ ~ U ~
:::::
:: ~ +
~
::: ::
-~~~
- 1
Q ~
~w~ U
~, ~ ~ 11 Q~ aZl 3 aR~B N 1211 w
i~ 1 11 ~ 1
" U z Q~cn
J
1
1 11 1 ~
11 1 ~ ~ 1
" 1 ~ ~ ~
o ~
~1 11 ~ Q ~ " °
~ °1 ~ ~
~
Q
U ~
`o a
" " N ~
U
o
°
~ «~ Z
~ W °
~
Q o
Za
Q
N a °
~