Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-02 adjNovember 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 1 000232 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 22, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman and Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and, Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2a. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission: Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvements Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7 and November 14, 1994.) PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Blue, Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Mrs. Katherine L. Imhoff, Mr. Thomas H. Jenkins and Mr. William J. Nitchmann. ABSENT: Mr. A. Bruce Dotson and Mrs. Monica G. Vaughan. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, made a slide presentation and said the five-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) of approximately $61.5 million breaks down into approximately $13.6 million for General Govern- ment projects and approximately $48 million for School Division projects. The breakdown of total projects is 78 percent for School Division projects, four percent for public safety, six percent for transportation, one percent for libraries, four percent for parks and recreation, two percent for utilities, two percent for capital/debt reserve and three percent for administrative projects. The breakdown of revenues for General Government projects is calculated at approximately $16.1 million for the five-year period, the biggest part of which is a General Fund transfer of $12.6 million (78 per- cent). The mandated/committed projects over the next five years account for approximately $2.0 million and are projects that are either Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) related or projects that have begun and to which the County is committed. The total maintenance/replacement projects is approxi- mately $3.3 million over the five-year period of which $2.6 million is a transfer to school maintenance projects. Administration and courts projects total approximately $2.1 million. The total public safety projects is approximately $2.1 million. Highway and Transportation projects total approximately $3.6 million. Library projects total $519,447, including repair and maintenance projects over the five-year period. The only education project which is considered a general government project is $62,335 to build the PVCC Social Sciences building which is a mandated project. Parks and Recreation projects total approximately $2.4 million, the biggest part of which is $635,000 for Northern Park improvements to expand a park to the northern part of the County. Another large project is the Rivanna Greenway Access and Path which accounts for $350,000; $250,000 in state funds to build a boat access to the Reservoir. Utility Improvement projects total $1.3 million which include the County's Master Drainage Plan ($300,000), Keene Landfill Closure ($750,000) and Stormwater Projects ($250,000) with a $50,000 contribution each year to fund stormwater projects as necessary. Ms. White said there were several changes made to project requests. Not recommended for funding were the police satellite facility, Route 29 under- ground utilities, landscaping, Crozet Library and a new library--plans and site. Recommended for reduced funding were a fire pumper replacement, Library-circulation desk and Gordon Avenue parking lot. Increased funding was recommended for Crozet Park. There were also some projects moved to other years. This was done because there was a build-up of projects in the first two to three years. The School Division projects are broken up by new school buildings (49 percent), renovations/additions (25 percent), maintenance/repair (14 percent), school technology (eight percent), ADA improvements (two percent) and miscellaneous (two percent). The total of Education projects (schools) is approximately $47.9 million over the five-year period. At 7:11 p.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Carter, a resident of Earlysville, said the presentation does not add any information beyond what citizens received and which he could read for himself. He is concerned that the Commission and Board asked for input, but provided little public knowledge as to what the CIP is about. He does not think one person can answer the simplest question as to what things in the CIP mean. It appears that the rules are being changed and the County is going to firm up the five-year plan. The five-year plan is an odd thing because every year there is another five-year plan which means that there is a long wish list, items are added and the Board takes virtually the first year and funds those items. If this Board is faced with the problem of firming up the five- year plan, then the public had better be aware of items that are coming in the future and what effect those items will have on the flexibility of the budget and CIP in the future. Last year this Board had a figure of $18.6 million for November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 2 a new high school and now it exceeds $23.0 million. The citizens are not told what happened to increase the cost Of this new high school by $5.0 million in one year and if it increased $5.0 million in one year, he wonders how much it will increase over a two- or three-year period. In his estimate, the new high school will cost a lot more than $23.0 million by the time it is constructed. Mr. Carter said another expenditure that the County has been indulging in for a number of years is highway revenue sharing. As he understands it, this is $500,000 the County sets aside every year to induce the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) to build something sooner than it otherwise would. He submits that if this Board wants to save $2.5 million in the five-year plan, it stop playing "footsy" with VDoT because they will build these roads anyway. Mr. Carter said he is concerned that the general public does not know what'is going on and he is going to tell them. He is going to analyze the CIP and the budget. He is also going to analyze the 2.5 percent salary increase and this Board better be prepared to justify it with figures. This CIP calls foradditional expenditures in the next budget. Somewhere along the line the taxpayer needs to be thought of. No matter what happens, the money gets spent. · · ~ Ms. Becky Fisher, an employee and citizen of Albemarle County, said she is currently working as the Elementary Instruction Technology Specialist. She is present to speak about instructional technology and some of the School Division initiatives in the CIP. She works with teachers in 16 different schools and this is the first year that many of the teachers have had this kind of support. She spends her time going to various elementary schools and helps teachers integrate tec~lology into their classrooms. There are a variety of different technologies and there are students who are on the brink of not just the information age, but the communications age. The County has to look at what these students will see when they get into the workforce. She works with teachers to develop their own technology literacy which includes downloading and uploading information from the internet. The excitement of teachers and students using technology is unbelievable. There are three instruction technology specialists this year that were not with the County last year. These three specialists have logged over 300 consultations with teachers in the first two months of school. Teachers can and do use technolo- gy to increase their own professional productivity. She has worked with teachers who have gained access to Virginia PEN (Virginia's free publication network) for the purposes of free staff development. She thinks this is a good investment in the workforce of the schools. Students are doing presenta- tions by taking information and making their own multi-media presentations. If schools are to continue on the pace that has been set in the first two months of thisschool year, they need more technology initiatives. She urges the Board to fund the instructional technology initiatives, knowing that it is funding the future. Mr. David An hold, representing the Crozet Park Board, asked everyone in attendance who supports the Park's proposed improvements for the pool to stand (approximately 20). A presentation was made before the Board of Supervisors last Wednesday and there were discussions about the project. This project is about replacing the Crozet Park pool. The Park Board has been operating the Crozet Park for the last 40 years, providing a wonderful recreation amenity to the County. The pool is wonderful for families and children and has a strong swim team and gives swim lessons. The pool is also used for numerous school and County functions. It is important to recognize that the Crozet Park Board operates the only public pool in Albemarle County where anyone can pay a fee and use the facility. The pool has reached a point where it is dangerous and is facing increased repair costs. There are a number of scenarios where the money could be raised to replace the pool and a budget was outlined in a book prepared and distributed to the Board of Supervisors. It will cost approxi- mately $300,000 to fund this project. There is currently $100,000 in the Park Board's pool replacement fund and other possibilities have been pursued for the Park Board to raise the remainder of the money from bank loans, fundrai- sers and recreation money from state and federal agencies. This park is not public land, although the Park Board does have an agreement with the County and since it is not public land, it is virtually impossible to get federal or state grants or shared funding. He asked for the Board's continued support through an increased allotment in the CIP or a low or no interest loan for the extra $100,000. He also requested that the County explore obtaining matching grants with the Park Board. Ms~ Susan Thomas, representing the Trees for. Route 29 Campaign, said the campaign is primarily envisioned as a private project to restore some of the vegetative features everyone hated to lose and misses on Route 29 North. She and Henry Weinschenk are on the Advisory Committee, composed of members from the County's Planning Department, VA Power, VDoT and a number of area busi- nesses. The goal is to raise the money to replant the median after the work is done and try to humanize Route 29. Although the organization intends to do its part in soliciting from the private sector, it would be an enormous help and show support to have some money from the County. There was a budget item of $18,500 which has been placed in the unfunded category. She urged the Board to restore this request. This is a unified project and enjoys a lot of community support because everyonecomplains about Route 29. She brought two renderings which were commissioned from a local landscape designer of the median replanted with a boulevard effect and what could ultimately be done with the periphery of Route 29. Although this is a long haul and there is a November 22, lS94 (Adjourned ~ge~i~) page3 lot of work to be done, the organization and community feels it is something worth doing. Over the last six months, the campaign members have spent their time talking about tree typeS, maintenance questions, design Parameters, worked with Marcia Joseph, Design Planner in the County's Zoning Department, Angela Tucker, Assistant Resident Engineer with VDoT, and Bill Watson with VDoT's Highway Landscaping Program. The members feel they now know enough to make accurate budget estimates and can go to the private sector with assurance and give the costs. The members are trying to include in the overall budget sufficient money to take care of trees that are planted so the moneys raised will not be wasted. She urged the Board to fund this request. Miss Sarah Sprouse, spoke in support of funding for the Crozet pool. She would like the Board to help fund the rebuilding of the Claudius Crozet Park pool. As a resident of Crozet, she has used the pool for over six years. She has participated on the Crozet Gators Swim Team and feels it has been a good experience~ Throughout the past six years, she and the swim team have learned the importance of leadership, sportsmanship and discipline. The pool has provided a recreational place for children everywhere in the Western Albemarle area. She hopes the Board will give funding for the Crozet pool its deepest consideration ' , Ms, Kiersen Hansen said the people of Crozet need a new pool. Crozet pool is the only thing children of the community have to do in the summer. She asked that the Board help fund a new pool for Crozet. Mr. Ken Clary, a resident of Albemarle County, spoke as a parent of three children in County schools. He is a member of the school improvement team at Stony Point Elementary School and is speaking on behalf of f ~unding for technology in schools. He believes all students will need a thorough knowl- edge of computers as they go into careers. He supports and suggests that the County change the way it looks at the basics of education. If the County is to prepare its children for success in a competitive world, it should teach and emphasize reading, writing, arithmetic and computers. He suggests that computers be added as a fourth basic subject because from retailing to manufacturing, education to science, research to medicine, every profession is demanding a mastery of technology in computers. He asked the Board to support technology in the schools and specifically the projects in the current CIP. Ms. Ann Messina said she is present to address the CIP regarding her area in southern Albemarle County. She would like to see the County remain on its current 1996 schedule for the Red Hill outdoor recreational facilities and the Walnut Creek projects (picnic Shelter and playground). These improvements are at least two decades overdue. The community is large and growing and serves areas as far south as Yancey, Schuyler, Faber, Covesville, east to Batesville and west to Route 20. Homes are full of children attending public, private and home schooling environments andthere are many day care centers in homes without adequate recreation facilities. The community has tried, over the past 15 years, to accommodate these needs. The Ruritans have built playground facilities at the school which are now broken and need to be replaced. The PTO totally funded a new small unit that it could afford with its limited resources and the County has helped install it. There are three soccer teams practicing at Red Hill School where there is an inadequate goal with no net. This makes practice unbearable and when a goal is made someone has to run after the ball. The Ruritans hosted a soccer tournament last spring where they had to import nets from around the County for this event. The baseball field is used weekly by families and seasonally by the tee-ball leagues, but it is unmarked. The community has tried to keep up with the need in a piece- meal approach and she feels it is time the County take some responsibility and keep to its 1996 date in providing these services for this area of the County. There being no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed. Mrs. Huckle asked the Planning Commission members if they were ready to take action or would like to have another work.session. Mrs. Imhoff said she thinks the comments heard were so good that it makes it difficult to make a snap judgment and she, personally, would like a chance to review the CIP and address some of the requests mentioned. She thought the presentations were civil and helpful and she feels it would be a Shame not to be able to digest all of the information. Mr. Nitchmann said he was a member of the CIP committee and he thinks it is worthwhile for Planning Commission members to review the CIP after receiv- ing input from the public. ..~ : Mr. Jenkins said he feels it is only right to give as much weight as possible to what the public has said. To try and get a five-year program that is more organized is an improvement in the budgeting process and,.he hopes this does not mean things not mentioned have to wait five years to get on the list. From his experience, he feels project which have merit have been recognized and he thinks that process will remain in place. Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. White to address, for public clarification, that the committee worked to make sure the budget could be balanced within funds available Projects were shifted around in priority order because there is only so much money available. One thing the committee did was to recommend a debt ceiling for the County (i.e., how much can the County afford to grow?). The committee then looked at the debt structure and how it can be lowered. He would like Ms. White to address this in more detail. November 22, 1994 (Adjourned ~e~) Page 4 Ms. White said the emphasis has been to fund, based on some of the financial policies adopted by the Board in October, as many projects as possible with General Fund revenues, and then borrow the rest of the funds. A debt policy was set containing several factors and the committee managed to stay under that limit. One of the difficulties over the past five years has been increasing the County's debt service (it has increased from $2.0 million per year to $7,0 million per year) to its current level. She thinks it will be easier to maintain this level, but the way the budget is proposed it will entail an increase in debt service each year. It is always difficult to plan a five-year period because everyone wants to have their project in the first two years of the Plan, but the revenues are not in thOse first two years. This is one reason why additional money was set aside in the Debt Service Capital Reserve. It is anticipated that there will be additional costs incurred with construction of the new high school. There are a lot of "ifs" which the committee recognizes are in the last two years of the Plan. That is the reason additional doll'ars have been set aside to address those type of projects. The Technical Committee made a decision that there were some projects that had to be moved out of the first two years in order to match anticipated revenues~ It is left to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to change the priorities of some of those projects. There are fairly limited revenues in the first two years' Mr. Blue asked if the Committee had advocates from the public speak during the time the CIP was done or is this the first public input session held. Ms. White said this is the first input received from the public. The Committee basically did the CIP on a priority system. Mr. Blue said in light of this, he feels the Planning Commission should have another work session and discuss the CIP. He is not suggesting that what the Committee did is not well-done, but if this is the first time the public has had input, that input should be considered. Ms. White said a part of the Committee's decisions was based on the fact that there are a lot of mandated and committed projects that have to be .' addressed in the first two years with limited funds. Projects that were moved were projects that need to be done, but not during in the first two years. Mr. Nitchmann said the percentages were of particular interest to him, because if you look at FY 1995-96, just funding the mandated projects, projects that were already in process and need to be finished, and then projects that were safety, security and health issues, what was left was sorted out the best possible way~ It is a shame that some projects are at the bottom of the funded list and years in the future, but there are limited funds to work with. The Committee tried to balance the budget with what it had available, current tax assessments and the funding that will be received from matching funds, etc. He thinks staff has done a good job of allocating the money, considering all of the restrictions and parameters. There are a lot of things that are out of the County's hands when it comes to mandated projects. Ms. White said one idea put forward was to move decisions on the capital budget in conjunction with the operating budget because they go hand-in-hand and have to be looked at together. There may be decisions that can be made about the actual next year~s budget as the Board moves forward with the operating budget. The Board may choose to switch monies from the operating budget to the capital budget, that is certainly an available option. Mr. Perkins asked when the Board's work session will be held on the CIP. Ms. White said December 7, 1994, is the Board's work session and December 14, 1994, is the public hearing. Mr. Perkins said the Board would like to have the Planning Commission's recommendation by December 7, 1994. Mrs. Thomas asked if the CIP will be available for people in the communi- ty (i.e., libraries, etc.) ~ Ms. White said "yes," it is also available at the County Executives' office. Ms. Huckle said there seems to be a consensus of the Planning Commission that another work session be held on the CIP before any action is taken. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission has two meetings before the Board is to hold its work session on the CIP. He suggested that the Commis- sion hold its work session and forward a recommendation to the Board on December 6, 1994. Mr. Nitchmann said $47.0 million of this budget is school money. Those people who are interested in the School Division part of this budget need to talk closely with the members of the School Board, as well as the members of the Board of Supervisors. He does not have a lot of expertise on what is going on in the schools as far as where the funding goes or where the money comes from. In order for the Commission to put priorities on where funds should be spent in regards to school issues, the Commission members would have to attend all of the School Board'S meetings to make proper decisions. Agenda Item No. 2b. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. Other November 22, 1994 (AdjoUrned M~eting) 000~6 Page 5 Agenda Item No 3. Recess and ReConvene in Room 5/6. At 7:50 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Rooms 5/6 at 7:54 p.m. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve items 4.1 and 4.2, and to accept items 4.3 through 4.5 for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall. Item 4.1~ Resolution in support of funding for Virginia Cooperative Extension. (A request was received from Ms. Betty J. Queen, Temporary Chair, Virginia Cooperative Extension Council, urging local government support of restoration of full funding for Virginia Cooperative Extension and the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station in the upcoming Executive Budget). The following resolution was adopted by the above recorded vote: WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension is a joint program of the Federal, State and local governments in cooperation with Virginia Tech, Virginia State University; and WHEREAS, Virginia Cooperative Extension contributes signifi- cantly to the quality of life and economic development of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the educational programs and services of Virginia Cooperative Extension are available to every resident of the Commonwealth without regard to socio-economic status, race, age, or any other consideration; and WHEREAS, a 1992 study conducted by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget cited Virginia Cooperative Extension as a major player in prevention and early intervention programs, these programs and services being delivered to residents via local agents and volunteers; and WHEREAS, since 1989, Virginia Cooperative Extension has lost sixty extension agents statewide, and since 1990, has suffered a twenty-two percent General Fund reduction; and WHEREAS, Virginia Tech's 1995 budget amendment request represents a restoration of funding to the levels necessary to allow existing programs to continue; if this funding is not restored, an additional forty-five extension positions will be lost with twenty-nine of those being in the Agriculture Experiment Station; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Advisory Commit- tee and newly created Virginia Cooperative Extension Council on October 28, 1994, endorses Virginia Tech's 1995 budget amendment request of $2.898 million with $1.5 million for Cooperative Extension and $1.398 million for the Experiment Station, and also requested that Virginia State University's General Fund support of Cooperative Extension be maintained at current levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby support the budget request endorsed by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Advisory Committee and the Virginia Cooperative Extension Council. Item 4.2. Resolution to take roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases 6, 7 and 8 into the State Secondary System of Highways, at the request of Mr. Scott A. Williams, Project Manager, Robert Hauser Homes. The following resolution was adopted by the above recorded vote: WHEREAS, the streets in Raintree Subdivisions, Phases 6, 7 and 8 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 22, 1994, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion to add the roads in Raintree Subdivisions, Phases 6, 7 and 8 as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 22, 1994, to the secondary system of state highways pursuant to November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 6 Section 33.1-229, Code of virginia, and the Department's Subdivi- sions Street Requirements; and Bg iT FURTHgR RESOLVED that the board guarantees a clear and tmrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: ~ i~ 1) Raintree DriVe from the edge of pavement of State Route 652 0.40 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 01-26-89 in Deed Book 1032, pages 482-487, with a'50 foot right-of-way, additional plats recorded 10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, pages 640-645, and on 05-14- 93 i'~ Deed B°0k' 1308, pages 11-18, total length 0.40 mile. ' 2) Brightfield Place from the edge of pavement of Raintree Drive 0.07 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, pages 640-645, with a forty foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mile. 3) Robin Hill Court from the edge of pavement of Raintree Drive 0.07 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10-25-89 in Deed Book 1072, page 640-645 with a forty foot right-of-way, total length 0.07 mile. TOtal mileage 0.50. Item 4.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 11 and October 25, 1994, received for information. Item 4.4. Letter dated November 15, 1994, from Mr. J. W. Wade, Superin- tendent, Shenandoah National Park, to Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, providing a status of Related Lands Project at Shenandoah National Park, was received for information. Item 4.5. Notice dated October 21, 1994, of an application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Tidewater Touring, Inc., for a certificate of public convenience and necessary as a special or charter party carrier by motor vehicle, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-94-26. Holiday Trails, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to locate monopole antennae of approx 180 ft and equipment shelter on 70.87 ac zoned RA and EC located at the end of Rt 702. TM75,Ps47C,47C1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7 and November 14, 1994.) Mr. Cilimber9 summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent recOrds of the Board. The applicant proposes to construct a cellular communication tower, a 336 square foot equipment building and a generator within a 3000 square foot lease area on the Camp Holiday Trails property. The proposed tower is 180 feet tall with several whip antennas near the top and a four-foot grid dish antenna at approximately 80 feet. This dish is located so as to clear the tree line to allow communication with other towers in the cellular system. Mr. Cilimberg said staff opinion is that this request has mixed impact on the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should not be of detriment to adjacent private properties nor change the character of the Rural Areas District. However, the request does require modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as the tower relates to the Route 1-64 right-of-way. Furthermore, the opinions of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) indicate an impact on the character of the Entrance Corridor Dis- trict. Relocation of the tower will result in a taller tower on less favor- able terrain. A tower of increased height may have equal or greater impact on the entrance corridor, although this alternative has not been presented to the ARB. If the tower is over 200 feet in height, lighting will be required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the larger tower could be more visible from adjacent properties. Staff opinion is that this proposal is acceptable in terms of provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as they relate to the Rural Areas District. However, without resolution of issues related to the Entrance Corridor District and support of the ARB, staff is unable to recommend approval. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this proposal, staff recommends modification of Section 4.10.3.1 by the Planning Commission as well as the following conditions of approval for the special use permit: November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 7 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet; 000238 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 o There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize 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; 5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided · ...... i -to property iines such that in the event of structural fail- ure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; and, 6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C (on file) Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meetin9 on October 25, 1994, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval subject to the six conditions recommended by staff, but changed #1 to read: "Tower height shall not exceed 180 feet". Mr. Cilimberg said since the Planning Commission held its meeting, a letter was provided by Mr. Gibson, on behalf of the applicant, indicating that while the preference was a 180 foot tower, there was a willingness to reduce the height to 150 feet with the whip antennae for an overall height of 165 feet, if 180 feet was not acceptable. At 8:00 p.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Gibson, representing Sprint Cellular, said the Board of Zoning Appeals has recommended approval as far as the normal setback requirements and has granted a variance for this setback. The use of cellular phones has increased tremendously. Sprint has experienced growth of more than 50 percent this year and anticipates a level of growth at approximately that rate for years to come. The reason for this application is that there are dead spots on Route 1-64 and the Route 250 Bypass. This tower would fill-in those dead spots. There are also some capacity problems because the current system is not adequate to handle the volume of telephone calls. Sprint did a study on a typical rush hour Friday afternoon and found there were 4000 blocked calls which means 4000 people were unable to place cellular telephone calls because of insufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic. This is not a problem that can be solved by putting additional equipment on an existin9 facility because of the limitations of voice cells per site, therefore, new facilities have to be constructed to correct this problem. Technology drives site selection and cellular facilities depend upon line-of-sight and are low power facilities. The radius through which they send their signals is limited. As far as site selection, the following criteria is considered: high points, points near roads, points near population centers, sites where landowner consent can be obtained, and sites to which there is access. The Moliday Trails site meets all of the criteria and is an ideal site to provide the coverage needed. The site is on a high point, there is landowner consent, the site is accessible and is not close to any residences. Mr. Gibson said another important factor is that Sprint will abandon the Bear Den Mountain site if this site is approved. The Bear Den site was approved a couple of years ago, but Sprint has incurred problems with obtain- ing access which would require cutting a road into the side of a rock moun- tain. If the Bear Den site is used, it would create damage to the environ- ment. The requested site is critical to Sprint's system. If there is a concern with the 180 foot tower, it can be reduced to 150 feet with some sacrifice in coverage. It is critical that this site be approved in order to provide the coverage needed. The tower will be located 225 feet from the edge of the pavement. Approximately 70 feet off of the property line right-of-way, the property slopes dramatically and if Sprint had to put the tower on the 1:1 setback, the height of the tower would have to be increased by seven feet for every 10 feet in decline. In order to maintain the same tower height at the top and meet the 1:1 setback, the tower would probably end up in the pond and be 380 feet tall. There were some comments at the Planning Commission meeting that bear repeating. One Planning Commission member stated that the Carter's Mountain Towers are a much worse intrusion on the Interstate 64 corridor than the proposed Sprint tower. Another member commented that the ARB did not consider the ecological damage at the Bear Den facility which will be aban- doned and the fact that there would be no ecological damage at the Holiday Trails site. Another comment was that the visual disturbance which would be caused by this tower is far less important to travelers than good cellular coverage. One Commission member had personal accounts of reporting accidents and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) situations using a cellular phone. There was also a comment that Route 1-64 was a noisy, smelly, truck roadway and necessary visual intrusions should be there. One Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) member commented that this site is a natural for this use. Mr. Gibson said the waiver issues for the 1:1 setback are virtually the same as the 00O239 November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 8 ........ variance issues for the front yard setback. VDoT has recognized the need for this facility and the safety concern and has expressed no objection to this facility being located within 225 feet of the edge of the pavement and 75 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. He thinks it is important to note that the Planning staff did not recommend denial, but, is not supporting the request due to the lack of ARB support. The ARB did not object to the setback variance request, but does object to visibility. The ARB did not state that it could not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for this facility. There has been no objection from any neighbor. Mr. Gibson said visibility has been an issue and Sprint has done its best to minimize visibility, but has found it virtually impossible to locate facilities in areas where they need to be located and not have visibility to a certain degree. He feels Sprint has been successful in minimizing the visual impacts to the greatest degree possible, considering the technical limitations it faces. The tower is proposed at the lowest height possible to achieve the intended coverage and has agreed to lower it to a 150 foot tower with some sacrifice in service, if this is a concern. The facility will not be lighted, therefore, will not be visible after dark. The best site possible has been selected and there will not be any tree cutting or clearing for a road. Initially, a monopole was proposed which would have been painted slate grey and designed to blend in with the background, but the ARB suggested that a self-support lattice would be a less visible solution or alternative. Sprint is flexible and is willing to have a monopole or tower. Sprint has agreed to limit the dish antennas to one sized four feet in diameter. Sprint has also agreed to use a grid type antennae to further reduce visibility. Panel antennas, six inches by one foot smaller antennas, will be used to minimize visibility. Sprint has agreed to paint everything a color to blend in and has located in a thick tree area, 225 feet off of the right-of-way, on the back side of the hill. All of these factors combined render the top 80 feet of this facility visible for approximately 20 seconds coming west on Route 1-64. The users of Route 1-64 will be far less concerned about seeing the tip of this tower approximately 1000 feet away for 20 seconds then they are with having good cellular coverage while traveling the highways. An architectural artist was commissioned to do a rendering of the towers and their degree of visibility. He then passed this rendering around to project what the tower would look like, using topographical maps, site study and scientific means. Mr. Gibson said there was mixed feelings regarding this matter on the ARB and it concluded that this tower would introduce a new element onto this entrance corridor. He submits that this is not true, there are photographs showing the entrance corridor from the westbound (Fifth Street) and from the eastbound (Ivy interchange). In the westbound corridor, there is the Vepco communications tower and building at Fifth Street, numerous advertisements and direction signs, numerous exit signs, Vepco power line towers on either side of the interstate, overhead signs at the Route 29 interchange and the back side of those same signs at that interchange, eastbound has the same type of signs, guard rails on both sides, Vepco overhead lines, Vepco power line towers and the Carter's Mountain towers which are visible just after this site is passed on 1-64 west, immediately in the line of sight. He submits that this facility does not introduce a new type of intrusion onto the 1-64 corridor. There are many things there of a utility and public or convenience nature. They propose to put this facility in the entrance corridor where there are all ready a number of similar facilities located. These towers are not lighted and would not be visible at night. Mr. Gibson asked the Board to support this request and said there are direct and indirect benefits because Sprint has offered to allow emergency service providers to co-locate communications facilities on Sprint's facili- ties at no cost and an interest has been expressed by the Police Department'to fill in dead spots in their coverage by co-locating on Sprint's facility. Cellular has become a vital asset for emergency response. Mrs. Humphris said she remembers when the Board approved the Bear Den Mountain site and she needs to know, after that approval, what changed to make this site unacceptable to Sprint. Mr. Gibson said the access turned out to be a far greater challenge than was anticipated. It was hoped that access could be gained on the back side of Bear Den Mountain through the Rosemont Subdivi- sion and then it was thought that access could be obtained by building a road on the 1-64 side of Bear Den Mountain, but when pursued, it was determined to be solid rock.. Things that were thought not to be a problem in the planning process, turned out to be much more of a problem at the execution stage, thus rendered that site virtually useless. A tremendous amount of damage would have occurred to the mountainside at that site. The proposed site is a lot less intrusive. Mrs. Humphris said she does not think the Board would have approved the Bear Den Mountain site if there were going to be a tremendous amount of environmental damage. As she recalls, the environmental damage was supposed to have been minimal. She wanted to be clear on what happened because she felt everyone was happy that Sprint had found a site that was both almost invisible and sensitive to the environment in that prior approval. Mrs. Thomas asked if the technology depended upon line of sight, will it only be visible for approximately 20 seconds and does this mean it is only useful to the cellular phones for that time. Mr. Gibson said "no," the reason it is only visible for that span of time is because of the rolling topography. The signals will still be transmitted because the tower will be at a high enough level that the radio wave frequencies can transmit to the receivers over obstructions such as foliage. If the tower is placed within the foliage ooo;e4o November 22, 1994 Page 9 then the signals do not transmit properly. Mrs. Thomas said after a person travels 20 seconds on the highway, there is a mountain, foliage and all sorts of things between the cellular Phone user and the tower. She asked what radius this tower is able to transmit to. Mr. Keith Lee, representative from Sprint in Chicago, said this particular site should cover approximately five to six miles on the 1-64 corridor. As Mr. Gibson stated, line of sight is a term that is used and this particular site is taller than most of the trees. The tower will be overlaying the trees enabling it to communicate the signals necessary for cellular use. Mrs. Thomas said it is noted in the minutes of the Planning Commission that Mr. Gibson assured them there would not be more requests for towers from Sprint. Mr. Gibson said he does not believe he ever made that statement. In fact, Sprint has met with staff to discuss other possible site locations to build up its system. ~ Mrs. Humphris said she is confused. Mr. Gibson states approximately 80 feet of the tower would be visible, but the tree line is approximately 40 feet and it looks to her like it would be approximately 140 feet visible. Mr. Gibson said even thought the trees are 80 feet maximum, the tower is 180 feet maximum, looking up, you have to look above the tree line and the tower is completely invisible. As you move out further and the line of trees becomes more slanted, more of the tower will be visible. The visibility has to do with the roll in topography, the tree lines and the trees are located on a slope. Mrs. Thomas asked what the height of the tower at the Vepco building is. Mr. Lee said he believes it is 160 feet. Mrs. Humphris asked why the tower has to be 150 feet. Mr. Lee said if the tower at this site were shorter, Sprint would not be able to "mesh" into the system with other existing facilities in its network. In addition, a shorter tower would diminish coverage and thus, require additional facilities. A 180 foot tower has been used in the past because this height does not require lighting. Overall, it is felt that people would be more receptive to unlighted facilities because they are not as intrusive on the environment. Mrs. Humphris asked what Sprint's current coverage in the 1-64 corridor is. Mr. Lee said there is an existing tower on Buck's Elbow Mountain in the Crozet area and an additional site may be proposed in the 1-64 area. Sprint cannot go beyond Albemarle County or put this facility too close to the County border because this is not Sprint's coverage area. Mr. Gibson said Sprint shares the concerns mentioned and in site selec- tion, it look for sites that will be minimally intrusive. Mr. Lee said wherever possible, they try to locate these facilities where towers already exist. Mrs. Humphris asked the representatives to address the lease arrange- ments. She understands from the Planning Commission minutes that the lease is for 20 years and once the structure is no longer used, it must be removed. She asked if this meant that if technology, ten years in the future, advanced and there was no need for this structure, it would be removed. Mr. Gibson said "yes." Mrs. Humphris asked if this is within the lease arrangement. Mr. Lee said he does not think it is in the lease, but is in a section of the agreement. Mr. Davis, County Attorney, said this could be added as a condi- tion of approval. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said he travels 1-64 and knows where the dead spot referenced is. This loss in coverage is both inconvenient for him as a citizen and especially in emergency situations. He does not see this use as being intrusive, compared to all of the other things currently on 1-64. He feels it makes sense to approve this, even if a condition is added that the tower is to be removed when it is no longer in use. Mrs. Humphris said she would be able to support a motion for approval if the tower height did not exceed 150 feet and if a condition were added regarding the tower being removed when its use ceases. Mr. Davis said he would suggest the condition read "this permit shall be void and the tower shall be removed within 90 days if the use of the tower is discontinued for longer than six months." Mrs. Thomas said she thinks a 150 foot tower would be a great improve- ment. Mr. Martin made motion to approve SP-94-26, subject to the six conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and adding a condition which reads "This permit shall be void and the tower shall be removed within 90 days if the use of the tower is discontinued for longer than six months." Mrs. Humphris asked that the 150 foot tower be included. Mr. Martin then amended the motion, to amend condition number one to state that the tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. - 00024 ! November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 10 Mr. Cilimberg said the letter of~:0ctOber 27, 1994, indicated approval of the tower height of 150 feet; plus whipltype antennae to an overall height of 165 feet. He just wanted tO:~la~rify if this is intended in the motion. Mr. Martin said the intention of his motion was 150 feet with the whip towers. Mr. Gibson said the whip antennas are three inches in diameter that would need to go to a total overall 165 feet in order to achieve the coverage. Mr. Martin said this was his intention. Mrs. Thomas asked how many whip antennas there would be. Mr. Lee said initially, there will be two whip antennas and he would like to have the ability to go to four whip antennas if necessary. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr BOwerman and Mr. Marshall. (Approval of SP-94-26, subject to the following conditions:) 1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet with whip antennae extensions not exceeding total of 165 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 minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administra- tive 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 administra- tively approved under this section; 5. 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 within the lease area; 6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C (on file); and This permit shall be void and the tower shall be removed within 90 days if the use of the tower is discontinued for longer than six months. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-94-27. Joseph R. Adlesic. Public Hearing on a request for a stream crossing on 6.43 ac zoned RA within Scenic Stream Overlay District. Located on SW sd of inters of Rts 617/674. TM26,P12A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7 and November 14, 1994.) Mr. Cilimberg called the Board's attention to a memorandum provided to the Board tonight, dated October 27, 1994, from Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator. He was unaware that this information was not included in the Board's packet and apologized for the Board receiving it so late. The memorandum highlights discussions held at the Planning Commission's meeting regarding a particular section of the Zoning Ordinance which applies to this request. This is an unusual section in that its wording is more definitive as to a requirement that criteria be met. There are seven criteria, a through g, in the Zoning Ordinance and it is the Zoning Administrator's opinion, follow- lng the Planning Commission's meeting that a request of this type must meet all seven of the stated criteria. This memorandum casts review of this application in a different light for staff because when it originally did its report, it approached the review as to the criteria under the perspective that each criteria need not be satisfied, but that all criteria be evaluated and a judgment call made. The Planning Commission did not agree with staff's ultimate recommendation of approval and decided that certain criteria had not been met, particularly those criteria relating to the existence of a current crossing that would be replaced and the existence of a lawfully occupied dwelling which could be accessed, neither circumstanc~ exists. There was also cited at the Commission meeting the existence of numerous high water condi- tions that could be exacerbated by the proposal and it was the opinion that denial did not deny reasonable use of the property. The staff's report was a balancing act of the number of criteria, but based on the Zoning Administra- tor's opinion and with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, it is before the Board tonight. Mr. Cilimberg said he has talked with the County Attorney and it seems that there are only two options for the Board based upon the determination of the Zoning Administrator. One would be to deny the petition as recommended by the Planning Commission or defer the request and allow the applicant to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance of the sections of the ordinance which apply. · 000242 November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 11 Mr. Martin said he was surprised to receive this memorandum this after- noon since it is so relevant and important. Given this, he feels the only option this Board has is to defe~ the request and give the applicant an opportunity to request a variance from the BZA, unless other Board members feel differently. Mrs. Thomas said to deny the request may be kind as opposed to the applicant going through the process with the BZA, then coming before this Board and being met with objections, no matter what the BZA's ruling is. may be better to hold the public hearing tonight and deny the request. It Mr. Martin said he does not have any problem with doing this but it seems that rather than discussing the issue when there is only one decision that can be made, or let the applicant proceed to the BZA, he would prefer to have some choices. The Planning Commission has already recommended denial of the request and he is sure the applicant realizes that approval of the request is slim. Mr. Davis said it needs to be clear that if this request is taken to the BZA, the applicant would be seeking a variance from two criteria set forth in the ordinance, which, according to the staff's report, cannot be met. The BZA can grant a variance to those two mandated criteria if proper findings that a variance is appropriate are made. The request could then come back to the Board of Supervisors where it would meet the mandated criteria, but would still be a discretionary decision of the Board as to whether it were an appropriate special use. This Board, at that time, could still approve or deny the request. Mr. Martin said he assumes the BZA would take into consideration part of the conversation which took place at the Commission's meeting pertaining to whether this would be considered a taking of property because there would be no other use for the property. He would like to see more discussions along this line. Mr. Davis said this would be part of the necessary findings that the BZA would need to make. The BZA would either have to find that because of peculiar geographic or topographic circumstances of the property the require- ments approach a confiscation of the property or it would have to find that the regulation was so unreasonable that it approached a taking of the proper- ty. In his legal opinion, it is premature for this Board to discuss that issue until the BZA has addressed it. Mr. Martin said this is why, given the memorandum the Board received today, it makes sense to him that this Board defer the request to allow the applicant to present this to the BZA and request a variance. If variances are granted by the BZA, this Board would have information that it currently does not have. Mrs. Humphris asked who provides the BZA with its legal advice. Mr. Davis said the County Attorney's office provides legal advice to staff and in most instances, that legal opinion is also provided to the BZA. If there is a difference in positions, then he represents the County staff and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Davis had an opportunity to research the question about whether this is considered to be a taking of property if the request is denied. Mr. Davis said "no," not from a factual standpoint, but the standard is basically that if there is a regulatory taking, there has to be a denial of all economic viable uses of the property. There is no require- ment that someone has to be able to build a dwelling house on the property, if there is passive recreational use of the property, this could be a viable economic use of the property. It depends upon the circumstances and what the expectations for the property were at the time it was acquired or developed. A number of factors would be considered. Mr. Perkins asked if there were court cases that would give guidance to this type of issue. Mr. Davis said in the research he has done, he has not found a factual case similar to this one, but there have been recent Supreme Court cases and other decisions which have been rendered which provide a legal analysis for review. This decision would be based largely upon facts and legalities could be applied. Given the requirements of the Ordinance that the two findings would have to be made, it is premature for this Board to get into that discussion unless it wants to give guidance to the applicant about the probability that the Board would give this further consideration if the BZA granted the variances. Mr. Martin said he thinks if the BZA granted a variance and one of its finding was that this is similar to a taking of property, he would be willing to entertain some type of approval because he feels that would be significant. In the absence of a variance being granted, he would be hard pressed to support the request. To him, the BZA's decision makes a tremendous differ- ence. Mr. Perkins concurred and said he needs guidance as to whether this would be considered a taking of property. The problem with this request, or any such request, is that it takes someone with "deep pockets" to carry such an issue through the court system. Mr. Martin made motion, based on the information, that SP-94-27 be deferred to give the applicant an opportunity to request variances from the BZA. Mr. Davis said he has not had any discussions with the applicant as to whether this is the path he would like to take. The Board may want to inquire as to whether this is the option he would like to take, otherwise the Board 00024,3 November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) Page 12 .. may want to put a time limit on the deferral to give the applicant an opportu- nity to make that decision Mr. Adlesic said staff recommended this request for approval. When he submitted the application he had to pay a fee of $780 and he thoroughly reviewed with staff whether this could be approved and the likelihood of approval. This was a substantial amount of money and in staff's review, approval was recommended. He was in a position of submitting the application without thought that there was a chance of the request being denied. His application and fee was accepted by the Zoning Administrator who he feels implicitly recommended this for approval. He is now being told that the only recommendation is denial. Of course, he wants the option to pursue some form of approval of the application. If he had been told in the beginning that there was no chance the application would be approved, he would not have submitted the application. He feels that he was mislead. This was not what he was-told when he initially talked with staff about submitting this applica- tion. He will pursue the possibility of a variance being granted, if this is the only chance of approval, but this is an awkward process and he feels he was mislead about the potential for approval. Mr. Davis Said it would be preferable for the applicant to request deferral. Mr. Adlesic requested deferral. Mr. Martin'~hen amended the motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to indefinitely defer SP-94-27, at the applicant's request, to allow the appli- cant to request the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to criteria required for a special permit as set forth in the County's Zoning Ordinance, Section 30.5.5,2.d.6. Mrs..Thomas said it is regrettable that someone is lead to believe that a decision is to be made favorably when this Board's role is to make that decision. She understands the frustrations of the applicant. Mr. Adlesic said if the intent of this original amendment to the ordi- nance was made to eliminate any future crossings of the Moorman's River then he feels County staff should be clear about that and, that seems to be the way it is written. Everyone from the Zoning Administrator to staff has told him that this is not the intent of the ordinance and not the way it has been interpreted. Mr. Cilimberg said he hopes that no one from his staff or any other department indicated that this request would be approved because staff is not in the business of doing that, but is in business to advise what is required when applying for a petition and what criteria would have to be addressed. Mr. Adlesic should not have been given any indication that this request would be approved; however, there was no indication given that this request could not be approved and the seven criteria "a" through "g" had to be met in total because staff was unaware of this at that time. Mr. Perkins asked which criteria (a through g) outlined in the section of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to this use were not met. Mr. Davis said based on the Planning staff's report the following two factual criteria are not met: (a) such bridge or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford or other stream crossing; and, (b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to be used, as to the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied dwellings. Mrs. Humphris said she wants to make sure that if this motion passes, there is no misunderstanding. If the BZA grants a waiver of conditions it does not necessarily mean that this Board will approve the request because she feels there are other issues that also need to be considered. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: October 13, 1993; August 17 and September 7, 1994. Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of September 7, 1994, and found them in order with the exception of a typo. Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of September 7; 1994, as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall. November 22, 1994 (Adjourned Meeting) 000244 Page 13 ~ i ~ Agenda Item No. 0~he~ Matters N~t Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board.. Mr. Tucker asked the Board if it planned to have another public hearing on the CIP. It was the consensus of the Board that a decision be made at its work session on December 7, 1994, upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommendations. Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. At 9:17 p.m., with no further business to discuss, the Board adjourned. Chairman