Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-17N March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 17, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Deputy Clerk, Georgina Smith, and Chief of Community Development, David W. Benish. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Benish, Mr. Bill Puso said he is present with other residents of Allen Road (Route 666) and all roads leading to Allen Road. He has reviewed the list of road projects to be presented to the Board tonight and there are some discrepancies in the data provided. He handed to the Board members a sheet noting a major discrepancy with Woods Edge Road. He believes his information is accurate. Woods Edge Road from Route 618 for 0.8 mile is already paved. There are only 18 homes on the remaining 0.6 mile, so he thinks the traffic count is overstated. He said there are similar issues with Hacktown Road. From Route 250 the first 0.3 mile of Hacktown is paved, and on the remaining 0.6 mile there are 17 homes so the traffic count is overstated. He noted on his sheet the cost of paving divided by the trip count. He asks that the Board consider this. He said the cost estimates from VDoT are stated at a unit cost of $100,000 per mile, but the original list did not follow that calculation. He does not know why. On the original list, the cost for Allen Road was rounded up to $100,000, when Allen Road is only 0.74 mile long. Mr. Puso said at its last meeting, the Board asked for recommendations for two Rural Rustic Road projects. He said the Planning Department has recommended Gilbert Station Road as a large scale project. He said that Gilbert Station Road is the last on the list and it shows as the least efficient use of funds. He believes Allen Road is a prefect small-scale project. It would cost only $74,000; it has good alignment, only a few curves and little change in elevation. It already has a good gravel base, and he thinks that of the top five projects on the Rural Rustic Road list, it would be the best use of funds. Mr. Jim Bryan named Allen Road as one of the three top roads to be RRR projects. In front of it were Woods Edge Road and Beam Road. Beam Road is no longer on the list, and Woods Edge Road seems to be based on data which does not support that designation. He thinks Allen Road could be paved at the estimated cost. Gilbert Station Road is windy, with sharps curves and hills. It would require significant grading. He thinks that completing these two projects this year would get Albemarle County over the learning curve for future prioritization of roads under the RRR program. He said they look for the Board’s support this evening to include Allen Road as the second road in the pilot program. ___________ Mr. Goetz Hardtmann said he is a resident of Allen Road and he believes Allen Road would be an easy, first target for the RRR Program. There are no hills; it is flat and straight. There are no bridges on the entire length of the road. He said that a lot of development has occurred on and around Allen Road. Three years ago, eight houses were added just off Allen Road. Prior to that, four or five houses were constructed. The residents don’t want any big developments coming, but development has occurred over the years, and there have been no improvements over that time. __________ Ms. Liz Palmer said she was representing the League of Women Voters National Resource Committee, and had come to give the Board members a copy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan on a CD. She is also giving the members a copy of the Growth Area Open Space Maps and the accompanying document. She said the document is the Albemarle County Open Space and Critical Resource Plan. It was adopted in 1992. The Plan refers to the document as the Open Space Plan and it contains a countywide composite map which lacks significant detail. She said this plan exists as a separate document which contains composite maps for each Development Area and a detailed corresponding inventory map for those areas. She said the document is very important because it defines what the community wishes to preserve and why. She said it seems to be the consensus that the County’s natural resources and natural beauty should be preserved for future generations. The majority of the Comprehensive Plan pertains to natural resources and contains a lot of happy language about protecting those resources. In order to accomplish the goal, community values must be defined. This document does that. She said the maps are important because they provide an inventory of places in the County that have been determined to be especially important and worthy of preservation. Areas that are deemed critically important for protection of natural resources and for preservation of scenic and historic value were identified and mapped. The maps were developed to serve as the primary guide for protection and acquisition of open space within the growth and development areas. She said the Open Space Plan is not intended to reduce density or development rights, but to assure that developing environment complements the important open space. She said it is the intent of the LOWV to bring these March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 2 tools to the attention of the Board members in the hope that they will be used when making future land use decisions. __________ Ms. Paula Brown-Steedly said she would like to speak about a road named “Doctors Crossing.” She said that in 1981 it was two miles long, and still is. In 1981 there were a total of 31 homes on that road, and two graveyards. She said there are wells and septic fields within five feet of the existing road. Most of the homes on this road are considered affordable housing. Across from her house in 1981 was a chicken farm with 60,000 chickens in two barns. She chose this location because she knew it would not develop. In 1984, one of the barns burned, and the fire trucks mired down in the mud before they could get to the barn. Between 1986 and 1988, two spot improvements were made on the road. After writing letters, meeting with the Supervisors, politicians and VDoT road officials, it looked like they might get Rural Rustic Road paving. Then, two VDoT people came in and surveyed, and at the first six homes they put markers six feet in on their yards. Then, near the bridge where other homes are close to the road, they put markers 25 to 30 feet into their yards; some of the markers were as close as four feet to the front door of the houses. It was explained that the road had to be moved and widened. Within two weeks, most of the residents wrote and said they could not lose their homes, so they guessed they could not have the road fixed. She thinks it is a way to save money; ignore conditions until there is a disaster; wear down the hopes and dreams over three years; and put survey sticks right up next to someone’s front door and say the road will be put there and their house will be condemned. It worked and nothing was done. In 1998, Turkey Run came up for the fourth time for subdivision standards; it had failed three other times due to road conditions. It was approved on that fourth try putting nine more lots on that road without any road improvements. She said the chicken farm went out of business in 1993. In 1998, Stonewood was approved for village residential on the same road with 11 lots. From the start, the residents understood that Doctors Crossing could never meet the requirements for the 50-foot wide street criteria. It will only ever qualify for the rural rustic roads program. They cannot get the width. Health, safety and the number of residents and the democratic process should be what are considered in this situation. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Charles Anson. Mr. Dorrier presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Charles Anson, a volunteer fireman. He said Charlie organized community sports programs and also worked at the new Monticello Fire Station. He worked closely with the County’s Fire/Rescue staff and Albemarle fire stations to establish standards and procedures for the new station. He helped to recruit and develop training programs for station volunteers. He represented the Monticello Fire Station on various committees and advisory boards. He was also instrumental in preparing the station for its opening in 2003. Mr. Anson thanked the Board for the certificate. He said he is a believer that behind ever man is a good woman. He has to share this certificate with his wife, Joan. He also shares it with the Department of Fire and Rescue. He said the members at the Monticello Station came together as a team. They did it and will continue to do so. _______________ Motion Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 on the consent agenda, keeping Item 6.3 to be discussed at the end of the meeting. Item 6.1 will go to another meeting for approval. All other items on the Consent Agenda were accepted as seconded information. The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. __________ Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: November 6(A) and December 10, 2003. No minutes had been These will be placed on a future agenda for approval. read. __________ Item 6.2. Authorize appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia State Code. It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one or more assistant fire marshals who may in the absence of the Fire Marshal carry out his duties and responsibilities. In addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that the governing body may authorize an assistant fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or other law enforcement officer and the authority to investigate and prosecute certain designated offenses. The appointment of William R. Clark, III, who is currently a Fire Prevention Inspector/Investigator, as an Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal's office. He has satisfactorily completed the required training for fire marshals, exercising police powers as required by the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs. The Board has previously authorized assistant fire marshals to exercise police powers. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board appointed Mr. William R. Clark, III, as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code §§ 27-34.2:1 and 27-36. __________ March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 3 Item 6.3. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method. It was noted in the Executive Summary of August 13, 2003, that the Board of Supervisors approved the appraisal of six properties from the ACE applicant pool for FY 2002-03. One of these appraisals was for the 611.172 acre Mehring Family Partnership property located on the east flank of Castle Rock Mountain approximately three miles west of North Garden. Based on the ranking evaluation criteria, it is the highest ranked property in the applicant pool and has tourism value because 46 acres of land lies within a mountain “ridge area boundary”. Before the County can extend the owner an “Invitation to Offer to Sell”, staff must determine the purchase price, which is calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value – as set forth in the income grid on page 9 of the ACE ordinance. In the case of a family partnership, such as the Mehrings, “the average adjusted gross income shall be based on the aggregate annual adjusted gross income of the partners.” At its January 14, 2004, meeting, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to waive this approach when determining adjusted gross income for the Henley Forest, Inc. property, an “S” corporation. Though the Mehring property is not an “S” corporation, staff believes the existing method (for determining income) again unreasonably lowers the purchase price of the easement for the Mehrings. As per section A.1-110(I) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may waive or extend any requirement or deadline if, for good cause, it is shown that circumstances exist which warrant such action. The Mehring property is held in a family partnership consisting of four different couples each of whom is a direct member of the Mehring family. Under partnership accounting rules, income taxes are paid by the individual partners of the partnership rather than by the partnership as a whole. In addition, all profits and losses are allocated according to each partner’s proportionate share of the partnership. Under the calculation required by the ACE ordinance, which considers only the aggregate income of all the owners, the Mehrings would receive only four percent of the appraised value because their aggregate income exceeds $200,001 (by a substantial margin). Though the aggregate income approach may be appropriate in some cases of multi-person ownership, it is the opinion of staff and the ACE Committee that this approach would unfairly under value the easement for the Mehrings, whose average annual income should earn them 88 percent of appraised value. One of the original objectives of the ACE program was to give landowners of modest means a financial incentive for placing their property under easement since current tax laws provide little or no benefit from donating an easement. Since the partnership’s net profit and taxable income is not based on the shareholder’s aggregate income, staff believes it would be inconsistent to base the determination of (easement) purchase price on the partner’s aggregate income. If each of the partners of the Mehring Family Partnership has insufficient income to benefit from a donated easement, the purchase of an easement is the only financial incentive available to these landowners of modest means. A more equitable solution would be to use a “weighted average” approach whereby payment is based on a partner’s proportionate share or contribution of income. The purchase price of the easement would thus be determined by multiplying the appraised value of the easement ($550,000) by an individual partner’s proportionate share of the partnership. The resulting value would then be adjusted according to the income grid. The individual payment for each of the four partners would be added together to produce the total ACE payment. This approach would follow the accounting standard for family partnerships. Using the weighted average approach, the net ACE payment would be $484,660 or 88 percent of the total appraised value. Clearly, the Mehring property has significant conservation value. In addition to qualifying for tourism funds because it has 46 acres and more than 7000 feet of ridgeline within the mountain “ridge area boundary”, the property has 6455 feet of common boundary with another property currently under easement. When clustered with easements on both Highland Orchards Farm and Wingspread Farm, the Mehring easement would create a 2300 acre contiguous block of protected property that runs from Route 29 (an Entrance Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan) to the peaks of Mill and Castle Rock Mountains. Since this ridgeline is one of the highest in Albemarle County (Castle Rock Mountain is 2340 feet in elevation), it is highly visible from Route 29. In addition, the Mehring easement will not permit timber harvesting on any land above 1600 feet elevation and it will create 75-foot wide riparian forest buffers around all major streams. Since development would be restricted to a family division on 55 acres at the bottom of the property, the remaining 556 acres would be forever protected from development and residential construction. This easement would help to preserve the rural character of Albemarle County, conserve and protect biodiversity and wildlife habitats, and provide a permanent wooded buffer to protect the quality of water flowing into the Hardware River. Staff recommends that the Board waive the aggregate income method for determining income for the Mehring property and allow the determination of AGI and purchase price to be based on the weighted average of the partners of the family partnership as described above and shown on Attachment ”B” (on file in the Clerk’s Office). Using this approach, the purchase price for the Mehring Family Partnership ACE easement would be $484,660. Ms. Thomas requested that this item be held until the end of the meeting for further discussion. __________ March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 4 Item 6.4. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Preliminary Ranking Order for FY 2003- 04. It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received eight applications by the September 30, 2003, deadline. Since then, staff has evaluated each of the properties according to the ranking evaluation criteria identified in the ACE ordinance. These objective criteria include: open space resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and, County fund leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined eligibility and a preliminary “final” ranking order for applicants from Round 4 of the ACE program. These results were presented to the ACE Committee on February 25, 2004. The Board of Supervisors has to review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identify on which parcels it desires conservation easements. The evaluation of the eight applications from Round 4 shows that seven properties are eligible for ACE funding. The American Environmental Foundation application is ineligible because it did not score the requisite minimum of 15 points from the ranking evaluation criteria. Though the Colombini and two Scruby applications should remain eligible for funding at this time, each has issues that must be resolved before staff can assign a “final” score and ranking to these properties. In the meantime, the points awarded for Page, Bieker, Shifflett and Hill are all final and were approved by the ACE Committee at its February 25, 2004, meeting. As a result, the Committee recommended that the Board approve the appraisals of the Page, Bieker, Shifflett and Hill properties. In addition, the Committee recommended that staff continue working with Colombini, Brian Scuby and Tim Scruby to resolve issues affecting the scoring and final ranking of their properties. Once these issues are resolved, staff and the ACE Committee will ask the Board of Supervisors to approve the appraisal of these properties. The ACE Committee recommended that the Page, Bieker, Shifflett and Hill properties be appraised. Page, Henry C. TM 73, Parcel 24, 558.900 acres, North Garden Bieker, Daniel TM 99, Parcel 38A, 75.250 acres, North Garden TM 99, Parcel 39, 13.190 acres TM 99, Parcel 40, 17.000 acres Shifflett, James M. TM 7, Parcel 25, 61.600 acres, Boonesville Hill, Samuel TM 130, Parcel 17B, 145.210 acres, Scottsville By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the recommendation of the Ace Committee. __________ Item 6.5. Authorize Chairman to execute Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company. It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County entered into a contract for electric service with Appalachian Power Company (“APCo”) from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2002. On February 13, 2002, the Board approved a resolution that authorized an extension of that contract through June 30, 2007. The Amendment formalizes the resolution as part of the written Agreement with APCo and makes other changes to rates and services that have been negotiated by the VML/VACo/APCo Power Steering Committee on behalf of the County and other VML members. An identical amendment has been prepared and sent to the School Board for execution as the School Division also participates in the negotiated service Agreement with APCo. The amendment sets forth the new rates and terms agreed upon by the VML/VACO/APCo Power Steering Committee and American Electric Power, the parent company of APCo. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the amendment with APCo on behalf of the County. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute the “Virginia Public Authorities Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)”. __________ Item 6.6. Copy of corrected letter dated March 5, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Brian G. Scruby, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map 54, Parcel 72A, Tax Map 55, Parcel 14 and Tax Map 69, Parcel 39A (property of Brian G. Scruby) was received as information Section 10.3.1, . __________ Item 6.7. Copy of letter dated March 2, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Brian S. Ray, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map was received as information 135, Parcel 22F (property of W. A. Pace, Jr.) Section 10.3.1, . __________ Item 6.8. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for January 20 and February 3, 2004, were received for information . _______________ March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 5 Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-70. Gregory R. Gallihugh-Nextel Partners (Sign #59). Request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 126 ft in total height & 10 ft above the height of the tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel antennas & ground equipment. This application is being made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 74, P 2C, contains 2.78 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx 1.25 mls S of the intersec of Dick Woods Rd & I-64. Samuel Miller Dist. motion At the request of the applicant, to allow deferral of this hearing until May 5, 2004, was seconded offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Boyd, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2003-077. Parking Lot Expansion Ron Martin Appliances (Sign #36). Public hearing on a request to allow stand alone parking in accord w/Sec 24.2.2 (12) of the Zoning Ord. TM 45C, P 02-1B contains .77 acs. Znd HC. Loc on Rt 1417 (Woodbrook Dr), approx .1 mile from intersec of Woodbrook Dr & Rt 29N (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 2004.) Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, summarized the executive summary which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to build a stand-alone parking lot to serve Ron Martin Appliances which is located on Seminole Trail (Route 29 North). The Woodbrook Shopping Center is located just to the south of this site. He said the parking is to serve the proposed expansion of the Ron Martin business. The applicant has acquired the Eways building which is adjacent to the existing operation. They will be expanding into that building and the two buildings will be connected together. Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission focused on having the existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the Woodbrook neighborhood be augmented as necessary to screen the site and to assure that the stand-alone parking would not be used by delivery vehicles for loading and unloading merchandise. The Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval subject to conditions which were modified by staff, and are set out in a letter to the Supervisors dated May 19, 2004. Ms. Thomas asked if all the stipulations of the Commission are captured by the conditions in the action letter. Mr. Benish said they are. In their initial action there were things listed as conditions which were really general directions to staff for modifications, and that was done in the action letter. Conditions 1 and 2 as shown in the Commission’s minutes are in the action letter. The additional screening shown as No. 3 in the Commission’s minutes was actually included in No. 4. The stipulation for storage is in Condition No. 3. Conditions 5 and 6 were not actually conditions. Condition No. 5 related to adjacent property which was not subject to the special permit, so could not be conditioned. The Commission directed staff in the site plan process to deal with that issue. Condition No. 6 was a general direction for staff. Mr. Wyant said he understands that in Condition 3, this parking is for customers only. The loading and unloading will be done on the existing site. Mr. Benish said there will ultimately be a loading area on the expansion site. Mr. Rooker mentioned Condition No. 4. He said this area is very close to an existing residential area, and No. 4 requires additional screening and landscaping, etc. He asked if there is anything to indicate the initial size of the plantings. Mr. Benish said “no”, but there are general standards and practices for plantings. Staff relies on the established standards. Plantings tend to be smaller because younger trees transplant better and grow quicker than larger trees. Mr. Boyd asked about the site plan. Mr. Benish said a waiver was required in order for them to augment the screening. That waiver has gone to the Commission for approval otherwise the remainder of the site is subject to administrative review. Mr. Rooker asked that staff pay particular attention to the screening between this area and the neighborhood. There is already a noise issue in that area. He thinks staff has some leeway in interpretation of “additional screening”, so make certain it is a very adequate screen. He asks that it be adequate screening that is not five years from being realized. At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner was present for both Mr. Martin and Mr. Smith, the applicants. He said Mr. Smith has the stand-alone parking and is working in conjunction with Mr. Martin on expansion of his business. They also have a long-term arrangement, lease/purchase to have Mr. Martin acquire that lot in the future. The site plan is essentially the same as was presented. The expansion is going to make the Eways building and the present Ron Martin building into one building; everything will be under one roof. With the expansion, another loading space is necessary, so the access road was shifted, and the parking arrangements are adjacent to the Eways building. Vehicles will back in and load into the central section. They still have to do the engineering for the drainage and the other items requested by the Commission. They will meet all conditions of the site plan. He offered to answer questions. March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 6 At this point, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2003-077, Ron Martin Appliances Parking Lot Expansion, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. seconded The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. Note (: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval, which shall be in general accord with the revised plan that shows improvements on Tax Map 45C, Parcel 02-1B, dated January 28, 2004; 2. At least one (1) sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent commercial use only (Tax Map 45C, Parcel 02-1A & 02-1), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff; 3. The parking area shall be used for customer parking only, which shall be stated on the sign per condition #2. Delivery and other commercial vehicles shall not be parked or stored in the parking area for loading, unloading or any other purpose; 4. Additional landscaping shall be installed and maintained within the twenty (20’) foot buffer, as necessary to provide screening to complete a double staggered row of evergreen trees along the east side of the property; and 5. A second 10'x10' concrete dumpster pad shall be constructed adjacent to the 10'x10' concrete dumpster pad area shown on the plan dated January 28, 2004. The resulting 10'x20' dumpster area shall be screened with a three (3) sided opaque fence and additional landscaping per the direction of staff. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2003-080. Tower at Pepsi Place (Signs #40 & 44). Public hearing on a request to allow construction of 60-foot tall tower equipped w/six antennas & two grid-styled microwave antennas for enhanced radio broadcasting in accord w/Sec 22.2.2(2) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61W, Sec 2, P 2A, contains 1.32 acs. Znd C-1. Loc at intersec of Rt 866 (Greenbrier Dr) & Rt 1340 (Pepsi Place), approx 1 mile E Rt 29N. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 2004.) Note (: Mr. Bowerman said he would abstain from hearing or voting on this special use permit because he has a personal interest in this matter arising out of a business relationship. He said he will file a written disclosure statement tomorrow.) Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this proposal is for the construction of a radio broadcast facility using a 60-foot tall tower structure mounted with six antennas and three grid-style dish antennas for enhancement of its radio broadcast capacities. The two dishes would be four-feet in diameter while the third would be six-feet in diameter. The proposed tower would have a width of three feet at its base and be narrower than the one-foot, ten-inches at its top, noted in the executive summary. It would be located on Pepsi Place Road off of Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Benish said the applicant has stated that approval of these facilities will enable six Clear Channel radio stations to operate inside the Pepsi Place Office Building to broadcast a direct wireless signal to existing facilities on Carter’s Mountain. It would replace the current system which sends broadcast signals from the radio stations to facilities on Carter’s Mountain by way of telephone lines. The applicant cites past instances when problems have occurred with the existing broadcast system due to interrupted telephone services. This was most recently experienced during Hurricane Isabel, as all of Clear channel’s local stations were forced off the air due to downed telephone lines. Mr. Benish said the highest portion of the roof of this building is 46 feet tall. The side where the tower would be installed is actually 35 feet high. The tower would be connected to broadcast equipment inside the building on the third floor. The tower is located adjacent to the building, about three feet away. He said staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. It has recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval subject to the same conditions. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas asked if staff is convinced that the larger base is necessary. Mr. Benish said he forgot to mention that. The Board was sent a memorandum explaining that the original tower company the applicant was dealing with went out of business. Their replacement tower now has a 36-inch base and a narrower height. The difference is insignificant and because it is at the base which will be obscured by the building, that will be significant. At the top where it is the most visible, it goes from 22 inches down to 18 inches. That will require a modification of Condition No. 4 as recommended by the Commission. March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 7 That condition will need to be changed to read: “The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed 36 inches at its base, and 22 inches at the top.” Mr. Rooker said there are pictures of some satellite dishes in the executive summary. He said they appear to be variegated, and not solid. He wonders if that is locked in on this proposal. Mr. Benish said it is their intent to use grided antennae. Mr. Rooker said there may be a visibility improvement in not having solid antennae dishes. If the applicant does not have an objection, and that is what they intend to use, he would like to reflect that in the conditions. Mr. Benish said the condition does mention detail as shown in the applicant’s submittal packet as in Attachment B. Mr. Rooker asked if Condition No. 5 locks them in. Mr. Benish said it would not hurt to provide more clarity, but he thinks that condition covers the request. Mr. Davis said it would lock the applicant in to what is shown on Attachment B. With no further questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Kishore Persaud, chief engineer for Charlottesville radio stations, was present to represent the applicant. He said there have been instances when they lost telephone line connections with their transmitter sites, especially during storms. This is the time when the public needs their service the most. That is the primary reason for proposing to erect this tower and use wireless communication to their transmitter sites. There will still be some telephone capability for backup. Their primary connection will be wireless. With regard to the dishes, the dishes shown are the only type they will use because of wind loading. Use of solid dishes would require them to be located low on a tower or on a different type of tower. At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. motion Mr. Wyant said he has no problem with this request, and immediately offered to approve SP-2003-080, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but modifying seconded Condition No. 4 to change the number to 36 inches at the base. The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Mr. Rooker said he is not in favor of the visibility of this type of tower, but in this case they did a good job of siting it against the building. It is barely visible from the road. It also will be barely visible from nearly residential. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. Note (: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. The tower shall be located and built as shown in the applicant’s submittal packet entitled Tower 1150 Pepsi Place, initialed 1/28/04 and included as Attachment B; 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site drawings showing the proposed construction of the tower. These plans shall include to-scale elevations showing the tower profile and the location of each antenna. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed; 3. The tower structure shall not exceed sixty (60) feet in height; 4. The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed thirty-six (36) inches at its base, and twenty-two (22) inches at the top; 5. Attachments shall be shall be limited to three (3) dish antennas not to exceed six (6) feet in diameter and the six (6) antennas detailed in the applicant’s submittal packet included as Attachment B; 6. No additional antennas that support services other than radio broadcasting shall be attached to extend above a total height of sixty (60) feet on the tower; 7. The tower, antennas, dishes and all other equipment attached above the roof of the existing building shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky and blends with the backdrop of trees; 8. No guy wires shall be permitted; and 9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for radio broadcasting services is discontinued. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. An Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code in §3-207, Batesville Agricultural/Forestal Dist, for the proposed addition of four parcels to the Dist. TM 71, P 26C, contains 23 acs; TM 71, Ps 26B, 26B1 & 26B2, contains 82.75 acs. Znd RA. The properties are loc on Rt 689 (Burch's Creek Rd), approx 0.6 miles from intersec w/ Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 2004.) March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 8 Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this district was created on May 2, 1990. It was last reviewed on April 10, 2000, at which time it was renewed for a ten-year review period. This is before the Board tonight to add two separate requests. He said staff and the Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee have both recommended approval of this addition. At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve the request by adopting An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle Virginia, by amending and reordaining Section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. seconded The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ORDINANCE NO. 04-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3- 207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010. (Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-01; Ord. 04-3(1), 3-17-04) _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Six-Year Secondary Road Plan (deferred from March 3, 2004). Mr. Benish said the Board reviewed the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan on March 3, 2004, and requested that staff gather additional information about the Heards Mountain Road (Route 633), and create two separate priority lists for unpaved roads dividing them in Rural Rustic Roads and regular paving projects. He said staff separated all of the unpaved road projects into two lists. The Rural Rustic Roads are shown with a cost estimate by VDoT based on a unit cost of $100,000 per mile. The regular rustic road projects include the estimates that had been generated by VDoT to date on those projects which are already in the Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan. He said staff listed justifications for the rankings of the different priorities. He pointed out that traffic counts on the roads are the driving influence. Mr. Dorrier asked if all of these roads have the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Benish said that is not a relevant issue for the Rural Rustic Roads projects. For regular projects, it is still a relevant issue. Mr. Rooker mentioned the request made about Allen Road earlier tonight. He said that road has about 270 vtpd, whereas Heards Mountain Road has only 60 vtpd. But, there is not much difference in cost between the two projects. Since there have been so many people showing an interest in Allen Road, he asked if the ranking of those two projects should be reconsidered. Heards Mountain Road is listed as the No. 1 priority this year. Ms. Thomas said Heards Mountain Road was deferred. The County is waiting on Nelson County to see what they are going to do, and also staff is to check with that community to see that this is still a relevant request. Mr. Dorrier said Allen Road is listed as No. 5 and that is a high ranking. March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 9 Mr. Wyant said he has driven over Allen Road and feels it is an excellent road for a small project. It is only three-quarters of a mile in length and is relatively flat. His concern on a lot of these projects is the amount of stone which would have to be put down. This road does not have a lot of heavy traffic, so it would only require a base of stone with surface treatment. He would like for this road to be used as the County’s small project. Mr. Benish asked that he be allowed to complete his presentation so the public will know what the Board is contemplating. He said staff proposes that the Heards Mountain Road project be put on hold until it is ascertained whether Nelson County is going to pursue that project. It can be reevaluated next year. He said Gilbert Station Road is being recommended as a rural rustic road project for the section from Route 784 to Route 20. As of now, VDoT has indicated that one section is eligible as such a project. Although other projects listed before it also have merit, staff did not feel there was such a significant safety issue involved. He said staff had recommended only Beam Road as a small project. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the justification for that project was in error. He said VDoT said they have about $200,000 available to maintain the regular unpaved road project schedule. They believe they can do Gilbert Station Road, but said this is a new contract process which is different from the normal process. It may be difficult for them to do an additional project, but if the Board gives staff a second priority they will try to do that project also. Mr. Boyd asked why Doctors Crossing is not a rural rustic road project. Mr. Benish said he understands there are characteristics of the roadway which do not lend themselves to qualifying that road in terms of the amount of construction needed. Mr. Boyd asked if that is somewhat subjective. Mr. Benish said at this time it is subjective until VDoT actually goes out and does a detailed assessment of the road. Staff has found that after such assessments are made, many roads do not qualify as rural rustic roads. Ms. Thomas said the Board could request today that VDoT check Doctor’s Crossing again. The presentation this Board saw of Augusta County’s program showed a road nearly identical to this one. Mr. Boyd said he would like to ask that the road be checked again. It seems to him it is the best approach to doing that road. He does not think it could be paved any other way. Ms. Thomas said she is concerned about what happens to the list when it is divided into two parts. There may be winners and losers. A major loser would be Reservoir Road if nothing is done to it, and all realize it will have to be looked at for spot improvements because it is not eligible for either the rural rustic road program or for paving. Mr. Tucker said that is Route 702 which is Fontaine Avenue Extended out to the Ragged Mountain Reservoirs. Ms. Thomas said she thinks everything will work out for Heards Mountain Road in the long run. The project will probably take place in 2006, and that will move the project only about two years. She said Dickerson road has been on the list since 1995, and it was to be paved in October, 2006. Now it shows in February, 2008 on the revised plan. It is moving further into the future because VDOT does not have the money to do what they thought would be done a few years ago. Mr. Rooker said the cost of that project is estimated at $1.4 million for 360 vtph as opposed to $100,000 for some of the roads being classified for the rural rustic road program. Ms. Thomas said Dickerson Road is near the Airport and it is going to get a lot of additional use. Then there is Rio Hills Road which has the highest traffic count, but it is on the revised plan after Dickerson Road. It does not have a year shown for the project, but it should be shown next on the plan. Then there is Beam Road, which is the wrong segment, but the Board might like to know that the right segment which is on the other side of Route 20 was shown in 1994 on the school bus danger list. At some point, the Board may want to look at the project again to see if it deserves to be on the list. She said Route 623 (Woods Edge Road) has the highest traffic count of any of the rural rustic roads. It was due to be paved in March of 2009, but on the new list there is no estimated construction date. Mr. Rooker said it is still near the top of the list. The Board has not put any dates on the rural rustic road projects. Ms. Thomas said everyone needs to keep that in mind. She said Doctor’s Crossing was scheduled for August, 2010 and now it has no estimated construction date. It was shown on the bus danger list in 1994. Then Gilbert Station Road which it seems will be paved this year, was listed for May, 2005, but because VDoT did not have enough money, it has slipped from having a date on the present list. However, it is an obvious winner on the list today if the Board adopts this plan. She said there were no other obvious losers. Mr. Rooker asked the total allocation this year for unpaved roads. Mr. Juan Wade, County Transportation Planner, said it is $719,000. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the public needs to understand that the total allocation for unpaved roads for the year is $719,000. Before the Rural Rustic Road Program was created last year, most of the projects on the unpaved road list were well over $1.0 million each. That meant there was not enough money to do even one project a year. Now, with the rural rustic road program, there is a realistic possibility of doing several projects each year. March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 10 Mr. Wade said that after VDoT learns how the rural rustic road program works, it will take the $719,000 and divide it up. Then they will be able to puts dates beside some of the road projects based on the allocations they can make over six years. Right now they do not know how the Board will want to split up the money. Mr. Boyd asked if it is possible to go forward with both Gilbert Station Road and Allen Road as the two projects for this year. Mr. Benish said he thinks it is possible. Mr. Boyd asked if there is some way to draft a weighing system to use for scoring these roads. Mr. Tucker said once the Board decides how it wants to distribute the money, staff will bring back a report on how to weight the roads, and then the Board can apply the criteria. Mr. Dorrier asked the Board’s pleasure on the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. moved Mr. Boyd that the Board approve the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan as presented with VDoT’s recommendations concerning the Rural Rustic Road Program. Ms. Thomas asked that the request to look at Doctor’s Crossing Road be added. Mr. Boyd said “yes”, and also to look at Allen Road being the second priority for the rural rustic road program. seconded Mr. Rooker the motion. He said that he has mentioned Georgetown Road several times. There is no advertising date for that project. Next year he will ask that Georgetown Road be moved up on the list. There are other projects such as northern Free State Road where there is a development project and the County would expect some network of roads to be built. It may alleviate the immediacy for the need for that road. He thinks priorities need to be set in terms of vehicle trips served, and to look at fixing existing roads, as well as looking at new roads in the areas that do not currently have development. That is the way he looks at northern Free State Road. There will be development in the area of northern Free State Road and there will be roads built to service that development. Northern Free State Road will probably run beside that development area. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board have this discussion in late summer when the agendas are less full. At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked that the roll be called. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 11 March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 12 March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 13 March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 14 March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 15 (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 7:02 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas mentioned Item 6.3 on the Consent Agenda saying this is the second time in two months that the Board has been asked for a waiver of the ACE income determination method. She said the Board had discussed this at the beginning of the program, and Mr. Rooker had said it is not good public policy to have a situation which keeps creating the need for a waiver. She said this is the second such request this year, and the ACE Committee formally requested last November that the ordinance be rewritten so this particular situation is not continued. She understands the Committee has drafted an ordinance to correct this situation. She also understands Mr. Davis does not believe they have made a sufficient case for an ordinance amendment. Mr. Davis said he would like to give some background on what has occurred since the last time the Board discussed this matter. After the Board approved the last waiver and asked staff to look at this issue, his office staff actually looked at all of the background materials considered by the Board and the Planning Commission when the ACE Ordinance was adopted. He said Mr. Ches Goodall was about to do a staff report based on this information, but before he did that, the ACE Committee brought up the issue. The Committee asked Mr. David Kradavitz to attempt to draft an ordinance, which he did. That draft ordinance would not have applied to this application because it did not address partnerships. It only addressed corporations, so the ordinance would not have helped the current situation. His staff is in the process of preparing a draft ordinance to do what the ACE Committee wants it to do. The ordinance will then be sent to the Committee to review, and then it will be returned to this Board for review and action. moved Ms. Thomas that the Board approve the waiver as set out in Consent Agenda Item No. 3 seconded for the Mehring property. The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. __________ Mr. Wyant said he has asked staff for maps of the Crozet Master Plan since there will be public hearings soon on this question. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Wyant is contemplating holding a meeting in Crozet. Mr. Wyant said he has thought about having just an informational meeting in the community. He has heard concerns expressed by people who have not seen the maps. He will try to hold a meeting in Crozet before the Board’s public hearing is scheduled. __________ Mr. Boyd said he talked with Mr. Kevin Lynch recently and he said the MPO had discussed having a joint meeting with this Board and City Council. He thinks it would be good to have a dialogue about Route 29. Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker have been working on this, but they want to pick a time when they can get the most done in one meeting. She said City Council would like to just have a meeting amongst politicians. She said there are some interesting things being done which staff can present to the two bodies for discussion, such as how long-range transportation plans are made, and how there can be spot improvements on Route 29. Mr. Boyd said he is not interested in getting into an unstructured discussion. He sees two issues which are paramount. One is transportation and the other is water. He thinks water needs to be considered on a regional basis. Mr. Rooker said he thinks a meeting should not be held until all the information is available, and Mr. Harrison Rue is available to talk about the Route 29 Corridor. He would like for the Board to get through the budgeting process first since there is no immediacy for a meeting with City Council. Also, he thinks it would be imprudent to hold such a meeting until after election in the City because there will be new members on Council. The educational process of such a meeting would be helpful for new members, and the Board would also determine their views at the time. A meeting in June might be more appropriate. Mr. Tucker said he has talked with Mr. Rue, and this is one of the issues they would like to handle with the new Council and the new Board members. Also, Mr. Rue would like to meet and give an update on the Hydraulic/Route 29 intersection. He does not know that both subjects can be handled at the same meeting. Mr. Boyd said Mr. Lynch had mentioned this to him because he knew Mr. Boyd has an interest in collaborative meetings between the County and the City. He does not care about the date of a meeting, but thinks something should be planned. _______________ March 17, 2004, Regular Night Meeting ) (Page 16 Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to March 22, 2003, 1:00 p.m. motion At 7:16 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, was offered by Mr. seconded Rooker, by Mr. Boyd, to adjourn this meeting until March 22, 2003, at 1:00 p.m., for a budget work session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 10/06/2004 Initials: EWC