Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-19O00 .SO May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 19, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Martin said the Rivanna Water Supply Project has implications for the County's economy, population growth, industrialization, the environment including rivers and streams, and the City and County's comprehensive planning. Both the City and County governments should be involved in the planning process, and the public not denied a role. He suggested that before the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) proceeds too far with Federal and State regulators with respect to this project, mechanisms be established to both inform and allow the public to comment to their elected representa- tives for purposes of governmental planning, oversight and control. He said he had submitted a draft resolution to this effect which may facilitate consideration of the matter. He said the Board and City Council executed a joint resolution 16 years ago which approved a plan for the Buck Mountain Reservoir and authorized the purchase of land for its construction. Since that time, the land has been purchased, but until recently, not much else has happened. He said the RWSA has now initiated another water supply project. Mr. Martin said that on April 20 at its meeting, RWSA informed the public that 30 preliminary water supply alternatives, including a reservoir at Buck Mountain, would be presented to Federal and State regulators in a closed door meeting in the near future to begin the regulatory approval process. At some time in the distance future, there may be an opportunity for public comment, but critical judgments and decisions are being made now which will shape future events. This is happening largely independent of the local political process. He suggested that this Board schedule a series of public hearings to study and receive public comment on specific water supply alternatives, including one at Buck Mountain. He also suggested there be public hearings before the RWSA to receive public comment, since the public can only assert its will through its elected representatives. He also mentioned that the fate of the Moorman's River, which is designated under State law as a scenic river, still hangs in the balance. He said that if someone wonders why citizens should want to be involved in the future of the County's water supply, and why there is concern about decision-making processes which impact upon lives and the environment, they need only look at the damage inflicted upon the Moorman's River, for which all are responsible. Mr. Jim Bennett supported Mr. Martin's comments, saying the development of future water supplies for the County will have a profound impact on how the County grows. He said the elected representatives need to be involved in this very important decision. At the April 20 meeting, members of the public raised many questions about the proposed list of alternative water supplies. Yet, they do not know how those questions will be responded to by RWSA and their consultants. It is unclear whether the public has any meaningful input into this process. Over 20 years ago, after the 1977 drought, RWSA convened a panel of advisors to draw up an improved water conservation policy for Albemarle County and the City. The report of that panel reads like a modern blueprint for water conservation applicable to many communities, including this one. He said they are baffled as to why such foresight was not heeded, and are also unaware of any public input into the decision not to implement those recommendations. He pleaded that the Board not allow such a mistake to be repeated again. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Marshall offered motion, which was seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Item 5.1, and to accept Items 5.3 through 5.5 for information (Item 5.2 was deferred to June 2, 1999). Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Education Grants, $182,281 (Form #98070). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on April 12, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Appropriation of $1000 for Western Albemarle Hiqh School. A donation in the amount of $1000 has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Randy Canterbury, II. This donation will be used toward the purchase of new band uniforms. Appropriation of $1000 for Henley Middle School. A donation was received from Douglas and Sarah Dupont in the amount of $1000. This donation will be used to help provide Henley students with an interdisciplinary arts program. Appropriation of $2000 from the Department of Education Secondary Services Unit. Monticello High School received a grant in the amount of $2000 which will be used to purchase traffic safety instructional resources for its Driver Education Program. Appropriation of $1000 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. J.T. Henley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $1000 from the Foundation which will provide its students with an interdisciplinary arts program. This will include three artists in residency. Reappropriation of $160,295 of School Carry-over and $16,986 of building rental fees. School Board Policy DB-E allows schools to carry forward up to 10 percent of their operational budgets from year-to-year. School Board Policy KG-R allows 40 percent of the base fees collected for building rental to be returned to each school. Staff recommended that the Board approve the appropriations totaling $182,281. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99 NUMBER: 98070 FUND: SCHOOLS/GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOLS - FREDERICK S UPTON FOUNDATION GRANT REAPPROPRIATION-SCHOOL CARRYOVER FUNDS REAPPROPRIATION-BUILDING RENTAL FEES EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1 2303 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 1 3014 60252 312500 1 3104 60252 312500 1 2201 61101 601300 1 2202 61101 601300 1 2203 61101 601300 1 2205 61101 601300 1 2206 61101 601300 1 2207 61101 601300 1 2209 61101 601300 1 2211 61101 601300 1 2212 61101 601300 1 2213 61101 601300 1 2214 61101 601300 1 2215 61101 601300 1 2216 61101 601300 1 2251 61101 601300 1 2252 61101 601300 1 2253 61101 601300 1 2254 61101 601300 1 2255 61101 601300 1 2301 61101 601300 1 2302 61101 601300 1 2304 61101 601300 PROF SERVICES-INST PROF SERVICES-INST ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES ED/REC SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 9,202.00 1,120.00 4,885.00 3,803.00 9,010.00 3,587.00 1,135.00 6,463.00 2,429.00 1,054.00 5,419.00 931.00 4,590.00 1,743.00 14,252.00 1,794.00 752.00 8,808.00 91,359.00 2,761.00 2,184.00 $182,28t.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 2 3104 18000 181221 DONATION 2 3300 24000 240305 GRANT-DRIVER ED 2 3104 18000 181221 GRANT-UPTON FOUNDATION 2 2000 51000 510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 177,281.00 $182,281.00 May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to sign Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Service Agreement. (NOTE: Deferred until June 2, 1999.) Item 5.3. Letter dated May 4, 1999, from Mr. Robert H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that a design public hearing will be held on May 27, 1999, on the Mclntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I, Project: U000-104-102,RW201, C501,0631-002-128,C502,B612, B657, Fr: 0.227 Mi [0.83 km] S Rte 250 Bypass To: 0.05 Mi N Rte 631 [Rio Road] Bridge over Norfolk Southern Railway, City of Charlottesville & Albemarle County), was received for information. The purpose of this Public Hearing is to provide for review and discussion in an open forum on the Meadow Creek Parkway, a four lane facility on new location, extending from 0.14 mile (0.23 kilometer) south of the Route 250 Bypass in the City to 0.05 mile (0.08 kilometer) north of the Norfolk Southern Railway in Albemarle County. Item 5.4. Copy of minutes for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of March 11, 1999, was received for information. Item 5.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 20, 1999, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-70. StarBase Alpha Dance Hall (Sign #95). Public hearing on a request to amend existing special permit for commercial recreation activity to add dance hall to the permitted activities. A special permit is required in accord w/Sec 22.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61W, Sec 1, Block A, P2. Znd C-1 & EC. Property consists of 1.650 acs & is loc on S sd of Westfield Rd approx 600 feet N of Greenbrier Dr. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is proposing to expand the existing commercial recreation use of the property by converting some areas and making them available for dancing. This requires a dance hall permit which is being reviewed as an amendment of the previous special use permit (SP-96-55) for this property. The applicant proposes interior renovations to the building. The nearest residential property is approximately 1000 feet away. The site has been used as a recreational use since 1997. No hours of operation are proposed because of the area and the location of the use. Staff felt the proposed dance hall is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance based on the land use impacts of the use, and recommended approval with one condition. He said there has been some discussion today concerning a second condition based on the applicant's discussion with the Board regarding control for alcohol consumption. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1999, unanimously recommended approval, subject to the condition recommended by staff. At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Colley, the applicant said that two and one-half years ago he began the process to get this permit. He has met with neighboring residents and none have expressed any concern about the application. He has addressed all of the concerns of County officials, and has held two successful trial dances at which there were no problems. He asked that the second condition regarding alcohol consumption be included. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Bowerman said he had discussed the second condition with Mr. Colley today and feels his intent was to include the second condition on the approval. There is a question as to whether the condition can legally be enforced, but he believes it codifies what the Planning Commission understood and what Mr. Colley intends. He said the Board, at its meeting on August 5, 1998, approved Mr. Colley's request to provide dancing for two events to be held in the month of August, 1998. In order to implement the special permit, which is a land use decision, Mr. Colley has to make a second application for a dance hall permit. Mr. Davis said it is the same process Mr. Colley went through last summer. Two different permits are required; a special use permit for the land use and then a dance hall permit is required by Chapter 12 by the County Code for any public dancing. Mr. Colley has not applied for that permit yet, but it is a short process. Mr. Bowerman said minors under the age of 18 need parental permission to attend a dance. He asked if that was part of the two dances held as a trial. Mr. Colley said "yes", and it worked well; they got permission slips from every child who did not have parents present. Mr. Colley said he thought they had already received the permanent dance hall permit. Mr. Davis said it was for only the two dances. Mr. Tucker suggested that the applicant send a letter to the Clerk making the request, and it will be included on the agenda for a June meeting. 000 .83 May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 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 Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-70 with the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission, and the second condition as offered by the applicant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: 1. 2. The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Use shall be limited to indoor activities only; and No sale of alcohol shall be permitted. (Note: The following two agenda items were discussed together.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-06. Northway & Avis Truck Rentals (Signs #69 & 70). Public hearing on a request to allow motor vehicle rental in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for motor vehicle rental in the urban area. TM61W, Sec 2, Block C, P2. Znd C1. Property contains less than 1 ac & is loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29N) at NE corner of Westfield Rd. Rio Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-08. Northway & Avis Outdoor Display (Signs #71 & 72). Public hearing on a request to allow outdoor display of rental automobiles in the EC in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for outdoor storage, display and/or sales of automobiles when visible from the EC. TM61W, Sec 2, Block C, P2. Znd C-1. Property contains less than I ac & is loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29N) at the NE corner of Westfield Rd. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs reports which are on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to expand the current motor vehicle rental and display from an existing site in the Entrance Corridor to include an adjacent site, and to renovate the adjacent site to accommodate the expanded parking. The applicant currently stores and rents vehicles on the parcel described as Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block C, Parcel 1. The rental and storage is nonconforming because it occurred prior to adoption of regulations that require a special use permit. No permit has been issued for the storage or rental of vehicles on Parcel 2. Approval of the special use permits will bring the current use into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and allow the use to be expanded to include the adjacent parcel which lies to the south of the current use. Mr. Cilimberg said there has been discussion in the past few days regarding certain existing conditions on the site, including underground storage tanks, fuel dispensers, monitoring equipment, and permits for the storage of flammable and combustible materials. If possible, the Fire Official would like a condition added in the special use permit to ensure that the use before the Board tonight could not commence until the Fire Official had granted approval based on remedy of all the violations. To accomplish that, it is suggested that on SP-99-06, a condition be added stating: "The use shall not commence until Fire Official approval is obtained." That would make a total of four conditions for the permit. The staff discussed this with the applicant today. Mr. Cilimberg said that on May 4, 1999, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of both SP-99-06 and SP-99-08 subject to the three conditions recommended by staff. The condition mentioned above would be the fourth condition on SP-99-06. With no further comments, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Carter Wailes was present to represent the contract purchaser, Rent-A-Car Company trading as Avis. Mr. C. K. Wright owns that company and his representative, Mr. Joseph Ralston is also present, along with his engineer, Mr. John Tye. The applicant owns an adjacent parcel which is currently used for vehicle rental. The parcel Avis is looking at is on the corner and was for many years a service station. It has not been in use for a few years, so is an eyesore because it has fallen into disrepair. Avis wishes to acquire that parcel and expand the existing rental business and have one common parking scheme utilizing both parcels. They have worked with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to determine suitable plantings/screenings of the stored vehicles. They think it will make this site more presentable in the Entrance Corridor. The existing location is tidy, organized and tastefully painted. That location will also be improved. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Bowerman asked about another truck rental business in the area. Mr. Wailes said that has nothing to do with this property. He is speaking of an existing Pensky Rental business which is one parcel removed from the corner. May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Martin asked Mr. Wailes to address the 000:.IL84 request of the Fire Official. Mr. Wailes said they just recently found that there is a requirement that a fire hydrant needs to be within 400 feet of that location; there is not one. They are willing to do whatever is required. He has not spoken yet with the fire person. Mr. Bowerman said that is remediation, and that should lie with the current owner. Mr. Cilimberg said the violations are those he mentioned earlier. Apparently that is being pursued with the owner. The Fire Official just wanted to be sure that this use did not occur before that was taken care of. Mr. Wailes said a consulting firm was hired to look at the tanks and do pressure checks. They were told by the consultant that everything is in compliance. If it is not, they intend to put the tanks in whatever condition is necessary to be able to continue using the tanks to refuel rental vehicles. With no further questions, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing on both SP-99-06 and SP-99-08. With no member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matters placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve SP-99-06 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and one condition added tonight, stating: "Use shall not commence until Fire Official approval is obtained." Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-99-06 are set out in full below.) Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan; Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan; Vehicles shall not be elevated; and Use shall not commence until Fire Official approval is obtained. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-08 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval for SP-99-08 are set out in full below.) Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan; Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan; and Vehicles shall not be elevated. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-09. CFW CV203 (Lickinghole Repeater). (Sign #59). Public hearing on request from CFW Communications to construct 80-foot telephone pole type tower wi2 panel antennas that will not exceed the surrounding tree tops (Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). Site loc on 6 ac parcel Znd RA & EC. TM57, P41L. Property is loc on the S sd of Rt 250 W approx 1 mi W of the Mechum River crossing. White Hall Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this application includes a request for reduction in setback from the public road. This reduction also requires a waiver of setback requirements by the Planning Commission and a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the setback. The variance was actually granted on May 11 with conditions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposes construction of a tower slightly above the tree top level to provide Personal Communication Service (PCS) in western Albemarle County. It will receive a signal from the proposed Greenwood Motel tower (SP-99-14, CFW Lickinghole), and will transmit the signal further east along Route 250 West, thus minimizing the necessity for a taller tower to be constructed. The trees in the surrounding area are approximately 80 feet tall. The requested tower height is seven feet above the tree canopy and will allow for additional vegetative growth, and an unobscured transmission signal. There will be two panel antennas approximately six foot by one foot attached to the pole. The receiving antenna will be placed at a height of 40 feet. The proposed tower is a wooden pole. It will be visible from the Entrance Corridor, so will require approval by the ARB prior to construction. Its visibility should be minimal as a result of site location within a stand of tall trees. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. The site and tower will be visible from Route 250 West which may result in a change in appearance and character in that immediate area of the district. 000:1.85 May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval'of SP-99-09 subject to 14 conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to the same conditions, modifying Condition No. 6a(2) with words that will be used in most future tower applications relating to collation. It reads: "The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property." Ms. Thomas asked if there is any condition the Board can add to insure that the trees currently on the property will remain there. It is a nicely screened location because of those trees. She just wondered if the County could do anything to insure that those trees will stay there. Mr. Cilimberg said the County has no control in VDOT's right-of-way. Mr. Perkins suggested saying "the area surrounding the tower will remain forested." That does not mean the same trees must remain on the property, only that there be trees on the property. Mr. Davis said this application is only for a 20-foot by 20-foot area on a six-acre lot. That condition could not be added to any part of the parcel outside of that 20-foot by 20-foot footprint. With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Tom Whittaker, representing CFW Intelos, said the applications on the agenda tonight represent a new standard for wireless communication sites built in Albemarle County. CFW introduced this new concept for cell sites in 1998. Six sites of this design are already in service in the County, and are virtually unnoticed. The County and CFW have received compliments from County residents and officials, as well as from Ted Kreines, the consultant retained by the County for wireless communications. He has photos of the Bellair, Covesville, Crossroads and Britts Mountain sites for those who have not seen these sites which were approved by the County previously, and which are now in service. The County challenged applicants like CFW to find a better way to deal with the negative impact of tower structures on the County's landscape. The wooden pole mini-cell site was CFW's response to the challenge set forth by the County. The examples they have submitted tonight, along with new applications, suggests that this strategy is a success. There are several new requests for sites on the agenda tonight, and there will be more in the upcoming weeks. All are wooden p01e mini-cell sites which will meet the minimal visual impact objectives of the County. He thanks the County for its patience, suggestions and support during CFW's initial network deployment. He said as to this application tonight, CFW's objective is to cover an area on Route 250 West, east of the site toward the Mechum River. Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-99-09 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the approval include the parenthetical statement that he had set forth above. Ms. Thomas said this is a good site. She had looked at the site today. She thinks the nearest house is closer than 400 feet, but they did not seem to be concerned. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. Antenna may not extend above the height of the tower; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless Lickinghole Rptr CV 203"; The panel antennas, with attached supporting electrical conduits, shall be painted in color to match the wooden pole tower; Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled "CFW Wireless Lickinghole Rptr CV 203"; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 12. 13. 14. 000186 The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunication providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle county. (The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.); Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; Fencing of the lease area shall not be required, The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-99-10. CV159 (Scenic Lookout). (Signs #57 & 58). Public hearing on a re to allow personal wireless service facility in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio-wave transmission & relay towers. TM53, P6. Znd RA. Property contains 83 acs & is loc on the W sd ( Newton Rd (Rt 690) at the end of Green Hill Lane just N of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to construct a tree top tower approximately ten feet taller than the trees as part of its system network. The area is located north of 1-64 and is heavily wooded, as are the adjoining parcels. A scenic overlook is located on the eastbound lane of 1-64 approximately 1000 feet to the southwest. The surrounding properties are zoned RA with some residences to the east, the nearest being approximately 750 feet from the property line. 1-64 is designated as an Entrance Corridor. A house is located approximately 750 feet to the east. Mr. Cilimberg said this site lies in the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Open Space Plan. The Area starts at the 1200 foot contour, and this tower would be at approximately 1320 feet ASL. There will be some minimal clearing needed for access, and electrical service will be required. An existing road will provide access to the site, and staff recommended a condition limiting additional clearing to reduce the potential visual impact created by clearing. It is staffs opinion that while this site is located within the resource areas identified in the Open Space Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, the design of the facility and the existence of a road on the property will reduce the impacts so that approval would not be inconsistent with the goal of protecting the resources. Therefore, staff recommended approval subject to 13 conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to 12 conditions, modifying conditions #1, 3a and 7, and deleting #8 as recommended by staff. He recommended that the Board add parenthetically the following language to Condition #5: "(The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.)" May 19, '1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Ms. Humphris asked why the tree situation is different for this request. Gondition 3A says "... no trees shall be removed." Mr. Gilimberg said at the Gommission's meeting, they modified the wording of this condition and added that language. Ms. Humphris said perhaps there is standard language that should be used for the conditions on ali such requests. Mr. Gilimberg said the language for Gondition 3A proposed by staff referenced the existing road and base elevation. That language was developed specifically for this applioation. The staff tried to specify that the location of the tower would be within 25 feet of the existing road and the condition referenced slopes of 25 peroent or greater, and referenced the elevation. The Planning Gommission changed the condition to only ask that the proposed facility be located adjacent to the existing access easement, and that no trees be removed. No access road needs to be constructed. Ms. Thomas asked if the tower will still be located in a wooded area. She viewed the property today, and there are areas where there are less trees. She said the good aspect of this application was that the tower would be surrounded by trees. Mr. Cilimberg said the original site was within a wooded area. He believes it will still be, except for what has been cleared for the access road. Mr. Perkins said the access road is an old logging road which has been in place for years. The property was clear cut about 20 years ago, so the trees are shorter due to that cutting. The power lines will go in that area. Mr. Bowerman said for SP-99-09, there was a parcel with a 20 foot by 20 foot section. He asked how big a parcel this tower will be located on. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the same size site on an 80-acre parcel. Ms. Thomas said she went to the site today, and it is accessed by a fairly steep private road. She wanted to know if the County could limit the size of the equipment going to construct the tower so it would not damage the private road. Mr. Davis said this application is for the entire 80-acre parcel according to the staffs report. Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of houses along the road and the people depend on the road. She would not want to see the road damaged by this process without any recourse. She asked if the applicant could answer her question. At this time, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Whittaker said he thinks the property owner would ensure the condition of the road. He believes the road will be maintained in good condition. The vehicles they use to maintain the towers are Jeeps, but they are just typical four-wheel drive vehicles, so he does not think they will damage the road. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any heavy equipment involved in the construction of the tower. Mr. Whittaker said they would have to use a side-mounted drilling rig to drill the hole for the pole. That would be the heaviest piece of equipment taken to the site. Then, a small all-terrain crane vehicle would be used to set the pole. Ms. Thomas said the conditions on SP-99-10 do not mention the color of the panels. There have been times when no condition was added to a permit, and the panels were a bright shiny metal. She asked if he had any problem with the panels being the same color as the tower. Mr. Whittaker said there is no problem with that. The only antenna that is impacted by paint being put on it is the tiny GPS receiver. Paint on that will not allow the GPS signals to penetrate the plastic housing of the antenna. Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB has been addressing the color of the panels. They have asked that there not be conditions in special use permits that limit their ability to address color and other features. Mr. Whittaker showed the letter he had received from the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg read: "Panel antennas and supporting electrical conduits shall be painted a color to match the wooden pole tower." Mr. Whittaker then showed pictures of the tower location. At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. James Herring, the owner of the land under this petition, said he would ensure that the road is maintained, as he has done for over 30 years. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-99-10 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with a modification of Condition #5 to add the following language: "(The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.)" The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Ms. Thomas said this site lies in the Mountain Resource Overlay District and she will point out that she thinks it is a good location because it is in front of, as well as behind, so many trees. In the Board's recent court case, it was suggested that the County might never approve a tower in a mountain resource area. She hopes this approval puts to rest that charge. May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) o o 10o 11. 12. The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the height of the tallest tree located at the same base elevation as the facility within fifty (50) feet of the facility; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a The proposed facility shall be located adjacent to the existing access easement, shown on the site plan, and no tree shall be removed; Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled "CFWWireless Scenic Lookout CF 159"; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunication providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. (The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.); Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section. At this time, Mr. Martin recognized students from a government class at Western Albemarle High School for visiting this meeting. Agenda Item No. 11o SP-99-11. CV154 Ivy & 1-64 (Sign #55). Public hearing on a request to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio-wave transmission & relay towers. TM73, P31D. Znd RA & EC. Property contains 10 acs & is loc on the E sd of Taylors Gap Rd (Rt 708) S of 1-64. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) OOO:LS9 Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report, which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the location of the proposed tree top facility is on the east side of Route 708 south of 1-64 in a grove of trees. The Peacock Hill Subdivision is located on the north side of 1-64 west of route 708. The closest dwelling is located 400 feet to the northwest. He said staff's review of this request has resulted in mixed findings. Their conclusion is that alternative sites may provide for superior siting options. However, the impacts created by this site are not such that staff is able to make a finding that approval would be inconsistent with the ordinance. Staff did recommend approval subject to 13 conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff's recommended conditions, but modified the wording of Condition #3a regarding fencing. It has been asked if this were a case where in addition to fencing, screening should be required. He suggested language to replace what the Planning Commission recommended, reading: "The ground base of the tower shall be fenced with a design of fence similar to that found on the property currently and shall be screened with shade-tolerant screening materials planted inside the fence." He said Condition #5 should also include the following language: "(The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.)" Ms. Thomas asked if there was any discussion of moving this facility farther away from road. Mr. Cilimberg said "no." Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Whittaker said this site has wooded surroundings, but no under story coverage. If the County wants to add some under story landscaping to screen at eye level, they would be happy to do that. He believes the landscaping would have to be inside of the proposed livestock fencing because it will be heavily grazed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks a condition should be added about screening. Some of the neighbors have asked why the tower has to be so close to the road. Mr. Whittaker said moving the tower further from the road would move it into a clearing. He showed a photograph which demonstrated this. Ms. Thomas asked about the color of the panels. Mr. Cilimberg said this was taken up by the Architectural Review Board. He assumes they included the same conditions as those on the previous petition. He said there are also conditions attached to a variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. They deal with tree conservation and limit the cutting of trees within 75 feet of the tower. With no further questions, 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. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Thomas if she is still concerned about the use of this tower for collocation. Ms. Thomas said when there is the telephone pole type of installation, it is hard to image how collocation can happen. With the change in wording the Commission has suggested to all of these applications, she thinks it is a good addition if anything is going to be said about collocation. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-99-11 with the conditions of the Planning Commission, adding additional wording to Condition 3A reading: "The ground base of the tower shall be fenced with a design of fence similar to that found on the property currently and shall be screened with shade-tolerant screening materials planted inside the fence." Also, to Condition 5A add the wording: "(The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.)" The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the height of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend three (3) feet above the height of the tower; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color; The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless 1-64/708 CV 154" and a plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) OOO190 o 10. 11. 12. 13. CV154". Any fencing shall be of a design similar to that found on the property currently. The ground base of the tower shall be fenced with a design of fence similar to that found on the property currently and shall be screened with shade-tolerant screening materials planted inside the fence; Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled "CFW Wireless 1-64/708 CV 154"; and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunication providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site Plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. (The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence in this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.); Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section. Agenda item No. 12. SP-99-14. CFW CV137 (Lickinghole). (Sign #54). Public Hearing on a request from CFW Communications to remove an existing television reception antenna & attach communication antennas on it (Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). The site is loc on a 3.4 ac parcel znd RA & EC. TM56, P104. Property is loc on the S sd of Rt 250 W & is the site of an existing motel. White Hall Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to attach two panel antennas on an existing television reception tower located in the rear of the Greenwood Motel on the southern side of U.S. Route 250 West. The applicant proposes to remove the television antenna from the existing 65-foot lattice tower and replace it with two panel antennas for telecommunications. The existing tower is nonconforming, so requires approval of a special use permit in order for additional use to be made of the tower. May '19, '1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page '12) Mr. Gilimberg said the 3.4 acre site is the site of the Greenwood Motel, which was constructed prior to adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, and is, therefore, nonconforming. The motel constructed a 65- foot television reception tower to accommodate its customers. Since then, the motel has subscribed to satellite service and no longer uses the existing reception tower. It is anticipated that the physical impact of this proposal to the site will be minimal. The attachment of panel antennas does warrant some structural improvements to the existing lattice tower. Due to corrosion, the top one-third of the tower will have to be replaced to support the weight of the proposed panel antennas. The proposed replacement will resemble the existing lattice portion that is proposed for removal. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be no clearing for access and provision of electric service. This property is in an Entrance Corridor and the ARB has reviewed the request and found no problem with the proposal. Staff opinion is that the site will accommodate the proposed telecommunication facilities without any additional adverse impacts. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of this request with conditions. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 20, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to the staff's conditions, but did modify the language in Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 7. He said this petition will not be subject to the same collocation language as the other requests tonight since special permit approval only allows an applicant to do what is contained in the conditions placed on that approval. With no questions from Board members, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Whittaker said the Planning Commission discussed the condition of the tower, and wondered what to do if it was found that deterioration had occurred further down the tower than is known at this time. They also discussed making the tower a wooden pole instead of using the existing tower structure. He said CFW has no preference. The community wants there to be minimal impact, and that means they do not want to change anything at all. He distributed some photographs and also a photo simulation showing the panel antenna at the top of the existing tower, and then the actual tower. Ms. Thomas said the tower is now a "rust" color. Mr. Whittaker said the whole tower will have to be scraped and its condition improved. Ms. Thomas asked if the top of the photo simulation is at 65 feet. After some discussion, Mr. Whittaker said the photograph was not accurate. With no further questions, 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 offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-99-14 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) The antennas and supporting elements shall be painted to match the existing tower; The vacated television reception antenna shall be removed; The attachment shall be limited to a total of two (2) panel antenna, the dimensions of each which shall be approximately six feet by one foot (6'x1'), whose height shall not exceed a maximum of sixty-five (65) feet; Structural improvements to or replacement of the tower shall be similar in design, size and appearance as the existing tower unless the existing tower is replaced by wooden pole not exceeding sixty-five (65) feet; Construction of the telecommunications attachment on the existing lattice tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled "CV 137 Lickinghole" attached to the report and initialed ELM 04/07/99; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Martin said he would like to say for the record that no applicant has ever appeared before the Board and had four tower locations approved at the same time. That speaks well as to how Mr. Whittaker has gone about doing business. He personally appreciates it because it is much easier to deal with the applications in this atmosphere. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to second those remarks. May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-98-24. Grayrock N (Signs #66, 67 & 68). Public Hearing on a request to amend a portion (21 acs) of an approved PRD to reduce dvlpment potential from 70 townhouse units to 27 single-family detached dwellings. TM55, Ps65 (part) & 65A (part). Property is loc on Rt 684 W & adj to Orchard Acres Subd. White Hall Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 10, 1999.) At this point, it was determined that the applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Davis said it is not required that the applicant be present. Mr. Martin said, at one time, the Board had a policy which required that the applicant be present. He asked if the Board wished to move forward with the public hearing on this petition. It was the consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing, and then put this item on the Consent Agenda at another meeting for action. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that in accord with Proffer Four of ZMA-97- 12, Grayrock, the applicant proposes to amend a portion (21 acres) of an approved PRD to reduce the development potential from 70 townhouse units to 27 single-family, detached dwellings. Eleven acres of the total is proposed for open space. The proposed lot sizes average approximately one-quarter of an acre. He said there are two different land use density recommendations that came out of a prior study for Crozet: 1) the 1996 Land Use Plan, which recommended a density range of three to six dwelling units per acre in this area; and 2) the Crozet Community Study which predated that land use plan and proposed a density in the Iow density range recommended by the Comprehensive Plan at that time. In the original ZMA-97-12, there was road alignment shown in general accord with the proposal before the Board tonight. As a departure from that approved Concept Plan, the Planning staff worked with the applicant to decrease the overall length of the road by approximately 50 feet. Staff also worked with the applicant to align the proposed roadway to abut the properties to the north, therefore, accommodating access to any future development on adjacent property. The applicant will construct an emergency access road that connects the northern and southern portions of Grayrock. Approximately 50 percent of the parcel is designated for common open space. The applicant proposes to construct an extensive network of pedestrian paths throughout the areas of open space. Pedestrian paths will physically connect the southern portion of Grayrock with the northern portion. Staff requested that the applicant provide sidewalks along the proposed road system in an effort to provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and to compliment the rural road cross-section design with sidewalks that will exist in the southern portion of Grayrock. Since Section 14-400.L of the Subdivision Ordinance requires construction of sidewalks only when the proposed density is two dwellings or more per acre, the applicant has elected not to construct an urban cross-section with sidewalks, or sidewalks with the rural cross-section they propose. VDOT comments indicate the existing transportation infrastructure can accommodate the proposed development. It is staffs intention to require Lots 27, 22, 21 and 17 to take access off the minor roads, the shorter cul-de-sacs, at the time of final subdivision plat approval. This proposal will use public water and sewer. Staff reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval. He said the Application Plan attached to the staffs report limits the development of the property, therefore, no other proffers or agreements are recommended by staff. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 27, 1999, by a vote of 5:1, recommended approval of ZMA- 98-24. The one dissenting vote was due to a concern that density was being lowered in this particular location. With no questions from Board members, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Loach said he has two concerns about this project. One is the rezoning before the Board tonight. At the rezoning of the first section of Grayrock, he, and many others present, assumed an agreement had been reached to fix the zoning for both the upper and lower sections to be equal. Furthermore, this equality extended to include the Other specifications made at the time of the first rezoning, up to and including the construction of sidewalks in the upper section. The requirement for sidewalks is consistent with recommendations made by the Commission for Grayrock, but also complies with recommendations made by both the model neighborhood committee and the transportation committee of DAIS. He found out at the Commission meeting that the applicant was not going to include sidewalks in the upper section, but the County was in a "take it or leave it" situation, and could not require sidewalks to be built. Mr. Loach said his second concern stems from calls he has received from several residents telling him that representatives of Freid Company have made public statements to the effect that Freid Company was going to put "low-income housing" in Crozet. At several public hearings, the applicant showed a series of slides depicting the type of homes to be built and told the residents that the price range of the new homes would be $150,000 and up. He asked that the Board assure that the development will be consistent with that promise by the applicant. He reminded the Board that the agreement reached on the rezoning on Grayrock was arrived at as a result of negotiations between the Board and the applicant, and was considerably different from the proposal presented by the community. He believes it is incumbent upon the Board to hold the applicant to a level of expectation it believes was agreed upon at the first May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) OOOJ.93 rezoning. If this is not the case, there will be serious consequences with land use decisions in Albemarle County. Ms. Cynthia Armstrong asked if the Board is only deciding on the number of homes on the lower portion. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a subdivision plat for the prior zoned area. What is before the Board is an Application Plan for the upper area. Ms. Armstrong said her concern is that at one time there was a promise about location of the playground. She attended a Site Plan meeting and the plan showed the playground had been moved to a place where they had promised it would not be placed. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not certain of the status of the review of the southern part of the Grayrock property. Mr. Bowerman said the Board moved the play lot to a house lot. Ms. Humphris said that was part of the conditions of approval, so it cannot be moved. Mr. Cilimberg said it cannot be moved contrary to the Board's approval. He said Ms. Armstrong is actually referring to the original site which was between this property and the Bargamin property, and that is what the Board moved to another location. It was not by the lake, it was next to the access road that would have connected Grayrock and Bargamin. That was moved internally to the lot that Mr. Bowerman referred to. There was area shown for recreation potential up closer to the lake. That was not being moved. He will follow up on this with Ms. Armstrong. Ms. Humphris said nothing on the lower portion of the property will come back to this Board for approval. It will all be done by staff and the Planning Commission. What the Board is acting on tonight is only the part that is proposed for a zoning map amendment to change from the 70 townhouses to the 27 single-family lots. Mr. Perkins handed to Ms. Armstrong a list of the final proffers. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Charlie Kieler, from the Fried Company, was present at this time to represent the applicant. He said staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant is going to reconsider and put in sidewalks. Mr. Kieler said "no." It is a cul-de-sac and the road does not go anywhere. The ordinance does not require sidewalks for the density in that section. The cost on sidewalks for both sides of the street in Grayrock South is over $2500 per I°t. They are trying to make it an affordable subdivision in that area, and anything that can be done to save on cost will help with the price of the homes. Ms. Thomas asked the definition of "affordable." Mr. Kieler said he did not have an answer to that question. They try to build the best possible product at the least expense. Ms. Humphris asked how they calculate the cost of a sidewalk with the lot frontage they have in this proposal. Mr. Kieler said they got bids on the first section of Grayrock (31 lots at the main entrance) and that is the figure quoted. Ms. Humphris said it seemed like a high price. Mr. Kieler agreed. He said when the Board passed the zoning previously, the proffer said they would provide a six-foot trail on one side or four-foot sidewalks on both sides, at the discretion of County staff. During the preliminary planning stage, sidewalks were requested for both sides of the street, as well as one-half mile of trails in the common area between the two subdivisions. Mr. Martin said he has a problem with the applicant using the term "affordable housing" without having a definition. Mr. Kieler said when he said that, he should have said they try to make the lots as affordable as possible, which does not mean affordable housing can fit into a term that might be used for median type wage earners. He was trying to suggest that they can afford to sell the lots at a cheaper price without that additional infrastructure. Mr. Marshall asked the price of a lot. Mr. Kieler said a lot will sell for $35,000 to $40,000; lot size is between one-quarter to one-third of an acre. Ms. Thomas said the lower dam turns out to have a mystery owner. She asked if this will change the trail system proposed. Mr. Kieler said the only trail it effects is the trail shown conceptually across that dam. There is a trail there now. They have been advised by Zoning to take the trail off of the conceptual plan for Grayrock North. It is only 50 feet of the over 3000 feet of trails. There is a way to get across between the two lakes. Ms. Thomas mentioned the cost of the lots. She said the word "affordable" has led to concern in the community. Pinning down exactly what is meant is useful, but Fried Company is not actually building houses. She asked if the lots will be sold individually. Mr. Kieler said that generally they sell lots to builders and not to homeowners. They build the roads, water and sewer, and the common areas, and deed the common areas to the homeowners' association. Mr. Perkins asked if this association will be different from the south portion. Mr. Kieler said it is a separate subdivision. Both homeowners' associations would have responsibility as to maintenance of the two stormwater ponds and the amenities because they are centrally located. As to the question Ms. Armstrong had about the tot lot close to her house, it has been moved closer to the cul-de-sac, away from Jarman Gap Estates, at the Commission's request. The tot lot on the Bargamin tract has been moved further into the interior of the tract. Mr. Martin said the issue is now before the Board. Mr. Perkins offered motion to approve ZMA-98- 24 subject to the Application Plan which limits development of the property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: May 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) OO0J.94 (Page 15) AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker said County employees won recognition on Give-Air-A-Brake-Day a couple of weeks ago. The County had the highest participation of all the employers in the area. Over 1200 miles were saved that day, which is the first time the County has done this. Recognition should be given to Juan Wade for organizing this event. Mr. Tucker said last week Ms. Thomas mentioned the public hearing concerning the alternatives for public water supplies (mentioned earlier in the meeting by Mr. Martin and Mr. Bennett). He has talked to Mr. Art Petrini at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) about this. Mr. Tucker said he suggests that a joint public hearing be held with City Council and the RWSA after narrowing down the 30+ alternatives to just a few which will then go to DEQ. Mr. Tucker said his question to the Board is whether they wish to have a public hearing on all of the alternatives, or wait until they have been narrowed down to a manageable few. He said a lot of the alternatives should not have been included, but he thinks they were looking for alternatives that might be a viable source. Ms. Humphris said at the presentation of all those alternatives, they said some were impossible, so why were they included at all. She thought it was confusing for the people who had not seen the report before. She thinks the RWSA can narrow it down quickly to reasonably viable alternatives that are worthy of discussion. Ms. Thomas said she believes it is right to take out the alternatives that are clearly impossible, but she would rather have a little longer list than to narrow it too much. Mr. Davis said the term used in these processes is "practicable alternatives", and there are some proposals that the Corps of Engineers, the DEQ, or EPA will say immediately the County is not allowed to do. As they go through the original list, that is culled down by the reviewing agency, and on the rest of them, additional analysis is required. Mr. Martin said to get a list of all alternatives, showing the ones that are not possible with some verbiage as to why. Mr. Tucker said it is not RWSA that is eliminating alternatives, it is DEQ or the EPA. Mr. Perkins said the PDR (Planned Development Rights) Committee is getting close to submitting its final report to the Board. He thinks a public hearing will be needed, possibly at the day meeting in August. He said they also need some staff support, as the volunteers can no longer do all of the work. Mr. Tucker said this has been discussed with Roxanne White. They will use some existing staff, someone like the Fiscal Impact Planner, to assist. Mr. Cilimberg said his staff is looking at this now as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins said there was mention earlier tonight about what the DISC Committee has decided concerning sidewalks. To him, DISC has no._~t decided anything. There are many streets in Crozet which don't have sidewalks, but which are still functional. Mr. Martin said when people first started making such statements, he immediately corrected them for suggesting something that was not part of a report at this time. He does not think it is appropriate to impose anything based on a report which all of the Board members have not yet seen. Mr. Perkins said he believes that in a dense urban setting there is a need for curb and gutter and sidewalks. But, there might be places where there is not that density and no sidewalks are preferable from an environmental standpoint. In Crozet today, where VDOT is working on Route 240, they had to go through and chisel out all the asphalt because it was built up next to the curb and gutter. That is an added expense when it comes time to put another surface layer on that road. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Loach mentioned it was what a committee of DISC had proposed, not the DISC. She thought there were subcommittees which had made reports. Ms. Thomas said the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is putting together a report on the importance of visual quality to the economy of the Commonwealth. They have put out an interim report, which is only about 15 pages long, and three or four of those pages are all about what Albemarle County has done. Ms. Humphris said she wished to say something about Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive. She (Ms. Humphris) was at Ash Lawn at 7:30 p.m. last Saturday morning to make remarks when the bicyclists started their event for diabetes. Ms. White was there helping her husband David who runs the local Diabetes Association office. They had been up most of the night the night before because it rained between here and Appomattox and washed away their marks on the road, etc. Roxanne also participated in the "Cure for Cancer" run helping Sheriff Hawkins later that day. pre _, (7) ag~ wa ~ AY NA Bo~ Bol req eXE mo' AYI NA' imn Approved by th Board of Count Supervisors Date ~"/l'c~ R Initials ~g4.)& 19, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 000t95 Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. At 11:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting uirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was ately adjourned. ~h'airman Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. None. At 9:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive Session ~ursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a school site and to consider the acceptance of property for public use, and, under Subsection to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning two interjurisdictional Ireements and to consult with legal counsel and staff concerning pending zoning litigation. The motion seconded by Ms Humphris. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: