1993-10-13October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000t45
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 13, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, George R. St. John, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
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. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve Item 5.1 and to accept Items
5.2 through 5.8 as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Item 5.1. Approval of Appointees to Building Code Review Committee.
The Board had considered on September 1, 1993, a number of recommendations
from the Planning Commission on affordable housing issues. The Board request-
ed staff to submit a recommendation for the creation of a temporary Building
Code Review Committee whose tasks would be to identify opportunities for cost
reduction now allowed by the Code and not generally practiced, and to identify
possible changes to the Code that could be recommended to the Regulatory
Efficiency Advisory Committee in Richmond.
Staff recommended that the following people from the building community,
who have volunteered to serve, be appointed to this committee.
Developer - Mr. Robert Watson, BlueRidge Homebuilders~ Assn.
Building - Mr. Nelson Morris, Ernest Morris & Son, Inc.
Electrical - Mr. Bruce Locker, Robertson Electric
Plumbing - Mr. David Maupin, W. E. Brown, Inc.
Mechanical - Mr. Barry Crickenberger, W. E. Brown, Inc.
Masonry - Mr. Joseph K. Moore, Moore Masonry
County - Mr. Jesse Hurt, Director of Inspections
By the recorded vote shown above, appointment of these persons to the
Building Code Review Committee was approved.
Item 5.2. Copy of minutes of the Architectural Review Board for
September 7, 1993, was received as information.
Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 21 and
September 28, 1993, was received as information.
Item 5.4. Notice dated September 22, 1993, from the State Corporation
Commission of an Application filed by Virginia Electric and Power Company to
revise its fuel factor pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6, received as
information.
.Item 5.5. Letter dated October 1, 1993, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Jeff Collins, re: Official Determina-
tion of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 (Tax Map 8, Parcel 15), received
for information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated September 30, 1993, from the Honorable L. F.
Payne, House of Representatives, re: Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) Act,
received as information. Mr. Payne notes that an increase in the PILT
reimbursement would benefit Albemarle County by $13,180. However, this
increase in PILT would require a like decrease in other spending from the Land
and WaterConservation Fund, thus costing the taxpayers of Albemarle County
approximately $45,879 based upon a per capita collection method. Mr. Payne
said he does not believe it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Mee~ingi
(Page 2)
000 .49
finance such a large increase in spending with a relatively small benefit for
the Commonwealth. Therefore, he cannot support this legislation at this time.
Item 5.7. Letter dated September 28, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Hillsdale Drive
and Branchlands Boulevard in Branchlands Subdivision into the State Secondary
System, received as follows:
"September 28, 1993
As reqUested in your resolution dated July 7, 1993, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective September 28, 1993.
ADDITIONS
BRANCWI'.~UNDS
LENGTH
Route 1427 (Hillsdale Drive - From Route 866 to
0.02 mile West Route 1695
0.60 MI
Route 1694 (Branchlands Boulevard) - From Route 29 to
Route 1427
0.13 MI"
Item 5.8. Letter dated October 1, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commis- signer, Department of Transportation, re: Addition of Gristmill
Drive and Southern Parkway in Mill Creek - Section 5 into the State Secondary
System, received as follows:
"October 1, 1993
As reqUested in your resolution dated September 1, 1993, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County
are hereby approved, effective October 1, 1993.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
MILL CREEK - SECTION 5
Route 1157 (Gristmill Drive) - From Route 1159
to Route 1165
0.04 MI
Route 1165 (Southern Parkway) - From Route 742 to
Route 1157
0.53 MI"
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-93-08. Feldmann's Inc. (applicant), Mark &
Lynnley Thornton (owners). Public hearing to rezone approx 1.9 ac from R-6 to
C-1. Property on E sd of Rt 659 approx 500 ft N of Rio Rd. TM45,P95. The
Comprehensive Plan shows this property on the boundary of areas shown for
medium and high density residential. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1993.)
At the reqUest of the applicant, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer this hearing until NoVember 10, 1993. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-93-23. Albemarle County Fair, Inc. (applicant);
Roy & Bonnie Coggin (owners). Public hearing on a request to operate the
county fair on about 70 ac zoned RA. Property on S sd of Rt 760 approx 0.3 mi
W of Rt 29/Rt 760 inters. TM99,P61(part). Samuel Miller Dist. (Deferred
from September 15, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a
part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the proposal is for
approval of a permit to allow for operation of the Fair for six days a year
for a period of 30 years. From the staff's standpoint, the primary issue is
related to access and the effect this operation has on the transportation
system in the area. Access is provided from Route 29 with left and right hand
turns along Route 760 to an entrance which will be upgraded. Route 760 is to
be paved and widened to 16 feet. Comments have been provided by VDoT and
Police officials as to the ability of the police to adequately manage the
traffic in that area. Staff is of the opinion that no alternatives exist
which would alleviate the identified traffic problems. Staff feels the access
issues are insurmountable and the application should be denied on this basis
alone.
Mr. Cilimberg said a major concern is the effect of the left hand turn
into the fairgrounds. This would be the primary movement for traffic coming
from the north, particularly during the early hours of the fair's operation.
The queuing of traffic along Route 29 could also have an effect on Route 708
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~'~-~0
(Page 3)
at the Route 29 intersection. Mr. Cilimberg concluded by stating that the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 28, 1993, unanimously
recommended denial of SP-93-23.
The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Richard Carter,
representing the applicant. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan and pointed
out that North Garden is a growth area, but this is a no-growth proposal. It
has been made clear recently by residents of North Garden that they do not
want growth in that area. In the staff report, it is noted that by locating
the fair at the proposed site it takes away space for growth. Mr. Carter
stated that by having the fair at this location it will help keep open space
in Albemarle County. This site is truly typical of Albemarle County. In the
staff report, concerns over traffic, dust, noise, lighting, and hours of
operation in a residential area, are cited. These are the same concerns that
are expressed on any proposal which comes before this Board, and these are the
same concerns which were expressed in 1988 when the current fair site on the
Scott property was examined by this Board. He said this site and the sur-
rounding area are less populated than the Scott site.
Mr. Carter asked the Board to keep in mind that only five nights per
year are involved although the staff report mentions six nights; that number
is incorrect. The flood plain issue was mentioned, and he agrees that part of
the property is in a flood plain. However, the current location of the fair
is in a flood plain. This was a problem at the current site, but it was a
problem that was worked out, and it can be handled at this site also. Two
days from now, there will be a fair behind Cosner's off of East High Street in
a flood plain. He said the problem with the flood plain at the North Garden
site can be considered at the site plan approval stage.
Mr. Carter next mentioned the high tension wires at the proposed site,
and he pointed out that people live near, around or under high tension wires
365 days per year. He emphasized that this permit is only for five days per
year. Some people may say tonight that fair officials already have a good
site, and they wonder why another site is needed. He said the current site is
rented.' The fair officials do not think the present site is better than the
proposed site. They don't think it makes a difference. He explained that if
this site could be bought, different things could be done. A permanent riding
rink could be put up for horse shows. Permanent fencing could be installed.
Bathroom and water facilities could be installed, and there could be a lot of
other things which are not obtrusive, but they could be of a more permanent
nature. He said there was much doubt about the present site not being perfect
and the Board recognized that fact when the permit was originally approved by
only approving it for one year. Fair officials have been looking for a site
for 10 or 11 years, and this is the best site that they have found. There is
nowhere in Albemarle County that is flat, where the roads are good, where the
traffic can come and go, people won't be inconvenienced, and there is no need
for traffic control. He emphasized that the proposed site is the best,
available site fair officials can afford until such time as County officials
make a commitment to support the Fair in financial ways. He noted that this
Board has been very supportive of the fair in concept.
Mr. Carter said the fair gives people entertainment, and it provides
income for many charitable organizations. This is one reason for supporting a
permanent site which can do better things on a more permanent basis. As far
as safety is concerned, Mr. Carter stated that the applicant is just as
concerned with safety as VDoT officials, the Police Department and the County
staff. The proposal shown at this meeting is an attempt to prevent traffic
from becoming stacked on Routes 29 and 760. There will be three to four lanes
proposed as traffic enters off of Route 760 into the fairgrounds. At the
current site, there are one to two lanes of traffic. The distance at this
site from Route 29 to the fair entrance is the same distance as from the
present site to Route 29. After the fair was held this year, a copy of a
letter sent by the Police Department to the Sheriff's Department was received
(the Sheriff's Department handles traffic as it gets to the entrance of the
fair site), indicatint that the deputies were able to execute the parking plan
most successfully, and their performance in the parking lot allowed traffic to
flow smoothly into the lot, thereby eliminating almost all of the back-up of
traffic which has caused a safety problem in the past on Route 29. He said a
letter, dated September 23 was received from the Sheriff who stated that
Sheriff's Department personnel have reviewed the proposed fair site on Route
760. It was noted that it appears there will be ample space to handle the
same volume of vehicles that were parked at the old fair site if four lanes
are constructed, and that traffic control at this site will be as good as
traffic control was at the other site.
Mr. Carter said there was a concern expressed that Route 29 would have
to be crossed. He pointed out that vehicles traveling north on Route 29, at
the present site, have to cross Route 29 to get into that site. He remarked
that vehicles going south on Route 29 will have to cross Route 29 to get into
the proposed site° He agreed there could be more traffic, but he noted that
Route 29 is a four-lane, divided highway, which is repaved and repaired from
time to time. He said the reports before this Board do not say the traffic
can't be controlled at the proposed fair site. He remarked that the police
report indicates that it will be a formidable task~ but the police already
recognize that the task is formidable. Fair officials have done as much as
humanly possible to accommodate the traffic. He reiterated that Route 760
will be widened and he called attention to the VDoT report which indicates
Route 760 is eight to ten feet wide, while the County Police Department report
· 000 .$:1.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
indicates that Route 760 is 16 feet wide. VDoT officials have stated that if
Route 760 is paved, it has to be 18 feet wide. He emphasized that the fair
officials will bring the road to the necessary pavement standards, so it will
be paved all the way from Route 29 to the site.
Mr. Carter reiterated that this is the site a majority of the Fair Board
members chose, and this is the best available site. It is a site where the
Fair can be located permanently. He said there were members of the Fair
Board, as well as the owners of the property, present at the meeting to answer
questions.
Mr. Marshall said he did not know any members of the present Fair Board,
although he knows Mr. Meeksvery well. He was disturbed that Mr. Meeks was
opposed to this plan. Also, he did not like what he read in the newspaper
about Mr. Meeks being ousted. In light of this, as well as all of the other
problems pointed out by staff, and the fact that the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the application, he does not look very favorably upon
this request.
Mr. Carter responded that when the Board of Directors met and voted to
approve or disapprove this contract, th~ majority voted to approve it. Even
the Supervisors do not always vote unanimously on every question that comes
before them. He is not here to put anybody down, but only to say that the
Fair Board of Directors voted to support this plan by a majority vote. The
Supervisors are also being asked to approve of the request.
Mr. John Waring, a resident of North Garden who lives on Route 760, was
next to speak. If a book were written on how not to choose a fair site, the
proposed site would be the place to write about. Safety on the highway has
been mentioned, and he thinks the Supervisors have read about all of the
controversy surrounding this issue. The people in the North Garden community
have stated emphatically that they do not want the County Fair on this site.
They are not anti-fair, instead they are anti-fair site. This site is in
farmland.
Mr. Waring said he drives a County school bus each day. He drives Route
760, goes west on Taylor's Gap Road (Route 710), and then north on Route 29
early in the morning and each afternoon. It is difficult to stop going down
the grade on Route 710 on a wet day. There is a heavy volume of truck traffic
proceeding north on Route 29 from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. If vehicles are
traveling south on Route 29, there is a major industrial intersection at Route
708 where hundreds of dump trucks, school buses and other trucks come in and
out. Fifty feet further down the road there is a bridge over the Hardware
River, and 150 feet farther there is a curve banking to the right. He said
traffic has to queue into the left-hand lane. This is rare, because most of
the time you queue into a right-hand lane. When traffic travels into this
left-hand lane, traffic drops into a cut-through which is five and one-half
feet higher than the northbound lane. This is a terrible situation for
vehicles going south and north.
Mr. Waring remarked that the drawings shown tonight are great, but they
are not real. He believes traffic will be blocking Route 760 from the road up
to the proposed entrance of the County Fair. Four lanes of traffic is a great
concept, but what will be done with narrower sections before the traffic gets
to the four lanes. Me noted that the driveways of the Cutright's, Lowry's and
McCauley's will be blocked. This road is not able to accommodate the kind of
traffic that would be associated with a County Fair. He emphasized that he
lives in the area. He believes a tremendous amount of money will have to be
spent moving earth and paving.
Mr. Waring said he heard that the Fair netted approximately $14,000 at
the last fair, and there is supposed to be some money in the bank. He
understands several banks turned the Fair Board down before they got to this
point, and that the owner may be holding second paper. If that is the case,
this is a marginal operation. He does not believe this proposed site will
work, and he reiterated that the members of the community have spoken over and
over that they wish another fair site could be found. He said he would be
willing to help them look for another site, in his spare time. Mr. Ward said
he has walked over the property a hundred times. He does not think it is
possible to have a fair on a hillside which is dissected by high voltage power
lines. The property also drops off in the back into the flood plain. He
knows there are many other pieces of property which would be better suited for
the County Fair.
Mr. Waring told the Supervisors that this proposal is not for the good
of the County. It is only for the good of two or three people, and one of
them has a heavy profit motive. He stated that there are signed petitions
against this proposal, and the entire North Garden community is very hopeful
that the Supervisors will see the pitfalls that await the Fair, if this plan
is approved.
At 7:32 p.m., Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing, since there was no
one else who wished to speak.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a crossover existing at the intersection
of Route 29 and Route 760. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." There is also a
crossover at the intersection of Route 29 and Route 708. Mr. Perkins wondered
if the applicant has a cost estimate for the necessary improvements to Route
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) OOOt~
(Page 5)
760. Mr. Cilimberg said he assumes the applicant has looked into this matter.
Mr. Perkins next asked if improvements to Route 760 would have to meet State
standards. Mr. Cilimberg replied that VDoT officials would like to have Route
760 widened to 18 feet, which is the present minimal standard. Mr. Perkins
asked if someone from the Albemarle County Fair Board would address the cost
of improvements to Route 760.
Mr. John C. Hart, a member of the Fair Board, stated that the improve-
ments to Route 760 are estimated to be $12,000. It is already 16 feet wide
and 200 to 300 feet of it has been paved. County Fair officials would be
responsible for paving approximately 750 feet. VDoT wants the road to be
widened another foot on each side, but Fair Board officials would rather not
do this. He noted that Route 760 has a slight curve, but no blind spots, so
they feel a 16-foot width is adequate. Vehicles will only be traveling 15 to
20 miles per hour before they turn into the fairgrounds. He also noted that
people such as Stirling Williamson and others, during their slow times in the
winter, will contribute work at cost. He said it will cost a lot of money to
cut away the bank, but there are people who will loan their equipment, and
there are Fair Board members who can drive bulldozers, etc.~ If the fair could
have its own site, there are a lot of people willing to contribute things, but
they don't want to contribute when the fair does not own its own property.
Mr. Marshall said he would like to clarify his earlier comments. He is
opposed to approval of SP-93-23 but it is not because Mr. Steve Meeks has been
ousted although he has known Mr. Meeks for many years. Me trusts Mr. Meeks'
judgment, and Mr. Meeks is opposed to this application. If there is going to
be a permanent fair site, and permanent structures built, he thinks the site
should be something which can be used all year.
Mr. Bowerman concurred. Me referred to Mr. Carter's comment that the
grounds would only be used for five or six days of the year. Mr. Waring also
remarked that this Board has been known to make decisions which impact a small
portion of the County when they feel a greater County benefit would be served.
That doesn't apply in this case because the request is for this one event. He
emphasized that he would like to see a fair site which can accommodate more
uses than this one, and he thinks it is imperative that it be that way.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, which was seconded by Mr.
Marshall, to deny SP-93-23 for the Albemarle County Fair. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman, and Mrs. Mumphris (see
note below).
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Mrs. Humphris noted her vote was based on all of the materials the
Supervisors received regarding all of the problems with access, high voltage
lines, flood plains, etc. She disagrees with the representative who said it
is the best site available, and the only one the Fair Board can afford until
something is supported by the County. She said the Fair is already located on
a site that is superior to the proposed site, and one from which it does not
have to move.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-93-22. Malcolm Woodward & Virginia Land Trust.
Public hearing to permit fill activity in the flood plain on 1.2 ac zoned HC.
Property located on Fontaine Avenue Ext W of Morey Creek. TM76,P12B,12C,12E.
Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and
October 4, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He noted that the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 1993, unanimously recommended
approval of SP-93-22, subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
2. The basement shall be used only for storage and mechanical
equipment space. The basement is not considered habitable
and there shall be no employee work space or area open to
the public in the basement;
3. Compliance with all local, state and federal permit require-
ments pertaining to fill activity within the flood plain.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the room at 7:40 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Melton, representing the applicant, stated that he concurs
with the Planning staff and the Planning Commission. He said he is present to
answer any questions the Board members might have.
Mr. Mac Woodward, the owner of the site, stated that after more than 30
years, this is a good and correct use for the site. The building fits the
000 $3
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
neighborhood design criteria satisfactorily, and the plan has been thoroughly
reviewed.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris moved approval of SP-93-22, with the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Roll
(Note:
1.
The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
The basement shall be used only for storage and mechanical
equipment space. The basement is not considered habitable
and there shall be no employee work space or area open to
the public in the basement;:
Compliance with all local, state and federal permit require-
ments pertaining to fill activity within the flood plain.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-93-25. Fastrax Entertainment, Inc. (applicant);
Rio Associates Limited Partnership (owner). Public hearing for commercial
recreation establishment including, but not limited to go-karts, bumper boats,
batting cages, arcade games. Property consisting of approx 1.2 ac zoned HC &
EC in NW corner of inters of Rt 29 & access rd to Kegler's Bowling Center.
TM45,P109 (part). Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 27 and October 4, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is filed as a part of
the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on September 21, 1993, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No alcohol sales;
The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method of
handling the waste water has been approved by the Department of
Environmental Quality;
3e
Uses shall be limited to go kart races, batting cages, bumper
boats and arcades;
At such time as a sewer line with adequate capacity is in place
within 200 feet of the building, the applicant will connect to
public sewer.
Mr. Bowerman asked where the septic system is located. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that he does not have the site noted on any of his information. He
believes the drainfield will be located under the parking area. A reserve
drainfield is also required, and it would not be located under the parking
area. He pointed out that the Architectural Review Board did not endorse the
request° The ARB was concerned about the impact on the entrance corridor. ~
Also, the original alignment for Alternative 10 would have affected this site,
but plans for this roadway are uncertain at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said he realizes the ARB did not have a final site plan on
which to base its determination, although this plan must be presented at the
site plan review stage, and the ARB's recommendation has to be positive for
the Planning Commission to accept the plan. Mr. Cilimberg concurred. The ARB
must also issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the site to be developed.
Mr. Bowerman referred to the ARB's minutes, and said the ARB felt it would be
very difficult to have such a facility in this location. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed. Mr. Martin pointed out that the ARB had indicated that part of the
reason for its negative reaction to this request was because of the expense.
Mr. Cilimberg said the expense aspect of the plan was brought up during the
Planning Commission meeting. The applicant can certainly speak to his
awareness that there are some detailed and stringent requirements which will
have to be met in dealing with the visual aspects of this site. The ARB did
not have a refined plan when this request was reviewed. The ARB members knew
the uses that were requested, and they made a recommendation based on what
they had before them. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the ARB is acting simply
in an advisory capacity in this case. This special use permit is not required
because of activity in the entrance corridor, but because of the type of use
which is for a commercial recreation establishment.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. David Elmore, a
representative of Fastrax Entertainment, Inc., stated that he is requesting a
special use permit to develop this land for recreational use so that friends
and families can come here and have some wholesome recreational activities.
The main attraction will be a go-kart track utilizing state-of-the-art
000 .$4
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
go-karts. These go-karts are quiet, pollution controlled and safety-oriented.
Each car is computer controlled. He explained that there is a computer device
on the car which is maintained by an attendant who can control each vehicle so
that the whole environment is controlled. The bumper boats are similarly
designed to provide entertainment and safety. His plans include a kiddie
track for small children. The idea is to provide an attractive, safe and
alcohol-free environment where families can come and spend quality time
together.
Mr. Elmore noted that there are some controversial issues. One concern
is the necessity to have a septic system. This is not the choice of the
applicant, but comes about because of the inadequate pump station. However,
it is adequate for this establishment to be on a septic system because of
minimal use. He said the Waynesboro Fastrax establishment has an average
sewage use less than that of a residence. The last two years of records show
an average-use per day of 66 gallons, while an average residence has an
average use of 150 gallons per day. The use is similar to a department store
where restrooms are available, but people don't use them frequently, as they
would in a restaurant.
Mr. Elmore said there is a miniature golf course adjacent to this
proposed establishment. It is also on a septic system and similar results
have been reported as far as restroom usage is concerned. He said the Health
Department also has jurisdiction over this plan, and they would not allow it
if their specifications could not be met. He noted that civil engineers have
been employed, experts in this area, and they feel a septic system would be
adequate for this use on this site. He recalled the question earlier in the
meeting as to where the drainfield is located. He said it will be located
under the parking lot area, with the reserve drainfield under the go-kart
track.
Mr. Elmore said the ARB has given.this plan a negative recommendation,
but he feels this came about because of the applicant's inability to articu-
late the visual impact of this site on Route 29. He feels the adjacent
miniature golf course is a very attractive facility. He expects this proposed
establishment to be a continuation of that facility. He explained that a
small, colonial style building is proposed, and the entire area will be
landscaped with water, vegetation, wood and stones to create a homogenous
environment with the surrounding area. As Ms. Marcia Joseph, the ARB's Design
Planner, suggested, there will be a screening theme, using trees and shrubber-
ies to blend in with the surrounding areas. Because of Kegler's, Mr. Elmore
said he feels this is a very suitable site for this establishment. The
applicant has met with Mr. Frank Stoner at Kegler's, and it is felt that the
different businesses will complement each other to create an attractive, safe
and enjoyable entertainment area. He then respectfully requested that the
Board approve the special use permit so that some much needed entertainment
can be provided to the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the establishment in Waynesboro is approximately
the same size as the one proposed for Route 29. Mr. Elmore responded that the
proposed Route 29 establishment will be approximately twice the size of the
one in Waynesboro. Mr. Bowerman questioned the usage of the park, as far as
daily, weekends and seasonal usage is concerned. Mr. Elmore replied that the
average number of people who visit the establishment is 375 per day. This
figure represents peak times such as Fridays and Saturdays. They expect the
Charlottesville location to average a 75 percent increase over that figure.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the 375 figure for the Waynesboro establishment repre-
sents people using all of the facilities at that location. Mr. Elmore
replied, "yes." He explained that the Waynesboro location has a go-kart track
and a kiddie track. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Waynesboro facility has bumper
boats. Mr. Elmore answered, "no." He said that facility is not large enough
to accommodate bumper boats.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the proposed location of the septic drain-
fields. Mr. Elmore said he is not an expert in that area. However, it was
mentioned earlier tonight that it is inappropriate to put a drainfield under a
parking lot. He believes the person who made this statement is unqualified to
address this issue. His company's experts and the Health Department represen-
tatives have all indicated that this is the ideal location. He pointed out
that the Planning Commission agreed. Mrs. Humphris inquired as to whom Mr.
Elmore is referring when he speaks of his company's experts. Mr. Elmore
answered that his company used the engineers employed by McKee/Carson.
Next, Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Elmore had mentioned that septic
usage was calculated to be 66 gallons per day. Mr. Elmore stated that this is
the usage the Waynesboro facility has recorded. Mrs. Humphris remarked that
she does not understand this calculation because it is the equivalent of five
flushes of a commode. She thinks this type of entertainment would attract
families, and people who have children know that when children are taken to a
place such as this they are going to use the facilities. At least that was
always her experience. She does not understand the calculations. Mr. Elmore
replied that he is only referencing historical facts, and he has documentation
which he can present this evening. Mrs. Humphris commented that she thinks
the people working at the establishment would use the commode more than the
calculations indicate. Mr. Elmore stated that he is not disagreeing with Mrs.
Humphris.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~55
(Page 8)
Mr. Perkins noted that only five gallons of water is used when a commode
is flushed. Mrs. Humphris stated that even if that is the case, that would
still be only 11 flushes a day, or 15 flushes with water saving commodes. Mr.
Bowerman inquired if Mrs. Humphris would like to see the information that Mr.
Elmore has in hand. Mrs. Humphris answered affirmatively and said that the
information the Board members received indicated that Mr. Elmore had been
asked by Planning Commission members if he was aware of ARB requirements for
use of this property if the special permit is allowed. She said Mr. Elmore
had answered affirmatively. Mr. Elmore replied that the estimated cost of the
ARB's requirements is appropriate. He then referred back to the septic system
questions asked by Mrs. Humphris. He said the 375 people per day figure
relates to peak days, such as Fridays and Saturdays. He went on to say that
for weekdays, as well as slower parts of the year, the average flushes total
66 gallons per day.
~; '~'~?~.~Mr. Marshall asked how many feet of drainfield are involved with the
Waynesboro establishment. Mr. Elmore said he did not know. The establishment
in Waynesboro has public sewer, and he is quoting from these records. Mr.
Marshall remarked that he lives on a farm; and every Labor Day, his church
members come to his farm for a picnic. Approximately 250 to 350 people attend
this picnic. He has five bathrooms and 500 feet of drainfield. The day after
the picnic, there was a problem with seepage from that drainfield, so now he
brings in two portable bathrooms to eliminate this problem. He knows from
past experience that if he had asphalt over that drainfield, he would be in
trouble, and the sewage would be backing up into the house. He has been
having this picnic for ten years, and he was forced to use the portable
bathrooms for this event. Mr. Elmore said it is felt that the septic system
situation will be adequate for the proposed facility. Me added, however, that
if it is not adequate, his company has permission to get an easement on an
adjacent piece of property for the drainfield. This piece of property is very
large, and it is another option if there are problems with the first plan.
Mr. Perkins asked if the proposed facility will operate 12 months per
year. Mr. Elmore answered that the Waynesboro facility operates for only
about six months per year. Mr. Perkins asked about the plans for the proposed
Charlottesville facility. Mr. Elmore said it is hoped the facility can stay
open longer in Charlottesville, but it will probably be closed for the months
of December, January and February. Mr. Bowerman asked if the facility would
be totally closed during those months. Mr. Elmore answered, "yes."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the go-karts could be used in the winter, as long
as it isn't wet. Mr. Elmore said he has talked to people in Lynchburg, and
their facility operates all 12 months of the year. If it is possible, his
company would like to operate the whole year, but he does not think that it is
feasible.
Ms. Demmie Maine stated her concern about the placement of the go-kart
facility. Although Mr. Elmore had indicated it is to be an alcohol free
facility, the proposed facility is located next to Kegler's Bowling Alley,
which is an alcohol substance area. She is concerned that people will be
using the bowling alley and then they may decide to go over and use the
go-kart and bumper boat facility. If these people have consumed alcohol, this
poses a danger for children and other people using the area for their enjoy-
ment. She mentioned the current problems around Kegler's Bowling Alley.
There have been several incidents of drunken brawling in the parking lot~ and
four officers were injured recently trying to break up one of the fights. She
believes this poses a concern for the proposed use in this area.
Ms. Maine mentioned that the ARB was also concerned about placement of
this facility in an entrance corridor. She remarked that she grew up in this
area, but left here for ten years, and lived in the Manassas and Boston areas.
She has watched growth such as this come into an area. People from those
areas are moving into this area from New Jersey, New York, and other areas,
looking for quiet, peaceful and beautiful settings. They are not looking for
a lot of go-karts coming into the Charlottesville area. She emphasized that
these people are looking for a quiet family life. This is what she hears from
talking to her neighbors and other people who live in this area. They do not
feel this is the type of facility they want in the Charlottesville area. Ms.
Maine asked the Board members to look at the safety aspect of this facility,
since it is proposed next door to a place which serves alcohol. She also
reiterated that it is not something that local people want in this area, at
least not at this time.
Ms. Maine said she had recently obtained a special permit for a pre-
school she set up in Earlysville. The Board required her to have 20 gallons
of water per child per day. The 66 gallons of water mentioned by Mr. Elmore
does not sound as if it is enough. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Maine if she thinks
there is any place in Albemarle County where such a facility would be appro-
priate. Ms. Maine answered, "yes." Mr. Bowerman then inquired what type of
place Ms. Maine would suggest. Ms. Maine said she believes such a facility
would be appropriate in the Airport area or the Pantops area. These places
aren't quite as congested, and not as many people are coming through these
places into the County. She did not think it would pose as much of a visual
problem as it would on Route 29 North, yet it would be accessible. She
believes people would use such a facility just about anywhere. It would be
better to have this facility where there is not so much traffic, and it could
be set back where it was not so visible to people. She believes there are
places in the County where this type of facility would work, but she does not
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) O001~6
(Page 9)
believe the two places chosen to put these facilities are feasible. One
proposed site was next to a school, and this one is in an entrance corridor
and next door to a place which serves alcohol.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Maine feels the proposed uses (go-karts,
bumper boats, arcade) can be wholesome uses for families. He asks Ms. Maine
this since she is a citizen and takes care of children. Ms. Maine replied
that she is rearing three children whom she brought back to this area because
of the quietness of the county. She probably would not use such a facility
and her neighbors probably would not use it a great deal either. It is not
the type of entertainment they are seeking for their children. She would like
to speak to the applicant because there are some wholesome family activities
which she thinks would be wonderful for this area. The proposed facility has
things that people normally do at the beach, and other such areas, when they
have a lot of free time. She would like to see some different types of
activities in this area for families, and she believes that there are many
other families who feel the same way. Things which challenge a child's mind
and physical abilities. Parents do not want their children to be sticking
quarters in video arcade machines and playing on a speedtrack, She reiterat-
ed that these are not the type of activities that she and other parents are
seeking for their children.
Ms. Karen Strickland said she would like to reinforce everything Ms.
Maine said. She mentioned that the role of the Planning Commission is
supposed to be visionary, planning for the people who are here now, as well as
planning for the future. She does not think County officials are looking far
enough ahead. They are, instead, looking at what people want to do right now.
She asked if it is reasonable to allow someone to use a septic system when
public sewer is available, and the Comprehensive Plan indicates that public
sewer should be used. She said if a precedent is set now, then someone else
will want to do the same thing. It will probably continue in this manner all
the way up Route 29 North to Forest Lakes.
Ms. Strickland said some questions have come to her mind, and she
wonders if they are important enough to warrant overriding the finding of the
ARB. The ARB is composed of people who are thoughtful, prominent and repre-
sent a variety of positions in the community. If the ARB denies a request,
then she thinks it should hold a lot of merit. She does not understand how
the Planning staff and Planning Commission can go against the ARB. She asked
if this amusement park offers something that would be such an asset to the
community that the Board should override the ARB's denial. She next wondered
if it is so overwhelmingly necessary for the welfare of the community that it
is worth adding to the ugliness of Route 29. She wonders if the proposed
facility will be of such benefit that it is worth detracting from the visual
beauty of the area, when the beauty of the community is the reason people move
here. A lot of people come to the Charlottesville area because it is unique,
and has a character and quality which is different.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Strickland if she thinks this use would be
appropriate somewhere else in Albemarle County. Ms. Strickland answered
affirmatively. She has three children and she might take them to such a
facility once, as something different to do. It would not be something that
she would use on a regular basis. One of her neighbors told her she took her
children to one of these places at the beach, and a five-minute ride for eight
year olds cost $8.00. She cannot imagine that this is something the people in
this area could afford many times. She said that in the minutes of the ARB it
is mentioned that the proposed facility is intended for tourists. She does
not think tourists would come here to use such a facility.
Mr. Bowerman said he is asking the speakers these questions because a
lot of parents have indicated to him that they were disappointed by this
Board's last decision in denying the request for such a facility. These
parents feel their children have the opportunity to go to libraries and
educate themselves, but this was something else that the children could do.
These parents did not see that this type of facility was inappropriate.
Ms. Strickland responded that she agrees with Ms. Maine that the first
facility was opposed because of the proximity of the school. She said a
school deserves to have a residential community around it. She said this is
what got her to the meeting about the first request, and this proposed
facility, if approved, would be in an entrance corridor. She drives Route 29
all the time, and she doesn't like the way it is developing. She then
remarked that she thinks a perfect spot would be off of Route 606 across from
the Airport. That site is close enough to Route 29. The noise from the
Airport is already there. She reiterated that there must be places in the
County where such a facility could be located. She emphasized that she cannot
see that this is a logical place for such a facility, although she can see
that the County might be able to use it.
Mr. Doug Cole, owner and operator of Fastrax Entertainment, Inc. in
Waynesboro, was present. Me said people don't seem to understand this type of
business. It is for all ages. The facility in Waynesboro has been there for
three years. There are kiddie cars that children from three years old, up to
a height of 54 inches, can ride. He mentioned that he has double cars where a
parent and a child can ride together (the driver of a double car has to be at
least 16 years old). He said there are also regular cars for individual
drivers. He understands this type of entertainment is not for everybody.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000:1.5'7
Mr. Cole mentioned that a lot of church groups come to the Waynesboro
location, and Sunday nights seem to be a good time for such groups to come to
his facility. This past Sunday night a lady with a church group mentioned
that this was her fourth consecutive time at the Waynesboro facility. She
said sometimes she brings approximately 30 people, but this time she had only
nine people with her. This lady mentioned that this type of entertainment
wasn't for her, but when her group makes its yearly plans, the majority of the
group (composed of all ages), asks to go to Fastrax. This group also goes
bowling, skiing and hiking. This group is from Crozet but they go to the
Waynesboro facility. He stated that this lady indicated that almost 100
percent of the people in her group want to come to his establishment.
Mr. Cole said there are a lot of birthday parties held at the Waynesboro
location. They have group rates for companies such as DuPont, Hershey, Little
Debbie, etc. He pointed out that this facility is used by many types of
people, and not just teenagers as a teen hangout. Mr. Cole said he thinks the
Amish and the Mennonite people are great, and he looks up to them. One Sunday
night a lot of cars brought 25 to 30 people to his facility, of all ages, in
one group. The children rode the little cars, and others rode the double
cars, Even the women with the long dresses and bonnets rode the go-karts, He
said they were laughing and having a good time.
Mr. Cole said a lot of people think of this facility as being strictly
for teenagers, but it is not. Although he is not familiar with Kegler's, if
there is drinking at Kegler's, then he understands what Ms. Strickland said.
He added that where the Waynesboro facility is located there is a restaurant
and a dance hall located probably within 300 feet. One night after midnight a
bunch of people came to his facility from the restaurant when he was closing.
He closed his facility anyway, and he has not allowed anything such as this to
happen because his facility is for families.
Mr. Cole said he asked the Police Department in Waynesboro to furnish
him with a report on any problems with his facility, although he knew that
there had been no problems. He remarked that the Police Department represen-
tative replied that his facility had an excellent record, and there has never
been a call from this facility° He noted that the Police Department represen-
tative indicated that Fastrax in Waynesboro has a better record than the
parking lots at McDonald's or Hardee's.
Mr. Cole then mentioned the septic system and the drainfield. Although
he could not remember the man's name, he was told that the drainfield is
proposed to be put under the parking lot because it is dry under the asphalt.
It is totally dry so it will take more water. He mentioned that there will be
a back-up system. Mr. Bowerman asked the approximate rates to ride go-karts.
Mr. Cole responded that there is a $2.00 charge for the kiddie cars for a
five-minute ride, $3.00 for regular cars, and $4.00 for double cars for an
adult and a child. These have been the rates for over three years. All of
these rides last for five minutes; they go 27 laps during this time.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Cole if the $4.00 charge is for one person. Mr.
Cole answered, "no." He again explained the charges.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to the average length of time that a person
would use a go-kart. Mr. Cole said the cars normally run for five minutes,
but there are a lot of people who ride several times. There are a lot of
people who only ride one time, and then they leave. He said it varies. Mrs.
Humphris said she wanted an average figure because she couldn't see someone
coming to such a facility and only staying five minutes. Mr. Cole said that a
person would probably ride twice. He reiterated that some people only ride
once, and some people might ride five times.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Cole has another way of making money, such as
selling popcorn, cotton candy, etc. Mr. Cole answered that his facility has
two drink machines and snack machines. Mr. Marshall asked if this is similar
to a concession stand. Mr. Cole responded, "no." There are only these couple
of machines.
Mr. Cole noted that the kiddie track was added this year, and it has
done great. In addition to the kiddie track, there is the regular go-kart
track and a small game room. He emphasized that there have been no problems,
and no drinking of alcoholic beverages is allowed on the place. He wants this
to be a good family type of business. He stated that his facility has a great
environment. He next noted that to show that there have been no drinking
problems or a bad police record~ besides going to the Police Department, he
asked a police officer to come to this meeting and speak for him.
Mr. Gary Stevenson, a 20-year veteran with the Waynesboro Police
Department, stated that he has known Mr. Cole for approximately 15 years. He
said Mr. Cole used to be a mechanic, and he had a garage and gas station. He
noted that Mr. Cole had a respectable business with his garage and station,
and people enjoyed going to his place of business, because he would treat
everybody fairly. Mr. Stevenson went on to say that Fastrax in Waynesboro is
located at the intersection with West Main Street, and this particular part of
West Main Street is a four lane highway, and there are no traffic problems°
He noted that there have been no calls about fights, etc., at this place of
business. He has watched Mr. Cole run his business. Me has been there at
times when Mr. Cole did not know he was there. He said that Mr. Cole is
strict about the go-karts, and if people who are riding the go-karts get out
000 .$8
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11) · , .
of hand, he makes them stop riding. Mr. Stevenson noted that when Mr. Cole
first opened Fastrax in Waynesboro, he (Mr. Stevenson) took a radar unit to
the facility and clocked the go-karts at 14 miles per hour. He pointed out
that this is not fast. Where that facility is located, there is a lot of
traffic. However, there have been no traffic problems connected with the
facility. He also added there have been no problems with crowd control, and
Mr. Cole runs a respectable business. Mr. Stevenson next mentioned that not
only is the City getting some revenue from this business, but the yo.unger
children are having a good time. He said that the children love coming to
Fastrax, and that is one of the things that he likes about it, because it is
getting children off the street and putting them in one place where they can
have fun. He pointed out that recently, at a couple of the home football
games, there were more problems there than at Fastrax. He reiterated that
there are no problems connected with Fastrax, and he thinks it is a good idea.
He noted that he has three of his sons with him at this meeting tonight, and
they love the Fastrax facility.
At 8:29 p.m., since no one else came forward to speak, Mr. Bowerman
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin commented that when Adventure Land, which is'a similar
project, came before this Board, he did not support the request because of the
possibility that it might involve getting rid of high density housing and
because the location was near a school. It wasn't because he thought the
facility would be a bad influence on the school. It was because he wanted to
maintain the integrity of the school being in a neighborhood type of environ-
ment as opposed to a commercial type of environment. He noted that after his
negative vote, the newspaper presented the matter in such a way that it looked
as though all of the Supervisors voted against the proposal because they felt
children should always be reading a book instead of going to such a facility,
and that it was going to be a terrible hangout for drunks and drug addicts.
He said a lot of his neighbors, and the people who live in Hollymead and
Forest Lakes, etc., disagreed with his vote, and he has had to continually
explain his rationale for voting against that proposal. Mr. Martin said when
he looks at this project, he does not see these problems. He would probably
vote in favor of this proposal.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she sees two problems, and one problem
relates to the septic system. She wondered how the Supervisors can justify
having this septic system with drainfields located under a parking area, when
this does not correspond with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for a
commercial enterprise in a growth area. If the Supervisors keep allowing uses
to be put in this area using septic systems, there will never be a sewer line
installed there, because there won't be anybody there to pay for it.
Mr. Martin stated that if public water and sewer are contemplated in
that area in .the Comprehensive Plan, then the County should either have them
installed, or they should allow people to make adjustments. This would then
be left up to the experts to decide what is appropriate, what can be used, and
whether or not there is enough capacity. He would never try to be an expert
on this subject because he doesn't know if a drainfield would work well under
a parking lot as opposed to being located in a field. He remarked that County
officials keep saying there has to be public sewerage in that area, so he
suggested that the County pay for it and have it installed. He does not think
these pieces qf property can be kept as they are just because there is no
public water and sewer service in that area. There is no such service there,
but, on the other hand, County officials have made no provisions to pay for it
to go there. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the developer should pay for the
sewer, and not the taxpayers. She feels the person who will benefit from the
public sewer system will get the profit. Mr. Martin said the applicant has
clearly said that he would prefer to have the public sewer, but there is no
capacity there, and that is not the applicant's fault.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he had spoken with Mr. Hollis Lumpkin, who is
on the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board of Directors, about the
septic system. Mr. Lumpkin told him (Mr. Marshall) that he should not support
the application because of the inadequate pump station. Mr. Marshall stated
that he remembers that the pump station needs to be replaced with a much
larger unit, and it would cost thousands of dollars. The applicant wasn't
willing to replace that pump station, but, if the applicant is willing to
bring the pump station up to adequate standards, then he might change his
mind.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Martin about the septic system, and
he agrees with Mrs. Humphris about the public sewer. He mentioned that
because of the plans for the Route 29 North, Alternative 10 bypass, there was
a question as to how much of the commercial property in this area could be
developed. The ACSA was going to put in a gravity fed line through Carrsbrook
to the main trunk line which drains to Moores Creek, to serve that area. When
Alternative 10 plans were developed, this option was eliminated because of the
cost. It was decided that the thing to do was to upgrade the pump station.
There has to be enough critical mass to get the ACSA to make the $1.5 million
investment needed. The Authority does not want to put in a new pump station
because that is not the best solution since the gravity fed line involves much
less maintenance. There are six homes which could be served in the Woodbrook
Subdivision, a lot of commercial property in the area, and a portion of the
Carrsbrook Subdivision. This project is in the Authority's Capital Improve-
ments Plan for 1997 or 1998. He pointed out that if a use on this commercial
000 $
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
property needed to use a sePtic system temporarily, it would not be a problem
because there is a plan for the gravity main to serve these areas along Route
29, the Carrsbrook Subdivision and the six lots in the Woodbrook Subdivision
with public sewer.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman what effect the possible change in the
routing of the Alternative 10 bypass will have on the viability of this whole
commercial area. Mr. Bowerman answered that it would make it more viable.
Mrs. Humphris said it returns the commercial area to viability because there
is much less impact. Mr. Bowerman concurred. He said the location of gravity
sanitary sewer is exactly where the interchange was supposed to be. Mrs.
Humphris commented that instead of being destroyed, the commercial area could
then be developed. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He reiterated that the ACSA has
considered this commercial area, and the change in the Alternative 10 bypass
route makes the area in question more viable. He noted that the ACSA would
like to serve the Carrsbrook Subdivision, Woodbrook Subdivision and the
commercial developments with a gravity main.
Mr. Martin said there have been comments made tonight that this is not
an appropriate place for this type of establishment in terms of aesthetics and
the fact that it would be located in an entrance corridor. In the two years
he has been on this Board, it seems that no matter where anybody wants to do
anything, some people will object. If this type of business were going into a
rural area, it definitely would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. People would be basing their objections on the Comprehensive Plan, and
saying something of this nature should be put on Route 29 North. He pointed
out that Route 29 North is zoned in such a manner that this is an appropriate
placement of this particular project. On the other hand, if the ARB doesn't
like how the property is developing, then this project won't happen.
Mrs. Humphris stated that the ARB recommendation was the second thing
that she wanted to mention. The ARB made it clear that this was going to be a
very difficult site to disguise or hide so as to make it appropriate for an
entrance corridor. There was no question about that and there was no question
that the applicant said, at the Planning Commission meeting that he is aware
of what it will take to mitigate the situation. She pointed out that the
applicant indicated that he had an idea of what it would cost, and that would
not stop him from wanting to go ahead with the project.
Mr. Martin responded that he read the ARB minutes. They seemed to
discuss whether to recommend denial of the appl$cation, or whether the
applicant should be informed that it will be very difficult to meet the ARB~s
expectations° He said the ARB did decide to recommend denial, but he (Mr.
Martin) felt there were quite a few ARB Board members who felt a denial should
not have been recommended. Instead, the applicant should be informed that it
would be costly and very difficult to get the ARB's approval in the future°
Mr. Marshall mentioned that there are already three of these types of
establishments in the County. He wondered what would be the harm in waiting
four years until the sewer line is installed. Mr. Martin replied that the
only similar activity currently in the County is miniature golf, and there are
three of those within four or five miles of each other. Two of them are
within a mile and one-half of each other. He has gotten remarks from his
neighbors indicating they want something to do with their children other than
miniature golf and bowling. These people look at this proposed facility as a
family type of activity, and as something different to do on a Saturday or
Sunday afternoon with their children.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the lack of public sewer in that
area is an adequate reason to deny this request. He added that if denial is
on the basis of the ARB's recommendation, or a concern that the use is just
not appropriate in that specific location because this is a special permit and
requires a legislative action by this Board, then he thinks these are more
valid reasons for denial. He remarked that if the Health Department approves
the septic system, then a septic system will be adequate for this establish-
ment.
Mr. Martin pointed out that the applicant has an investment with a
septic system, because if it doesn't work, it means the applicant will either
have to go out of business or redo it, which will be costly, either way. He
doesn't think the applicant can get away with less than what he needs in the
way of a septic system; that would not be in the applicant's best interest.
Mrs. Humphris wanted to be sure the Supervisors understand the numerous
problems the ARB found with this application. She read from the ARB minutes.
She went on to say that the whole question relates to whether or not these
things can be integrated into the entrance corridor. She said people need to
be reminded that the entrance corridor is what introduces the community to
incoming people. She just wanted to remind the Board members of where the
proposed project will be located, and she wondered if other Board members
think they really can approve such a request for the entrance corridor° She
added that she has no quarrel with this type of establishment, because she
used to take her children to this kind of thing at the beach. She pointed out
that the problem at the beach was that the drivers were looking at the lights
and other things along the road, and not remembering where they were driving.
She noted that, at the beach, the establishments are an advertisement.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~.60
(Page 13)
Mr. Bowerman remarked that this is not a black and white situation.
It is very difficult. He does not have a problem with the use, but is
concerned that Route 29 is not a beautiful area. He noted that the County has
the Entrance Corridor Overlay, and there are other controls so Route 29 will
not get any worse. Over time, it is hoped that Route 29 will get better as
properties redevelop. He does not think this is an appropriate use in the
Entrance Corridor Overlay district. A lot of people have talked to him during
the last two weeks, and for this particular application, he is more concerned
about the ARB's comments about the facility being in the Entrance Corridor
Overlay district, than any other item. It is for this reason that he won't
support the request.
Mr. Martin said he trusts the ARB's recommendations, and when he looks
at the Amoco Station across from Forest Lakes and the new McDonald's on Route
250, he is certain that the ARB is definitely doing its job. He feels the ARB
will eventually approve the plan that is submitted. If the ARB doesn't
approve it, then the request will be denied. Given the fact that the ARB
didn't have the final plans, he is willing to give the applicant an opportuni-
ty to put together the kind of plan the ARB can support.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to approve SP-93-25, Fastrax
Entertainment, Incorporated, with the four conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, with the stipulation that the ARB will have to approve
the site plan.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. He agreed that it is not a black and
white issue, but he said this is probably as good a place as any to have a
business of this type. He noted that parents are faced with teenagers saying
that they don't have anything to do, and he wondered what teenagers want to
do. He said that where he grew up, there was not anything to do, but the
children always found something.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out another significant comment from the minutes
of the ARB so the applicant would know this would be a substantial undertak-
ing. She said the suggestion was for the ARB to recommend to the Planning
Commission that this special permit be denied because it was felt that the
nature of the use would be very difficult and expensive to integrate aestheti-
cally into Route 29 according to ARB Guidelines, and the ARB members felt that
there were a number of uses by right which would be more appropriate in this
location. She added that she has no problem with the use, but she is con-
cerned about the entrance corridor location. She said it will be very
difficult to disguise the use and handle it aesthetically, and she believes it
will present an amazing problem which will cause a lot of trouble back and
forth with the ARB. She cannot support the application. She thinks it would
just be "asking for problems."
Roll was called, and the motion was denied by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:48 p.m., and reconvened at 8:56 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing to review the EASTHAM AGRICULTURAL
FORESTAL DISTRICT which consists of eight parcels totalling 764.750 acs and
which is located on E & W sides of Rt 20 N of Rt 612. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Agricultural Forestal Districts Act, Code Section
15.1-1511.F requires that the Board review the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal
District prior to its review date, or determine that a review is unnecessary.
A review is necessary in this case because the property owners wish to extend
the review period by ten years.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff report presented to the Commission on
September 21, 1993, was incorrect. The number of dwellings was taken from
computerized use value taxation data which does not list dwellings used for
farm employees. In the future, staff will use actual assessment cards to
confirm field inspections. In addition, the width of the AT&T right-of-way
should be corrected from 100 feet to 15 feet, When the towers were removed
and the fiber optic cable placed underground, the right-of-way was reduced.
Mr. Cilimberg handed out a revised chart showing tax map and parcel
numbers and dwellings. He said the dwellings on Mr. Shaw-Kennedy's property
were in place prior to the original adoption of the Eastham Agricultural/
Forestal District in 1985. No new dwellings have been added since 1982 when
the main house was built.
The Eigelow property contains eight dwellings, all of which are rentals
except the main house and the farm manager's house. One dwelling was built
after the district was adopted, and should not have been permitted since
several rentals already existed at the time of adoption of the Eastham
Agricultural/Forestal District. Only one rental, other than for bona fide
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000161
(Page 14)
agricultural employees or immediate family members, is permitted in a dis-
trict. Existing rentals may continue, but new rentals must meet the require-
ments.
Mr. Cilimberg said that based on this new information, staff recommends
that the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District be continued for ten years but
include only properties of the two original applicants; staff recommends that
the remainder of the applications be sent back to the Agricultural/Forestal
Advisory Committee to see if they have a new recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg
also noted that this item had not been advertised as a public hearing on an
ordinance amendment, therefore, the matter will need to be rescheduled and
advertised for a later meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the additional properties can be considered by the
Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee, along with the violation. Mr.
Cilimberg answered affirmatively.~"~He said staff thinks it has found a
solution to the violation. He next noted that one of the owners, Mr.
Archibald Craige, who had originally asked to be added to this district, has
now indicatedrthat he would rather be added.to the Keswick Agricultural/
Forestal District, which is adjacent t° his property on the eastern side. He
told the Supervisors that tonight they are being asked to renew the district
for the properties which are owned by Mr. George Worthington, IV, and Mr. B.J.
Shaw-Kennedy, which is a total of seven parcels.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one came
forward to make comments, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin offered a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Perkins, to renew
the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District for 10 years to include the
following parcels: TM63,P1, TM63,P1A1, TM63,P2, TM63,P4, TM63,P26, TM63,P27,
and TM63,P42A, which includes the four parcels owned by Mr. George Worthing-
ton, IV, and the three parcels owned by Mr. B. J. Shaw-Kennedy; TM63,P28 is to
be excluded from the review until the violation on the property has been
corrected; the addition of new parcels TM63,P1A, TM63,P41A and TM63,P41A1 will
be sent to the A/F District Advisory Committee for review, and be advertised
for an ordinance amendment at a later time.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 16.01 of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Naming of Roads and Numbering
of Properties". Changes proposed are: a new provision for existing unnamed
roads where the County would be responsible for the road signs when needed; a
change to the effective date for numbering requirements of Section 16.01-6
(the County is currently unable to assign numbers outside of major subdivi-
sions until new address notifications have taken place - tentatively scheduled
for November, 1993); a change to the second sentence of Section 16.01-6 to
make the provision applicable in the case of named roads so as to avoid
prolonged delay to a property owner seeking an occupancy permit (a number
cannot be assigned until a road has been named); a change to Section 16.01-7
to clarify that the provision applies to family divisions regarding naming/
signing requirements; a change to Section 16.01-3 allowing the Board to amend
the manual from time to time by resolution of the Board; and other "housekeep-
ing'' measures. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and
October 4, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker said one of the proposed changes affects Section 16.01-6,
"Numbers to be Displayed". The current ordinance required numbers to be
displayed on structures on or before January 1, 1993. The proposed ordinance
revises that date to January 1, 1994. This change was precipitated by delays
of the contractor in completing the addressing phase of the Enhanced 911
project. At the time of the Board's last work session, a November, 1993
address notification date was expected. Now, because the Postal Service will
be undergoing major changes to its computer system, the address notification
date will occur after the first of 1994. To avoid further changes to Section
16.01-6, a new revision to this section is proposed. Instead of requiring
that numbers be displayed by a specific date, the recommended language
requires the number to be displayed "... within 30 days of the address
effective date as established by the U. S. Postal Service." If this language
is adopted, residents will be notified of this requirement when they are
informed of their new address.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board adopted this ordinance and the associated
manual several months ago, but since that time, staff has found that changes
dealing with technicalities of the ordinance, need to be made. These changes
also reflect the fact that addresses will not be changed as soon as originally
anticipated.
Mr. Marshall asked if citizens have to provide house numbers at their
expense. Mr. Bowerman replied that the owners will have to provide the
numbers on homes and mailboxes, but the County will have to provide correct
street signs. Mr. Marshall wondered if it would be a violation of the ordi-
nance if he did not provide his new address in the appropriate place. People
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page
will be asking him that question. Mr. Bowerman responded that if Mr.
Marshall does not provide his address appropriately, he will not get any mail.
At 9:03 p.m., Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one from the
public cam forward to make any comments, so the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following ordinance amending and reenacting certain sections in Chapter
16.01 of the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Naming of Roads and Number of
Properties."
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
0 R D Z N A N C E
AN oRDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING
CERTAIN SECTIONS IN
CHAPTER 16.01
entitled
NAMING OF ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES
Sec. 16.01-1. Purpose; authority; intent.
(a) Purpose. In order to provide for more efficient
delivery of emergency and other services and to provide for
uniformity in road naming and assignment of property numbers,
there is hereby established a system for naming of roads and
numbering of properties within Albemarle County, Virginia.
(b) Authority. Authority for this ordinance is Section
15.1-379 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
(c) Intent. It is intended that all roads within the
county which serve or are designed to serve three or more dwelling
units or business structures, including both public and private
roads, shall be named; and that all dwelling units and business
structures within the county shall be assigned property numbers.
For any public or private road meeting the foregoing crite-
ria, unless otherwise previously required pursuant to Chapter 18,
Subdivision of Land, of this code or the Zoning Ordinance or as
required below, the placement of road signs shall be undertaken by
the county at county expense.
For any public or private road, except as hereafter express-
ly provided, approved subsequent to enactment of this chapter, the
subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placement, and
the costs of fabrication and installation of road signs upon those
roads approved as a part of any subdivision or site development
plan.
For roads funded by the county or by the Virginia Department
of Transportation, the county shall undertake at county expense
the placement of road signs.
For any road in existence on the effective date of this
chapter serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two
(2) addressable structures, the placement of road signs shall be
undertaken by the county at county expense at such time as the
road serves three (3) addressable structures; provided that no
additional subdivision or site development plan approval has
occurred, in which case placement shall be undertaken by the
subdivider or developer. The subdivider or developer is responsi-
ble for the placement of signs in existing subdivisions that are
bonded for future road acceptance.
It is further intended that the placement of numbers upon
dwelling units and business structures shall in all cases be at
the expense of the owners of such structures.
Sec. 16.01-2. Agent.
The director of planning and community development is hereby
designated the agent under Code of Virginia Section 15.1-379 for
the purpose of assigning road names and property addresses, and
for the development and maintenance of a manual and maps~ as
described below.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Sec. 16.01-3. Manual to be developed and adopted.
The agent shall develop a manual prescribing: a system for
the naming of roads and numbering of properties within the county;
the design of road signs; standards for site preparation for such
signs, and for maintenance thereof. Compliance with the proce-
dures set forth in such manual shall be mandatory upon its approv-
al by the board of supervisors. The manual may be amended from
time to time by resolution of the board.
Sec. 16.01-4. Maps to be developed and maintained.
The agent shall prepare and maintain current maps showing
all public and private roads which are officially named under this
ordinance within the county, the names of such roads, and number-
ing of all properties.
Sec. 16.01-5. Road signs.
With respect to placement of signs for which the county will
be responsible consistent with Section
16.01-1(c), the director of engineering shall be responsible for
placement at each road intersection, and at other places deemed
necessary by the agent.
With respect to placement of signs for which the subdivider
or developer will be responsible consistent with sections 16.01-
l(c) and 16.01-7 such subdivider or developer shall be responsible
for placement of signs at each road intersection, and at other
places deemed necessary by the agent. The subdivider or developer
shall maintain such signs until such time as the roads are taken
into the State Secondary System, or taken over for maintenance by
the homeowners as required pursuant to the private road mainte-
nance agreement as the case may be. Thereafter, the signs shall
be maintained by the county except where a special installation
has been allowed under Part III, 3(c) of this ordinance.
Such signs shall display the name of each such road within
the limits of the county, along with such other information as the
agent may deem necessary, including, but not limited to, secondary
or other road numbers as prescribed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Sec. 16.01-6. N,,mhers to be displayed.
The owner or other person responsible for each addressable
structure in the county shall display the assigned number in a
manner that' is easily readable in accordance with the manual
within thirty (30) days of the address effective date as estab-
lished by the U. S. Postal Service. With respect to addressable
structures built subsequent to the U. S. Postal Service's estab-
lished address effective date and served by a named road, no
occupancy permit shall be issued until such number has been
displayed in accordance with the above provisions.
Sec. 16.01-7. Site plan and subdivision requirements.
No final site plan or final subdivision plat which shows a
road required to be named shall be approved until such site plan
or subdivision plat displays on its face the name or names of such
road or roads, approved by the agent. No building permit shall be
issued for any structure within the area shown on such site
development plan or subdivision plat until road signs have been
installed by the subdivider or developer.
For the purpose of this chapter, the term "subdivision"
shall be deemed to include the term "family subdivision" as
defined by Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, of this code.
Sec. 16.01-8. Official address.
Upon adoption of this ordinance and approval of the manual
and the map(s), the street name and number assigned to each
property within the county shall be the official address of such
property, for all purposes.
Sec. 16.01-9. Enforcement.
Any person who willfully fails to comply with any require-
ments of this chapter and the regulations adopted hereunder shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be subject to the general penalty set forth in section 1-6
of this Code, for each day after the first day that such violation
shall continue. Inaddition to the penalty specified above, the
county executive or his designee may invoke any other lawful
procedure including injunction to correct or abate such violation.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000164
(Page 17) ~
Agenda Item No. 12. Readopt Road Naming and Numbering Manual.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that because of the previous motion to amend and
reenact Chapter 16.01 of the Code of Albemarle, the associated manual needs to
be readopted.
Mr. Martin then offered motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
readopt the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, as set out in full
below.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ROAD NAMING AND PROPERTY NUMBERING MANUAL
INTRODUCTION
This manual is to prescribe a system for the naming of roads; the
numbering of properties and structures; and the erection and maintenance
of associated signage as provided for in Section 16.01-3 of the Code of
Albemarle.
The Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development or
designated agent shall be responsible for the interpretation and
administration of the provisions of this manual.
DEFINITIONS
Addressable Structure: Any building used for human habitation, or
gathering, or for the production or sale of goods or services.
Addressing Grid: A series of 'intersecting lines running north-
south and east-west on 1000 foot intervals which is coincident with the
Virginia State Coordinate Grid System 1927 datum used to assign address
ranges to road segments.
Agent: The Director of Planning and Community Development for
Albemarle County, Virginia.
Cul-de-sac: A vehicular turnaround area at the end of a dead-end
street provided for the purpose of safe and convenient reverse of
traffic in one continuous forward movement.
Directionality: The geographic orientation of a named road
segment (either east-west or north-south).
Designator: Suffix used to indicate the road type.
Primary Access: A road or driveway used as the primary means of
vehicular access to an addressable structure.
PART I. ROAD NAMING
Roads Requiring Names
In addition to the requirements of section 16.01-1(c) of the Code
of Albemarle, private roads which serve less than three address-
able structures may be named as provided for in Section 6 of Part
I of this manual.
Review and Approval of Proposed Road Names
All proposed names shall be reviewed by the agent for conformance
with the guidelines established herein. If a proposed road name
is found to be in accordance with all provisions of Part I of this
manual, the agent shall approve the name.
Maintenance of Master Road Names Directory and Road Names Map
Ail approved road names shall be listed in a Master Road
Names Directory to be maintained in the offices of the
agent.
be
The location of all approved road names listed in the Master
Road Names Director shall be illustrated on a master set of
Road Names Maps to be maintained in the offices of the
agent.
Road Name Guidelines
While it is intended that these guidelines be complied with, the
agent may modify, vary, or waive any guideline in Part I,
Section 4, in a particular case.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 165
A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or re-
served road name in Albemarle County or the City of Char-
lottesville shall not be approved. An exception may be made
for cul-de-sacs which have the same name as the road from
which they originate (example: "Amberfield Court" which
originates from "Amberfield Drive").
be
Road names are limited to three (3) words not including the
road type designator.
A road name shall not exceed more than sixteen (16) charac-
ters including spaces and the designator's abbreviation.
A road name shall not include numbers, dashes, apostrophes
or other non-alphabetical characters.
compass points suCh as NORTH and EAST shall not be used in
road names.
f. Articles (the, a, an) shall not be used to begin road names.
Road names duplicating facilities shall not be approved
(example.' "Bowling Alley", ',Tennis Court',) · ~
Usage of names derived from community names or geographic
features shall be limited to locations in close proximity to
such communities or geographic features.
No proposed road name shall be approved which beqins with a
word that appears as the first word in five or more official
road names.
No proposed name shall be accepted which is a homonym of an
official road name or may be easily confused with an offi-
cial road name (example: "Forrestview" and "Forestvue").
Where a proposed road is a continuation of or in alignment
with an approved road, it shall utilize the same road name
as the approved road. A new road name shall be required if
the proposed road is disconnected from the existing road by
an offset greater than~sixty (60) feet.
5. Road Type Designa%ors
Road type designators shall be consistent with the roadway's
expected traffic use, width of right-of-way and physical design/
location.
While it is intended that these guidelines be complied with, the
agent may modify, vary, or waive any guideline in Part I, Section
5, in a particular case.
ALY - Alley
ARCH - Arch
*AVE - Avenue
BEND - Bend
BLF - Bluff
*BLVD - Boulevard
*CIR - Circle
COVE - Cove
CSG - Crossing
*CT - court
CTR - Center
*DR - Drive
EST - Estate
FARM - Farm
GRN - Green(e)
GRV - Grove
HILL - Hill
HGTS - Heights
HWY - Highway
KNL - Knoll
*LN - Lane
*LOOP - Loop
NOOK - Nook
PARK - Park
PATH - Path
*PL - Place
PT - Point
*PKWY - Parkway
ALBEI~U~LE COUNTY
STREET AND ROAD TYPE DESIGNATIONS
A narrow or minor road in a community.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
A major road in a community.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally along high ground.
Wide road with median and landscaping.
A road which returns to itself.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
A road which crosses a geographic feature (such as a
creek or mountain pass) or, a short road that
serves as a connector between two other roads.
Generally shorter, permanent dead ends or
cul-de-sacs.
Shopping, commercial areas.
A winding arterial/collector.
Single ownership (three or more dwellings).
Single ownership (three or more dwellings).
See "Square".
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally along high ground.
Generally along high ground.
A federal or state designated primary road.
Generally along high ground.
Generally a narrow road.
A drive which begins and ends on the same road.
See "Court".
Reserved for entranceways to public parks.
A short and/or narrow road.
A dead end or cul-de-sac road from which other
cul-de-sacs originate.
Generally along high ground.
A scenic or landscaped road.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
RCH - Reach
*RD - Road
RDG - Ridge
ROW - Row
*SQ - Square
*ST - Street TC - Trace
*TERR - Terrace
TPK - Turnpike
TR - Trail
*WAY - Way
000166
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally an arterial/collector road connecting to
the primary system.
Generally along high ground.
A short street that parallels another road.
Generally a central area with buildings clustered
around it.
A community or subdivision road.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Generally a minor road in a subdivision.
Reserved for historic turnpikes.
Generally reserved for roads through uninhabited
areas.
A minor road or street often which dead ends.
*VDOT standard abbreviations/designations.
Five-letter designators may be spelled out completely in suffix space
on sign.
6. Road Naming Process
For the purpose of this section, "served" by a road shall include right
of use whether or not a property actually uses such road.
a. Policy on Participation in Road Naming:
(1)
The process of naming roads shall be limited to those who
own property served by the road in question.
(2)
Where the road serves several properties, the landowners
shall be given the opportunity to propose the name.
(3)
In the event that there is no participation from the land-
owners, the agent shall name the road in accordance with
County procedures.
b. Processing Requests for Road Names:
Requests to name roads shall be in writing to the agent and shall
include the following information:
(1)
A description of the road's location giving the direction
and approximate distance from the nearest intersection of
two (2) public roads.
(2)
A list of all landowners having property served by the road
in question together with certification that all such land-
owners have been notified of the proposed name.
(3)
Signatures of landowners representing a majority (greater
than fifty [50] percent) of parcels served by the road in
agreement of a common road name.
Upon validating that landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of
the parcels served by the road in question have signed the peti-
tion in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed name is
otherwise consistent with Part I of this manual, the agent shall
approve the road name.
c. Road Name Reservation Process
Road names may be reserved during the preliminary plan or plat
review process by a written request to the agent. Names shall be
reserved unless the project is disapproved, abandoned or otherwise
voided.
ROad Naming in the Subdivision and Site Development Review Process
(].)
A developer may contact the agent prior to submission to
determine the viability of proposed names. Road names may
be reserved as provided in Section 6-c.
(2)
Proposed road names shall appear on all final site develop-
ment plans and subdivision plats, where applicable.
(3)
No final site development plan or final subdivision plat
shall be approved by the agent until all road names shall
have been approved by the agent.
(4)
Names approved on a preliminary plan/plat shall be reserved
for the life of the preliminary plan/plat and shall be shown
on the final plan/plat.
7. Final Authority of Board of Supervisors to Assign Road Names
The Board of Supervisors may name or rename any road at any time.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000 $7
1. Assignment of N~bers by Agent
me
Ail numbers for properties and addressable structures shall be
assigned by the agent following the procedures and guidelines
contained in this manual. Numbers assigned by any other person or
entity shall not be recognized.
b. Numbers shall be assigned to any new addressable structure shown
on a site development plan or lot created by subdivision. Numbers
shall not be officially assigned until the final site development
plan or subdivision plat has been approved. Numbers shall also be
assigned when requested by individuals for new structures that do
not require site development plan or subdivision approval.
UniformN~hering System EstabliShed
Ail numbers shall be determined by the uniform numbering system hereby
established. This uniform system shall utilize a grid system combined
with anequal-interval numbering system.
Albemarle County Numbering Grid Defined
The Albemarle County Numbering Grid shall be based on the existing
Virginia State Plane Coordinate System which is a grid superim-
posed over the State having lines at 10,000 foot intervals orient-
ed north-south and east-west. The Numbering Grid shall have lines
every 1000 feet interpolated between the 10,000 foot grid lines.
The Numbering Grid thereby establishes a series of 10,000 square
foot cells or blocks covering the entire County.
be
Ce
The axes or baselines of the Numbering Grid shall have their
origin at the intersection of the 1000 foot gridlines nearest to
the actual intersection of Wertland Street and 15th Street NW in
the City of Charlottesville.
Numbering along the axes of the grid begins with zero at the
origin and increases outward from that point with 100 numbers
allotted per 1000 feet (thus resulting in a pair of numbers every
twenty feet). This grid shall be used to determine the direction-
ality and address range of a given road segment.
4. N-~bering Procedures
a. Directionality of Road Determined
(1)
Before numbering along a named road may proceed, the di-
rectionality of the road must be determined (east-west or
north-south). Generally, a road's directionality shall be
determined as that of the Numbering Grid baseline the road
in question most closely parallels.
(2)
Consideration may also be given to the type of development
involved, the relationship of the road in question to other
roads around it and the pattern of address numbers that
result.
b. Number Range of Road Established
(1)
The number range along a named road shall be established by
the Numbering Grid baseline which has the same direction-
ality as the named road.
(2)
In the event that a named road crosses one of the baselines
of the Numbering Grid, the number range of that named road
shall be adjusted so that no number occurs twice along the
named road.
c. Numbers Assigned
Once the directionality and number range of a particular road
segment has been determined, the numbering of the addressable
structures and properties along the road segment shall be done
utilizing an equal-interval methodology. The numbers shall be
assigned beginning at the end of the road segment nearest the
origin of the Numbering Grid. The numbers shall then be evenly
distributed within the established number range.
5. General N~bering Guidelines
Even numbers shall occur on the north side of east-west designated
roads and the west side of north-south designated roads. Odd
numbers shall occur on the opposite sides.
All addressable structures and Properties shall be numbered on the
named road which a structure's or properties primary access
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
ooO168
intersects. The specific hurrY'shall be determined by the point
at which the access meets the named road.
The number sequence for addressable structures or properties on
opposite sides of a road should conform to each other as nearly as
possible.
Half numbers shall not be used. Alphabetical suffixes are accept-
able when a secondary address designation is necessary.
Reverse frontage or through lots shall be numbered along the local
road which provides access to the lot.
Corner lots shall be numbered on the road which provides access.
Where the driveway for a corner lot intersects more than one
street, the agent shall make the final determination as to which
road to base the number, with consideration to such factors as the
driveway's length, orientation of the structure and other relevant
factors .
g. When two (2) addressable structures share an access, they shall be
numbered consecutively with adequate consideration given to
possible future development between the structures.
h. Temporary numbers shall not be issued. A number may be issued to
a structure that is intended to be temporary (such as a construc-
tion site trailer office), and upon removal of the temporary
structure, the number shall be retired.
Mobile Home Developments
Within mobile home parks all roads shall be treated as private roads
unless dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation and road name and road signage shall apply accordingly. Each
mobile home lot shall be numbered in accordance with this manual. The
mobile home park owner shall be responsible for posting lot numbers in a
manner acceptable to the agent in accordance with Part IV, Section 1, of
this manual.
7. Residential Apartments and Other Multi-dwelling Structures
Individual apartment units shall be numbered considering the type of
unit, the individual apartment entrance location and building design as
follows: ~
a. Duplex: A number shall be provided to the front entrance of each
individual unit
Townhouse: A number shall be provided to each individual unit at
its front entrance.
Ce
Garden Apartment: A number shall be provided to each unit at its
entrance. If the apartment unit's entrance is located on an
inside foyer, a number shall be provided outside the building
entrance. Each unit located on such foyer shall be provided with
an alphabetical or numerical suffix as a secondary method of
addressing. The building number and road name followed by the
apartment unit's alphabetical or numerical designation shall form
the address (Example: 630 Old Shady Grove Road, Apartment A).
Numerical and alphabetical characters shall not be combined (as in
630-A Old Shady Grove Road). The'development name may also be
used in the address whenever desirable.
8. Commercial, Office and Industrial Complexes
For commercial, office and industrial complexes, a numbering choice
shall be made by the agent from several methods:
a. Assign the number to the main building where all mail is to be
received for the complex. The development name may be included in
the address.
Each principal building in the complex may be provided a separate
number, and the buildings may also be named. The development name
and/or the building name may be included in the address.
For shopping center development, a separate number shall be
assigned for each unit's main entrance. The shopping center name
should be included in the address. Consideration should be given
when assigning numbers to provide flexibility for adding stores
and redivision of spaces. In the event a space is redivided and
no numbers remain available alphabetical or numerical unit desig-
nations shall be used.
Interior mall shopping centers should have one number assigned for
the entire mall. The shopping center name and store name should
be included in the address. Individual stores should not be
assigned numbers except that secondary addressing may be provided
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
000169
in accord with Part II.5~d of~his manual. A separate property
number may be a~signed for the mall business office.
ee
Where deemed appropriate by the agent, a multiple-story building
may be assigned one address number at its main entrance° Individ-
ual units may be provided with secondary addressing based on floor
numbering together with unit appellation such as "suite" or
"room". The first floor shall be assigned numbers beginning with
100 and numbers on each successive floor should increase to the
next highest 100 series (second floor - 200 series; third floor -
300 series, etc.). A basement or floor below ground level may use
a three digit series beginning with zero.
Agencies to Be Notified of Numbers Assigned
me
The agent shall notify the following agencies and departments of
all approved road names and assigned numbers within five (5) days
of approval or assignment, as the case may be:
Albemarle County Department of Real Estate
Albemarle County Department of Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Police
Albemarle County Department of Sheriff
Albemarle County Service Authority
Albemarle County Registrar's Office
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Administration
University of Virginia
Charlottesville-Albemarle Emergency Operations Center
United States Postal Service Address Pr.grams Support Office
The agent shall also notify any other governmental agencies or
departments and utility requesting notification.
PART III. SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD NA~E SIGNAGE
Naterlals and Physical Description for Signs
The road name sign blank shall be made from flat aluminum sign
sheet material conforming to ASTM B209 for Alloy 5052-H38 or its
equivalent. The sign blank thickness shall be 0.100" or greater
and each corner of the sign blank shall be square cut. Holes
shall be placed in the blank name plate as detailed in "Detail C".
There shall be two sizes of road name 'signs; standard and over-
size. Standard signs shall be eight (8) inches in vertical length
(height) while oversize signs shall be nine (9) inches in vertical
length. Standard signs shall be used along all secondary and
subdivision roads except at intersections with primary roads.
Oversize signs shall be used along primary roads and at secondary
and subdivision roads intersecting primary roads.
The letter type shall conform to Federal Highway Association
"Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs", Series C or B, upper case,
as prescribed below and in d.
The size of the sign blanks; message lettering; and reserved
spaces for route and block numbers for Standard and Oversize signs
are as follows:
SIGN BLANKS
Horizontal length
Vertical length
*Route Decal
Reserved Space
Block Number
Reserved Space
STANDARD
(Local/Subdivision)
24" min to 46" max
8"
8" x 1.25"
8" x 2.5"
OVERSIZE
(Primary/Collector)
30" min to 48" max
9"
12" x 2.5"
12" x 3.5"
MESSAGE LETTERING: SIZE AND TYPE
Prefix Capitals 2" C 3" C
Name Capitals 5" C 6" C
Suffix Capitals 2'~ C 3" C
Route Decal 1" C 2" C
Private l" C 2" C
Block Number 2" C 3" C
*For private roads, place the word PRIVATE in Route Decal Space
The less common designators such as FARM, WAY, HEIGHTS and TRACT
may be placed in the main message field if space is available.
The sign may be constructed using either the cut letter process or
the silk screen process. The green and white colors shall be uni-
form throughout the length of the sign.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
O00:l?O
(1) If the cut letter process is used, the sign blank shall be
covered on both sides for the entire length of the blank
with a high intensity (encapsulated) reflectorized green
background sheeting, 3M "Scotchlite" brand product number
3877 or equivalent product. High intensity (encapsulated)
reflectorized sheeting 3M "Scotchlite" product number 3870
or equivalent product shall be used for the silver-white
letters and numerals. The reflective material shall be ap-
plied to both sides of the blank name plate with mechanical
equipment in a manner specified by the sheeting manufac-
turer. The sign background shall be comprised of not more
than one piece of reflective sheeting. The letters and
numerals shall be applied on both faces of the sign using
the cut letter process. The reflective sheeting shall have
a minimum guaranteed life of ten (10) years.
(2) The Silk Screen process shall use a sign blank prepared as
described above with the silver-white 3M brand product
number 3870 (encapsulated) reflectorized sheeting or equiva-
lent product. The green background shall be applied using
3M brand product number 848 or equivalent process color.
After application and curing of the color according to
product specifications, a clear coat of Series 840 Transpar-
ent Colors product number 840 Clear or equivalent product
shall be applied and cured according to product specifica-
tions.
d. The maximum space available on a standard (8" high) sign for the
road name is thirty-four (34) inches and an oversized (9" high)
sign has 32 inches of space for the road name. Spacing between
letters within a street name should conform to the spacing dimen-
sions shown in the Virginia Supplement to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways unless this will
result in a sign width greater than the maximum space available.
In such cases, a thirty (30) percent force factor may be used on
signs greater in length than forty-two (42) inches for standard
signs or forty-eight (48) inches for oversized signs. The spacing
between the letters using the forced factor may be reduced propor-
tionately to a minimum of one-half inches at the closest point be-
tween two (2) adjoining letters. If further reduction is re-
quired, series B letters may be used. If the name will not fit in
the space available, a thirty (30) percent force factor may be
used as above. Finally, if the approved road name will not fit on
the maximum length sign with the Series B letters and a thirty
(30) percent force factor, a modification shall be required from
the County Engineering Department.
e. At the end of the road name there are three (3) spaces either
eight (8) inches (for the 8" sign) or twelve (12) inches (for the
9" sign) in length which are stacked one over the other. These
spaces are reserved for the route decal, the block number and the
road type suffix. If the block number is to be affixed in decal
form, the decal will be of the same material as the main sign
sheeting as specified above. The directional triangle, a 1.25
inch equilateral triangle for the eight (8) inch sign or 1.5 inch
equilateral triangle for the nine (9) inch sign of silver-white
"Scotchlite" material or equivalent product, is to be affixed in
front of or at the end of the block nUmber to point in the direc-
tion of increasing numerical values. See "Detail B" for location
of spaces.
f. The route decal shall be non-reflectorized with a black message on
a white color field. The decal shall be provided and installed by
the Virginia Department of Transportation, but shall not be
required prior to installation of the sign.
Post and Hardware Specifications
a. The sign post shall be a standard dimension pressure treated
(ground contact quality in conformance with the requirements of
American Wood Preservers Association C2) fOUr inch by four inch
(4" x 4") wood post cut with a minimum ten (10) foot straight
section. The sign must be embedded a minimum of twenty-seven (27)
inches in the ground, which may require some sign posts to be
longer than ten (10) feet. The top of the post shall be cut flush
with the signs. The signs should be mounted flush at the top, at
ninety (90) degrees to each other, with a minimum seven (7) foot
clearance from the bottom of the sign to the ground. The sign
blades shall face away from the intersection on the pavement side
of the post and parallel to the road alignment. The soil shall be
tightly tamped around the post to prevent removal of the sign.
The disturbed soil shall be.graded to drain away from the post°
The post shall be plumbed vertically and horizontally.
b. The sign mounting hardware shall consist of four (4) stainless
steel hex-head lag screws (3/8" diameter x 3" length) or 'an
approved equivalent per sign. The lag screws are to be installed
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ooo .7x
in the manner illustrated in "Detail C" with four (4) 3/8" #18-8
stainless steel flat washers with a one-inch outside diameter or
an approved equivalent.
A special sign post and/or installation may be allowed at the
discretion of the Director of Engineering provided it is equal to
or exceeds the specifications above. Where allowed, a maintenance
agreement between Albemarle County and the responsible party shall
be required for the maintenance of any special installation.
4. Location of Post and Sign
me
The sign post shall be placed in the road right-of-way a minimum
of three (3) horizontal feet from any above ground or underground
utility or equipment line. The installer shall be responsible for
contacting ."Miss Utility" before installing signs (1-800-552-
7001). At the intersection of a primary and secondary road or in
the event a road name changes at an intersection of two (2)
secondary roads, two (2) sign locations are to be used. For all
new roads, a minimum of two (2) signs are required at every
intersection. The sign post shall be located on the right hand
side of the street for a right turn onto the secondary road, where
possible. The sign shall be a minimum of five (5) horizontal feet
on the centerline radius of the curve from the outer edge of the
pavement for roads without ditch lines. The sign must be in-
stalled behind an existing ditch line while remaining within the
road right-of-way. Those roads that have ditch lines less than
three (3) feet from the edge of pavement will have signs placed
two (2) horizontal feet back from the ditch line. (See "Detail A"
for diagram.) For urban road sections with curb and gutter, the
sign post will be placed behind the edge of the curb and five (5)
horizontal feet on the centerline radius of the curve from the
edge of pavement. If a sidewalk is adjacent to the curb, then the
sign post will be placed behind the sidewalk and within the right-
of-way. Signs and posts shall not obstruct handicapped ramps or
wheel chair loading areas in the vertical or horizontal direction.
At the intersection of two (2) secondary roads, only one (1) sign
location is to be used except as required in 4.a. This is to be
the right hand corner of the intersection for inbound traffic to
the subdivision (see "Detail A" for diagram).
The Director of Engineering may allow an alternate sign location
upon finding that due to existing site conditions, the foregoing
locational requirements cannot be practicably met, or that an
alternate location would equally or better serve the purposes of
this manual. This must be confirmed with the County Engineering
Department prior to installation of the sign.
PART IV. DISPLAY OF ADDRESS NUMBERS
General Guidelines for Display of Address N~bers
Address numbers shall be displayed at the primary access entrance
on a mailbox, post, fence or other suitable location that is
easily discernible from the road. If the structure is one hundred
(100) feet or less from the road, the entrance door of the struc-
ture is clearly visible from the road, and there is no mailbox,
post, fence or other suitable location at the primary access
entrance, address numbers shall be displayed on, above, or at the
side of the main entrance door in a manner that is clearly visible
from the road upon which it is numbered.
The address number shall be displayed as numerals and shall not be
spelled out. Secondary address designations shall comply with
Part II.5.d.
Ce
The numerals displayed, and where applicable, lettering, shall be
at least three (3) inches in height on a contrasting background
(dark figures over a light background or light figures over a dark
background).
de
If the mailbox is not located on the named road from which the
number has been assigned, the entire address (number and road
name) shall be shown on that mailbox to avoid confusion. In such
cases, it will be necessary to also display the number on the
property as stated above.
On corner lots, the number shall only be displayed to face the
street upon which the property is numbered.
Any numbers previously displayed, which could be confused with or
mistaken for the assigned address number shall be removed from the
mailbox and property.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25) .....
ge
Numbers shall be properly maintained by the property owner to
ensure they are clearly discernible from the roadway upon which
the property is numbered.
Display of Address Numbers for Multi-Unit Buildings and Multi-Building
Complexes
If a building is divided into multiple units with separate entran-
ces, and each unit has been assigned an individual number, then
each unit number shall be displayed on or next to the main door-
way.
The address range of all individual unit numbers within a multi-
unit building shall be displayed in a manner that is clearly vis-
ible from the road upon which the units are numbered. If more
than one building shares an access, then the address range shall
also be displayed on each building.
Additional Signage Required When Necessary
The agent may also require numbers or address ranges to be posted in
additional locations as deemed necessary to the purpose of Chapter 16.01
of the Code of Albemarle.
(Note: Charts which are a part of this ordinance are on file in the Clerk's
Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing on the proposed issuance of school
bonds of Albemarle County in the maximum amount of $11,900,000. The purpose
of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools,
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 28 and October 5, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker said the process for issuing the Virginia Public School
Authority bonds requires that a public hearing be held and that the Board of
Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. He
informed the Board members that the amount of the bonds is $11.9 million, and
the projected interest rate is six percent. Mr. Tucker said a public hearing
has to be held, and then the Board will need to adopt the resolution. He
noted that the major item in this bond issue is the new middle school at
Hollymead. The bond issue also includes the final phase of Broadus Wood
Elementary, which is already completed, and the masonry repairs and HVAC
replacement at Henley Middle School.
At 9:06 p.m., Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Not to
Exceed $11,900,000 General Obligation School Bonds of Albemarle County,
Virginia, 1993 Series A, to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority
and Providing for the Form and Details Thereof.
Mr. Tucker said the resolution contains standard language developed by
Bond Counsel. Mr. Martin said the bond issue has been discussed by this board
in the past, so he would move to adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance
of not to exceed $11,900,000 General Obligation School Bonds of Albemarle
County, Virginia, 1993 Series A, to be sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority, etc., the bulk of which is for the new middle school across from
Hollymead Elementary School, which has still to be named. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he will support the motion, but he wants to
state his position. He thinks any further bonds of this nature should go
before the voters in the form of a referendum. Mr. Martin and Mr. Marshall
agreed.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Bain.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$11,900,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1993 SERIES A,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is neces-
sary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $11,900,000 and to
issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of
financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on
the date hereof, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below)
000 1.73
(Page 26)
in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code");
and
WHEREAS, by resolution, the School Board (the "School
Board") of the County has requested the Board to authorize the
issuance of the Bonds and, has consented to the issuance of the
Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds 'and Use of Proceeds. The Board
hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and
issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $11,900,000 (the "Bonds") for the
purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes.
The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in
the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolu-
tion.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of the County to accept the offer of the virginia Public
School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to
sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the
County Executive and County are authorized to sell to the VPSA,
the Bonds at par upon the terms established pursuant to this
Resolution. The execution and delivery by the County Executive of
a Bond Sale Agreement dated October 8, 1993, with the VPSA provid-
ing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the
form previously submitted to the Board is hereby ratified, ap-
proved and confirmed (the "Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the
Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, 1993
Series A"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof
payable semi-annually on each June 15 and December 15 beginning
June 15, 1994 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates
established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and
shall mature on December 15 in the years (each a "Principal
Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached
hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions
of Section 4 of this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County
Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest
rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each
interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%)
over the annual rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding
principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to
purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest
cost of the Bonds does not exceed eight percent (8%). The Inter-
est Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to
change at the request of the VPSA.~ The County Executive is hereby
authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment
Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA,
provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall
not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execu-
tion and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof
shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the
VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by
this Resolution. Following the sale of the Bonds, the County
Executive shall file a certificate with the Clerk of the Board
setting forth the final terms and purchase price of the Bonds.
5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the
registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a
single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice
from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds
in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary
typewritten Bond.
6. Payment: Pa¥inq Aqent and Bond Reqistrar. The follow-
ing provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the
Bonds, all payments of principal of, and premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds
to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on
the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or
date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) · 000174
(Page 27)
business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virgin-
ia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the
business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) Ail overdue payments of principal or interest, to the
extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the applicable
interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of
the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before December 15,
2003, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the
VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2003,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of the Bonds held by the
VPSA coming due after December 15, 2003, and the definitive bonds
for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature
after December 15, 2003, are subject to prepayment or redemption
at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in
whole or in part, on any date on or after December 15, 2003, upon
payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as
percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the princi-
pal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus
accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
December 15, 2003 to December 14, 2004, inclusive 103%
December 15, 2004 to December 14, 2005, inclusive 102
December 15, 2005 to December 14, 2006, inclusive 101
December 15, 2006 and thereafter 100
Provided, however that while the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment
or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above
without first obtaining the written consent of the VPSA. Notice
of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than
ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date
fixed for prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by
the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, and the Board's seal
shall be affixed thereon and attested by the Clerk of the Board or
by any of its Deputy Clerks.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment
of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on
the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit
of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year
while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied
and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon
all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal
of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such
principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which
tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County
to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available
and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The County covenants
that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or
omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds"
within the meaning of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), or otherwise cause interest on the
Bonds to be includable in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law.
11. Use of Proceeds Certificate. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed
to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of
the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be
necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the
Code, and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The
Board covenants on behalf of the County that (a) the proceeds from
the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended
as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of
Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (b) that
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~5
(Page 28)
the CoUnty shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable
from gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
12. Restrictions on Private Use. The County covenants that
it will not permit the gross proceeds of the Bonds to be used in
any manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds
being used in a trade or business carried on by any person other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(b), (b)
5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to any "output
facility" (other than a facility for the furnishing of water),
within the meaning of Code Section 141(b)(4), or (c) 5% or more of
such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance
loans to any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided
in Code Section 141(c); provided, however, that if the County
receives an opinion of bond counsel to the County with respect to
the Bonds, and bond counsel to the VPSA with respect to the VPSA
Bonds, that compliance with any such restriction is not required
to prevent interest on the bonds of both issues from being in-
cludable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of
the registered owners thereof under existing law, the County need
not comply with such restriction.
13. State Non-Arbitraqe Proqram; Proceeds Aqreement. The
Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the
County to authorize and direct the County Director of Finance to
participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with
the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds
Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds
of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in
the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, Public Financial Management,
Inc., as investment manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as deposi-
tory, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved.
14. Filinq of Resolution. The appropriate officers or
agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a
certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit
Court of the County.
15. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized
to take such action as they or any one of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
16. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO.TR-1 $11,900,000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
General Obligation School Bond
1993 Series A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value re-
ceived, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to
the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
ELEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($11,900,000), in
annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I at-
tached hereto payable on December 15, 1994, and annually on
December 15 thereafter to and including December 15, 2013 (each a
"Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of
this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on
June 15 and December 15 of each year, commencing on June 15, 1994
(each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal
Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set forth
on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption
as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest on this
Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, as bond registrar
(the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal of,
and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in immediately available funds at or before ll:00 a.m.
on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
000:].76
redemption. If a~Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of
Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of
principal of, or premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall
be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on
the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the regis-
tered owner of this Bond of such payments of principal, premium,
if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt
thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the
County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to
the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond
shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of, and premium, if any, and
interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors authorizing the issuance of this Bond provides, and
Section 15.1-227.25 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended,
requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of, and
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall
become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to
be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County
are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1,
Title 15.1, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and
resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County
and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital
projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the
Bond Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in
definitive form having maturities and bearing interest at rates
corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the
installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in
fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multi-
ples thereof.
This Bond is registered in the name of Virginia Public
School Authority on books of the County kept by the Bond Regis-
trar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the regis-
tered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment
by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the
surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this
Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive
Bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name of
the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before December 15, 2003, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2003,
are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due
after December 15, 2003, and the definitive Bonds for which this
Bond may be exchanged that mature after December 15, 2003, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County
prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date
on or after December 15, 2003, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal install-
ments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set
for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
December 15, 2003 to December 14, 2004, inclusive 103%
December 15, 2004 to December 14, 2005, inclusive 102
December 15, 2005 to December 14, 2006, inclusive 101
December 15, 2006 and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that while the Virginia Public School
Authority is the registered owner of this Bond or of the defini-
tive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged, the Bonds shall
not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities as described above, without first obtaining the written
consent of the Virginia Public School Authority. Notice of any
such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar
to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety
(90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~7
(Page 30)
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other
indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of
Albemarle County, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman, its seal
to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk,
and this Bond to be dated , 1993.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors Chairman, Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia - of Albemarle County, Virginia
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appointment of Director of Human Resources
(deferred from October 11, 1993).
Mr. Bowerman said this was a carry-over item from the joint meeting with
the School Board on Monday. The School Board appointed Mr. Robert B. Branden-
burger to the position of Director of Human Resources. The Supervisors were
unable to make such an appointment because they did not have a quorum at that
meeting. Mr. Tucker remarked that the staff's recommendation for the position
of Director of Human Resources has not changed since the joint meeting, and
Mr. Brandenburger is still being recommended for the position. The recommen-
dation is for this appointment to be effective immediately.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
appoint Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger as Director of Human Resources, effective
immediately.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman,and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A), 1992; July 14 and
July 21, 1993.
Mr. Perkins said he had read the minutes of July 21, 1993, and found
them to be in order. He then offered motion to approve the minutes of
July 21~ 1993. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD
Mr. Tucker said the Airport Authority owns almost 200 acres of property
adjacent to the Airport and west of the runway itself next to Earlysville
Forest Subdivision. Staff has learned that this property is infested with the
Southern Pine Bark Beetle and the forested area will have to be removed. The
Earlysville Forest Homeowner's Association has been notified of this matter.
This area will become a fire hazard if the trees are not removed. The area
will be reforested this winter, probably with Loblolly pines. Staff is
reviewing the possibility of planting White Pines along the boundary of
Earlysville Forest to act as a better buffer. The Airport Authority will pay
for this.
Mr. Tucker said earlier this week he received a letter from Mr. Dick
Lockwood, VDoT's Transportation Engineer in Richmond. He was asked to appoint
members from the County to two committee's being formed; a Policy Committee on
the Route 29 N Corridor Development Study, and a Technical Advisory Committee.
He plans to appoint Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, County Director of Planning and
Community Development, to the Technical Advisory Committee. He suggested Mr.
Bowerman be appointed to the Steering Policy Committee. There was a consensus
of the Board that Mr. Bowerman serve on the Policy Steering Committee.
Mr. Perkins said he has been requested by Todd Shields that this Board
reconsider its denial of ZMA-93-09 and SP-93-20, Adventure Land Family Fun
Park. He indicates that he would be willing to amend the request from HC to
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
000:1. '8
C-I, commercial, which also allows this use. Mr. Perkins said he understands
Mr. Bowerman knows more abo9t this request, and perhaps he would comment on
this matter.
Mr. Bowerman remarked~that he met-with Mr. Shields at his (Mr. Shields')
suggestion last week and discussed the issues which were before the Board.
Mr. Shields indicated to him that one of the concerns is the fact that Highway
Commercial is the recommended zoning category for that area. Mr. Shields
suggested that he would be agreeable to C-i, Commercial, zoning which also
allows this use. He told Mr. Shields that one of the major reasons the
application was denied was because of the R-6, Residential, zoning that is
shown in the Comprehensive Plan to the west of Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Bowerman said that on last Wednesday he met with Highway Department
representatives about the Alternative 10 bypass route. The suggested realign-
ment for Alternative 10 removes the interchange and, instead, extends Alterna-
tive 10 and bisects the property zoned R-6 which lies between the SPCA Road
and Berkmar Drive. He said this would effectively eliminate that area for
residential use because the entire R-6 area would be bisected. For this
reason, Mr. Bowerman said he would support considering Mr. Shields~ requests
again. He went on to say, however, that if the Board members choose to
suspend their Rules of Procedure and rehear this request, he would like for
the Board to receive information from the Planning staff about VDoT's proposed
alignment and the effect it would have on that property. He noted that the
other issues are still there, such as the proximity to the school. Mrs.
Humphris remarked that the issue of this use on Route 29 is still present
also.
Mr. Bowerman concurred. He added that there have been two substantial
changes since this matter was before this Board, and these changes relate to
the elimination of the residential zoning in that area and the requested
zoning change. He would support a motion to suspend the rules, and to rehear
the application, but he does not think the Board should rehear this issue
before the second or third week in November.
Mr. Perkins then made a motion to suspend the Board of Supervisors'
Rules of Procedure in order to reconsider ZMA-93-09 and $P-93-20 for Todd
Shields.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to be careful about
suspending their rules because a dangerous precedent could be set. She said
this issue has already been settled, and she is concerned that this will
become a habit. She does not think the circumstances have changed that much,
and all of the same pertinent and important issues are still involved. She
said that this use on the road near the school was not the way the road was
envisioned as developing. She reiterated that she feels this Board will be in
trouble if it starts rehearing every request that it denies. She does not
think it is a precedent that this Board can afford to establish.
Mr. Perkins said if significant changes have come about, then he thinks
this Board should rehear the request. If significant changes are not in-
volved, then he does not think it is necessary for the Board to go through
this process.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that if there were a significant change which
changed the whole situation, she would agree that it should be reheard.
However, there is just one change which only changes one piece of the problems
of that application. It still leaves all the rest, which were the decision-
making factors. She cannot support this request, because she is concerned
that a precedent will be set, and she can see people coming back to this Board
all the time. She does not see the change as the one deciding factor related
to this issue.
Mr. Martin said he definitely is not in favor of rehearing everything
that has been denied. He said there is no reason to make a decision, if the
decision is always revisited. In this particular case, however, his main
objection was the potential loss of the R-6 zoning which would allow for the
type of density that one could reasonably assume would lend itself to afford-
able housing. Secondly, Mr. Martin said he was concerned about protecting the
integrity of the neighborhood close to the school.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Supervisors are planning on rehearing this
matter tonight. Mr. Bowerman responded, "no." He explained that the motion
is simply to suspend the rules in order to then vote on rehearing the peti-
tions.
Mrs. Humphris said even though some credence has to be put in the
current proposed location of Alternative 10, it is not certain this will ever
happen. When VDoT officials find out the real cost of constructing that road
across the river, they might decide to do something else.
Mr. Martin said the bypass issue was just mentioned a few seconds ago,
and he cannot see making decisions based on the location of that bypass. It
is his understanding that Mr. Shields has new information indicating that R-6
housing will not be put in that particular area. He told Mr. Shields that he
would like to have some verification that his information is correct.
O001T
October 13, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Bowerman asked if.Mr.. Martin ~_~indicating that R-6 housing won't be
put on Mr. Shields' site or property auross'the road. Mr. Martin responded
that he understands that R-6 zoning housing won't be put on this site. Mr.
Bowerman explained that the Comprehensive Plan does not call for R-6 zoning on
this site, so that was never an issue. Mr. Martin inquired as to what type of
zoning is designated for the site. Mr. Bowerman replied that the Comprehen-
sive Plan calls for regional service zoning in that area. Mrs. Humphris
pointed out that the site is currently zoned R-6. Mr. Martin remarked, again,
that it is his understanding Mr. Shields has some information indicating it
isn't feasible to have R-6 zoning on that site, but he (Mr. Martin) would like
for the staff to verify this information. Mr. Bowerman said this is not his
thinking of the matter.
Mr. Marshall suggested the Board wait until there is a full Board
present before a vote is taken to rehear the petitions. He recalled the
recent issue involving a petition in Schuyler, and even though no one com-
plained about the situation, the Supervisors would not rehear that petition.
He pointed out that a lot of people have complained about this current
application.
Mr. Bowerman said this issue can be discussed by the Board at next
week's meeting. Mr. Martin commented that the additional information, to
which he (Mr. Martin) has referred, is already available. He suggested that
staff members consider the information, and then they could verify whether or
not this additional information is correct. Mrs. Humphris concurred that if
it is possible for the staff to review this information it might save the
Supervisors an exercise they might regret. Mr. Bowerman said there is no
assurance that if this petition is reheard, the Supervisors will approve it.
Mrs. Humphris said it would be better not to have a record that the Supervi-
sors agreed to rehear the petition if there is not sufficient reason to rehear
it. She indicated that it would be better for the Board to act on information
rather than on no information. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin agreed.
Mr. Bowerman then inquired as to what information this Board is seeking
from the staff. Mr. Martin said it is his understanding Mr. Shields has the
information, and Mr. Martin added that he just wants some verification of the
information from the staff. Mr. Bowerman commented that the issue to which
Mr. Martin is referring is the suitability of that parcel for R-6 zoning. He
added that Mr. Shields is also asking for reconsideration under a lower zoning
classification of C-1 versus Highway Commercial. Mr. Bowerman went on to say
that he (Mr. Bowerman) is interested in something more than just talking to
Mr. Cilimberg about the effect this proposed change will have on the Compre-
hensive Plan review for this area. He hopes Mr. Cilimberg can get some
appropriate information together for this Board, and he hopes to get an
opinion from Mr. David Benish and Mr. Cilimberg relative to the Highway
Department's proposed change in Alternative 10.
Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Bowerman has a time frame in mind relative to
obtaining this information. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Martin and Mr. Tucker
should work out a time frame, after staff has reviewed the additional informa-
tion. Mr. Martin remarked that Mr. Shields can provide the information as
soon as he has it available, and the staff will have to examine the informa-
tion requested by this Board. Mr. Bowerman told Mr. Martin that he had made a
good suggestion. Mr. Tucker said staff can probably bring back the informa-
tion to this Board next week, but he could not guarantee that.
Mr. Bowerman noted that a motion was made to suspend the rules, but it
has been tabled. Mr. Perkins withdrew his motion, and Mr. Martin, as the
seconder, concurred.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 9:28 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman