2002-12-11(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 11, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at
6:35 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Dennis S. Rooker.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There was no one
present who wished to speak.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Sheriff Ed Robb, Presentation of Accreditation of Albemarle County Sheriff's
Office.
Sheriff Ed Robb introduced Mr. Ernest Boyle, Executive Secretary of the State Accreditation
Commission.
Mr. Boyle said he was present tonight because the Albemarle County Sheriffs office has
=
accomplished something only ten percent of the law enforcement agencies in Virginia have been able to
do. That is, to pass a tough series of standards to qualify them as an accredited agency under the State
Law Enforcement Accreditation Program. He said this program has been in effect since 1996. The seeds
of it were sown under the leadership of Mr. Dorrier when he was with the Department of Criminal Justice
Services. The program is designed to give a matrix to law enforcement agencies whereby they can prove
by showing compliance with 215 standards that their policies and procedures will stand the test of litigation,
and will stand the test of knowledge of procedure by law enforcement professionals. He said the great
thing about this program is that it is voluntary. Nobody insisted that the Sheriff have people from outside his
agency come in and do what amounts to an inspection. He said Albemarle County is fortunate that both of
their law enforcement agencies, the Police Department and the Sheriffs Office, have both become
=
accredited departments.
Mr. Boyle said going through the process, and receipt of a certification, does not mean the agency
cannot get better. It means that the department and Sheriff Robb have made a commitment that they will
get better, and that they will constantly strive to reach the upper levels of every sort of service delivery that
they can provide. He believes Albemarle is fortunate that their law enforcement components have
achieved this level of service. He also thinks Albemarle is fortunate that this entire region knows there is a
level of professionalism in the Charlottesville area that is unmatched in the rest of the State. He has a
certificate of accreditation to present to Sheriff Robb and the members of his agency.
Sheriff Robb introduced his staff who were present. He said Deputy T. D. Layman was the
accreditation manager who helped the department achieve this in just 14 months. He also introduced
Gene Flamm who had worked on this. He also thanked Chief John Miller for his help in this process.
Mr. Boyle then read the certificate and presented same to the Sheriff. Sheriff Robb presented to
the Board members a copy of the new insignia which will be worn by the deputies and which will be in place
on the Sheriffs vehicles.
=
Mr. Dorrier said he had worked with Mr. Boyle for four years while he was in Richmond. He knows
Mr. Boyle has high standards. He asked what percentage of the departments which apply for accreditation
actually achieve that goal and how long it takes. Mr. Boyle said the average time now is about 26 months.
At this time, there are 39 agencies in the Commonwealth which are accredited. That is out of almost 400
departments. Currently, there are 198 agencies involved in the process. Many are called, but few are
A
chosen.
@
Mr. Dorrier said it is very selective. The fact that both the Police Department and the Sheriffs
=
Department are accredited is a feather in Albemarle Countys cap. He thanked Sheriff Robb and Chief
=
Miller for what they have done.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve Item 6.1
(as noted) through Item 6.4 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept Item 6.5 as information. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 7, August 14, September 4 and November 13,
2002.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of September 4, 2002 (Pages 1 through 18 ending at Item #11)
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of November 13, 2002, and found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 6.2. Historic Preservation Plan Implementation, Letters of Notification.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Board adopted the Albemarle County Historic Preservation
=
Plan in the Fall of 2000. At that time, the Board directed the Historic Preservation Committee (HCP) to
create a "Top Ten" list of voluntary and incentive measures to be the first measures of the Plan
implemented by the Committee. On April 4, 2001, the Board approved the list and created a permanent
Historic Preservation Committee thereby implementing the first recommendation on the list. New
committee members were appointed over the next several months and the new Committee met for the first
time in January, 2002. Working in subcommittees, the Committee spent the next several months defining
action plans outlining the tasks to be performed to implement the Top Ten list.
The HPC has accomplished the following tasks in early implementation of the Top Ten List:
Outlined the technological and staffing requirements for a Historic Resources Database.
Began to study the possibility of creating a temporary, interim Historic Resources Database.
Began to survey the available information resources to be included in a Historic Resources
Database.
Drafted and adopted letters of notification -- letters to new owners of historic properties informing
them that they had purchased a significant historic property or a property that could be historically
significant.
Established a temporary method for determining when significant historic properties, or potentially
significant historic properties, have been sold/purchased.
Established draft procedures for handling inquiries generated by the letters of notification and other
general inquiries from the public, including rotating monitoring of a Historic Preservation phone line
(a separate phone line that has been established) and e-mail box establishing set answers to
frequently asked questions, creating lists of telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for additional
sources of information, and maintaining a supply of existing informational brochures on various HP
topics.
Drafted a definition of "significant historic resource."
Assembled a "building recordation tool box" and conducted a training session for members on the
recordation of historic structures in an effort to have a team available to document significant
buildings slated for demolition.
Began a research project on the country stores of Albemarle County in an effort to gain additional
information that might contribute to the County's work on the Rural Areas, and that could be used
as an educational tool and a Historic Preservation Week display.
The Committee has established a temporary, interim method for notifying new property owners that
have purchased an historic property or a property that has potential historic significance. Creation of such a
program is Item #3 on the Top Ten list. The temporary system will be used until the Historic Resources
Database is in place and coordinated with other County computer systems (Item #2 on the Top Ten list).
The temporary system will work as follows:
1. A Committee member with access to the Multiple List System (MLS) of CAAR (the local
realtors association), assembles the "Sold/Status Fact Sheets" for all properties with a
"year built date" of 50 years old or older for transactions from the previous month.
2. The sheets are reviewed at the monthly Subcommittee meeting. A determination is made
as to the register status of the property (is it already listed on the State/National Registers?)
and as to whether or not the resource has some potential for architectural and/or historical
significance.
3. Staff sends a letter of notification to the new owners of the registered properties and to the
owners of those properties determined to potentially have significance. Names and mailing
addresses are obtained from tax records, reverse directories, the MLS, the telephone book,
or other public records.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
4. The letters direct owners to the Historic Preservation phone line to request additional
information or to discuss their properties.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the use of the letters of notification.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the use of letters of notification as
described above.
__________
Item 6.3. Dry Well Replacement Program, authorize County Executive to proceed with application
for funding and set public hearing for January, 2003.
It was noted in the staffs report that Governor Mark Warner recently announced funding for a Dry
=
Well Replacement Program (DWRP) for which the Department of Housing and Community Development
held an informational meeting on December 3, 2002. The program will provide approximately $2.5 million
to assist those families who are CDBG-eligible (under 80% of the area median income) with replacing their
water source if their well is not functional due to the drought. Families could receive up to $5000 for the
well replacement in the form of a zero percent loan. Repayment would be based on their ability to repay.
Letters of interest in participating are being requested now from counties with CDBG grants.
The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) is interested in administering the DWRP and
has at least five families awaiting assistance. Additional families may come forward through outreach,
which includes required public hearings. The locality must conduct a public hearing on the availability of the
funds and proposed uses prior to executing a contract with DHCD. A second public hearing will be
scheduled once the contract is signed to announce availability and seek potential clients. Both hearings
must be publicized in a non-legal display advertisement at least seven days prior to the date of the public
hearing.
The Office of Housing will continue to work with DHCD and AHIP to draft and assemble all
agreements, documents, certifications, and assurances necessary to implement this program. Staff
recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to notify DHCD of the County's interest in
participating in this program and its desire to designate the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as
the implementing agency. In addition, staff recommends that the Board advertise and set a public hearing
for its first meeting in January 2003.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to notify
DHCD of the County's interest in participating in this program and its desire to designate the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as the implementing agency. In addition, the Board
directed staff to advertise for a public hearing for its meeting on January 11, 2003.
__________
Item 6.4. Community Development Block Grant Funds, authorize County Executive to execute loan
and security documents.
It was noted in the staffs report that in reviewing a recent request for the approval of a
=
subordination of a loan held by the County, it became apparent that there had been no action by the Board
to authorize any County official to execute documents. The loan in question was for the rehabilitation of a
home in Esmont as a part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. All CDBG
funding must be secured by a note and deed of trust on the subject property payable to the grantee, in our
case the County of Albemarle. This requirement affects activity in Crozet Crossings and the Porters
Road/Yancey School Neighborhood Improvement Project. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
prepares the loan documents and records the deed of trust associated with each property. The initial note
and deed of trust do not require the note holder's signature, but subsequent revisions do. Most of the loans
are deferred and forgivable and carry a 15-year term.
From time-to-time, requests are received by the Office of Housing and/or County Attorney that
require action related to a recorded lien. These requests are typically loan modification agreements (where
the cost of work differs from the original recorded lien amount) and subordination agreements. Most
requests are to be signed by a representative of the note holder and a trustee. Ms. Roxanne White,
Assistant County Executive, and Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, are listed as trustees on County
loan documents. Apparently it had been a practice for the Chief of Housing to sign as the note holder,
particularly on loan modification agreements, although no action can be found giving the Chief such
authorization.
Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to execute documents necessary to
protect the County's interest on any loan for which a request is presented by the client or those acting on
behalf of the clients and which may affect the County's interest and/or CDBG program requirements. The
Chief of Housing and County Attorney's office will present such requests to the County Executive with
recommendations for approval.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute
documents necessary to protect the County's interest on any loan for which a request is presented
by the client or those acting on behalf of the clients and which may affect the County's interest
and/or CDBG program requirements. Such requests for approval will be presented to the County
Executive by the Chief of Housing and the County Attorney's office.
__________
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 6.5. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 12, 2002, was received as
information.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker said Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, would like to share with the
Board a plaque his office received from Woods Edge, Senior Apartment Complex, that was given to him the
Saturday after Thanksgiving. He passed it to the Board members to view.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending section A.1-103 to replace
the defined term "development right" with "division rights" and adding the term "retained division rights";
section A.1-105 to expand the ACE Committee's authority to review the ACE program; section A.1-106 to
reduce the membership of the Appraisal Review Committee from 5 to 3; section A.1-108 to change the
description of the mountain protection resources eligible for ranking points, to more accurately describe the
various soil classes upon which ranking points are awarded, and to allow 2 points to be awarded for parcels
located within an agricultural and forestal district; and to make minor technical changes throughout
Appendix A.1. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and
December 2, 2002.)
Mr. Davis said the ACE program is now in its third application cycle and the experiences from the
first two cycles (the second of which is now at the appraisal stage) have prompted County staff and the ACE
Committee to recommend changes to the ACE regulations. A revised ordinance would make the following
substantive changes to the ACE regulations:
1. Sections A.1-103(A)(2) and (9): The proposed amendment would replace the
defined term "development right" with "division rights" in order to eliminate
confusion with the term "development rights" as used in the Zoning Ordinance.
The term "retained division rights" would be added and be defined to mean the
number of parcels into which a parcel under an ACE easement could be divided.
In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes, Section A.1-108(B)(3)
awards one-half point for each division right eliminated, which is determined by
subtracting the number of retained division rights (as determined under Section
A.1-109(A)) from the number of division rights.
2. Section A.1-105(B)(3): The proposed amendment would expand the ACE
Committee's current authority to annually review the ACE program's eligibility
and ranking criteria to enable it to periodically review the program's regulations,
guide-lines, administrative procedures and promotion. This amendment is
recommended to more fully use the Committee's expertise and experience.
3. Section A.1-106(A)(1): This subsection currently requires that the Appraisal
Review Committee be comprised of three real estate professionals, the County
Assessor, and a member of the ACE Committee. The proposed amendment
would reduce the total membership of the Committee from five to three by
reducing the number of real estate professionals from three to one. By waiver
from the Board in prior years, the Committee has acted with three members and
this size has proven to be practical.
4. Section A.1-108(C)(1): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes,
one point may be awarded under the current regulations for each 1000 feet of
mountain ridge. The proposed amendment would award a point for each 20
acres within a "ridge area boundary," a term defined to mean the area that lies
within 100 feet below designated ridge lines shown on County maps. The
change to this criterion is recommended because it more accurately describes
the resource having value.
5. Section A.1-108(C)(6): In awarding points to an application for ranking purposes,
points may be awarded for various class soils on a parcel. The proposed
amendment would more accurately describe the various soil classes.
6. Section A.1-108(C)(11): The proposed amendment would allow two points to be
awarded to an application for ranking purposes if the parcel is within an
agricultural and forestal district.
Mr. Davis said unless there are specific questions, that is the summary of the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said she is confused as to the definition of development right and the definition of
A@
division right. Mr. Davis said the term development right was used in the ACE Ordinance. Staff has
A@A@
found that it has caused confusion. The term development right" in the Zoning Ordinance, although it is
A
not actually found in the Zoning Ordinance, is a "term of art" for zoning purposes. It is actually called
development lots, but over the years it has been referred to as development rights. The development
A@A@
right lots are the two-acre lots which are permitted by-right in the Rural Areas District from parcels lots
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
which were in existence when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980. Those development right lots
are the two-acre lots which are limited to a maximum of five for any parcel that was in existence on that
date. That is the common meaning of development rights. Division rights is the number of lots that can
A@A@
be created from any parcel. Division rights in the Rural Areas would include all the development lots plus
any lots which could be created of 21 acres or larger. The total number would be the total division rights for
that particular piece of property.
Mr. Davis said that in the context of the ACE Ordinance, division rights have been defined in a
A@
similar fashion which would be the number of lots that could be created from a parcel which has an ACE
easement placed upon it. It would still be the total number of lots which could be created after an
easement had been placed on it. To eliminate the confusion of development rights versus division
A@A
rights, staff decided that the development rights terms used in the ACE ordinance should be eliminated
@
and be replaced with the more general term division rights.
A@
With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from
the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Appendix A.1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as set out below. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-A.1(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX A.1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS PROGRAM, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. A.1-100 Short title.
Sec. A.1-101 Purpose.
Sec. A.1-102 Applicability.
Sec. A.1-103 Definitions and construction.
Sec. A.1-104 Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-105 ACE committee established; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-106 Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
Sec. A.1-107 Eligibility criteria.
Sec. A.1-108 Ranking criteria.
Sec. A.1-109 Easement terms and conditions.
Sec. A.1-110 Application and evaluation procedure.
Sec. A.1-111 Purchase of conservation easement.
Sec. A.1-112 Program funding.
Sec. A.1-113 Program non-exclusivity.
APPENDIX A.1.
Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program
Sec. A.1-100. Short title.
This appendix shall be known and may be cited as the "acquisition of
conservation easements ("ACE") program."
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-101. Purpose.
The board of supervisors finds that between 1974 and 1992, twenty-five
thousand (25,000) acres of farmland in the county were lost to development; that at
present, almost one-third of the acres of forest land in the county is considered by the
Virginia Department of Forestry to be too densely populated for timber production; that
regulatory land-use planning tools acceptable to date have not been able to stem the
conversion of farm and forest land to other uses; and that farm and forest land, clean
water and airsheds, biological diversity, scenic vistas and rural character have a public
value as well as a private value. Therefore, the specific purposes of the ACE program
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
include, but are not limited to:
1. Establishing a program by which the county can acquire conservation
easements voluntarily offered by owners to serve as one means of assuring that the
county's resources are protected and efficiently used;
2. Establishing and preserving open-space and preserving the rural
character of Albemarle County;
3. Preserving farm and forest lands;
4. Conserving and protecting water resources and environmentally
sensitive lands, waters and other natural resources;
5. Conserving and protecting biodiversity and wildlife and aquatic habitat;
6. Assisting in shaping the character and direction of the development of
the community;
7. Improving the quality of life for the inhabitants of the county; and
8. Promoting tourism through the preservation of scenic resources.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
State law reference - Va. Code 10.1-1700 et seq.
'
Sec. A.1-102. Applicability.
The ACE program shall be available for all lands in the county, except those
lands under the ownership or control of the United States of America, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, or an agency or instrumentality thereof. Any conservation
easement acquired under the ACE program shall be voluntarily offered by the owner.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-103. Definitions and construction.
A. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and
implementation of the ACE program:
(1) . The term "conservation easement"
Conservation easement
means a nonpossessory interest in one or more parcels of one or more qualified
easement holders under section A.1-109(E) acquired under the Open-Space Land Act
(Virginia Code 10.1-1700 et seq.), whether the easement is appurtenant or in gross,
'
voluntarily offered by an owner and acquired by purchase pursuant to the ACE program,
imposing limitations or affirmative obligations for the purpose of retaining or protecting
natural or open-space values of the parcel or parcels, assuring availability for agricultural,
forestal, recreational or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or
enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural or archaeological
aspects of the parcel or parcels.
(2) . The term "division rights" means the number of
Division rights
parcels into which a parcel could be divided under the rural areas zoning district
regulations stated in Section 10 of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code,
where each potential parcel could comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, and Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
(3) . The term "forced sale" means a sale of a parcel
Forced sale
with unused development rights in a manner prescribed by law that is conducted under a
judgment, order or the supervision of a court of competent jurisdiction, other than a sale
arising from a partition action; a sale resulting from foreclosure under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia; or, a sale that is not the voluntary act of the owner but is
compelled in order to satisfy a debt evidenced by a mortgage, judgment, or a tax lien.
(4) . The term "hardship" means an economic hardship,
Hardship
other than a circumstance causing a forced sale, experienced by the owner of the parcel
so as to compel him to place a parcel with unused development rights for sale or to use
such development rights.
(5) . The term "immediate family" means an
Immediate family
owner's spouse and his or her offspring residing in the same household as the owner.
(6) . The term "owner" means the owner or owners of the
Owner
freehold interest of the parcel.
(7) . The term "program administrator"
Program administrator
means the director of the department of planning and community development.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
(8) . The term "parcel" means a lot or tract of land, lawfully
Parcel
recorded in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle.
(9) . The term "retained division rights"
Retained division rights
means the number of parcels into which a parcel subject to a conservation easement
may be divided as provided in section A.1-109(A).
B. . Because a conservation easement may contain one or
Construction
more parcels, for purposes of the ACE program the term "parcel" shall include all
parcels covered by, or proposed to be covered by, the conservation easement.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-104. Designation of program administrator; powers and duties.
A. . The director of the department of planning and community
Designation
development is hereby designated as the program administrator.
B. . The program administrator, or his designee, shall
Powers and duties
administer the ACE program and shall have the powers and duties to:
1. Establish reasonable and standard procedures and forms for
the proper administration and implementation of the program.
2. Promote the program, in cooperation with the ACE committee,
by providing educational materials to the public and conducting informational meetings.
3. Investigate and pursue, in conjunction with the county executive,
state, Federal and other programs available to provide additional public and private
resources to fund the program and to maximize private participation.
4. Evaluate all applications to determine their eligibility and their
ranking score, rank applications based on their ranking score, and make
recommendations thereon to the ACE committee.
5. Determine the number of division rights existing on each parcel
subject to an application, after obtaining the number of theoretical development rights
from the zoning administrator.
6. Coordinate the preparation of appraisals.
7. Provide staff support to the appraisal review committee, the ACE
committee and the board of supervisors.
8. Provide educational materials regarding other land protection
programs to the public.
9. For each conservation easement, assure that the terms and
conditions of the deed of easement are monitored and complied with by coordinating a
monitoring program with each easement holder, and if the other easement holders are
either unable or unwilling to do so, monitor and assure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the deed of easement.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-105. ACE committee established; powers and duties.
A. . The ACE committee is hereby established as follows:
Establishment
1. The committee shall consist of ten (10) members appointed by
the board of supervisors. Each member shall be a resident of Albemarle County. The
committee should, but is not required to, be comprised of members who are
knowledgeable in the fields of conservation, conservation biology, real estate and/or rural
land appraisal, farming and forestry and may also include members of conservation
easement holding agencies and conservation organizations.
2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of
the board of supervisors. The initial term of three (3) members shall be for one (1) year.
The initial term of three (3) members shall be for two (2) years. The initial term for four
(4) members shall be for three (3) years. Each term after the initial term shall be for (3)
years.
3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the
board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member for actual and
necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
4. The committee shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman and
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
secretary at its first meeting each calendar year. The secretary need not be a member of
the committee.
B. . The ACE committee shall have the powers and
Powers and duties
duties to:
1. Promote the program, in cooperation with the program
administrator, by providing educational materials to the public and conducting
informational meetings.
2. Review the ranking of applications recommended by the
program administrator, and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors as to
which conservation easements should be purchased.
3. Periodically review the program's regulations, guidelines,
administrative procedures and promotion and recommend to the board of supervisors or
the program administrator, as appropriate, any changes needed to maintain the
program's consistency with the comprehensive plan, or to improve the administration,
implementation and effectiveness of the program.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-106. Appraisal review committee established; powers and duties.
A. . The appraisal review committee is hereby established,
Establishment
as provided herein:
1. The committee shall consist of three (3) members appointed by
the board of supervisors. The committee shall be comprised of one (1) real estate
professional, the county assessor, and a member of the ACE committee.
2. The members of the committee shall serve at the pleasure of
the board of supervisors. Each member, other than the county assessor, shall serve a
one (1) year term. The county assessor shall be a permanent member of the committee.
3. The members of the committee shall serve without pay, but the
board of supervisors may, in its discretion, reimburse each member other than the county
assessor for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
4. The county assessor shall be the chairman of the committee.
B. . The appraisal review committee shall have the power
Power and duty
and duty to review appraisals to assure they are consistent with appropriate appraisal
guidelines and practices, and to make recommendations thereon to the board of
supervisors.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-107. Eligibility criteria.
In order for a parcel to be eligible for a conservation easement, it must meet the
following criteria: (i) the use of the parcel subject to the conservation easement must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan; (ii) the proposed terms of the conservation deed
of easement must be consistent with the minimum terms and conditions set forth in
section A.1-109; and (iii) the parcel shall obtain at least fifteen (15) points under the
ranking criteria set forth in section A.1-108.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which
conservation easement applications have been received shall be ranked according to the
criteria and the point values assigned as provided below. Points shall be rounded to the
first decimal.
A.
Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation
easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space:
one (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B.
Threat of conversion to developed use.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel:
one-half (1/2) point for each division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by
subtracting the number of retained division rights from the number of division rights.
C.
Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each twenty (20) acres
within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term "ridge area
boundary" means the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridge
lines shown on county mountain overlay district elevation maps.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least
one family member's principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or
foresting the parcel; three (3) points if at least one family member produces farm
products derived from the parcel.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic
highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage;
or the parcel adjoins a public road: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is
within a national or state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement
protecting a historic resource; two (2) points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello
viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the possession of
the county.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural
heritage inventory: five (5) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils ("prime soils")
for agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on Federal natural
resources conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50)
acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Watershed or the Totier Creek Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy
Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Jacob's Run, or the
Hardware River: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic
river: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary
purpose is to establish or maintain vegetative buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent
streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one
(1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and
one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) feet of buffer
that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his
application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the
above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area
identified in a county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2)
points.
D. . State, Federal or private funding identified to
County fund leveraging
leverage the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10)
percent of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the
Open-Space Land Act of 1966 (Virginia Code 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this appendix.
'
The deed of easement shall be in a form approved by the county attorney, and shall
contain, at a minimum, the following provisions:
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
A. . The parcel shall be restricted from division as
Restriction on division
follows: (i) if the parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if
the parcel is one hundred (100) acres or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it
may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the parcel is two hundred (200) acres or larger, it
may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot size of at least one
hundred (100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required
minimum average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided
into as many as nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which maintain an average lot size of at
least one hundred (100) acres, and the ninth of which consists of the remaining acres).
B. . If the owner voluntarily requested in
Protection of mountain resources
his application that the parcel be awarded points during the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall assure that
the parcel is used and maintained in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan
and, in particular, the Open Space Plan as it pertains to mountain resources, and the
Mountain Design Standards in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. . The owner shall not have the option to reacquire
No buy-back option
any property rights relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. . The parcel also shall be subject to standard
Other restrictions
restrictions contained in conservation easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed
on the parcel. These standard restrictions shall be delineated in the deed of easement
and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, restrictions pertaining to: (i) the
accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and advertisements;
(iii) the management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or earth removal; (v) the
number and size of residential outbuildings and farm buildings or structures; (vi) the
conduct of industrial or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the
easement.
E. . The county and one or more other
Designation of easement holders
public bodies, as defined in Virginia Code 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of
'
supervisors shall be the easement holders of each easement. The public body or bodies
who may be designated by the board shall include, but not be limited to, the Albemarle
County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-110. Application and evaluation procedure.
Each application for a conservation easement shall be processed as follows:
A. . The application materials
Application materials to be provided to owner
provided by the program administrator to an owner shall include, at a minimum, a
standard application form, a sample deed of easement, and information about the ACE
program.
B. Each application shall be submitted on a standard
Application form.
form prepared by the program administrator. The application form shall require, at a
minimum, that the owner: (i) provide the name of all owners of the parcel, the address of
each owner, the acreage of the parcel, the Albemarle County tax map and parcel
number, the zoning designation of the parcel, and permission for the program
administrator to enter the property after reasonable notice to the owner to evaluate the
parcel and for the county assessor or an independent appraiser to appraise the property;
and (ii) state his adjusted gross income for the three (3) prior tax years, as explained in
section A.1-111(B). The application form shall also include a space for an owner to
indicate that he volunteers to have the parcel be subject to greater restrictions than those
contained in the standard sample deed of easement, and to delineate those voluntary,
additional restrictions.
C. .
Additional application information required by program administrator
The program administrator may require an owner to provide additional information
deemed necessary to determine: (i) whether the proposed easement is eligible for
purchase; and (ii) the purchase price of the easement.
D. . Applications shall be submitted to the office of
Submittal of application
the program administrator. An application may be submitted at any time. However,
applications received after July 1 shall be evaluated in the following year.
E. . The program administrator shall
Evaluation by program administrator
evaluate each application received and determine within fifteen (15) days whether the
application is complete. If the application is incomplete, the program administrator shall
inform the owner in writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the
application to be deemed complete. When an application is deemed complete, the
program administrator shall determine whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
set forth in section A.1-107 and, if it does, shall determine the number of points to be
attributed to the parcel by applying the criteria set forth in section A.1-108. The program
administrator shall then rank each parcel scoring at least fifteen (15) points, with the
parcel scoring the most points being the highest ranked and descending therefrom. The
program administrator should submit the list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee by
August 1.
F. . The ACE committee shall
Evaluation and ranking by ACE committee
review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator and shall rank
the parcels in the order of priority it recommends the easements shall be purchased.
The committee should forward to the board of supervisors by September 1 its
recommendation of which conservation easements should be purchased.
G. . The board of
Evaluation and ranking by board of supervisors
supervisors shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE committee and
identify on which parcels it desires conservation easements. The board shall then rank
those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements that year.
Nothing in this appendix shall obligate the board to purchase a conservation easement on
any property that meets the minimum number of qualifying points.
H. . Each conservation
Appraisal of conservation easement value
easement identified by the board of supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised
either by the county assessor or by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by the
county. Each appraisal should be completed by October 1. Each completed appraisal
shall be submitted to the program administrator and the owner. The program
administrator shall forward each appraisal to the appraisal review committee, which shall
review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors
by November 1.
I. . Any requirement or
Requirements and deadlines may be waived
deadline set forth in this appendix may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good
cause, it is shown that exigent circumstances exist to warrant consideration of an
otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that the requirements unreasonably restrict
the purchase of an easement. Under these circumstances, the board may purchase a
conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only those
requirements it deems appropriate.
J. . An owner whose parcel is not selected for purchase of a
Reapplication
conservation easement may reapply in any future year.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-111. Purchase of conservation easement.
Each conservation easement shall be purchased as follows:
A. . From the list of applications received under
Identification of initial pool
section A.1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels
identified for conservation easements to be purchased. The purchase price may be
supplemented by non-county funding. The size of the pool shall be based upon the
funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price
of each conservation easement in the pool established under section A.1-111(B).
B. . The purchase price of a conservation
Determining purchase price
easement shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable
percentage of appraised value set forth in the table below. The average annual adjusted
gross income shall be based on the aggregate of the annual adjusted gross income of
each owner of record and the members of his or her immediate family in each of the
three (3) most recent tax years. In the case of a parcel owned by an entity such as a
corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or estate, the average annual
adjusted gross income of the owner shall be based on the aggregate annual adjusted
gross incomes of the shareholders, partners, members, grantor, beneficiaries or
decedent, as the case may be.
Average Annual Adjusted Gross Income Percentage of Appraised Value
$ 0 - $50,000 100%
$50,001 - $60,000 94%
$60,001 - $70,000 88%
$70,001 - $80,000 82%
$80,001 - $90,000 76%
$90,001 - $100,000 70%
$100,001 - $110,000 64%
$110,001 - $120,000 58%
$120,001 - $130,000 52%
$130,001 - $140,000 46%
$140,001 - $150,000 40%
$150,001 - $160,000 34%
$160,001 - $170,000 28%
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
$170,001 - $180,000 22%
$180,001 - $190,000 16%
$190,001 - $200,000 10%
$200,001 or more 4%
C. . The board shall invite the owner of each parcel
Invitation to offer to sell
included in the initial pool to submit an offer to sell to the county a conservation easement
on that parcel for the purchase price, and/or to donate to the county the balance of the
fair market value of the conservation easement, subject to the terms and conditions of a
proposed deed of easement. The purchase price shall not be subject to negotiation.
The invitation shall be in writing and shall include the purchase price, the proposed deed
of easement, and the date by which a written offer must be received by the program
administrator in order for it to be considered. The invitation also may include a form offer
to be returned by the owner if the owner desires to offer to sell a conservation easement.
D. . Each owner who desires to sell and/or donate a
Offer to sell
conservation easement shall submit a written offer that must be received by the program
administrator by the date contained in the invitation to offer to sell. The offer should
include a statement substantially stating the following: "(The owner) offers to sell and/or
donate a conservation easement to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for the sum of
(purchase price), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of
easement enclosed with the invitation to offer to sell." Nothing in this appendix shall
compel an owner to submit an offer to sell.
E. . An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted
Acceptance
by the board of supervisors only in writing, and only following an action by the board
authorizing acceptance. An offer shall not be accepted by the board if the proposed
easement would be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan at
the time the offer is received. Nothing in this appendix requires the board to accept an
offer to sell a conservation easement.
F. . A conservation easement shall be established
Easement established
when the owner and an authorized representative of the holder of the easement have
each signed the deed of easement. The deed shall be recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the County of Albemarle. A single conservation easement may be
established for more than one parcel under the same ownership.
G. . If an
Offers not made; offers not accepted; invitation to other owners
owner invited to submit an offer to sell elects not to do so, or if an owner's offer to sell is
not accepted by the board of supervisors, then the board shall send an invitation to offer
to sell to the owner of the next highest ranked parcel remaining on the list of parcels
identified in section A.1-110(E).
H. . If the board of supervisors accepts an offer to sell, the county
Costs
shall pay all costs, including environmental site assessments, surveys, recording costs,
grantor's tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing. Provided, however, the
county shall not pay fees incurred for independent appraisals, legal, financial, or other
advice, or fees in connection with the release and subordination of liens to the easement
purchased by the county.
I. . An owner who fails to submit an offer to sell or whose
Reapplication
offer to sell was not accepted may reapply in any future year.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-112. Program funding.
The ACE program may be funded annually by the board of supervisors in the
county budget or by special appropriation. The county shall endeavor to seek funds from
Federal, state and private sources to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
Sec. A.1-113. Program non-exclusivity.
The ACE program is a non-exclusive means by which the county may purchase
conservation easements or control land use and development, or by which landowners
may establish conservation easements and other self-imposed limitations on land use or
development. This appendix shall not be construed in any way as a limitation upon the
county's authority to acquire land for public purposes.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02)
_______________
(Mr. Martin arrived at 6:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: ARB-2002-126. Fuji Sushi & Grill Buffet Sign. Request to install 2
wall signs & 1 freestanding sign. TM 61W, Sec 1, Block A, P3. Loc on 1250 Seminole Trail, S of Westfield
Rd, N of Greenbrier Dr, across from Toys R Us. Znd EC & C1. Rio Dist.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is an appeal of the ruling of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) relating to
a free-standing sign and a wall sign proposed for this restaurant at the corner of Westfield Road and Route
29 North. The application was for two internally illuminated cabinet signs featuring a snow-capped Mt. Fuji
silhouetted against a reddish/pink sunset sky with the restaurant name occupying the lower portion. The
ARB approved each of the signs with conditions, and it is the conditions that are the subject of the appeal.
In each case, the signs were approved with conditions that said internally illuminate the message portion
A
only or provide external illumination. That essentially means that only the letters can be illuminated, or the
@
entire sign could be illuminated by an external source.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant questions the logic/aesthetic justification for this particular decision
and the guidelines that support that decision. The applicant says the ARB requirement will black-out the
background of the picture of Mt. Fuji, and that robs the restaurant of its identity, and detracts from the
aesthetic appeal of the sign itself. Also, since there will be relatively tall shrubbery around the base of the
free-standing sign, ground-mounted illumination with flood lights pointing upward is impractical, and
infringes on the Dark Skies Ordinance. The applicant also reasons that the alternative of providing
overhead illumination requires the installation of an ugly structure attached to the top of the sign extending
outward with flood lights shining back onto the sign. The applicant says that interior illumination of signs
provides far greater readability than exterior illumination, thus reducing traffic hazards. Also, the shades of
color in the sign are enhanced by internal illumination, but would be totally lost with exterior illumination.
The owner does not wish to have an externally illuminated sign.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that about a year ago, there was an appeal of a sign for Whole Foods in
Shoppers World. It was similar to this question. He then handed to the Board pictures depicting the various
types of signs, both illuminated internally as well as externally. The purpose of the ARB review is to insure
that new development in the Entrance Corridor is compatible with the historic architecture of the County.
There is no historic precedent for internally illuminated signs. However, the ARB has recognized the need
to identify businesses to help the traveling public find their destination and exit the highway safely. He said
the preferred solution is to externally illuminate the sign. Since this solution does not fit every case, the ARB
has also approved individual channel letters as a type of internally-illuminated sign. It has reduced impact
on the Entrance Corridor by limiting visual clutter. Because channel letters do not fit every case, the ARB
has also approved internally-illuminated cabinet signs, but the ARB has consistently required that the
background of such signs be opaque so that when the sign is lit, only the message portion of the sign is
illuminated. This solution is intended to reduce glare, to reduce visual clutter and distraction and to provide
for coordinated appearances along the Entrance Corridor, to increase visual continuity and to limit negative
impacts along the Countys Entrance Corridors. That reasoning applies in this case. Last year, in a similar
=
circumstance, the Board upheld the ruling of the ARB on the Whole Foods sign.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ben Foster, High Tech Signs, was present for the applicant. He has had a consistent problem
with the requirement to black-out the background of signs. If the background is plain, then to blank it out
does not do much. But, signs are more than just a background with text. Hopefully, the rest of the sign
contributes to the whole effect. He showed to the Board some pictures of signs in a book. He said if
everything except the text is eliminated, that has seriously affected both the visual appeal of the sign, and a
lot of its impact. For the proposed sign, they tried to create a sign with some impact. The ARB said it was a
beautiful sign. But, the question is, if it is beautiful by day, why should it not be beautiful by night? Where is
the logic that says that from sunrise to sunset you can see Mt. Fuji with the sunset behind it, but at night you
are not allowed to see that? At night, all that will be seen is text. If it is not acceptable at night, maybe it
should not be allowed with Mt. Fuji in it, but it should just be plain lettering on a plain background. That
would not create an aesthetic looking sign. He said the ARBs ruling has the reverse effect of what was
=
intended. He thinks members of the public would like to see signs like that proposed rather than just text on
a background.
Mr. Foster said because of this blanket ruling, people are just designing signs with plain text on a
plain background. It is having a counter effect by not encouraging sign companies to design good-looking
signs, but signs which will be visible at night to the maximum possible. He does not think that is what is
intended. He said the County must show that blacking out the background creates some aesthetic
improvement, and he does not know how that could be shown.
Ms. Thomas said the alternative the ARB is suggesting is not that the background be blacked out,
but that it be lit from lights either above or below the sign. Mr. Foster said he gave some reasons in his
letter for not having that type of lighting. One reason is that the illumination from the exterior loses a lot of
the tints. He said if it is okay to see it illuminated, why should it not be illuminated? Why is it better to have it
illuminated externally, rather than internally? What is the difference in terms of the aesthetics? The
aesthetics concerning the structure are obvious. In order to illuminate externally, there must be a structure,
and there must be lights which hang out and back in on the sides. There cannot be ground illumination
because the ARB requires shrubbery, so the only way to do it is to have goose-neck lights which project
outward. They are not aesthetically appealing. His question is, what is the difference between having it
externally illuminated and internally illuminated? The effect is not quite as nice, but is basically the same.
Mr. Bowerman said the pictures shown to the Board all show signs which are externally illuminated.
They are all wooden signs, and all have to be externally illuminated. Clearly, this type of beautiful sign has
to be illuminated from the exterior and can be quite amply handled in that fashion. He thinks the policy the
ARB has been following is designed to eliminate clutter and to come up with a consistency of design along
Route 29, and he thinks it has been very effective. Going back to the sign appeal the Board heard last year,
he agrees with that decision and he does not see any reason at this point to deviate from the ARBs
=
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
standard policy. He sees no compelling reason to do that.
Mr. Foster said if there is a restriction, there has to be a reason for the restriction. He would like to
know the reason for that restriction.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Foster has made his point, and the Board will discuss the question, rather
than having a debate. She asked if Mr. Bowerman wanted to add anything to his comments.
Ms. Bowerman said there has been an on-going debate between Mr. Foster and the ARB. This
request was appealed to this Board, and he sees no compelling reason for the Board to deviate from the
policy the ARB adopted that has been found to be quite satisfactory up to this point in time. It has been
consistently applied on Route 29, and over the last ten years the County has been getting a certain
harmony to Route 29 that is adding a contribution to 29 as an Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Dorrier said he understands there will be a need for an external light. Mr. Bowerman said that
has been required of others. Mr. Davis said Mr. Cilimberg can explain staffs thinking about whether that is
=
a practical requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a landscaping requirement, but the external light can be
provided. There are other such signs which are illuminated from the ground, as well as ways it can be
externally illuminated from above, or around the sign. There are ways to do that, and it will not preclude the
case of the sign that is on the cupola that could be lit from above.
A@
Ms. Thomas said the lollipop could be lit from below with the light sources being visually shielded
A@
by the landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true. Ms. Bowerman asked about the lollipop type of sign.
A@
Ms. Thomas said this is the sign on a stick.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Fuji design can be kept. Mr. Cilimberg said there was no concern with the
design of the sign; that was not an issue. It was the way illumination was being provided.
Ms. Thomas said when one drives along that corridor, she is impressed that the County is getting a
consistency in signs that adds to the entire impact of the corridor. By not having individual signs internally lit
except for their letters, the impact is creating an improvement on Route 29.
Mr. Martin said he does not value artistic talent, so he cannot see the difference. He will basically
defer to the thinking of Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to affirm the decision of the ARB in the matter of ARB-2002-126,
Fuji Sushi & Grill Buffet sign. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
Mr. Martin said he would like to apologize for being late, but his vehicle was not ready at the time
promised by his mechanic.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-02-51. Violet Mawyer Mill Mountain (Nextel) (Sign #50). Public hearing on
a request to allow construction of personal wireless service facility, w/105 foot tall wooded monopole in
accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 98, P 22, contains 48.83 acs. Loc on Rt 804 (Thackers
Lane) approx 400 feet E of intersec of with Rt 29S (Monacan Trail Rd). Znd RA & EC. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the request is to install a personal wireless
service facility, which would include a 105-foot tall wooden monopole, with a top elevation of approximately
940 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). It would be about one foot higher in AMSL elevation than the 25-
inch diameter, 91-foot tall Poplar tree located about 10 feet east of the facility. It would be equipped with
two one-foot by eight-foot, flush-mounted panel antennas and a one-inch lightning rod at the top. Ground-
based equipment would be contained within a 10-foot by 20-foot utility building on a concrete pad.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant had requested that there be an 800 square foot area around the
facility enclosed with a chain-link fence that would be fitted with wooden stockade fencing on its exterior.
That would enable Nextel to extend its service along Route 29 south of the City. The site of the proposed
facility is a wooded lease area of about 2500 square feet situated at an elevation between 834 and 848 feet
AMSL. The site of Cook Mountain, which has a peak elevation of about 1225 feet AMSL. The nearest
property line is located about 412 feet south of the lease area. The lease area for the existing personal
wireless service facility, which was approved and constructed in 1998, is located on the subject parcel about
140 feet west of the proposed facility. The nearest dwelling is about 420 feet to the west and is also located
on the same property. The nearest dwelling on an adjacent parcel is nearly 800 feet away.
Mr. Cilimberg said access will be provided by extending the existing driveway and gravel access
road approximately 238 feet east from the entrance of the existing lease area through an area which had
been cleared for an old road bed. During a field visit, staff observed that a red balloon floated at the height
of the proposed monopole appeared to extend slighly above the treetops when viewed from a location near
the edge of the tree line on the subject parcel. The balloon was visible below the ridgeline from the
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
driveway for the neighboring parcel to the south. The balloon could only be seen from the public road right-
of-way for U.S. Route 29 through a row of evergreen trees along the frontage of an adjacent parcel. It
appeared to be well below the ridgeline.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed site of the facility is located below the Mountain Resource Area
which begins at the 900-foot contour. Based on the observation of balloon tests, and the fact that the
existing tower is not visible when traveling on Route 29, it is staffs opinion that the proposed facility would
=
not impose any discernible impacts upon the entrance corridor. Because of the limited amount of
disturbance for the installation of this facility, and its distance from property lines, it is staffs opinion that
=
approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any
of the neighboring properties within the area.
Mr. Cilimberg said a facility employing a monopole at the requested height would not introduce an
objectionable feature in the ridgeline and draw additional attention to another facility already existing on the
subject parcel. It is staffs opinion that the applicants proposal for containing the facility within a large
==
fenced area would require an amount of disturbance exceeding what is necessary for establishing the
personal wireless service. Staff notes that a majority of the personal wireless service facilities within the
Rural Areas have been established without any fencing. This includes the existing one on the subject
parcel. He said staff does not recommend approval of the fencing and he believes the applicant is
agreeable to that recommendation.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has reviewed this request for compliance with provisions set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. There were original conditions that were somewhat
modified by the Planning Commission, which on November 19, 2002, unanimously recommended approval
of SP-2002-051, subject to conditions. He said the Commission did ask staff to look into the applicability
and legality of a condition regarding interference as used for Nextels Shadwell site. It is the opinion of the
=
County Attorney that the condition should not be included, based on Federal requirements and restrictions.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to elaborate since she knows there is an issue with Nextel and the
Countys 800 MHz facility. Mr. Davis said it is in the area the County would like to be able to regulate, but
=
under Federal law the County is preempted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) from
regulating any frequency issues related to cell towers. The FCC has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate
frequencies. To the extent that it is a frequency issue, the County would have to file a complaint with the
FCC and deal with it in that fashion.
Ms. Thomas asked how the question with the 800 MHz system stands. Mr. Davis said there has
been cooperation with Nextel, but he does not think there has been a total solution. The County does not
have a functioning 800 MHz system in Albemarle County yet. The County does not know if there will be
interference. In other jurisdictions, there has been. In Maryland, there have been conflicts, and there are
different approaches to making it work. The FCC is still studying the issue to see if they can impose any
regulations which would accommodate the public safety frequencies and let them co-exist with Nextel. He
has been told that the 800 MHz people feel they can work in concert with Nextel, and he has been told that
Nextel is agreeable to working with them. Whether or not there will be a problem when the system is
actually in place, he does not know.
Ms. Thomas asked about Condition No. 3 (The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea
Level (AMSL), shall never exceed one (1) foot above the top of the twenty-five (25) inch, ninety-one (91)
foot tall Poplar Tree identified in the application plans, which has a top elevation of nine hundred thirty-nine
(939) feet AMSL. In no case shall the pole exceed one hundred five (105) feet in height at the time of
installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility
permit.) which seems to depend on the 91-foot tall Poplar tree to live forever at 91 feet. What happens if it
does not live forever? Mr. Cilimberg said if anything happens to the tree before this facility is installed, he
does not know how the applicant would satisfy the condition. If there is an act of nature after installation,
there is not much that could be done. The other part of the condition restricts the height to 105 feet.
Ms. Thomas said in the past, the Board got a sense of how the height of the pole compared to the
overall height of trees around the proposed tower. In the photographs of this site, it looked as if the existing
pole is almost invisible. She asked if the general height of the trees in that area are similar to that of the
Poplar tree. Mr. Cilimberg said there is another tree in the area which is not as tall. He directed the Board
members to Attachment B, page 24, to the staffs report which indicates some of the other trees in the area.
=
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ed Given, Nextel Partners, was present. He said this is a well-hidden site. With regard to the
issue of interference, their regional and national radio frequency people have been working with the local
people. Their internal model shows that they will not interfere, but they must prove that they will not. He
said they get mixed in with the Nextel Com people who have set up these systems, and they are all over the
800 MHz band. It is difficult to stay out of it unless there is proper frequency planning in the beginning. That
is what Mr. Campagna has been working on with Mr. Joe Davis, Nextels local person. He said Nextel does
=
not want to interfere with any 9-1-1 calls. They feel they have identified at least 40 frequencies which will
remain open when they are situated on this site. The Shadwell site is a different thing because it has both
the A band carrier, and the B band carrier. He said when all those frequencies are combined, they can
A@A@
jump around. They have agreed that at Shadwell they will not do anything except prove they can co-exist
peacefully with the agency. It is difficult because there is not an operating 800 MHz system.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Given said once it is decided that Nextel and the County can work together, they will send in a
team when the system is turned up to work with the 9-1-1 people. They will work to identify frequencies
which have specific problems and they will address that specific problem through filters. So far, they have
spent a considerable amount of man hours and money resolving this issue. They always do that when
Nextel Com has been there before them. With their older system, these issues always arise. He said they
operate on the band which is 816 to 866 MHz. It is their full intention to co-exist peacefully. Their people
have met with representatives from the fire departments, the police departments, people who actually use
their equipment now. On the Shadwell site, he believes they are about two months away from issuing the
letter which has been requested from the County explaining the problems. He said that Mr. Campagna has
certainly told them what he expects.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Martin immediately offered motion to approve SP-2002-051 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. The facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any
antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the Application Plan
entitled, "Nextel Partners, Inc./Mill Mountain", dated August 22, 2002;
2. The pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole
above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation;
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never
exceed one (1) foot above the top of the twenty-five (25) inch, ninety-one (91)
foot tall Poplar Tree identified in the application plans, which has a top elevation
of nine hundred thirty-nine (939) feet AMSL. In no case shall the pole exceed
one hundred five (105) feet in height at the time of installation without prior
approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility
permit;
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color;
5. The ground equipment building, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be a color that closely matches that of the pole and
shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans;
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out
from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be
permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole
and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches;
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a lightning rod, shall be located
above the top of the pole. The lightning rod shall not exceed more than two (2)
feet above the top of the monopole and shall not exceed one (1) inch in
diameter;
9. No guy wires shall be permitted;
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein
provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each
outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or
shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts
designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect
the lamps to the power supply; and
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
12. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that
has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator;
13. Submittal of a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. The plan shall
specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to
be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease
area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad,
including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in
accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development,
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the
pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for
any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer after the
installation of the subject facility; and
14. With the Building Permit Application, the applicant shall submit the final revised
set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review,
Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate
conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured
both in feet Above Ground Level and in elevation Above Mean Sea Level (ASL)
using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be
provided to the Zoning Administrator;
16. Certification confirming that the lightning rod: a) height does not exceed two (2)
feet above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1)
inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; and
17. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall
be met:
18. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to
the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each
personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated
with each provider; and
19. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service
provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and
removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal
wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator
determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit
satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-01-04. Albemarle Place. Public hearing on a request to change land
use designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service for TM 61W, Ps 19A & 19B, Sec 3, to support
an eventual rezoning from LI to PUD for the purposes of creating a mixed residential, office and
commercial development. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on November 25
and December 2, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said he would be brief. There was a work session on this petition last week, and the
Board received a lot of the details and the evolution of this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The
Board indicated there would be one change it would support; that was in Item C4 of the amendment
regarding the square footage for any single user. He thinks the Board indicated it would support 70,000
square feet. Otherwise, he will answer questions.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Frank Cox was present on behalf of the Albemarle Place development team. He said they just
wanted to be available this evening to answer any questions from the Board. They feel the staff has, with
great rigor, gone through the initial application. They studied the language in the CPA before the Board
tonight, and feel good about the language. He said they would like to submit a rezoning application at the
earliest possible time. He offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this will be one of the largest Comprehensive Plan amendments passed in the
least amount of time. Mr. Bowerman said that was not true on the Planning Commission side. Ms. Thomas
said the Commission worked on it for quite a while. She thinks it is right that the Board talked about
increasing the 64,000 square feet to 70,000 square feet. That was the only item that came out of the work
session, and there was a consensus for the change. Otherwise, the Board felt the amendment had been
fairly well worked over. She asked for a motion.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Motion to adopt CPA-01-04, Albemarle Place, as recommended by the Planning Commission on
October 8, 2002, except that the 65,000 square foot footprint is increased to 70,000 square feet, was
offered by Mr. Dorrier. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The Comprehensive Plan amendment, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
LANGUAGE FOR ALBEMARLE PLACE CPA-01-04
General Recommendation
The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan should be amended to designate the
undeveloped land surrounding the Sperry Factory as Regional Service, thus replacing its
current designation of Industrial Service. The remainder of the land use designations
within the super block should remain as designated. In addition to the super block
specific CPA language recommended below, the changes to the Comprehensive Plan's
current language for Neighborhood 1 are also recommended to the Board of Supervisors
as proposed in Attachment B (on file in the Clerks Office).
=
Recommended Language Amendments for the Hydraulic Super Block
Any development or redevelopment of the properties in the Hydraulic Super Block,
defined as the land enclosed by Route 29, Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive, and
Greenbrier Drive, should occur within the following guidelines:
A. Transportation
1) The City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, the Virginia Department
of Transportation, affected property owners, and interested stakeholders
should coordinate the development of an integrated transportation
system.
The integrated system should include the necessary improvements,
inclusive of roadway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
mass transportation, in an area encompassing the following intersections
(See Attachment A - on file in the Clerks Office):
=
* Hydraulic & Route 250 Bypass;
* Hydraulic & Route 29;
* Hydraulic & Commonwealth Drive;
* Hydraulic & Georgetown Road;
* Route 250/Route 29 Bypass & Barracks Road;
* Route 29 & Route 250 Bypass;
* Route 29 & Angus Road;
* Route 29 & Greenbrier Drive; and,
* Commonwealth Drive & Greenbrier Drive.
The integrated system should include development of a grid road
network within the Hydraulic Super Block as illustrated in Attachment A.
Additional turning lanes and travel lanes may be considered along
existing roads within the defined area; however, the development of
parallel roads as illustrated in Attachment A should be stressed over the
addition of lanes to existing roads.
As part of the integrated system, the County and City should create a
road, parallel to Route 29, which would connect Hillsdale Drive
southward to Hydraulic (and points south if determined beneficial by a
traffic study), for the purpose of increased interconnectivity. A possible
alignment is conceptually shown in Attachment A.
As part of the integrated system, improvements in this area may include
urban, grade-separated intersections, as warranted, to facilitate the
movement of traffic. In particular, the Hydraulic/Route 250, Hydraulic/
Route 29, Route 29/Greenbrier Drive and Route 29/Route 250
intersections should be analyzed for such improvements.
As part of the integrated system, traffic signal timing and coordination
should be improved, and where determined necessary, intersections
should be relocated to optimize traffic flow.
2) Development within the Hydraulic Super Block should create multiple
connections to Commonwealth Drive, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Road. A single connection to Commonwealth and Greenbrier Drives is
considered a minimum within the super block. Multiple connections to
Hydraulic should be considered a requirement. Projects that cannot
connect through to one of the major roads surrounding the super block
should demonstrate that the means for future vehicular and pedestrian
connections is achievable between their project and the major road.
3) The existing Seminole Square/Sperry Marine/Route 29 intersection
should ultimately be utilized as the connection between developments
on the east and west sides of Route 29. Any development within the
super block should anticipate that this intersection will be the primary
point for a Route 29 crossover. Thus, they should orient buildings and
street layouts accordingly. If it is impossible to gain direct access to this
intersection, it may be necessary to establish a new crossover between
Greenbrier Drive and the Seminole Square/Sperry Marine/Route 29
inter-section to serve the undeveloped properties surrounding the Sperry
Marine Factory, if warranted by traffic studies and conditions. However,
this new crossover should be closed when a connection to the Seminole
Square/Sperry Marine/Route 29 intersection is feasible.
4) Any development of properties along Route 29 and around the major
intersections listed in item A.1 above should contribute towards the
necessary infrastructure improvements (possibly including
grade-separated interchanges) and set aside sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate the ultimate improvements for these intersections as
dictated by the integrated transportation system plan.
5) Development within the super block should be phased to match the
provision of transportation improvements.
6) Development within the super block should implement alternative
transportation solutions. These alternatives may include Transportation
Demand Management solutions, shuttle service between selected
destinations within the City and/or County, high occupancy car parking
and mass transit.
7) New development should be designed to maintain traffic of a residential
nature in existing neighborhoods in both the City and County.
B. Land Use
1) The County continues to value and encourage the continuation of the
industrial uses on the remaining Industrial Service designated properties
(the Sperry Marine and Comdial factories) because these business uses
provide important employment opportunities and contribute to the
mixture of uses within the super block. However, the County also
recognizes that mixed-use land uses designations, such as Community
Service, may be considered as an alternative designation for these
properties as part of the County's forthcoming Neighborhood Planning
Initiative.
2) The development within the super block should be a center or focal
point for the southern portion of Neighborhood 1.
3) Preference will be given to rezoning proposals that provide a mixture of
uses, along with a phasing plan that assures a mixture of uses during the
development of the project.
4) The phasing of the project should be coordinated with the provision to
assure adequate water supply for existing and proposed users of that
supply.
5) Any proposal within the super block should achieve the highest density
possible as long as the existing or planned road, utility, open space,
and/or other public infrastructure supports that density. The desired
overall intensity is a minimum floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of .75.
6) Development within the super block should be phased to match the
provision of non-transportation related public infrastructure, such as
sewer and water.
C. Design Standards for Development or Redevelopment within the Super
Block
1) The concepts of Neighborhood Model should be incorporated into all
projects within the super block.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
2) Projects should provide pedestrian and bicycle access both internally
and to surrounding properties and major roads. Additionally, the
recommendations of the 1999 Route 29 Pedestrian Corridor Plan and its
successors should be implemented. Where right-of-way is not available
to connect a project to the edges of the super block, the project should
be designed so that the possibility for future pedestrian connections and
bicycle accesses through the adjacent properties is retained.
3) Projects should orient buildings to major roads, both interior and exterior
to the super block (with priority given to the external street network), to
the maximum extent possible in order to create the appropriate
streetscape.
4) To reduce the amount of site disturbance and impervious surface, the
ground floor ("footprint") of any single user may not exceed 70,000
square feet. Any building larger than 70,000 square feet shall be
designed so that each floor can function as an individual business, to be
reusable by separate users in the future. In addition, any large-scale
building should adhere to the following guidelines for the purpose of
creating an appropriate streetscape:
The building's facades and roof lines should be of visual interest
"
and should reduce the massive scale and the uniform,
impersonal appearance of such large buildings.
The building should have architectural features and patterns at
"
the scale of the pedestrian that provide visual interest, reduce
massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local character. These
elements should be integral parts of the building fabric and not
applied trim, graphics or paint.
A large building's design should integrate small liner stores with
"
entrances onto the sidewalk in order to break up the façade of
the larger user.
Any large building's location should be integrated with other
"
buildings and site features with an eye toward a
pedestrian-friendly composition.
All large buildings should present at least a two-story elevation
"
to the streetscape.
5) Buildings along streets exterior to the super block should be compatible
with existing development opposite the proposal.
6) Projects should limit large surface parking lots through the use of
parking structures. Where surface parking lots are necessary, design
techniques should be implemented to provide a streetscape that hides
the surface parking to the maximum extent possible.
7) Projects should relegate parking to the maximum extent possible.
8) Projects should grade the site and provide design buildings that limit the
use and height of retaining walls. Minimizing the height and use of walls
is especially important where the walls will face exterior properties.
Projects should break tall retaining walls into multiple, shorter walls so
that their visual impact is reduced. Additionally, projects should screen
their retaining walls with vegetation or techniques to reduce the visual
impacts.
9) Projects should provide an appropriate vegetated buffer and screen
uses on adjacent properties when the uses are different from each
other.
D. Public Space and Public Facilities/Amenities
1) Proposals should develop at least 10% of the gross site acreage in
amenities and 15% as green space. Public amenities can be paved
areas, such as plazas, courtyard, or communal rooftop patios, or
landscaped area, such as parks or water features. Green space, which
provides an amenity, can be counted towards both amenity and green
space percentages.
2) Development within the super block should create pedestrian and
bicycle connections to Whitewood Park and open space areas in the
Meadow Creek drainage.
3) Projects within the super block should fund a proportionate share of
pedestrian and bicycle grade-separated crossings of Route 29 as
indicated in the 1999 U.S. Route 29 Pedestrian Study.
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
4) Projects should investigate provision of space for public facilities, such
as a public library and urban gym, as indicated in the Community
Facilities Plan.
E. Environmental Protection
1) Natural waterways should be retained where possible. If after a careful
analysis, it is impossible to retain or protect these waterways, the project
should implement measures to protect water quality and quantity that will
protect downstream properties and habitat. The project should over
treat and/or detain stormwater to provide additional stormwater
protection. Additionally, any mitigation of wetland and stream impacts
should be provided within the watershed where feasible.
2) Projects should incorporate the principles of sustainable design, such as
green roofs, natural lighting within buildings, and energy efficiency, to a
significant extent.
3) Projects should retain significant trees and other vegetation.
_____
ATTACHMENT A
_____
ATTACHMENT B
Neighborhood One
LOCATION
Neighborhood One is bounded by Route 29 North on the east, Hydraulic Road on the
south, (and a small area to the south of Hydraulic Road), the South Fork Rivanna River
reservoir watershed and Hydraulic Road on the west and the South Fork Rivanna River
on the north.
EXISTING LAND USE
Residential- Neighborhood One contains 3,285 housing units and a population of 7,241
people. This neighborhood contains the largest residential population in the County.
Sixteen percent (522) of the housing units in the Neighborhood are single-family
attached; twenty-five percent (825) of the housing units are either townhouses, single-
family attached or duplexes; fifty-six percent (1,827) are multi-family; and three percent
(111) of the housing units are mobile homes (July, 1996). There are a number of major
residential developments in the Neighborhood, including Whitewood Village, Westfield,
Jefferson Towne, Turtle Creek, Sachem Village, Wynridge, Westgate Apartments, Four
Seasons and Townwood. Heritage Hall, a retirement community, is located in this
Neighborhood.
Commercial and Office- This Neighborhood contains a large inventory of retail and
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
office uses. Some retail uses include Shoppers World Shopping Center (148,783 square
feet); Rio Hill Shopping Center (294,901 square feet); Sam's Wholesale Club (113,613
square feet); and Wal-Mart (114,513 square feet). Also, there are a number of other
commercial uses in the neighborhood such as car dealerships, hotels, and restaurants,
which are almost all along the Route 29 corridor. Larger office uses include Village
Offices (Berkmar Drive-30,800 square feet); West Park Plaza (Rio Road-17,975 square
feet); Rio West Professional Center (50,074 square feet); Sachem Village (Whitewood
Road-12,000 square feet); Republic Business Center (Whitewood Road- 10,032 square
feet); and, Albemarle Professional Center (Hydraulic Road-14,398 square feet).
Berkmar Crossing (62,066 square feet) is a mix of office and commercial uses.
Industrial- Neighborhood One includes two of the County's largest employers (Sperry
and Comdial) who together employ over 2,000 people. Sperry contains 231,055 square
feet and Comdial contains 452,380 square feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
In relief, Neighborhood One slopes downward from a western ridge following Woodburn,
Rio, Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads to Route 29 North on the east. A series of swales
form streams crossing under Route 29 in various locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Route 29 is a primary arterial road serving the Neighborhood. The Route 29 (Western)
Bypass will likely intersect the northern portion of Neighborhood One west of Berkmar
Drive and east of Woodburn Road. Rio Road and Hydraulic Road are heavily traveled by
vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic.
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
Utilities are present throughout the neighborhood. Major water-lines follow Woodburn,
Rio, Hydraulic Roads, and Route 29. Major sewer trunk lines follow Four Seasons Drive
and the stream swale through Berkeley Subdivision to the Branchlands PUD, and
ultimately to the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant through the Rivanna
Interceptor.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Agnor Hurt Elementary, the Seminole Trail Fire Station and White-wood Park are located
in the neighborhood, as well as a boat access to the South Fork Rivanna River at the end
of Woodburn Road. Adjacent to the Neighborhood are Greer Elementary, Jouett Middle
School and Albemarle High School. Public Facilities are adequate in the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the potential impact of the Western Bypass, the area north of Rio
!
Road, west of Berkmar Drive and east of Woodburn Road, was
designated Transitional. This designation will allow for a wide flexibility
of uses and allow uses that would be compatible with the bypass in the
long term and provide a transition to the residential property to the west
in the short term. Access to Woodburn Road from properties located
between Berkmar Drive and Woodburn Drive will be prohibited.
Proposed development which impacts on the bypass development shall
be discouraged.
Future development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its
!
status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway.
Transportation improvements include:
!
- Provide landscaping, walkways and bicycle facilities along Route
29 to enhance this corridor as the County s major business
district.
- Widen Hydraulic Road and Rio Road to five lanes between
Route 29 North and Whitewood Road. Include walkways and
bicycle facilities in conjunction with this project.
- Maintain and upgrade transit service to the Neighborhood.
Consider extending transit service along Route 29 to the
northernmost portion of the Neighborhood and to Berkmar
Drive.
Construct a greenway along the South Fork of the Rivanna River. This
!
provides a pedestrian connection of the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the
Urban Area and an opportunity for passive recreation adjacent to the
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Urban Area. Develop the greenway to meet the recreational and
conservation needs of the residents in Neighborhood One, and the entire
County.
Utility improvements include:
!
- Perform a study to determine capacity of the Meadow Creek
Sanitary Sewer Interceptor.
Maintain the wooded ridgeline along Berkmar Drive to buffer the
!
residential properties along Woodburn Road.
Maintain a wooded buffer between the Community/Regional Service
!
located on Route 29 and the adjacent residential developments.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that he has been receiving phone calls from constituents regarding the
increase in their water bills. He said there is a feeling in the community that because they conserved water,
they are having to pay higher rates. He does not know how to explain it to them.
Ms. Thomas said she had received a telephone call from someone who suggested she rescind the
letter that went out over her signature encouraging people to conserve water. This person said the
Authority obviously gets more money when people use more water, so he wondered if she would send
another letter encouraging people to use more water. She said she would not send out another letter.
People are now realizing that quantity affects the rate.
Mr. Bowerman said it is more of a reflection of its value as a commodity. As a commodity, it is
increasingly apparent that it has a higher value associated with it in order to conserve it, protect it, maintain it
and allow for future supply. It is a commodity whose price was loaded to begin with. Even doubling or
tripling the rate for most domestic uses still makes it a reasonable rate. He would not want to encourage an
extravagant use of water just to get revenue. He has told people to look at its function as a commodity, how
important conservation is, and the fact that it is better to pay a few more bucks for it today and pay less
later. Adding Buck Mountain and some of the other items will have more to do with the rate than
conservation now.
Mr. Tucker said the rate increase started with the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority who had to
increase their rates to the City and the ACSA who in turn had to increase rates to their customers. Roughly
45 percent of Rivannas budget is for debt service. A lot of people think they can just cut expenses when
=
there is lack of revenue, but there are many fixed costs that cannot be cut. The rates would go up
eventually in order to pay for improvements.
Mr. Dorrier said the problem was that the cost doubled.
Mr. Perkins said the Service Authorities have to cover their costs. Even if you used only one-half of
the water you had been using, you would still be paying the same price. He believes there should be
(December 11, 2002, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
something in place that encourages conservation.
Mr. Martin said infrastructure has to be paid for, and the price would have gone up any way. It is a
large amount, but he would rather operate with an authority which has to raise rates in order to sustain itself
than to increase tax rates in order to accomplish the same thing. He thinks most property owners would
prefer to pay $20 extra on their water bill than to have the taxes on their property increase.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members should refer people to the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
__________
Ms. Thomas provided Board members with a workbook from the UnJam Round 2 workshop that
was recently held. She said there are lots of questions in the workbook. If the Board members would like
to answer the questions, they should do so and return their responses to the MPO by January 3, 2003. If
the Board members do not want to do that, the alternative is to have another joint City/County meeting to
discuss the questions.
__________
Mr. Martin noted that he has a computer, which is not new, but works fine. However, people are
sending e-mail packed with data. He wondered if when the Board members send each other mail, they can
delete color and movement. Mr. Tucker said if an e-mail comes in that way, he does not know that it can
be altered.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to December 16, 2002, at 3:00 p.m., for a Joint Meeting with
Legislators followed by a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
At 7:28 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn this
meeting until December 16, 2002, in Room 235. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/19/2003
Initials: EWC