2003-04-16April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April
16, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis
(arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Assistant County Attorney, Greg Kamptner, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, Director of
Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman,
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 were no matters presented.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 5.1 (as noted) through 5.3 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: December 16(A), 2002; January 8, January 15(A), February 5,
February 12(A) and March 12, 2003.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of January 15, 2003 afternoon) and found them to be in order
as presented.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of January 8, 2003 (Pages 1-23 ending at Item #20) and found
them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of February 5, 2003 (Page 27 beginning with Item 14 to the end)
and found them to be in order except for a few typographical errors.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of March 12, 2003, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. All
other minutes will go forward to another meeting for approval.
Item 5.2. Adopt resolution accepting landowners' offers to sell conservation easements under ACE
Program.
It was noted in the staff's report that ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a
conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, subject
to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The
regulations also require that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only after an action
by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a conservation
easement.
Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority ("PRFA") or the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") may be co-holders of the easements though none of the properties from this
year's class have designated VOF as an easement co-holder.
The County has received offers to sell conservation easements for the following properties:
Owner(s) Tax Map-Parcel Numbers Price Co-holder
Byrom TM 6, Parcels 16 & 29 (599.590 acres) $ 84,700 PRFA
Hughes TM 84, Parcels 57 & 58 (118.820 acres) $119,000 PRFA
Pollock TM 71, Parcel 26
TM 85A, Parcel 1
TM 85, Parcel 22B (102.430 acres)
$123,000 PRFA
In addition to the above three (3) properties from the applicant pool of 2001-02, one applicant
(McCaskill) dropped out and two other applicants (Millwood Land Trust and Clarke) must resolve details in
their Deeds of Easement before the County can extend them an "Invitation to Offer to Sell". It is
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 2)
contemplated these issues will be resolved before month's end.
Since McCaskill dropped out of the program unexpectedly, his absence will free up an additional
$251,000 in the ACE budget. As a result, the ACE Committee plans to convene a meeting on April 23rd to
determine whether to recommend that the Board extend "Invitations to Offer to Sell" to Hart and Scharer,
the next two eligible applicants from 2001-02. It has always been contemplated that in the event a higher
ranked applicant drops out, the ACE Committee could designate a substitute applicant(s).
Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution accepting the landowners' offers to sell
conservation easements to the County, for the prices specified and subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the proposed deeds of easement and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deeds of
easement for each of the properties.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if of the Board members had any feelings about whether the
ACE Program should choose lands with lesser points, or whether they should hold onto the money for next
year.
Mr. Martin said he thought that the last time the Committee chose to not take the properties that
had lesser points. That is what he assumed they would do this time.
Ms. Thomas said that is what she remembers also.
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree, but thinks the Board should leave it to the judgement of the
ACE Committee because they may determine that the points are high enough to buy something on the list
from last year.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution accepting
offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE Program:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements
under the ACE Program from the owners of the following properties:
Tax Map 6, Parcels 16 and 29 (Byrom)
Tax Map 84, Parcels 57 and 58 (Hughes)
Tax Map 71, Parcel 26; Tax Map 85, Parcel 22B; Tax Map 85A, Parcel 1
(Pollock); and
WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the
respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and
conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's
invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County
Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the offers to sell conservation easements described above, and authorizes the
County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owners of the properties identified
herein, or their contact persons.
Item 5.3. Set public hearing to consider granting the Albemarle County Service Authority a
relocated sanitary sewer line easement across Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 9 (Branchlands area).
It was noted in the staff[]s report that Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 9, is a 3.285 acre parcel in
the Branchlands area owned by the County. The prior owners of the parcel granted the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) an easement to install and maintain a sanitary sewer line. The location of the
sewer line, as built, varies slightly from the location of the easement originally granted. The proposed
20-foot sanitary sewer line easement would relocate the easement to correspond to the as-built location of
the sewer line; a portion of the existing easement would be abandoned. Virginia Code. 15.2-1800 requires
that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-owned property. Staff
recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing to consider granting the proposed easement on May
7, 2003.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered a public hearing advertised on this
easement for May 7, 2003.
Item 5.4. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for February 25 and March 25, 2003, was
received for information.
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 3)
Item 5.5. Letter dated April 1,2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
Brian Ray, Roger Ray & Assoc., Inc. re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development Rights - Tax
Map 9, Parcels 12, 29, 30, 31,32 and 33 (property of Mary Jane Chisholm, Trustee), Tax Map 9, Parcel 30
(property of Edward, Paul or Ruth Knight), Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue Condos (Signs #77&81). Public hearing on
a request to rezone 12.606 acs from HC to R-15 to allow 112 units. TM 76, Ps 12A & 12G. Loc on N side
of Fontaine Ave (Rt 702) approx .25 mis W of intersec of Fontaine Ave & Rt 29. (The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Service, in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. Public hearing
continued from March 19, 2003.
(This item was skipped temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-46. Brown Auto Park (Outdoor Display of Vehicles) (Signs #30, 31 &
37). Public hearing on a request to allow car dealership w/outdoor display of vehicles in accord w/Sec
30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ord. TM 45, Ps 68D4 & 68D6 contains 6.16 acs. Loc on Rt 29N at NW corner of
Rt 29N & Hilton Heights Rd. Znd HC. Rio Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2002-65. Brown Auto Park (Structured Parking) (Signs #30, 31 & 37).
Public hearing on a request to allow a parking structure, as shown on a prelim site plan, SDP-02-105, in
accord w/Sec 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning. TM 45, Ps 68D4 & 68D6. Loc on Rt 29N on the NW corner of Hilton
Heights Drive & 29 North in front of Sam's Club. Rio Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the
Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Mr. Rooker said he would abstain from this discussion since he represents a person who has an
interest in this matter. He left the room at 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to develop the site for use by one or
more auto dealerships. It also includes outdoor display of vehicles and a parking structure. Phase I will be
construction of the parking structure, including sales and service of vehicles on the first floor and
mezzanine level and display parking on the two floors above. It also includes a right-in only entrance from
Route 29 North. Phase 2 includes a second sales building and ground level display parking along Route
29 North and Hilton Heights Road. It also includes a right-in and right-out entrance/exit onto Hilton Heights
Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted the following factors which are favorable to the request: 1) This
proposal represents an efficient use of development area in-fill property; 2) A parking structure is a
preferred solution to surface parking; and 3) The ARB had no objection to the special permit requests and
recommended approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff, in its report, noted several factors which are relevant to this request. Staff
recommended approval of both requests subject to conditions. At the Planning Commission meeting, plans
were provided by the applicant. Subsequently, there were modified conditions of approval brought up which
addressed the issues that were raised in the report. Therefore, the Commission recommended approval of
SP-2002-046, Brown Auto Park (Outdoor Display of Vehicles) subject to six conditions, and approval of
SP-2002-065, Brown Auto Park (Structured Parking) subject to seven conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the conditions have been changed to the satisfaction of the Commission. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes." Staff now has a whole package of plans which it did not have before. The conditions
establish the maximum level of development which can take place on site.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff and the applicant understand Condition No. 5 on the auto park which
reads: "Further reduce the impacts of lighting, including the rooftop pole lights and wall-mounted lights
above the showroom." Mr. Cilimberg said that condition was recommended by the ARB.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jim Grigg, with Daggett and Grigg Architects, said they did preliminary work on this project as
well as a lot of the site planning for the project. The site has about 60 feet of road change across the
property. In order to maximize the utility of the site and to take advantage of the topography, they
developed a master plan for up to three franchises. The first building would be a facility to accommodate
two franchises with two dealerships on the ground level. There would be rooftop parking above that
accessed from grade, and then another level of parking above that accessed from grade as well. There
are three flat levels connected with a road system on grade. He then showed to the Board members some
drawings of the proposal.
Mr. Grigg said the building is terraced into the hillside. They have put more than one-half of the
cars completely out of sight. He said the site plan presented to the Commission describes what they intend
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 4)
to do in Phase 1. They will put in parking and leave some green space for a future dealership. They
provided the Commission with a drawing clearly delineating where all the display parking would go.
Regarding the lighting, and trying to minimize the impact of site lighting, in an earlier version there were pole
lights mounted on the top of the upper deck. Since that time they have changed their thinking and on the
last site plan there is a green strip between the surface parking and the upper level of the deck. All the pole
lights for that area will be put in the green area so those pole lights will have the same impact as a typical
light in the parking lot. It will not look like a pole light sitting on top of a parking deck. They think they can
light the lower level, where only 60 feet of it is open to air, with wall-mounted cut-off packs on the beam that
will throw the light downward. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the total square footage of the facility. Mr. Grigg said each dealership is planned
at about 25,000 square feet. There are two dealers proposed at this time.
Ms. Thomas asked about the plaza that was suggested. Mr. Grigg said at the point where one
would turn to go into the rooftop parking, a plaza will be developed, about 600 square feet.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the applicant has used this site very effectively. He likes the
structured parking and the way both have an entrance at ground level. He does not know of a plan that
could have utilized that site better. He said the Commission spent a great deal of time discussing this
request and he reviewed their minutes. He then offered a motion to approve SP-2002-046, Special Permit
for outdoor display of vehicles, subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission.
Ms. Thomas said she had one question. Condition No. 2 says "Vehicles shall not be elevated
anywhere on site .... "She wanted to be sure that did not mean when the cars where being worked on.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is a standard ARB recommendation referring to display of vehicles. He said
display is the actual purpose of this special use permit.
The motion was then seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached (copies on file)
Daggett & Grigg plans, for Brown Auto Park, entitled ARB Package, dated
January 15, 2003, Site Plan, dated March 20, 2003, and Display Parking Plan,
dated March 20, 2003;
Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site (through the use of racks or
other lift devices);
Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the
attached Daggett & Grigg plans, for Brown Auto Park, entitled Display Parking
Plan, dated March 20, 2003;
Reduce the amount of ground level vehicle display to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board;
Planting islands in the display area east and south of the Phase 2 building shall
be increased in size to allow for true clustering of trees. Clusters shall be
composed of a combination of conifers and broadleaf evergreens; and
In Phase 1, provide all landscaping except for interior plantings associated with
Phase 2.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2002-065, Special Permit for structured
parking, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the Board wished to clarify Condition No. 5. Ms. Thomas said she believes
everyone understands the condition.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached (copies on file)
Daggett & Grigg plans, for Brown Auto Park, entitled ARB Package, dated
January 15, 2003, and Site Plan, dated March 20, 2003;
Materials for the parking deck and for the structures over the service exit lanes
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 5)
4.
5.
6.
7.
shall match showroom materials. Painted and raw concrete is not appropriate;
The design of the building shall be revised so that parked vehicles will not be
visible on the rooftops of the structures over the service exit lanes;
Provide an informal planting of mixed evergreen trees along the north side of the
Phase 1 building;
Further reduce the impacts of lighting, including the rooftop pole lights and wall
mounted lights above the showroom;
The design of the Phase 2 building shall be compatible with the Phase 1 building,
as determined by the ARB; and
Adjust the parking schedule to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, as
described in a memorandum, dated March 18, 2003.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-073. Crossroads Store Phase 2 & 3 Bank Drive-in Window (Signs
#89 & 90). Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window serving proposed bank at the Crossroads
Store in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM 99, Ps lA & 5 contains 3.956 acs. Loc on Plank Rd
(Rt 692) on NE corner of intersec of US Rt 29 & Rt 692. Znd C-I & EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of the
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
(Note: Mr. Rooker returned to the meeting at 6:21 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposed the final build-out of the Crossroads
Store Site Plan, to include two additions, known as Phases 2 and 3. One of the additions includes a drive-in
window to serve a proposed bank use. It is located within the already developed portion of the property.
The ARB requirements for new landscaping will improve the relationship with an adjacent user. It is
anticipated that the proposed use will have no negative impact on adjacent property. With the conditions
recommended by the ARB, the character of the district will not be changed. Staff recommended approval
with eight conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 11,2003, by a vote of 4:0
recommended approval subject to nine conditions. The Commission added Condition No. 9 regarding
shielding of existing lights on the porches of the Crossroads Store.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak first.
Mr. Werner Hambsch said he is the owner and operator of the store, and the shopping center. He
wants to finish the project as it was set out in 1991-92. They will use the same building materials, the same
color scheme and the same builder. They had to make a minor adjustment for the drive-through of the
bank. The bank was to be on the north side of the shopping center, but because of the grade of the land, it
was too steep for a drive-through, so it was put on the south side. It makes access to the shopping center
much easier and it looks better.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2002-073, Crossroads Store Phases 2 & 3
Bank Drive-in Window, subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
3.
4.
5.
The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached
(copy on file) Major Site Plan Amendment, entitled Crossroads Store Phases 2 &
3 Site Plan Amendment, dated January 8, 2003;
The design of the drive-through structure shall be coordinated in size, material,
color, and detail with the existing building;
The new island south of the drive-through and the Route 692 frontage shall be
planted with trees to help minimize the impact of the new structure;
Add two and one-half inch (2 1/2) caliper trees at forty (40) feet on center along
the Route 692 frontage;
Add trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the new island south of the drive-through;
Building materials and colors shall match existing. Include notes on the
elevations that confirm this;
Provide complete details on new wall and site lights and any lights to be
relocated. Lights that emit three thousand (3000) lumens or more must be full
cutoff fixtu res;
All new signs visible from the EC shall match the design previously approved for
this site; and
The florescent light bulbs on the ceilings of the upper and lower porches of the
existing building shall be shielded so that the bulbs are not visible from Route 29
and Route 692. This condition may be satisfied by retrofitting the existing fixtures
to achieve a full cutoff effect as per the lighting ordinance (Section 4.17).
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 6)
Mr. Martin said he does not remember the Board ever denying a permit for a drive-through window.
He thinks this may be something that could be done administratively.
Ms. Thomas said in this case it was changed from the applicant's original proposal. Going through
the process brought about a better product.
Mr. Bowerman said when this use was originally included in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission
was concerned about the traffic impact such a use could have. He has not seen anything negative coming
to this Board because of these uses. The problems have been hammered out before the request got to the
Board.
Mr. Martin said in the 12 years he has been a member of this Board, he does not remember any
such use being denied.
Ms. Thomas said that sometimes neighbors are concerned about car lights as the car passes
through the drive-in window.
Mr. Cilimberg said that was an issue with such a window at a facility at the corner of Dominion Drive
and Route 29 North. There is another request coming to the Board next month where the Commission was
split on the request which actually dictates the lay-out on the site as it relates to other develo ~ment in the
area.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not sure that makes any difference because the Commission is the one
dealing with it. He said Mr. Martin had a good point.
Mr. Martin suggested that this be discussed at the Board's strategic planning retreat in the fall.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue Condos. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board
actually took action to remove this item from the agenda. Mr. Kamptner said the Board is not legally
required to take any form of action, but it has been the Board[]s custom to take an action.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of
ZMA-2002-001 for Fontaine Avenue Condos. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2002-070. Rivanna Ridge SC-Bank Drive-in Window (Signs #20 & #22).
Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window serving bank, in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2 of the Zoning
Ord. TM 78, Ps 73A2, contains 2.64 acs. Loc on S side of Rt 250E (Richmond Rd) at intersec w/Rolkin Rd
(private). Znd PD-MC & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily Progress
on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2002-076. Rivanna Ridge SC-Restaurant Drive-in window (Signs #23,
#25 & #94). Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window serving fast food restaurant, in accord
w/Sec 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 78, Ps 73A2, contains 2.64 acs. Loc on S side of Rt 250E
(Richmond Rd) at intersec w/Rolkin Rd (private). Znd PD-MC & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of the public
hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to develop a bank, a fast-food
restaurant, and a full-service restaurant on an outparcel at the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center on Pantops.
Both the bank and fast-food restaurant would have a drive-through window. He said there is no conflict
expected between vehicles stacked in either of the drive-through lanes and off-site traffic passing the
entrances to the site. Both of the drive-through lanes would offer the opportunity for customers that do not
need to access the windows to bypass the stacked traffic awaiting service. There are several banks and
fast-food restaurants located in that area. The provision of drive-through services can be considered a
standard function of banks and fast-food restaurants. Staff recommended approval of both petitions
subject to conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 25, 2003, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of both petitions subject to conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked if these facilities will have a way for people living in the nearby apartments to
safely walk to them. This is one of few commercial developments where a sizeable number of apartments
are being built nearby. Mr. Cilimberg said in order to get to these facilities, a walker would have to cross the
parking lot. The sidewalks incorporated into the design of this area will be provided along with
improvements to the area.
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 7)
Mr. Rooker said he is in this area often, and he thinks it is one of the more walkable commercial
areas in the County. It is easy to get to any business even from Peter Jefferson Place. The traffic is not so
heavy on State Farm Blvd. that people cannot walk across it to get to the shopping area.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Tim Miller with Rivanna Engineering said he represents the applicant. His client is not here at
the meeting yet, but he will be glad to answer any questions.
Ms. Thomas asked for an answer to her walkability question. Mr. Miller said they incorporated as
many sidewalks and crosswalks as possible within the site itself. They do not have anything to say about
the Abbey Road/Giant side of the property.
Mr. Rooker said from the apartments, which are primarily below the shopping center, there is a
sidewalk and a path that comes up the hill in both the east and the west direction. In each case, there is a
nice walk to get to the commercial area. It is obviously part of the County's planning and they have done a
good job.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any common areas in this shopping center. Mr. Miller said none have
been required to his knowledge.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems like there should be a requirement for some area with seating. Mr.
Cilimberg said within the shopping center itself there are places for seating. There is also bus service in the
center.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2002-010, Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center - Bank
Drive-in Window, subject to the nine conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The drive-through lanes shall be designed in general accord with the
improvements that are shown on the preliminary site plan, entitled "Preliminary
Site Development Plans for Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center", last revised on
January 13, 2003;
The drive-through shall be limited to three (3) lanes that follow through to the
teller windows and the ATM machine, and an additional lane for bypass traffic;
Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and exit
points of the drive-through lane, subject to Engineering Department approval to
ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns;
This site shall be subject to the Architectural Review Board issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness;
The drive-through structure shall be located on the south side of the building as
illustrated on the site plan;
The drive-through structure shall not exceed three (3) lanes;
The architectural design, material and detailing of the drive-through structure
shall match that of the main bank building;
Evergreen screening trees and/or shade trees and evergreen shrubs shall be
planted along the eastern property line; and
The planting strip to the west of the drive-though lane shall be planted with
evergreen screening trees and/or shade trees and evergreen shrubs.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Dorrier's idea of having some common area in these shopping
centers would be an excellent idea to consider.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2002-076, Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center -
Restaurant Drive-in Window, subject to the eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The drive-through lanes shall be designed in general accord with the
improvements that are shown on the preliminary site plan, entitled "Preliminary
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 8)
Site Development Plans for Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center", last revised on
January 13, 2003;
The drive-through shall be limited to a single lane that follows through to the
pick-up window and the bypass lane extending to the southern parking lot;
Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and both exit
points of the drive-through lane, subject to Engineering Department approval to
ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns;
The menu board shall be installed at the south end of the fast food restaurant,
and not on the main travelway of the drive-through, which extends between the
northern and southern portions of the parking lot;
This site shall be subject to the Architectural Review Board's issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness;
Awnings, canopies, signs, lights and other elements associated with the
drive-through use shall be coordinated with the appearance of the building and
shall not be the focus of the design, as determined by the ARB;
The planting strip located to the east of the drive-through lane shall be planted
with evergreen screening trees; and
The planting strip located to the west of the drive-through lane shall be planted
with evergreen screening trees and/or shade trees and evergreen shrubs;
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2002-078. Joseph Wright & David Turner - Crown Tower (Sign #26).
Public hearing on a request to allow collocation of an array of 9 add'l antennas at approx 120 ft on existing
tower 150-ft tall tower, w/add'l ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, P
41, contains approx 7.75 acs. Znd RA. Loc on S side of Airport Rd, approx 1/8 mile W of intersec w/Rt
29N. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7,
2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant's proposal is for the collocation of one new array
consisting of nine new antennas at approximately 120 feet on an existing 150-foot tall tower with ground
equipment. The proposed panel antennas are approximately six feet in length and eight inches in width,
and would be mounted with a triangular bracket allowing two antennas per sector with the possibility for
installation of a third antenna on each. Ground equipment would be installed in three cabinets
approximately five feet in height on a new 10-foot by 20-foot concrete pad with an existing fenced
compound. The plans also show a proposal to expand the fenced compound by 20 feet, but no use is
specified within that area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the tower and three equipment buildings housing the supporting ground
equipment are located within a compound that is surrounded by an eight-foot tall chain-link fence,
approximately one-eighth mile west of the intersection of Route 29 North and Airport Road and 720 feet
south of Airport Road. The facility was constructed in 1997 and currently has three other antenna arrays
attached at 146 feet, 130 feet and 110 feet above ground. Although the area immediately surrounding the
facility is wooded with a majority of deciduous trees that assist in screening the view of the ground
equipment buildings, the tower itself is much taller than those trees and can be seen from varying distances
and vantage points surrounding the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said because this proposal does not require an increase in tower height, but would
introduce antennas that are not flush-mounted, the Architectural Review Board has recommended approval
of the special use permit with conditions that would require this to be the last array on the tower, and
restricting the antennas from extending any farther out than the existing ones. Staff identified factors
favorable to this request. They are: it is collocation of antennas; ground equipment would not be visible; no
clearing necessary; there should be minimum visual impact in the area; and, the antennas would be
located between the two lower arrays on this tower. Unfavorable factors are noted as: the existing tower is
visible from various locations surrounding the site, and the proposed antennas would not be flush-mounted.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to nine conditions, and the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on March 25, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval with the conditions
modifying Condition No. 4c. Since the Commission's meeting it has been suggested by staff that Condition
No. 6 be amended for clarification as follows: "No existing trees within 200 feet of the facility shall be
removed for the purpose of installing the proposed antennas or any supporting ground equipment. Should
any of the trees within 200 feet of the tower be removed for the purpose of creating a public or private
right-of-way, the p~,'t',!v, .......... w,,,~,,~ ho!di,-,g *~'",,,v *,~..v, ...... ,,,~ ......... ~..,,~,~,,,~'~'- owner at4hat4ime shall install trees if
determined to be needed by the Director of Planning and Community Development to adequately screen
the facility's ground equipment from adjacent properties and roadways. To accommodate this, the Director
of Planning and Community Development will notify the tewe~ owner of the road construction and
requirement for a landscape plan. The Director, or an agent thereof, will determine if the plan is adequate
and the date by which the landscaping must be installed (or bonded until the next planting season)."
Ms. Thomas said this tower is one of our ugly ones. She thinks all of the Board members voted for
it. She thought it was in an industrial area, and where the base was, it seemed to be in a perfectly
appropriate spot. The first time she went to the University Research Park, she realized that this tower
looms over them. Given that it is so ugly, she is glad the new antennas cannot project farther out, and also
they will be lower. She asked if it would be possible to have them flush-mounted.
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that would draw the eye to the tower even more. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant would need to address that question. For clarification, this is the tower south of Airport Road,
not the one above the Research Park. There is another one which is immediately adjacent to the Park.
Mr. Rooker said this one will be visible from the Planned Residential areas in the Hollymead Town
Center.
Mr. Martin said this one was simply a mistake. Now the Board knows it did have a choice. It is too
late; this one is ugly. You can see it from anywhere in the area. He does not think the arrays will make it
any uglier. It was a mistake, but the legal advice at the time was that the Board did not have a choice.
Mr. Kamptner said this is probably the last tower considered where the applicant submitted a photo
simulation. The photo simulation was much different than the "as-built" structure.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Mike Budde said he is with OmniPoint Communications. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be possible to have the antennas flush-mounted. Mr. Budde said
they are trying to have an array of nine panels With the spacing required between each antenna, there is
no way to flush-mount nine. They could use different antennas that might allow for flush-mounting, but the
service area received from this tower would be much smaller. They have one tower on their site in
Charlottesville at this time. They are in the process of collocating on three towers along Route 29 North of
Charlottesville to the Greene County line. If they continue with their current plan, they can do all three of
those as collocations. Flush mounting would alter the RF configuration and require additional in-fill sites,
which could additional towers.
Mr. Rooker said that is true for every application that ever came before the Board. The County
went to a plan where flush-mounted towers are highly preferred. The Board recognized that there might be
more towers, but they would be much less visible than the monolith structures being dealt with.
Mr. Budde said that would not take away from what is there now. Basically, they are asking that the
Board allow them to do exactly the same thing as the three carriers before them on this tower.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin moved for approval of SP-2002-078, subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, but modifying Condition No. 6 to read as furnished by staff earlier at this meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Rooker said this tower is located in an entrance corridor, and is probably visible from both
Route 29 and Airport Road. It is an avoidance area. Approval of this tower was a mistake. This tower is
highly skylighted. He thinks flush-mounting would improve the visibility detriment at this time. He cannot
support this request because he feels it is contrary to policy, and it adds to visual blight. Part of his objection
has to do with viewing the towers which have been allowed in the area. The tower at Rio Road at Shoppers
World has gotten much more visual as more and more things have been added to it. It is in a highly visible
location, and was done long before there was a tower policy.
Mr. Bowerman said at the time that tower was put up, it was a by-right use; the Board did not even
hear the request.
Mr. Rooker said things have been added to it over time under the theory that it was already ugly,
and making it uglier would not matter. He thinks it has made a difference. It is more of a visual blight today
than when it was originally constructed. He will not support this application.
Roll was called and the motion carried b the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
All work shall be done in general accord with that described in the applicant's
request and site construction plans, entitled "Omnipoint Communications CAP
Operations - Flat Branch," last revised on November 27, 2002;
The tower shall not be increased in height;
This site shall be subject to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by
the Architectural Review Board;
The additional array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted dark gray to match
the color of the tower. The cables extending from the ground equipment
may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet
in width;
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 10)
c. In no case shall any of the new antennas project from the structure to a
distance that is greater than that of the existing antennas;
d. The antennas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively,
provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement antennas are in compliance with these conditions of
approval and in accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in
Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
e. The note on page Z-2, which implies that the size, height and direction of
the antennas can be adjusted to meet RF requirements, shall be deleted
from the construction drawings or amended to remove this consideration
for size and height.
With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation
Administration regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during
maintenance periods. Regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor
luminaire that is not required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by
Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance;
No existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility shall be removed for
the purpose of installing the proposed antennas or any supporting ground
equipment. Should any of the trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower be
removed for the purpose of creating a public or private right-of-way, the owner
shall install trees if determined to be needed by the Director of Planning and
Community Development to adequately screen the facility's ground equipment
from adjacent properties and roadways. To accommodate this, the Director of
Planning and Community Development will notify the owner of the road
construction and requirement for a landscape plan. The Director, or an agent
thereof, will determine if the plan is adequate and the date by which the
landscaping must be installed (or bonded until the next planting season);
The current owner and any subsequent owners of the tower 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;
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; and
The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas.
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the tower.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2003-021. Bucks Elbow Mountain/County of Albemarle - Extension
(Signs #28 & 29). Public hearing on a request to amend existing SUP by extending its period of validity &
allowing minor increase in size of equipment bldg for emergency communication fac utilizing existing 100'
communication tower, which was allowed 20-ft increase in height, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning
Ord. TM 39, P 1B1, contains approx .23 acs. Znd RA. Loc off Rt 611 (Jarman's Gap Rd) on Buck's Elbow
Mountain. White Hall Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and
April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2003-022. Carters Mountain/Crown Orchard - Extension (Signs # 36 &
52). Public hearing on a request to amend existing SUP by extending its period of validity & allowing minor
increase in size of equipment bldg for emergency communication fac w/250 ft high lattice tower, in accord
w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 28, contains 234.165 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Carter's Mountain
Trail approx 1 mile S of intersec w/Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of the
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2003-023. ECC Tower/UVA Extension (Sign #83). Public hearing on a
request to amend existing SUP by extending its period of validity & allowing a minor increase in the size of
equipment bldg for emergency communication fac w/110 ft high monopole tower, in accord w/Sec 13.2.2.6
of the Zoning Ord. TM 60, P 30F, contains approx 2.073 acs. Znd R-1. Loc on S side of Rt 250 (Ivy Rd)
adj to Rt 250/29 Bypass. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily Progress
on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2003-024. Fan Mountain/UVA Extension (Signs #67 & 68). Public
hearing on a request to amend existing SUP by extending its period of validity & allowing minor increase in
the size of equipment bldg for emergency communication fac utilizing 120-ft tall self-supported, lattice
communication tower replacing 120-ft tall guyed tower, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 11)
109, P 60, contains approx 111.5 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Fan Mountain Rd approx 4.5 miles from intersec
w/Rt 29S, past the University of Virginia's Fan Mountain Observatory. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of the public
hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2003-025. Kloeckner Stadium/UVA Extension (Sign #14). Public hearing
on a request to amend an existing SUP by extending the period of validity & allowing minor increase in size
of equipment bldg for emergency communication fac utilizing existing 105 ft high stadium light pole, in
accord w/Sec 13.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 76A, P J3, contains approx 30.4 acs. Znd R-1. Loc at
Kloeckner Stadium. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of the public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
March 31 and April 7, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the original approvals for these five towers will expire soon
and reapproval is necessary. One change from the original approvals is an increase in size in two of the
equipment buildings, one on Fan Mountain, and one on Carter's Mountain. Otherwise, circumstances have
not changed since the original approval in terms of the particular facilities and their locations. Staff has
recommended approval of all the facilities. The Planning Commission, at its meeting last night,
recommended approval. There was one dissenting vote on the ECC tower. All the others were approved
unanimously. That Commissioner felt the location was visible and had voted against that location originally.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Wayne Campagna said he represents all five petitions. What is before the Board is a request to
extend the special use permits, especially the "commence construction" time period that was originally
approved. It has taken quite a long time to work through the processes, especially the licensing process for
the Peters Mountain tower site, the contract negotiations with Motorola for each agreement, and a contract
for the radio communications system which was completed the last day of 2002. They found their ability to
mobilize and move forward would not allow them to commence construction under the original special
permits for these sites. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said there is something new in the neighborhood of the ECC that was not there
before, and that is the light standards around UVA's baseball field. She asked if it would be possible to do
the same thing to the baseball field stadium lights. Mr. Campagna said they did not consider that because
the design was done for the micro-wave loop utilizing the one light pole at Kloeckner Stadium. Using that
light pole allowed them to keep the tower heights down on Peters Mountain and at the ECC. It actually
serves as a micro-wave relay. The baseball stadium came after the design process. There has always
been a need for a tower at the ECC site. It is the prime tower site for the whole system. Conduits are
already in place inside the ECC Building with underground conduits out to the base of where the tower will
be located.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2003-021, Bucks Elbow Mountain/Albemarle
County Extension, subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled
"Bucks Elbow Mountain Site Plan and Elevations", prepared by Rivanna
Engineering, dated 1-23-01; and,
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
building. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-022, Carter[]s Mountain/Crown Orchard
Extension, subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 12)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled
"Carters Mountain Site Plan and Elevations", prepared by Rivanna Engineering,
dated 1-23-01 and last revised March 27, 2003; and
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
building. 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.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-023, ECC Tower/UVA Extension, subject
to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note:
1.
The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled
"ECC Site Plans and Elevations", prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated
1-23-01;
Landscape screening consisting of evergreen and deciduous trees shall be
installed alongside and parallel to the Route 250 right-of-way, between the ECC
building and the westernmost property line, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director or designee; and
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All
construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building,
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,
the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the
pole and equipment building. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-024, Fan Mountain/UVA Extension, subject
to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled
"Fan Mountain Site Plan and Elevations", prepared by Rivanna Engineering,
dated 1-23-01, last revised on March 27, 2003; and
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment
cabinets, or installation of access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan,
developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and
procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both
inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 13)
Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction
or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, 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, the permittee shall not
remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment
building. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-025, Kloeckner Stadium/UVA Extension,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled
"Kloeckner Stadium", prepared by Harris Corporation, dated 10-18-00.
Agenda Item No. 18. US Route 29/Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass Study, Discussion of.
Mr. Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was present to make the report
to the Board. The Charlottesville City Council will receive this report on Monday and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board will receive it tomorrow. He said staff members from the County, the City and VDOT
all worked on this report. It was e-mailed to all 28 people who worked on it. In the introduction there is a
section on the process. Many attended the Un Jam workshops or focus groups. They formed nine focus
groups, and had a business steering committee appointed by the Chamber, TJPDC, the realtors, they
worked with staff, and every week reviewed the work of the design team. Listening to the business
community is one reason why they did not propose anything elevated over Route 29.
Mr. Rue said the report contains a summary of transportation recommendations. There is a long
section on transportation improvements. There are a number of diagrams included. There is a special
section on "Why modern roundabouts rather than signals?" They felt there was a need to explain about
issues which have been brought up by many people. Several roundabouts are proposed at key points.
Technically, they are proposing either roundabouts or signals. If a signal is used, a wider road is needed
with more turn lanes. It actually would have less capacity and more delay. There is a long section on
urban design and redevelopment. A lot of that is in City properties, but they did take some liberties and
made some proposals for "tune-ups" to the Albemarle Place site plan.
Mr. Rooker asked how the Albemarle Place people responded to their suggestions. Mr. Rue said
they have not responded officially, but are aware of the proposal. With the special focus groups in addition
to the business groups, they met individually with them and some developers in the City. He suspects they
feel that they are not quite correct, but they can back up these recommendations with numbers.
Mr. Dorrier said the assumptions are that the Western Bypass will not be built and that the Meadow
Creek Parkway will be built. Mr. Rue said they assumed in all their transportation modeling that both
Meadow Creek Phase 1 and the Hillsdale Connector are built. They did the transportation modeling with
the Western Bypass not built, and built. In order for VDOT to agree to do the study, they had to do the
modeling both ways. They wanted it to be clear that this study was about doing what can be done to fix
Route 29 and not getting this study embroiled in other discussions. As part of the regional focus groups,
they invited people from Culpeper, Lynchburg and Danville to meet and talk about their concerns, and
about the need for through traffic. They agreed to disagree about priorities.
Mr. Rue said there is a lot in the report about economics. There is more about the City because
there is basically one big entity still coming in on the last remaining vacant property. They did not look at a
lot of other stuff in the County area. The took note of the need for good delivery to existing industrial areas,
both Sperry and the property next to it.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the study assumed that the Mount Vernon Motel will be transformed into a
BestBuy. Mr. Rue said there is lengthy discussion of that in the report. They had heard rumors that would
happen, but their technical team's recommendation is not to put another stop light in that area.
Understanding the City can negotiate with that developer if they choose to do so, there is a description of a
fall-back plan. If another light were to go in and a median cut go in, the existing Angus Road light should be
taken out so that there would only be one light there. They have included a diagram of showing that road
as a public road behind the bank and making that the new way to get to Angus Road instead of going
through a parking lot.
Mr. Rooker said almost every one who participated in the focus group recommended that the light
at Angus be eliminated. The proposal is that there be no light, but there be an underpass. Mr. Rue said
they see the underpass as longer term solutions. They tried to group phasing in terms of short-term,
mid-term or long-term solutions. The Angus underpass was put in as a long-term solution. If someone
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 14)
came in and wanted to redevelop the VEPCO site and work with Kroger, they suggest taking Hillsdale Drive
all the way through. He asked that the Board look at some suggestions for phasing on Page 86 and then
tell him what the Board feels the priorities should be. He asked that the Board specifically look at the "next
steps". There are options: no-build, short-term project implementation, and a targeted next phase. He
thinks they would have to expand to include Barracks Road. (Mr. Davis arrived at 7:08 p.m.). They have
looked at closing the existing Barracks Road off-ramp and adding a clover leaf on the other side which
would give about 1300 feet more for the merge on Route 250. Part of the existing exit might be partly in the
City and the new exit would be in the County. That is another reason to keep the team working together.
He said the full corridor study which the County, the City and the MPO all approved would be Option D. He
thinks that if everybody supports it, they will probably get the "B" and "C" combo. He said they have come
up with some far more buildable solutions by having the VDOT engineers and traffic modelers in the room
with them working along.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to commend them on this effort. It is a needed piece of information.
Mr. Martin said he had not read every word, but if Mr. Rue can get all of these folks to buy into this
report, he will have done great.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Rue wanted a work session on this report. Mr. Rue said he would suggest
reading it in detail, then decide if a work session is needed. A lot of the information is in the report. Mr.
Dorrier said this is such an important issue he thinks it deserves at least an hour of the Board's time.
Mr. Rooker said part of the conceptual model is what happens when Hillsdale Drive hits Hydraulic
Road, and what happens further to the south of that intersection. Albemarle Place will be coming back with
a zoning request keeping in mind the Comprehensive Plan change made. He does not remember a
project moving forward as quickly as this one has with less dollars attached to it. He thinks they have done
a fantastic job of drawing together diverse parties and moving this forward. It is actually being looked at
favorably by the CTB and VDOT. They are looking at this as somewhat of a model that can be used in
other communities which have complex traffic problems. There is a likelihood that there will be some
funding to see this through.
Ms. Thomas said two of the things she has not seen in previous studies is the screen everything
went through as to whether it is buildable with business still continuing to operate. There were solutions
brought up which would be great if they could just be dropped into place. The recommendations in this
report were constantly challenged as to whether they would be buildable with everything still going past our
door step. The other is the section on the economy. This report shows how the economy and
transportation decisions fit together. Mr. Rue said they picked a very good firm to come in and do this study.
The consultant spent a lot of time working with several of the City's economic development staff getting
data. That process helped bring awareness of this area to the folks at the City. Most of the focus in the City
has been on the downtown area and West Main Street. There was some good analysis of not only how it is
operating now, but how it could operate in the future if Albemarle Place develops, and if Barracks Square is
renovated. One of the keys is to have a functioning transit system which circulates between those shopping
centers.
Mr. Rue said before the TJPDC hands in the final report to the CTB on May 1, they need written
comments about particular questions and next steps. They do not need agreement on every particular item
in the report.
Mr. Martin said if you read the report in depth, many of the questions are answered in depth. He
thinks it is a great job and would like to see it happen now.
Mr. Rooker said when a date is set for the rezoning for Albemarle Place, the Board may want to
have a work session on the rezoning prior to that time, and this report could be part of that work session.
Mr. Rue asked for a resolution of support for any one of the next steps.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt a resolution of support endorsing Steps B, C and D as
set forth on Page 89 of the Draft report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adopt FY 2003-04 County Operating Budget and Capital Budget, and
Approve FY 2003-04 to FY 2007-08 Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Tucker said the budget totals $218,102,468. It reflects some changes and funding options.
The bottom line would stay the same, but staff sent four scenarios to the Board members by e-mail to
consider. The base scenario provides the Board an additional $83,752 in 599 Funds (which staff had been
led to believe might be reduced), minus $30,435 in Audit Expenses. The Board's Contingency Reserve is
about $214,015.
Mr. Tucker said Scenario "A" would fund the Shelter for Help in Emergency's training and
education program in the amount of $2,259, and would reduce the contingency by that amount. Scenario
"B" had to do with the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. Staff is suggesting that $35,000 be given to the
Library to help operate the Bookmobile, but that is contingent on the Library adding an additional $25,000 to
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 15)
fully fund their request from their own Library Reserve Fund. Scenario "C" has both the Shelter for Help
($2,259) and the Library ($35,000) and reduces the Board's Reserve down to $176,756.
Mr. Tucker said the City did not fund SHE's request.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. White sent out an e-mail and described the process they used when they
decided not to fund that request. He raised the issue last week, and after receiving her explanation, he is
convinced that the recommendation of the committee was the right one.
Mr. Martin said for the last 12 years he has always argued that it is a small amount of money to the
County, and a large assistance to them. For all of those years the County has given them more money
than the County's share. He said there is now a process that works well in terms of trying to get rid of
duplication, in looking at outcomes, and getting people to work together. As much as he would like to just
say it is a small amount to us, but a large amount to them, he feels the Board needs to []stick to its guns[].
In the long run, he thinks all of the agencies will be better for it.
Mr. Rooker said one fact has come out which is different from the information received at the public
hearing. One thing which did not come across clearly is that funding has not been reduced for SHE[s
volunteer training program. He got the impression from the presentation that it had been reduced. He
agrees with Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas said she also agrees.
Mr. Dorrier asked the feelings of the Board about extra funding for the Library.
Mr. Rooker said there was concern expressed that the bookmobile would be eliminated. He thinks
it would be a mistake to discontinue the bookmobile service. He has received numerous e-mails and
telephone calls about this, so the Board asked Mr. Tucker to find a way to fund part of the requested
amount. He thinks what Mr. Tucker has recommended is a good solution to the problem by recommending
$35,000 additional, with the Library Board putting up $25,000 so the Bookmobile can continue operating.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is an assurance that this will happen. Mr. Tucker said the Library has
more than adequate funds in its Contingency Reserve to fund this $25,000. He understands the Library
Board is willing to do so if the Board gives the $35,000.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board can be sure it will get the bookmobile service. Mr. Tucker said it is his
suggestion that the Board provide the funding contingent on them providing the $25,000 from their reserve.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any further items to consider for the budget.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to reemphasize that the Board will try to add the additional amount
onto the employee[s salaries because the County is not keeping up with market. She thinks the School
Board has done a good job of speaking highly of their staff and coming up with facts and figures. She
thinks the County can do the same thing. The Triple A bond rating speaks well for staff. She feels bad that
this was not able to be in this budget. When the budget is passed, she hopes it is done with a notation that
the Board will try.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much is left in the Board[s Reserve Fund. Mr. Tucker said it is close to
$200,000. Mr. Bowerman said the Board could almost fund the salaries now. Mr. Tucker said as staff
continues to monitor reserves, if those reserves look strong enough, he will come back to the Board sooner
than January and recommend that the increase take place at that time.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the following resolution approving the FY 2003-04
County Operating Budget, Scenario B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins.
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1,2003, be
approved as follows:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Engineering and Public Works
Human Development (including PVCC)
Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Community Development
Refunds
City/County Revenue Sharing
$ 7,565,206
2,676,090
17,267,181
4,163,607
11,678,353
4,467,874
4,477,869
92,1 O0
7,726,021
April 16, 2003 - Adjourned Night Meeting
(Page 16)
Capital Improvements Budget
Stormwater Improvements
General Government Debt Service
Education - Debt Service
Education - School Operations
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Special Revenue Fund Operations
Less: Inter-fund Transfers
Board Contingency Reserve
TOTAL
22,596,000
300,000
2,008,667
10,184,954
104,083,034
11,605,153
14,520,481
(7,489,137)
179,015
$218,102,468
Mr. Tucker said the proposed FY 2003-04 through FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program
totals $116,640,000. It includes a total of $15,635,000 for public safety projects, $5,520,000 for public
works projects, $7,513,000 for community development projects, $260,000 for human development
projects, $6,380,000 for courts and judicial projects, $10,521,000 for parks and recreation projects,
$3,831,000 for technology and GIS projects, $10,729,000 for library projects, $2,200,000 for Acquisition of
Conservation Easements (ACE), $2,350,000 for the Stormwater Drainage program, and, $51,701,000 for
school division projects.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the FY 2003-04 through FY 2007-08 Capital
Improvement Program totaling $116,640.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adopt Calendar Year 2003 Tax Rates.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the following resolution setting the tax rates for
Calendar Year 2003 for General County purposes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2003 for General County
purposes at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value
of real estate; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed
value of manufactured homes; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred
Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; at Four Dollars and
Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal
property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred
Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and
collect the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas handed to the Board members invitations to the Lewis and Clark Festival.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials
Chairman