2000-07-12July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 12,
2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Attorney, Greg
Kamptner, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept Item 5.3 on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
___________
Item No. 5.1. Set public hearing to amend Chapter 16 of the County Code to add Section
15-500, Conservation of Water During Emergencies.
In September of 1999 the Board of Supervisors considered the adoption of emergency water
conservation restrictions to address a water shortage in the drinking water reservoirs caused by the 1999
drought. Although such restrictions were not required to be implemented in 1999, the Board requested that
a standing ordinance be developed that would be available for implementation in the future if a water
shortage again occurred.
The draft ordinance is being recommended by the Albemarle County Service Authority. A similar
ordinance was adopted by the City of Charlottesville in June of this year. The ordinance requires the Board
of Supervisors to declare an emergency whenever there is a water supply emergency. Once declared, the
ACSA can implement the restrictions set forth in the ordinance. The ACSA is responsible for the
administration of the restrictions.
Staff recommends that the draft ordinance be set for public hearing on August 2, 2000.
(Ms. Thomas said homeowners are being asked to preserve water, but a great deal of water is
expended in the hotel industry. She noted that a lot of the hotels have placed placards around asking
visitors to preserve water. She asked if any consideration has been given to this matter. Mr. Tucker
answered that when a certain measure is reached, industrial and commercial activities can be curtailed. He
added that this probably includes hotels.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, stated that no specific
action has been directed toward the hotel industry other than not serving water with meals unless
requested. There has been communication with all the hotels in the County asking them to participate in
the “Green Earth” programs. The property owner is not able to control much of the water use in hotels,
since it is very difficult to get to the end users other than asking them to be conscious of the situation. Ms.
Thomas stated that she understands the dilemma.
Mr. Martin called attention to Item #8 in the draft Emergency Water Ordinance relating to the
prohibition or restriction of the operation of any water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not have
water conserving equipment in operation. Mr. Brent answered that this is probably an obsolete restriction.
This particular section of the County’s ordinance is copied from ordinances from other places around the
State which were drafted many years ago. He does not know of anyone with a cooling tower now who does
not recycle the water, since it is too costly to waste it.)
By the above-shown vote, the Board set the public hearing for August 2, 2000.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Selection of the Virginia Municipal League to provide the County’s Property and
Liability Insurance coverage and adopt resolution authorizing membership in the Virginia Municipal Liability
Pool.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Several months ago, staff began investigating the possibility of increasing the County’s
insurance coverage in the areas of Public Official and Law Enforcement Liability. Under the current
coverage, through the Virginia Division of Risk Management, this coverage was provided to the County
with a limit of $1M and a deductible of $5,000 per occurrence. The County began purchasing these
coverages through the Division of Risk Management in the early 1990’s due to the increase in cost
through commercial markets. In recent years, the Virginia Association of Counties (VaCorp) and the
Virginia Municipal League (VML) have began providing these coverages.
With the assistance of the County’s insurance consultant, we approached the Virginia
Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League regarding their Public Officials and Law
Enforcement Liability coverage. In order to participate in this coverage, both pools required the entity’s
property, automobile, and general liability coverages as well. Staff decided to submit a proposal to
VACO and VML for the County’s entire insurance package. Both pool programs responded to our
request.
Staff and the County’s insurance consultant have reviewed both proposals. After review, it is the
recommendation of staff and the County’s insurance consultant to move the property and liability
insurance coverages to the Virginia Municipal League. This recommendation is based on the following
points:
Issue Current Coverage Virginia Municipal LeagueVaCo Insurance
Programs
Public Officials and$1M Limit$4M Limit
Law Enforcement$5,000$4M Limit$5,000 deductible
Liabilitydeductible No deductible each occurrence
each occurrence
$100,000 in
Defense Costs forNoYesYes
Certain Excluded
items in Public
Officials Coverage
Voice in selection
of legal councilNoYesYes
ComprehensiveComprehensive on allComprehensive and collisionComprehensive and
and collisionvehicles; collision on 1992on all vehiclescollision on all
coverage on alland newerDeductibles:vehicles
AutomobilesDeductibles: $250 Comprehensive Deductibles:
$250 Comprehensive $500 Collision$250
$1,000 CollisionComprehensive
$250 Collision
Flood andProperty Limits
EarthquakeNo$25,000 ($43M)
Coverage
Premium$186,962$186,103$196,565
In addition, VML covers the City of Charlottesville, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. This would simplify any
coverage issues should a multi-jurisdictional claim arise.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors accept the Virginia Municipal League as its
insurance provider and approve the resolution authorizing membership in the Virginia Municipal Liability
Pool. A copy of the exhibits are located in the Clerk’s Office and the Finance Department.
By the above-shown vote, the Board accepted the Virginia Municipal League as the
County’s insurance provider and adopted the following resolution authorizing membership in the
Virginia Municipal League:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LIABILITY POOL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle wishes to join with other political subdivisions to establish the
Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association (“Association”) to create pools to jointly and cooperatively self-
insure and to pool the separate risks and liabilities of the individual members pursuant to the terms of Title 15.2,
Sections 2700-2709 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, through such Association, the County of Albemarle wishes to join with other political
subdivisions to create the Virginia Municipal Liability Pool (“Pool”) whereby members can jointly pool funds to
provide the necessary anticipated financing for commercial general liability, automobile liability, and automobile
physical damage; and
WHEREAS, such Pool is licensed by the Bureau of Insurance of the State Corporation Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been provided with the following documents which provide
a prototype of the responsibilities of the members of the Pool and the amount and terms of the coverage to be
provided:
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
1.Membership Agreement (7/1/99) including the following exhibits:
a. Exhibit 1 – sample declaration pages and coverage forms (7/1/99).
b. Exhibit 2 – Virginia Municipal Self-Insurance Association Constitution and By-Laws
(7/1/95).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Albemarle, at
th
a meeting held on the 12 day of July, 2000, that the Board certifies the County of Albemarle’s intention to
become a member of the Pool beginning July 1, 2000, for the current Pool year and for two additional
consecutive Pool years thereafter; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that such membership is contingent upon:
a.Final approval of the Member Agreement and of the membership of the County of Albemarle
by the Association’s Members’ Supervisory Board, or its designee; and
b.Payment of $186,103, or the first year contribution as well as an additional $100.00
membership fee to the Pool pursuant to the quotation submitted to the County of Albemarle
or such final amount as mutually agreed upon by the member and the Association or their
respective designees.
FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recognized that members of the Pool may be required to pay
additional assessments to the Pool and that in the event the Pool is in a deficit position which is not corrected,
a member will be liable for any and all unpaid claims against such member; and
RESOLVED that Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, is authorized to do all things necessary to
enable the County of Albemarle to become a member of the Association and the Pool including but not limited
to execution of the Member Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Albemarle, has caused this
resolution to be executed on its behalf by its Chairman and attested by its Clerk.
_______________
Item No. 5.3. Draft minutes of the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-00-007. Church of the Cross (Sign # 44). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow church in accord w/§ 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM46, P26F, contains 20.36 acs.
Located on Ashwood Blvd at NW corner of Ashwood & Kendalwood Dr near Forest Lakes South. Znd R-1.
The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Development Area .
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented a slide presentation and explained that SP-00-007 is a proposal for a new
Episcopal church to be located on approximately 20 acres of undeveloped property, except for an existing
residence, in the vicinity of Forest Lakes South. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Development Area. The proposed development has some of the
characteristics embodied in the Neighborhood Model and suggested by DISC and by reserving almost five
acres of land, options for future development in keeping with the Neighborhood Model are not precluded.
He then described a general view of the proposal and its environs. He also discussed factors favorable to
the request as well as an unfavorable factor which indicates that approximately 15 acres of land will be
removed from the inventory of land available for residential development. The staff recommended
approval of the plan with seven conditions. However, the Planning Commission, in its approval, added an
eighth condition regarding parking.
Ms. Humphris noted that the parking area appears to be steep. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
topography will have to be dealt with over all of this development area. This is also the case when it comes
to providing parking for the church, and he does not think this is a very unusual site.
Ms. Humphris then inquired if that was the best place to put the parking area. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that in relation to where land could be made for development in the future for residential use, as
well as the road and the church itself, this is the best place for parking. He said consideration was also
given to not intruding upon the front part of the property. He explained that the front of the property has
even more severe topography, and there are a lot of trees which will become part of the proposed project’s
natural area.
Ms. Thomas referred to comments from the Engineering Department requiring curb and gutter.
She wondered if this is just assumed or if it should be specifically mentioned in the conditions. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that curb and gutter can be required in the site plan. Although, it can be included in
the conditions of the special use permit, if the Board so wishes.
Mr. Martin inquired if the applicant would like to speak to this application.
Mr. Bob Anderson, an architect with the Heyward, Boyd and Anderson firm, thanked the Board on
behalf of the Church of the Cross for hearing the matter. He would prefer to answer questions as opposed
to making any additional presentation. There are a number of people present in support of the project, and
he asked them to stand and be noted (approximately 25 people responded). The Planning Commission
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
unanimously approved the application, and church representatives are in total agreement with all of the
conditions that were included with the approval.
Ms. Thomas asked about the feasibility of using the five acres which have been put aside for
residential development. Mr. Anderson replied that the five acres are very usable, and there have been
parties who have shown an interest in developing the property. Although, if the church decides not to do
anything with it, it works nicely as a buffer. He noted that it is adjacent to all the residences in the area. The
people from the neighborhood have met with church representatives several times, and they are pleased
with the fact that this area has been set aside. He added that at one time there was a pedestrian path
following the back of the property line, but as a result of the meetings with the neighbors, this has been
moved to where the entrance driveway is currently proposed. He went on to say in order to get
approximately 12 lots on the reserved five acres, rezoning will have to be requested. Otherwise, five lots
will probably be the maximum.
Mr. Dorrier said the information indicates that the number of vehicle trips on Sundays will be 1,200
a day which will warrant some intersection improvements, including a turn lane. He asked where the turn
lane will be located. Mr. Anderson replied that the proposed turn lane will be at the entrance where the
road turns into the site. Mr. Dorrier then inquired if there will be 1,200 vehicle trips going in and out of this
turn lane each day. Mr. Anderson answered that this is referring to total trips generated over the entire day,
but he is unsure how many trips relate to the peak hour. He said it has to be assumed that some of the trips
are going in both directions although a majority of them will be going toward Route 29. He pointed out that
the problem relates more to entering the site than leaving the site, which is the reason for the turn lane. He
explained that it will be a left hand turn lane for traffic coming from the direction of Route 29 so additional
traffic will not be blocked while it is turning into the site.
Mr. Martin explained that Mr. Anderson will have the opportunity for remarks at the end of the public
hearing, if he so desires. He next opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak to SP-
00-007.
No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin stated that he has visited the site. He agrees with the Planning Department that it is a
site that could be built up with houses, and it would be appropriate to do so. He added that it is still a
workable farm, and unless people are actually looking for the property, they would never know it was there.
If the five acres are ever developed in the future, the church will already be there, and this will allow people
to make a decision before they move. In the meantime, the five acres serves as an excellent buffer. There
is a lot of available open space, and he thinks the plan is a good one. He said he would entertain a motion
for approval.
Ms. Humphris remarked that when she saw the location and realized the number of physical
facilities and schools available, she felt it was a very fitting thing for a community that large and growing to
have a spiritual home for people. This will make a much more well-rounded community for everybody.
Ms. Thomas inquired again if the curb and gutter condition should be added.
Mr. Cilimberg referred to Condition #4 relating to a concrete sidewalk being placed on at least one
side of the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard to the church. He suggested that a second sentence could
be added stating that: “The driveway shall be curb and gutter.”
Ms. Humphris then made a motion for approval of SP-00-007, Church of the Cross, with the eight
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as well as an addition of a sentence to condition #4
that, “The driveway shall be curb and gutter.” She also noted that there are two typographical errors in the
conditions. She called attention to language in condition #4 where the word, “of” was incorrectly spelled.
She noted, too, that in condition #6, the word “to” was left out of the language.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. John Marsden thanked the Board of Supervisors for the great job it is doing for the County of
Albemarle.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1.Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the concept plan dated
6/21/00 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children’s play
equipment and walkways;
2.All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential
districts and away from adjacent streets;
3.A left turn lane from Ashwood Boulevard shall be provided. Additional intersection improvements
may be required during the site plan review and approval process;
4.A concrete sidewalk shall be placed on at least one side of the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard
to the church. The driveway shall be curb and gutter;
5.Street trees shall be placed on at least one side of the driveway from Ashwood Boulevard to the
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
church;
6.A pedestrian connection shall be made to Kendalwood at the rear of the church building;
7.Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; and
8.Impervious parking space shall not exceed one space for every two seats in the church.
_______________
Agenda Item No.7. SP-00-11 CFW Intelos - CV201 (Rt. 676) (Sign #26). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow personal wireless service fac in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 44, P12H,
contains 1.6 acs. Located on Woodlands Rd (Rt 676) approx 1ml E of intersec of Woodlands Rd & Reas
Ford Rd (Rt 660). Znd RA. Jack Jouett Dist. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized a request and presented slides relating to the installation of a self-
supporting wooden pole approximately ten feet above the tallest tree to provide improved wireless service
for the Earlysville/Free Union area at the Ivy Creek Methodist Church. He pointed out that the proposed
tower site is a 20-foot by 20-foot lease parcel that is approximately 20 feet from the northern property
boundary west of the church. The tower itself will be approximately 25 feet from the northern property
boundary. He said information provided by the applicant indicates that there is a grove of nine mature trees
within 25 feet of the location of the tower, and the four tallest trees were surveyed to be approximately 110
feet in height. The applicant is seeking to locate the panel antennae ten feet above the four 110 foot trees.
He said two panel antennae will be flush-mounted to the top of the pole, and they are approximately six
feet by one foot in size. He added that the access to the site will be through the church parking lot via an
access easement, and the fenced enclosure at the base will be partly or mostly screened by the house to
the south and by topography which rises slightly and then falls away to the north. He noted that all of the
labeled screening trees shown in the survey are deciduous. The BZA granted a setback variance on April
5, 2000 to allow for the tower site to be located 20 feet from the property line rather than 35 feet.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the adjacent property is in an A/F District, and by a vote of four to three,
the A/F Districts Advisory Committee, at its May 31st meeting, indicated that the CFW tower on the church
property is not compatible with the A/F District. The Committee’s primary concern was the minimal distance
between the proposed tower and A/F District. The presence of a conservation easement on the same
adjacent property was also considered to be a contributing negative factor toward their vote. The Planning
staff’s opinion is that the tower within a stand of nine trees, as well as the character of the pole design,
contributes to the determination that there will be a limited visual impact on the adjacent A/F District. He
also pointed out the successful history of using these types of facilities throughout Albemarle County which
is now being publicized elsewhere in the State. He said, though, the use does not further support the
purpose or intent of the A/F District.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a church dating back to the early 1900’s, and the Virginia Department of
Historical Resources’ survey had a comment that, “This site is a well-executed example of early twentieth
century Gothic Revival architecture on a small scale.” The staff indicated that constructing the tower on the
church property would not further the above cited goals and objectives of the historic preservation
statements in the Comprehensive Plan and could compromise the potential eligibility of this historic
resource for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant in response to the opposition
of the A/F District property owner, as well as concerns of the Planning Commission discussed in October of
1999 for SP-99-55, revised the location to provide a site within a grove of trees. This locates the site further
away from the A/F District property line. He pointed out that in one case the site was actually moved 400
feet from the A/F District line instead of 20 feet, and in another case it was moved from ten feet to 20 feet
from the A/F line.
Mr. Cilimberg then noted all of the favorable and unfavorable factors related to the application. He
reminded Board members that to date County officials have reviewed each tower application on a case by
case basis, so approval or denial of this application will not conflict with prior County actions or policies. He
said staff did not recommend approval of the request because of the close proximity of the site to the A/F
District as well as the problem of compromising the potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. The Planning Commission has also recommended denial of the application, although the
vote was not unanimous.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to the BZA’ action as opposed to the Planning Commission’s denial of the
waiver dealing with the closeness to a property line. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there was need for a
variance for the facility in its location due to the strict setback requirements of the District. He said a waiver
is also necessary for any tower that is taller than the distance between the tower and the property line. In
some cases the waiver is the only problem, because the setback requirements of the District are being met,
but not the requirements for the tower’s location.
Ms. Thomas asked if she understands the situation correctly. She commented that the site was too
close to the property line both for the District setback requirements and for the height of the tower. The
BZA was able to deal with the setback from the property line but not the height of the tower. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that this is correct. He said a waiver for the height of the tower is the Commission’s responsibility.
Ms. Humphris said she found it very confusing that the BZA was able to grant a waiver for
something as important as the setback of the tower, which is one of the centerpieces of the whole plan.
She asked for a legal point of view from Mr. Kamptner. Mr. Kamptner responded that notwithstanding the
BZA’s action, the Board of Supervisors has the ability to impose conditions as part of the special use permit
regarding how far the tower needs to be from the property line. The Supervisors can address impacts
related to the special use permit in this fashion.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Dorrier stated that he went to the site, and he was told there were two other sites nearby that
had CFW towers. He wondered if there are any such towers within a ten mile radius of this site. The
County is looking for optimal sites for these towers, and he asked what is desirable. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that the Board members will be receiving a Policy Manual at their August work session on which
the Planning Commission will be acting this coming week. Generally speaking, the optimal sites are as
minimal in visibility as possible. He explained that they use good collocation opportunities, and they do not
affect or impact resources that have been identified by the County in its Comprehensive Plan or its Open
Space Plan. This does not mean sites cannot be found that work very well within a resource area. He
referred to one within the last year involving Foxfield that was in an A/F District. However, it was in a
location that was not visible from any road or adjacent property because of the size of the overall parcel, as
well as the location in the middle of this parcel in a large area of trees.
Ms. Thomas added that the trees behind the pole are as important as the trees in front or around it.
The most successful sites are along Route 29 South because on either side of the highway there are hills
that are tree covered. The poles are not breaking the sky line, and there are trees behind them. She said
to pick out a pole with many trees behind it is almost impossible, and it works fine for the radio waves, as
long as there is a line of sight. There are a half dozen of these sites in the County which work very well with
this type of pole.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that occasionally there are a few towers on public roads that benefit from
the location of trees in the foreground, such as the Bellair location. There are tall trees along the Bypass,
and by locating the pole in those trees, it could not be seen from Route 250. Generally speaking the
background of trees is a real benefit, and occasionally the foreground is, too, depending on the line of sight.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant if he would like to speak.
Ms. Paula Figgatt, representing CFW, stated that Tim Litchfield, a Radio Frequency Engineer for
CFW, is also present. She stated that CFW is applying for a telecommunications site ten feet above the
existing tree height within a 20 foot by 20 foot fenced area at the Ivy Creek Methodist. The two antennae to
be attached to this pole will be flush mounted, and they will be 72 inches long. She explained that CFW will
be accessing the site through an existing gravel easement. She recalled that the first application was on
August 5, 1999 for a tower to be located in the cemetery area. She said due to the visibility from the
adjoining property owner, the site was moved farther west from the property owner’s drive and from her
home. The site is directly behind the church parsonage, and several of the members have come out to
view the site to see the exact location. There were five church members present at the meeting, and she
asked them to raise their hands. CFW representatives have established good relationships with Albemarle
County, and they will maintain those relationships. CFW does not want to visually impact this area and has
tried to keep this from happening. Ms. Figgatt then referred to the last Planning Commission meeting
where there was one adjoining property owner present who spoke in support of the application, as well as a
letter of support from another property owner. She also pointed out that this site is in an RA zoning area.
Mr. Dorrier referred to the circle on the map showing the location of the tower, and he asked if this
proposed area has the maximum location of trees that will be able to act as a buffer. Mr. Litchfield stated
that he is unsure of the scale on the map being presented today. However, the area of the proposed site
contains the tallest trees in the area, and they surround the site. He added that on this particular church
property, this is the best location. Ms. Figgatt noted that within the surrounding area, many residential sites
would be affected, if another site was chosen.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she became interested in the question of whether a cellular tower could
be put on a silo, because she had heard of a successful one being put on a piece of property with a
conservation easement in Fauquier County. She had asked the question relating to whether the tower
could be placed on a silo which is located down the road from the church on the Wingfield property. Ms.
Figgatt said CFW representatives actually talked to the property owner, and found that the silo is 30 to 40
feet in height. Ms. Figgatt explained that she had noticed a Virginia Historic Landmark on the Wingfield
house. She also talked to Ms. Mary Riviere, who owns property adjoining the church parcel. Ms. Riviere
told her the property is under the ownership of the University of Virginia, and the Wingfields have a life
estate there. She emphasized that nowhere in this County has CFW ever been allowed to put a site on any
University of Virginia property.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that she did not see a discussion of the Virginia Historic Landmark
designation of the Wingfield house in the Planning Commission minutes. Ms. Figgatt said a member of the
church could probably better address this matter.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for SP-00-11.
Mr. Bob Patterson, Chairman of the Administrative Board at Ivy Creek United Methodist Church,
thanked the Supervisors who took the time to go out to the site. He was concerned when he observed the
photographs at the Planning Commission meeting because he did not feel the photographs fully
represented the site from the standpoint of the impact of the tower. He does not have any real fear of the
impact in terms of people seeing the tower because it will not be seen from the road. He stated that it
perhaps can be seen, though, from a neighbor’s property. No one is more aware of the beauty and
attractiveness of the site than the members of the church, and it is one of the things which attracts people to
come there. The members of the church would never take an action or ask the Supervisors to approve an
action that would be detrimental to the scenic beauty of the site, because they want to continue to draw
people to the church. The church is in the process of growing, and there is a Vision 2005 Committee that is
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
considering the history of the church since it will be 200 years old in the year 2005. The congregation has
had two other locations in the history of Ivy Creek Church. There are also discussions about plans to
expand the church, although there are no real details available yet. The church has two services on
Sunday, and the desire is for the church to grow to the point of having additional services or expanding the
facilities. He indicated that there are no plans currently to list the building on the National Historic Register,
but it is something that will be discussed by the Vision 2005 Committee as it moves forward.
Mr. Patterson thanked the Board for its consideration and asked them to approve the request. He
then referred to a concern he has as a private citizen. He realizes everybody is working hard to preserve
the beauty of Albemarle County because it is a beautiful place in which to live. There is an effort in the
County to place land into the A/F Districts, and he thinks this is basically a good thing. However, he is
concerned if it gets to the point where the A/F District has almost a veto power over what happens to the
properties abutting these districts. They certainly should have a voice in saying what ought to happen, but
the Supervisors’ job is a balancing act between public interest and private concerns. He also pointed out as
a cellular phone user, that there are a couple of dead spots within the region close to the church.
Mr. Martin informed Mr. Patterson that people are only allowed three minutes to speak at public
hearings, and he had gone over the time limit. He explained that even though only three people had signed
the sheet to speak at this particular public hearing, sometimes there are many more people who wish to
make comments. He said that is why the Board has to adhere strictly to the time limit at every public
hearing.
Mr. Bob Sylvester remarked that he was the Chairman of the Trustee Committee when this
proposal from CFW was presented to the church, and the Committee did a lot of work to try to get a proper
location initially. He said, though, it had to be done all over again to try to please the neighbors as well as
anybody else who had an objection to the plan. He feels this is a win/win situation for the church and the
whole area. He referred to Mr. Patterson’s remarks about the dead spots for cellular customers, and said
this is one of the ways the people in the area could win. He said a big win for the church would be that this
tower will bring to the church $21,000 over a five year period. The contract is renewable at the end of the
five years, and the income for the church could possibly increase. It is hard for a small church to come up
with $21,000 extra dollars. This is a small piece of property that is not being used, and it is going to be used
temporarily for five years. He asked the Board members to support the application.
Mr. Keith Gearhart, Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Ivy Creek United Methodist Church,
requested the Board to approve the cellular tower. He said Ivy Creek Church has been a good neighbor in
this community, and it has tried to accommodate the wishes of the neighbors in trying to maintain the scenic
beauty of the church and the neighborhood. The location of the tower was changed when opposition to it
became apparent. He pointed out that the current site screens the tower and the base unit from being
visible from the road and from the adjoining property owner. He then referred to the issue of the height of
the tower and the fact that it needed a variance. There are no other structures around the tower that would
be affected by it, and approval of this application would be good for the church as well as the cellular phone
users.
Ms. Betty Wingfield remarked that she did not plan to speak tonight, but she felt she needed to
make a correction. She said Ms. Mary Riviere’s information was not accurate. She emphasized that the
University of Virginia does not own their house nor their side of the road. They own it.
Mr. Jeff Warner, with the Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that he is not making a statement
of support nor opposition. He wanted to reiterate a comment that the Commission made during discussions
relating to the cellular tower policy conducted earlier this year. He has been a general contractor in past
years, and he is hearing that the trees are to be the means by which this tower is to be concealed. He
stated that trees and intensive construction do not mix, and he asked the Board to apply some protection of
the trees if this application is approved. There are means and methods by which this can be done. It is a
lot easier to apologize later when a tree is taken down. The tree trunk has to be protected from damage as
well as the soil within the drip line of the tree for compaction. He said it is a very simple process and,
otherwise, the trees that are intended to shield this tower could end up being temporary.
At 7:50 p.m., Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, since there was no one else who wished to
speak.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Humphris had gotten a sufficient answer to her question. Ms. Humphris
answered that Mr. Patterson had touched on the answer, but she would like to know if the church realizes
that the presence of such a tower could well compromise its eligibility to be added to the National Register
of Historic Places. She asked if this has been discussed by the church membership. Mr. Patterson replied
that this matter was discussed with the church membership at the Planning Commission meeting. The
members of the Administrative Board, as well as the Trustees, are aware of this fact.
Mr. Dorrier inquired if CFW discontinued the use of this tower, would it be taken down. Ms. Figgatt
replied, “absolutely.” She suggested that this be included in the conditions. Ms. Humphris said it is always
a condition with any tower that is approved.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the color of the tower. Ms. Figgatt responded that it is a brown wooden
pole. Mr. Dorrier asked if the tower on top is brown. Ms. Figgatt stated that the antennae is not brown, but
they can be painted to match the pole. This can also be made a condition. Next, Mr. Dorrier asked if there
are any lights on the tower. Ms. Figgatt replied that there are no lights involved.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Humphris wondered why the pole is being called a tower. She thinks of towers in a different
light, and she asked if they are interchangeable. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this has been a standard
reference used for the facility that supports the antennae. Ms. Figgatt added that this term is common with
any locality. Any facility such as this which relates to telecommunications is referred to as a tower. She
verified, though, that it is a wooden pole.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that one of the conditions involved with this application is that prior to
construction, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees
on site that have to be removed. She wondered if any of these trees have to be removed in order to put up
the tower. She also asked if construction of the tower will be out of the area of the trees’ drip line. Ms.
Figgatt replied that she will not know the answer to this question until construction is started on the project,
but the site is in an open area within the trees.
Mr. Dorrier noted that he had visited the site, and the root structure of some of the trees is fairly
close to where the proposed tower would be placed. There is a risk of killing these trees if the root
structure is damaged. Ms. Figgatt remarked that the pole can be placed anywhere within the 20 foot by 20
foot area, and it can be kept at the farthest point from the largest trees. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that some
of the trees appear to be over 100 years old. Ms. Figgatt agreed that this is probably true.
Ms. Humphris asked what will happen in the installation process. She wondered what type of
equipment will have to get into this area to install both the pole and the antennae. Ms. Figgatt stated that a
backhoe would be involved. She emphasized, though, that CFW has direct access into the site.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he believes a large wheel vehicle will be used to drill a hole for the
pole, and the disturbance of the earth with a wheel vehicle is different from a track vehicle. He said a crane
is also needed, but it will be sited some distance from where the pole is actually set. He stated that it
appears if conditions are included which prohibit CFW from endangering the trees, this could be done
without causing any undue burden in the installation process.
Mr. Martin commented that Mr. Bowerman is indicating there should not be a problem, and Ms.
Humphris wants verification that precautions will be taken. Ms. Humphris concurred. She said, though, the
conditions do not address this situation. She pointed out that checking with the Planning Director does not
take care of the whole problem of not having any damage to any of the trees during the installation process.
Ms. Figgatt reassured the Board that there will be minimal or no damage to any of trees. CFW does not
want to damage any of trees, because they are part of the screening for that site.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the staff could check some of the sites where poles have already been
installed to see if there was damage done to any of the trees in any of those locations. Ms. Thomas
mentioned that the Bellair tree has come down, but she does not know why it happened. Mr. Perkins
mentioned the Easter/Foxfield site. Ms. Figgatt stated that CFW cleared just to the site on this property, and
the trees were not disturbed surrounding it. Mr. Perkins said there is one small tree that is leaning on the
church site that will probably have to be taken out. Ms. Figgatt commented that Mr. Perkins is referring to a
bush to the northeast of the site which is drooping. She said it is not a tall tree.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that Condition #6 could state that, “No trees shall be removed or damaged
without a recommendation by a licensed tree surgeon and the Director of Planning.” Ms. Figgatt agreed
that this condition would be fine with her. She said CFW just wants to be able to use the site.
Ms. Humphris then inquired if the antennae has to be ten feet above the tree tops. Ms. Figgatt said
she has had a discussion with Ms. Thomas about the height that is actually required as well as the height
the County recommends. When this application was made, a limit was not imposed as far as the height.
She thought the standard height was ten feet above the trees, but she has now found out that six feet is
sufficient. CFW will decrease the height to six feet above the tree line, if it is directed to do so. She
explained that the antennae is 72 inches long, and the trees have to be cleared.
Mr. Martin commented that the Board seems to be moving toward a consensus.
Ms. Thomas said she would share some of her thoughts, because she is not certain she is moving
toward consensus, although she appreciates very much what the applicant and the church members have
done to find a better site. She talked to a neighbor who has a concern, but she couldn’t come to this
meeting because she can’t drive at night. This neighbor is mostly concerned about the view from the knoll
of the property she has given to her granddaughter, and not from her own house. Ms. Thomas said she
went out to the knoll today, and the tower will be very visible. The tower is not visible from the road, it is
barely visible from the church, but it is very visible from the knoll. Other telephone poles can be seen from
this knoll, so it will not be the only visible one, but it is twice as tall as the others, and it will be visible above
the tallest tree. There are approximately a dozen houses which can be seen from the knoll. At first she
was wondering how much of a problem this one pole could be when all of the other houses are in view.
She then realized that all of the people in these houses appreciate the open space provided by the
conservation easement, and it is part of their viewshed, and it is going to be there forever. She emphasized
that she takes very seriously the encouragement County officials give people to put their land in
conservation easements. She thinks this is far more important than the A/F Districts, because they have a
time limit of ten years, but the conservation easement is permanent. She takes seriously the citizens’
concerns, and she would be interested in comments from other members of the Board. There are other
places with wooded sites along the way, but she thinks the applicant stayed with this site largely because
this Board suggested that a second location be found on the site. The applicant was not told to go to a new
site so the tower would not be next door to an A/F District. Therefore, she feels Board members are
somewhat to blame for leading the applicant on to keep this site. She would also love for the church to
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
have the extra money, but land use decisions are not made based on the character of the applicants.
Mr. Bowerman noted the period of time the Board of Supervisors has been dealing with these
issues. He said a point has now been reached where the Supervisors are dealing with cellular towers on
wooden poles that have flat mounted panels on them. This is quite an accomplishment when they are put
in perspective with other types of towers this Board has seen and feared. He then referred to Ms. Thomas’
comment about the houses being in the viewshed. He believes the tower makes as small a footprint as
possible on the environment while allowing the community to use the resource this utility provides. He
reiterated that County officials have come a long way in the last two years in the way cellular clients have
been directed to manage their business in terms of the way it is done in Albemarle County. The comments
about maintaining the trees are excellent, and he does not see any reason why this can’t be done. There is
now a template for towers, and it is simply a question of whether Board members feel this template fits in
this particular place. The template is the same as the Board has been approving, and it is the minimum
that meets the requirements of broadcasting in terms of receiving signals. He suggested that the ten foot
height condition be lowered to the minimum standard of six or seven feet which is consistent with the
Board’s past actions. He also suggested that the buffer trees be maintained.
Mr. Martin concurred with Mr. Bowerman’s comments. He also referred to Mr. Patterson’s remarks
that A/F Districts should not take away adjoining property owners’ rights and privileges. These fears are
similar to the ones farmers have about conservation easements and their rights and privileges as far as
taking part in this program or being an adjoining property owner. He stated that people should expect
something for putting their properties into A/F Districts. However, if people are allowed to expect something
beyond their own property boundaries there will be more people opposing conservation easements or
opposing A/F Districts next to them because it will have an impact on their property. He added that this is a
side issue at this point, but he has been thinking a lot about it recently.
Mr. Perkins remarked that it could discourage people who might join an A/F District if the ability to
put a tower on their site was prohibited. The Easter property is a good example, because some of the
properties in these districts are going to be prime locations for this type of tower. He added that he does not
think they are very intrusive, and some of these properties may be where towers are needed. He thinks
they should be allowed on these properties without the landowner fearing that this ability will be taken away
from him if he joins an A/F District.
Ms. Humphris commented that it was very helpful to her to read the statement in a publication on
A/F Districts. She said it is a legislative statement and not the County’s but it indicates that, “Local
government shall consider the existence of a district and the purposes of the A/F Act in local ordinances,
comprehensive plans, land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting
parcels of land adjacent to a district.” She emphasized that the words, “shall consider,” are used. She
does not know when she has had to deal with something more challenging than this particular application.
She weighed pros against cons, and her list of pros is the longer of the two. She has always been a big
supporter of A/F Districts, and most especially the County’s Acquisition of Easements Program. She
believes people who put their land into permanent easements are doing a wonderful thing. She realizes
this pole is not an agricultural use, and it is in the rural area. She is sad church members are willing to
compromise the potential designation of their church on the National Register because having such places
reserved or knowing that they are historic is very important to everybody.
Ms. Humphris then mentioned that no clearing is necessary to get to the proposed site, and the
access is already available. It is a very nice grove of trees to hide the pole while the leaves are still there,
but the trees are deciduous, so there will be some time during the year when the pole will be very visible.
She went on to say the wooden pole with the flush mounted antennae diminishes the impact, and she feels
there is limited visual impact on the A/F District. Although she wishes the site could be in the middle of a
large wooded area, there really doesn’t seem to be any site similar to the Peter Easter/Foxfield site nor is
there any other owner in that vicinity who would want to have a tower. She pointed out the history of
success with these types of poles in the County, and although she does not want to put this tower within 20
feet of the line of a conservation easement, she does not think the detriment to the adjoining property is so
great that the request should be denied. She does not have a cellular phone, but it obviously provides a
very useful service for public safety. She added that if conditions can be included for six feet antennae
rather than ten feet, as well as a condition about the disturbance and protection of the trees, she would be
willing to make a motion for approval.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that this matter be placed on the Consent Agenda for the Board of
Supervisors’ August meeting, since the language for the conditions is not currently in front of the Board.
Mr. Kamptner stated that he can suggest some language. He went on to say the language in
condition #1 would be eliminated, and it would be restated to indicate that, “The antennae shall not extend
above the height of the tower. Neither the tower nor the antennae shall extend more than six feet above the
tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower.”
Next, Mr. Kamptner called attention to condition #3(a). He corrected the reference made to
“Attachment XX” in that condition to read, “Attachment C.” He also noted that the attached plan referred to
in this condition is actually entitled “The Survey of a Lease Parcel and Ingress Egress Easement.” The
remaining conditions would be renumbered.
Ms. Thomas asked if “Attachment XX” referred to in another place in the conditions should also be
shown as “Attachment C.” Mr. Kamptner answered affirmatively. He noted that condition #6 would then
become condition #7. He also added a sentence to this condition stating that “ Any tree damaged as a
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
result of the installation process or by the continued presence of the tower shall be repaired by a tree
surgeon and, if necessary, replaced by a tree of like height and screening.” Mr. Bowerman said this
condition will mean that a lot of protection should be rendered.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the 110 foot tree should fall, and there is a cluster of trees 90 feet tall left,
will the tower still have to be 116 feet tall in order to be effective. Mr. Litchfield remarked that he would like
to address the six foot antennae rule. The precedence is seven feet, and even a 110 year old tree will still
grow. He stated that if the tree grows a foot next year, the antennae will be in the trees, and they will no
longer be effective. He said CFW is trying to have contiguous coverage on this road, and it has been found
that the height of 117 feet accomplishes this task. He noted that other heights have been tested, but there
are holes in the coverage at lower heights. If this site is lowered, it will probably affect the coverage. He
asked the Board members to keep in mind that while these phones are also for private use, they are a
public utility. The rescue squads use cellular phones, and they are also looking for something to provide
data transfer so patient files can be downloaded right to the ambulance on the road. If there are holes in
the coverage, at some point they will need to be filled which means another tower. He emphasized that
CFW would really like to stick to the height requested, even if the tree should fall.
Mr. Kamptner explained that if the tree comes down, CFW would be subject to the requirement that
the antennae is allowed six or seven feet above the height of the tallest tree. He said it works the other way,
also. If the trees grow any more, then CFW will still be allowed the same amount of height above the tree
line.
Ms. Thomas commented that she likes Mr. Kamptner’s wording of the conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this is a standard type of condition that has been used in the past. This
request required an unusual type of condition because the applicant had provided a survey of the trees.
The condition established ten feet above the tree line shown in the survey. He commented that using the
standard type of condition is one reason County officials have not focused more on the protection of trees in
the process. He said if trees come down at some point in time because of damage done in installation, and
they are the tallest trees, then the tower has to come down in height. Mr. Kamptner concurred that Mr.
Litchfield is correct when he said the County has approved some towers seven feet above the tree line. Mr.
Cilimberg agreed that seven feet has been the standard the County has used.
Mr. Martin concurred with Mr. Bowerman’s previous suggestion of putting this matter on the
Consent Agenda so all the Supervisors will have time to consider all the aspects of this request. Ms.
Humphris agreed that the Supervisors need time to consider all the details.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that he would like for the Zoning Department to examine Mr. Kamptner’s
language about the protection of the trees.
Mr. Martin said he would entertain a motion to defer the matter to the Consent Agenda for next
week’s meeting in order to work out the details.
At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion to defer SP-00-11, CFW Intelos, to the Consent Agenda
for the August 2, 2000 Board of Supervisors’ meeting. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier stated that two things have persuaded him to be in favor of this application. First the
tower is relatively innocuous compared to other towers that dot the County’s landscape and, secondly, the
church membership is in favor of it as well as the surrounding residents. He does not believe there has
been any opposition voiced against it.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No.8. SP-00-17. CVR-318 - Mt Jefferson (Sign #34 & 35). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to construct 128 foot tall wooden telecommunications pole in the Bellair Subdivision. Znd R1 & EC.
TM76C, Sec 2, P2. Located on W sd of the Rt 29 bypass (Monacan Trail), approx 1/2 ml S of intersection
of Rt 29 & Rt 250 W (Ivy Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3,
2000.) (Defer until after Planning Commission hearing.)
Motion was made by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to defer SP-00-17 until after the
Planning Commission hears the matters.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No.9. Addition to Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District. PUBLIC
HEARING on an ordinance to amend Albemarle County Code, Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, Section 3-214, to add 153.48 acres in five (5) parcels to the Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal
District. The properties descried as TM 88, Ps 20A,20B,20C, 20D&20F are located both E & W of
Seminole Trail (Rt 29 S), just N of the intersec of Secretary's Rd (Rt 708) & Seminole Trail. (Advertised in
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the existing district in the vicinity of North Garden, Red Hill and Arrowhead
contains 3,868 acres in 37 parcels. This proposed addition would add 153.4 acres in five parcels. This is
primarily forested land with some agricultural and residential use. He pointed out that there are four
dwellings on the five parcels. He emphasized that both the staff and the A/F District Advisory Committee
have recommended approval of the request, as has the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the proposed ordinance text had included parcels 23E and 29, which had
been added to the district in the past. He said as these A/F districts come before the Board for additions or
reviews, the staff has been correcting the parcel numbers. There have been some changes in parcel
numbers on some prior approvals that never made it into the ordinance text. The ordinance is being
corrected so it includes all of the parcels.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is an administrative situation. Mr. Kamptner replied that this is a clerical
correction for these two parcels (23E and 29).
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for the addition to the Hardware River A/F District. He
inquired if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Arrowhead property has a tower on it. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there
is a tower adjacent to the Arrowhead property.
At this time, Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt Ordinance No.
00-3(2), amending Section 3-214, Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,
OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts
of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-214, Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39B, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48; tax map 74,
parcels 26, 28; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 27; tax map 87, parcels 3, 10, 13A, 13E (part
consisting of 89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 24, 26B, 29,
40, 41A, 42, 42A; tax map 99, parcels 29, 52. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than ten
years and last reviewed on November 12, 1997, shall next be reviewed prior to November 12, 2007.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
_______________
Agenda Item No.10. Discussion: Albemarle County’s Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan
(Statement for Pre-Allocation Hearing in Culpeper.)
Ms. Humphris called attention to the draft statement (copy on file) which was prepared for the Pre-
Allocation Hearing in Culpeper on July 25, 2000. She had said the statement was much too long, and she
felt it would be embarrassing for the Chairman not to be able to finish his comments in the allotted time for
speakers. She then suggested that the omissions which have been done by staff may have shortened the
statement enough. If the statement is still too long, the Chairman could quickly finish his remarks with the
last paragraph, although the whole document could be turned in at that time.
Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker indicated that the whole document is always turned in at this hearing.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the addition staff made to Item #5 of the statement about parallel
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
roads. She mentioned that during several meetings in the last few days there have been concerns raised
about parallel roads. She said, for example, VDoT has proposed a 120 foot right-of-way purchase, and it
does not sound like a neighborhood friendly road. She read a statement she had written which indicates
that “As County citizens and staff have been engaged in a 3-year Development Area Study, we are in the
middle of planning for development in the area north of the Rivanna River. We hope VDoT will not rush in
ahead of these plans in building the parallel roads. Please work with the County as we develop a
comprehensive land-use and transportation plan for this section of the Route 29 corridor. Our plans
envision future development to be served by a transportation network that supports walking and biking and
comprehensively links all elements of the Hollymead community.” She said even though these are too
many words to say at the hearing, she would feel more confident if these words or something similar were
added to the document.
Ms. Humphris agreed that there needs to be strong input from the County about the parallel roads.
She has been looking at the advertisement of the meetings, and she has a problem with the way the Pre-
Allocation Hearing in Culpeper to be held on July 25 was advertised. The advertisement describing what
will take place at this meeting is totally different from the information sent to Bob Tucker in a letter from Don
Askew, Head of the Culpeper District. She has asked the question about what is really going to happen
there that day. She has also inquired if Albemarle County officials will have a chance to make this
statement or are the priorities already set and the funding already provided. It is interesting that the County
has not gotten a response to these questions.
Ms. Humphris then referred to Ms. Thomas’ comments about parallel roads. The citizen
information meeting that has been advertised by VDoT does not mention such things as parallel roads nor
frontage roads. It only mentions reviewing the proposed plan for the widening of Route 29 from Route 643
to Route 649. She thinks this is devious, although she does not know if it was done deliberately. She
remarked that plans have been made to widen Route 29 from the River to Airport Road ever since the first
plan for Route 29 was done. She wondered why now is VDoT planning to have parallel roads, and why are
its representatives rushing through all of this in order to have the location and design public hearing in
August. She mentioned that many people are on vacation in August and to have it a month after the
citizens information meeting is rather ridiculous. She said it indicates that the design is already complete,
and VDoT will let the people look at it, but everything is final. She recalled asking Ms. Tucker, with VDoT, if
the County had any control over the funding. She added that Ms. Tucker said VDoT had not yet decided
whether there will be State or Federal funding involved. Ms. Humphris said if it is State funding, this Board
will not have anything to say about it. She remarked that the staff has been meeting with VDoT for a long
time, and she knows the staff has been doing the very best it can do. She added that staff members have
been telling VDoT that they want an urban cross section neighborhood type road, with sidewalks and bike
lanes, etc. However, when VDoT wants a 120 foot right-of-way, that is not what it has in mind.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that approximately two and one-half years ago when VDoT representa-
tives were proposing parallel roads, they had indicated that they would be building some new roads, and
future development would have to bear the burden of widening the roads to meet the requirements of the
development. The County told VDoT representatives that if this is what is anticipated, they should get the
rights-of-way in advance. The staff did not know how much right-of-way would be required, but it was
actually put in a letter that VDoT should require a 120 foot right-of-way if that is what would be necessary.
The County does not have any VDoT plans now that shows this kind of right-of-way nor those types of
parallel roads.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has seen an official looking document showing that VDoT has a
120 foot right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff has stressed to VDoT the need for these
roads to be exactly as they are referred to in the statement, and the statement is exactly as Ms. Thomas
has indicated.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has always heard from staff that VDoT wants 100 foot rights-of-way.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not remember reporting this to the Board. He recalled, though, in first
discussions about parallel roads, VDoT representatives were told that if the parallel roads were going to be
four lane roads then they should be planned for in advance, and they should require the proper amount of
rights-of-way. He said since then the North Town Center idea has developed, and the staff and Planning
Commission have looked at having a series of parallel roads. This has changed things even more because
now planning does not have to be done for four lane roads in that area. He stated that one road will be four
lanes, and there should be planning for parallel roads that can bear some of the traffic burden of the
system.
Ms. Humphris referred to maps showing two different iterations of the proposed Route 29 Bypass
intersection with Route 29. One of them is below Ashwood and one is above. There are traffic numbers for
every intersection, and there is a road to the west labeled Meadow Creek Parkway. She mentioned that
this Meadow Creek Parkway comes to Route 29, crosses it and goes straight to Airport Road. Mr.
Cilimberg commented that this is not actually shown in the plans the County has from VDoT. These maps
relate to part of the discussion about the extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Ms. Humphris stated
that she thought the whole plan was changing as County officials considered the idea of the Town Center
and the Neighborhood Plan. She added that the maps to which she referred seem to be recent. Mr. Martin
commented that they look as though someone revised the “W” connection. Ms. Humphris concurred. Mr.
Cilimberg asked if a date is shown on the maps. He is not familiar with them. Mr. Bowerman asked if they
came from VDoT or the County. Ms. Humphris stated that they are VDoT’s maps. Mr. Bowerman
suggested that the traffic numbers would give an idea of how recent the maps are. Mr. Cilimberg said they
may be the model traffic projections based on the different alternative roads.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Next, Mr. Tucker indicated that language such as Ms. Thomas suggested could be added to the
statement for the presentation.
Mr. Martin commented that to his knowledge the VDoT meeting being planned for July 19, 2000
began from a request he made to Ms. Tucker a year and a half ago when he said he wanted to have a
meeting prior to VDoT’s public hearing. He said it kept being postponed, so he started bringing the request
to meetings of this Board. He added that at first it was going to be an informal meeting at either Hollymead
or Sutherland. However, it became a more formal meeting at the Doubletree Hotel. When he started
requesting the meeting there did not seem to be a problem, but after awhile it appeared VDoT officials did
not want to have it.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that the meeting to which Mr. Martin referred is the one where County
officials were asked to keep traffic impacts at a minimum. There would be only four or five connections on
Route 29 between Proffitt Road and the River.
Mr. Martin stated that this meeting was the first time parallel roads were discussed. He said up to
that point when widening Route 29 was discussed, it meant just widening Route 29. He added that this was
when he said he wanted his constituents to have a chance to speak to the issue prior to the Pre-Allocation
Hearing.
Ms. Humphris noted that there is a constituency to deal with the east side, but there is no
constituency to deal with the west side. She inquired as to what County officials can do to ensure that
Albemarle County gets the type of road system from the River to the Airport Road that it wants, needs and
that will fit in with future plans.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the County has no future plans, and she is concerned because
planning has not been done in that area yet. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as being for all
commercial and industrial uses. She is uncertain, though, if the County should have all its commercial and
industrial uses on the west side and all its residential on the east side. She stated that everybody will have
to get on Route 29 in order to go from one place to the other. She is anxious for the County to get better
planning of its own.
Ms. Humphris stated that she is concerned because it seems VDoT’s plan is going forward, and the
County officials’ objections and requests to let them put their plan in place before VDoT makes its decision
does not seem to matter to VDoT. She wondered if the County has no voice in the matter. Mr. Martin
commented that VDoT has been fairly cooperative as far as trying to work with staff on the western side in
conjunction with other proposals that have been made in that area. Mr. Cilimberg responded that VDoT
agreed to the idea of a parallel road, and now the staff is trying to get the road designed and specified with
VDoT, but no detail has been supplied yet. The opportunity for the Board and County officials to deal with
these specifics will be at the informational meeting next week. He added that also at the public hearing, the
County can make specific comments on what is expected. The County’s expectations have been made
known over time, and none of it can be new to VDoT, although he cannot say VDoT will move ahead with
the County’s ideas. He emphasized that he does not think there is anything new in the statement, but Ms.
Thomas’ comments will reflect where the County is in its current plan.
Mr. Martin concurred. He said, though, Ms. Thomas is also indicating that she thinks County
officials should have been doing much more master planning for that area. The County has basically
proceeded in its usual fashion, although the participants have agreed to incorporate many of the DISC
suggestions and ideas. He is not sure if Ms. Thomas is asking that County officials stop the process so
something else can be done.
Ms. Thomas stated that she does not think the process will stop, and she is expressing her own
personal anxiety that VDoT is moving forward. She added that as soon as a parallel road is platted, it will
open up a whole new area for development that now topographically is not very amenable to development.
This will make a major change in what will happen in Albemarle County. She is anxious for County officials
to move forward with the process the DISC Committee suggested as far as master planning is concerned.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he believes the design speed of the road going through the
Industrial Park is 45 miles per hour, and this could set the standard of speed for parallel roads. Mr. Tucker
concurred.
Mr. Martin noted that language similar to Ms. Thomas’ suggestion will be incorporated between
Items #5 and #6 in the statement.
Mr. Kamptner said the Planning Commission adopted a resolution which has not yet been put into
writing. He stated that one of the things the Commissioners wanted to have conveyed to this Board was
that they oppose the proposed 120 foot rights-of-way for the access roads. Mr. Martin asked if this was
done based on Mr. Cilimberg’s comments about having multiple parallel roads. Mr. Kamptner answered,
“yes.” The Commissioners have been studying the Town Center and the Comprehensive Plan, and they
have been looking at the west side of Route 29. Ms. Thomas pointed out that she did not know the
Planning Commission was doing this. Mr. Kamptner said the Commissioners have been examining this
matter, and they have had some work sessions and a couple of public hearings on it. He explained that
they see a network of roads and multiple uses going into the area south of Airport Road, west of Route 29.
They see the 120 foot rights-of-way as being contrary to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, if it was
approved in that area.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Martin noted that more revision of the statement could be done before the Pre-Allocation
Hearing on July 25, 2000. Mr. Tucker and Ms. Thomas reminded Mr. Martin that this Board would not be
meeting again before that time.
Mr. Dorrier pointed out that there is going to be a meeting on Friday, July 14 on Route 20 South at
10:00 a.m. Mr. Tucker reported that he would be attending this meeting.
(The final speech and statement are set out below:)
FINAL SPEECH – VDOT PREALLOCATION HEARING
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I appreciate this opportunity to bring the
county’s transportation priorities to the attention of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Our complete
list of priorities is outlined in our written report. At this time I would like to highlight for you those projects
which we feel are most pressing and critical to the safe and efficient functioning of our community’s
transportation systems. These projects not only enhance the smooth flow of vehicular traffic but also
promote our goal of encouraging alternative transportation modes including pedestrian and bicycle facilities
as well as the possibilities of mass transit to meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our
rapidly urbanizing county.
We continue to strongly support those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects
eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between
Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to the
Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, we recommend construction of the
Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's
highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to
maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the
urbanizing area north of the City.
The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the
County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of
Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to
Rio Road. In particular, the County asks that this section designed within a linear park concept that replaces
McIntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, links McIntire Park to the Rivanna
Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County’s urbanizing area along Rio Road. In an effort to
further this project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and
design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North.
County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is
not possible to construct this entire project within a reasonable timeframe solely with secondary funding due
to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary
projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With
the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County
believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate
construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion.
th
For the 9 consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources,
particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other
projects listed in CATS in the northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed. The
County also supports any initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic
Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road, possibly under modified design concepts.
Completion of the preliminary engineering and widening of Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek
Drive is a priority that has gained new urgency for us for several reasons. This roadway now serves heavy
vehicular traffic generated by Monticello High School which opened in 1998. In the last year this curvy
section of road has been the scene of several serious accidents, including two with fatalities. We also
strongly support the incorporation of sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of
an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels that it is
imperative that access management, not limited access, be the design basis for the third phase of the
Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffitt Road intersec-
tionCounty staff comments on the plans for this section of road have consistently supported this approach
.
which is more in keeping with its location at the center of an emerging urban community. Meanwhile, the
Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have been made in
this process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the
Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that the study will be truly multi-
modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to the corridor.
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations identified in the
Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study. We
also strongly support road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on Route
29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector
and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffitt Road
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
that would be built in conjunction with the Route 29 widening project. Such parallel roads should be
constructed as urban cross-section design with sidewalks and bike lanes. This provides a system of roads
more in keeping with a neighborhood street system and complementary with the character of the existing or
developing neighborhoods. As County citizens and staff have been engaged in a three-year Development
Area Study, we are in the middle of planning for development in the area north of the Rivanna River. We
hope VDOT will not rush in ahead of these plans in building the parallel roads. Please work with the County
as we develop a comprehensive land-use and transportation plan for this section of the Route 29 corridor.
Our plans envision future development to be served by a transportation network that supports walking and
biking and comprehensively links all elements of the Hollymead community.
The widening of Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass is covered by a
joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the
Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening
plans. The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the I-64/250 interchange) was studied by
VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. The Board of
Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining the present
two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and
consistent as possible with the special character of this scenic by-way.
As a continued theme throughout our recommendations we recognize that mass transit can relieve
traffic congestion and is a desirable alternative to road construction, particularly in more densely developed
urban areas, and we encourage VDOT to shift funds from road construction to support mass transit as a
means of effective traffic management.
We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most critical being the
construction of pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County’s Urban
Neighborhoods. The walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement due to the
significant increase of development and resulting pedestrian travel along this road. Furthermore, Wilton
Farms Apartments are now being served by public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a
walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to this service. We are anxious to address the safety
concerns associated with walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
Finally, we encourage the construction of improvements to Route 250 West along the business
corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678)
to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in
this area. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by
the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
I thank you again for this opportunity to discuss our community’s pressing transportation needs with
you. We have devoted much time and attention, with significant input from our citizens, to developing this
list of priorities in a way that manages our traffic flow effectively while also protecting our neighborhood
amenities and community character. If you have any questions that are not addressed in our report, I hope
you will feel free to bring them to our attention.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JULY 25, 2000
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR
MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES (July 12, 2000)
The following addresses Albemarle County’s priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports
these projects as referenced.
1)Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the primary
program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County
and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already completed
or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29
North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improve-ments, and is
of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to
improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of
this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary
program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and
the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In
particular, the County asks that this section be designed within a linear park concept that replaces
McIntire park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, links McIntire park to the Rivanna
Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County’s urbanizing area along Rio Road. In an
effort to further this project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan
for planning and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. County
staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is not
possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely with secondary funding due
to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the
primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route
29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants
to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided
th
it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the 9 consecutive year the County urges VDOT to
investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest
construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern study
area also should be actively pursued and completed. These projects include the Airport Road
improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. The County also supports any
initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr.
and Rio Rd., possibly under modified design concepts.
2) Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill
Creek Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. This is a curvy
section of road in the County’s Urban Area that serves the traffic from Monticello High School and
has recently experienced several accidents with fatalities. While this has historically been a project
lower on the County’s priority list, its priority has greatly increased due to these recent events.
3)The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study
recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the
County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management
approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels that it is imperative that access
management, not limited access, be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening
project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffitt Road intersectionCounty
.
staff comments on the plans for this section of road have consistently supported this approach
which is more in keeping with its location at the center of an emerging urban community. Mean-
while, the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that
have been made in this process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a
limited access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County continues to
hope that the study will be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the
benefits of rail service to the corridor.
4) The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II
and III Corridor Study.
5)Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on Route 29
by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road
Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport
Road/Proffitt Road that would be built in conjunction with the Route 29 widening project. Such
parallel roads should be constructed as urban cross-section design with sidewalks and bike lanes.
This provides a system of roads more in keeping with a neighborhood street system and
complimentary with the character of the existing or developing neighborhoods. As County citizens
and staff have been engaged in a three-year Development Area Study, we are in the middle of
planning for development in the area north of the Rivanna River. We hope VDOT will not rush in
ahead of these plans in building the parallel roads. Please work with the County as we develop a
comprehensive land-use and transportation plan for this section of the Route 29 corridor. Our
plans envision future development to be served by a transportation network that supports walking
and biking and comprehensively links all elements of the Hollymead community.
6)Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by
a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for
improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a
guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the
I-64/250 interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term
needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and,
instead, recommends maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short
term or spot improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special
character of this scenic by-way. VDOT is also completing a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free
Bridge to the Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and
encourages continued public participation and consideration of recommendations.
7) Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord with
County recommendations regarding this study.
8) Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements
along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The County supports the
recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
9) Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana Dr.
Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
10) Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road construction,
particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road construction into mass
transit to accomplish this.
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County’s Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widening/
improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian walkways: 1) Route
20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 20
South from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 3) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an
extension to existing sidewalks; 4) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass; and, 5)
Route 240 in “downtown” Crozet. Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most
important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the
development in that area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus
service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian
access to this service. There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road
as currently constructed.
2) Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 and the I-64 interchange ramps at Fifth
Street.
3)Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the
intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and
short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. These
improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the Board
of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
4)Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5)Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements.
6)Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231.
The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large
trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to
ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the future. Restriction of through truck
traffic is still considered by the County to be the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1)Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road
connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placement of
overhead utilities underground, etc.
3) Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project between the Monticello Vistors
Center and Monticello.
4)Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan
on July 17, 1991).
5)Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
6)Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project.
7)Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area
excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which
includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed
NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport
Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies, including the Route 29
Corridor Study south of Charlottesville, which is currently underway. The County will monitor the progress and
recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is
provided under Standard Projects #2).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon
monoxide.
_______________
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 1, March 15(A), March 22(A), April 12, April 19
and May 3, 2000.
Mr. Martin reported that he read the minutes of the March 22, 2000 (A) minutes, and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he read the minutes of the March 15, 2000 (A) minutes, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the Board of Supervisors’
minutes for the afternoon meetings of March 15, and March 22, 2000. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker asked if Ms. Humphris meant that the entire comment section of the statement at the
Pre-Allocation Hearing would be handed in, but the Chairman would not read the highlighted area. Ms.
Humphris concurred that this was her suggestion. Mr. Tucker stated that a copy of the Chairman’s
comments would be handed in as well as a copy of the official statement. Mr. Martin suggested that it
would be a good idea to mark the statement with a purple section showing the comments he will make, so
even less time will be involved. Ms. Humphris commented that the Chairman should try to feel comfortable
with the statement he is presenting. The presentation of this statement at the Pre-Allocation Hearing is not
so important in the total picture. Mr. Tucker suggested that it might be more helpful to Mr. Martin if he does
his own highlighting of the areas in the statement he will be presenting at the hearing in Culpeper.
Ms. Humphris said speakers are only given three minutes to make comments. Ms. Thomas stated
that she had been told the time limit was three minutes, but when she went to the Culpeper meeting, the
time limit was five minutes. Mr. Tucker remarked that he would try to find out the length of time for such
statements, since it was not mentioned in the letter he received from Mr. Askew.
__________
Next, Mr. Tucker informed Board members that another screen for showing slides would be put up
so the Chairman doesn’t have to keep moving. He added that a consultant will also be asked to consider
the entire planning of Room 241 and how it might be reconfigured. He said an estimate of the cost will be
done. He explained that the staff has been examining the idea of using several monitors instead of
screens, since the type of material the staff is presenting can be put into monitors. The sound system and
lots of other things will also be studied. He stated that other areas have already been through this process,
and Henrico County has already gone through a major renovation to their meeting room. He commented
that another idea is whether or not the Board members would like to start meeting entirely in the auditorium
after it is reconfigured.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Board members cannot talk to each other in the auditorium. Mr.
Tucker responded that the whole auditorium would have to be reconfigured if this plan was accepted, and it
would be very expensive to do. He feels certain the Board members would not want to use the auditorium
all the time. He also mentioned that he and the Clerk have been discussing having laptop computers for
all the Board members, so they could watch presentations on their own laptop. He mentioned that a lot of
Boards are doing this now. He stated that instead of a Board packet, the Supervisors would receive a disc,
and the entire Board packet of information will be in their own laptop computer.
__________
Ms. Thomas informed the Board that she and Mr. Cilimberg are going to a meeting of the Route 29
South Corridor Development Study on Friday, July 14, 2000. This Committee is getting to the point of
making recommendations, and a freeway is being planned from North Carolina to north of Colleen. She
noted that a parkway is being planned from Colleen to Southern Albemarle, and an upgrade is planned
through Southern Albemarle County to I-64. This Committee has a lot of rail recommendations such as
freight on rail. She emphasized that it seems the members have listened to some of the things Albemarle
County officials have been saying to them about wanting to support freight on rail situations as an
alternative to increased truck traffic on Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the arterial upgrade includes an additional shoulder area for pull outs
and for bikes as well as any public transportation that might need to pull off the main line of the road. There
are no parallel roads in the arterial upgrade proposal, although there are parallel roads in the parkway
proposal. He explained that the parkway is designed for a lower speed and limited access, and the arterial
upgrade is designed for access management. He has stressed that a lot of the language used in part of
the Route 29 North Corridor study should be used because it was all about access management.
Ms. Humphris stated that County officials have to keep a careful watch on the Corridor Study
because the proposed Route 29 Bypass, the widening of Route 29 and the parallel road idea are all part of
a VDoT plan that is going to be done unless the County can stay on top of it. She said County officials need
to make sure Albemarle County gets what it wants and needs instead of what someone wants to give to it.
__________
July 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Martin remarked that he and Mr. Dorrier have been working with the Compensation Committee
for the purpose of getting a consensus from those localities to which Albemarle County compares itself so
the constant bickering about compensation can be stopped. At this point, focus groups will be started, and
it is the consensus of the Committee that these groups should not focus on Board members and top
management. He said to figure the best ways of compensation, input from employees is needed.
However, there was some thought among the Committee members that Board members might feel
slighted and may not give the final report the respect it deserves if they were not included in a focus group.
He asked the other Supervisors how they feel about this situation.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that there is only one direction in which this type of focus group analysis
can go. Mr. Martin responded that the Committee is diverse, so that when a consensus is reached, it will
mean something. He said Board members will have an opportunity for input, but it won’t be as part of a
focus group. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is a person from the Chamber of Commerce included in a
focus group. He also wondered if these groups are outside of County government.
Mr. Martin answered that the focus groups will be within County government, but the Committee
includes people outside of County government, such as representation from the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Dorrier said the Committee includes representation from the Conservative Coalition, as well as others.
He explained that the Committee deals with all aspects of compensation. Mr. Bowerman stated that it
seems to be a well represented Committee.
Mr. Martin said members of the Committee wanted the focus groups to focus on what employees
thought were important compensation issues, but they did not want the people on the School Board and the
Board of Supervisors to feel slighted.
Mr. Bowerman asked if members of the Board of Supervisors and School Board can attend focus
meetings if they choose to do so. Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorrier answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman then
inquired if Board members would inhibit the focus groups’ discussions. Mr. Martin responded that the
Committee members are going to hold a mock focus group in a shortened session so they will have a
chance to see what the questions will be and the flavor of the meeting. He will make sure the Board
members are invited.
Ms. Thomas asked if representatives of PTOs are part of the Committee. Mr. Martin answered that
the AEA is involved with the Committee. Ms. Thomas said she thinks parents could play a very important
part in this type of Committee. Mr. Martin answered that he did not think anyone from any of the PTOs was
involved. Ms. Thomas suggested that perhaps Brian Wheeler, who runs the electronic newsletter from
Murray Elementary School, might be a good Committee member. She indicated that she feels strongly
there should be a parent or a PTO representative on the Committee. Mr. Martin stated that he will make
sure Ms. Thomas’ suggestion is reflected to the Committee.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 9:00 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
9-6-2000
Initials
EWC