1999-01-20January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the BOard of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty,
Virginia, was held on January 20, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Charles S. Martin,
Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Community Development,
Mr. David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:25 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.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the remaining item for information. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution to approve issuance of tax exempt bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority for Westminster-Cantebury of the Blue
Ridge.
The executive summary states that Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue
Ridge is requesting approval of up to $ 14.0 million of revenue bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to finance the construction of a
50,000-square-foot catered living building, fifteen additional cottages, and
related project expenses for expansion of the existing retirement community
located at Pantops. The IDA held a public hearing and ad~pted a Resolution on
January 11, 1999 to approve the proposed issuance of the bonds. Background
information and a Fiscal Impact Statement were provided to the Board as
additional information.
The Internal Revenue Code requires the County approve the proposed
financing in order for the revenue bonds to be treated as tax exempt private
activity bonds. No public hearing is required except for the public hearing
by the IDA. County approval of the proposed issuance of the bonds does not
constitute an endorsement of the bonds and does not create any liability for
the County in regard to the issuance or payment of the bonds.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving the
issuance of up to $14,000,000 of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County to finance the proposed expansion project of
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge to be located at the site of its
existing retirement community on Pantops Mountain Road.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted a resolution to approve
issuance of tax exempt bonds by the Industrial Development Authority for
Westminster-Cantebury of the Blue Ridge.
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2) _~.~ : !7~.~
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $14,000,000
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
WESTMINSTER-CANTERBURY OF THE BLUE RIDGE
000262
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Author-
ity''), is empowered by (a) the Albemarle County Code to finance facilities for
the residence and care of the aged, and (b) the Industrial Development and
Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended
("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of assisting in the
acquisition, construction, equipping and refinancing of facilities for the
residence or care of the aged in order to provide modem and efficient services
to them, in accordance with their special needs;
WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request from Westminster-Canterbury
of the Blue Ridge, a non-profit, non-stock corPoration ("Borrower"), request-
ing that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in financing (a) the
acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 50,000 square foot
catered living building, (b) site work and other costs related to construction
of approximately 15 cottages, preliminary costs related to future facility
expansion, (d) a debt service reserve fund, and (e) costs of issuance and
other expenses related to the bonds ("Project") all of the foregoing to be
located at the Borrower's continuing care retirement community ("Facility") at
250 Pantops Mountain Road in Albemarle County, Virginia;
WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia, by promoting and
protecting their health and welfare and assisting in the provision of modern
and efficient medical services;
WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the
Authority and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ("Code") and Section 15.2-4906
of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has represented that the estimated cost of the
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and all expenses of
issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $14,000,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby found and determined that (a) the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Project will be in. the public interest and
will promote the health and welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
County of Albemarle, Virginia and their citizens, and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia and their citizens, and (b) the activities to be conducted at the
Facility are facilities for the residence and care of the aged as contemplated
by the Albemarle County Code.
2. To induce the Borrower to locate the Project in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and particularly in the County of Albemarle, the Authority hereby
agrees to assist the Borrower in financing the acquisition, construction and
equipping of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its revenue bonds in
an amount not to exceed $14,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually
agreeable to the Authority and the Borrower. The bonds will be issued pursuant
to documents satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or
more series at one time or from time to time.
3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary
to proceed immediately with the acquisition, planning and construction of the
Project, the Authority agrees that the Borrower may proceed with plans for the
Project, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment
for the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in
connection with the Project, provided, however, that nothing in this resolu-
tion shall be deemed to authorize the Borrower to obligate the Authority
without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the
performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees
that the Borrower may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs
are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws.
4. At the request of the Borrower, the Authority approves McGuire,
Woods, Battle & Boothe LLP, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection
with the issuance of the bonds.
5. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, including the fees and
expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid by the Borrower
or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds.
If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such
expenses shall be paid by the Borrower and that the Authority shall have no
responsibility therefor.
6. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official
action" toward the issuance of the bonds and to evidence its "official intent"
to reimburse from the proceeds of the bonds any expenditures paid by the
Borrower to finance the acquisition, planning and construction of the Project
before the issuance of the bonds, all within the meaning of regulations issued
by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150
and related sections of the Code.
7. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, approve the issuance of the bonds.
8. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time
as the issuance of the bonds has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Additional Operating Expenses in the
Sheriff's Department, $8,439 (Form #98049).
The executive summary states that during the FY 98/99 Budget Process,
the Sheriff's Office requested $7,846 in additional funding for police
supplies and uniforms. Staff recommended that the Sheriff purchase these one-
time expenditure items with carry Over f~ds froTM the current year. The Board
subsequently approved this recommendation, although the Sheriff's Office
neglected to send in a carry-over request at the end of the year and, there-
fore, this was not part of the County-wide reappropriation request submitted
to the Board in October.
This request would fund the purchase of $8,439 in additional police
supplies and uniforms for the Sheriff's Office, using $8,439 from the General
Fund Balance, as per the budget recommendation. The $593 increase over the
$7,846 initially requested funds one-time uniform expenses for the temporary
juvenile court bailiff approved last October, but which were not included in
the bailiff appropriation.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #98049 in the amount of
$8,439.00.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER: 98049
FUND: General
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1 1000 31020 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES
1 1000 31020 601100 UNIFORMS & APPAREL
AMOUNT
$7,753.00
686.00
TOTAL $8,439.00
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night
(Page 4)
0002 4
REVENU____~E DESCRIP________TION
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$8,439.00
$8,439.00
Item No. 5.3. Amendment of the jurisdictional area map to allow
provision of water 'and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision,
Phase IIA (SDP-98-273), Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (portion of).
The executive summary states that a public hearing was held
April 1, 1998, to consider a request by Hurt Investment Company (previous
owner) for water and sewer service to 119 acres located on Tax Map 78 Parcel
57 (portion). The subject property is part of Fontana Subdivision, which
received preliminary plat approval on December 19, 1997, which in turn was
part of the original "Luxor" parcel. It is located on the east side of Route
20 North, north of the Wilton Subdivision and Garnett Treatment Center, within
a designated Development Area (Neighborhood 3).
Phase IIA consists of three lots (comprising a total of 1.33 acres)
located at the west end of Fontana Court, in Fontana Subdivision. Amendment
of the jurisdictional area boundary is required before final subdivision
approval can be granted.
At its April 1, 1998 meeting, the Board approved an amendment of the
service area boundaries for water and sewer service to Fontana Subdivision, as
recommended by staff, provided that a note be included on all plats indicating
that no public water will be provided on those lots above the 600 foot
elevation, which serves as the Development Area boundary. Two of the subdivi-
sion's lots along the eastern edge of the property straddle the Development
Area boundary, and have both RA and R-4 zoning. Consistency with County
policy permits extension of service only to that portion of these lots lying
within the Development Area.
Phase IIA is located entirely within the Development Area, in the
portion of the property zoned R-4, below the 600-foot contour. Extension of
water and sewer service has been approved to Fontana Recreation Center,
located immediately east of these lots. It is anticipated that requests
similar to this one will be submitted for future phases of the subdivision.
This request is consistent with the Board's April t, 1998 action
approving amendment to the Jurisdictional Area boundaries for the Fontana
Subdivision. With the Board's concurrence, staff will amend the Jurisdic-
tional Area map to allow provision of water and sewer service to Phase IIA,
and require that notes be included on the final plat limiting service to
building sites within the designated Development Area.
By the above shown vote, the Board request staff to amend the Jurisdic-
tional Area boundaries for the Fontana Subdivision. With the Board's concur-
rence, staff will amend the Jurisdictional Area map to allow provision of
water and sewer service to Phase IIA, and require that notes be included on
the final plat limiting service to building sites within the designated
Development Area.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes of January 5, 1999,
was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-59. Pegasus Motorcar Co (Sign #59). Public
hearing on a request to establish automobile dealership w/in a designated
Entrance Corridor. 1.75 acs loc on S side of Rt 250 E (Richmond Rd), approx
1,000' E of Rt 20 inter. Znd HC & EC. TM78,P15. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval
of the proposed outdoor storage and display of automobiles with two condi-
tions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 1998, unani-
mously approved the request with the same two conditions.
0002 5
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5) , ........
Mr. John Gorman, representing the applicant, noted that the proposed
plan was unanimously approved by both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Thomas asked whether the stone house near the site would be removed.
Mr. Gorman replied, ~No."
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing. With no present to speak on
this matter, he closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-98-59 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
(Conditions are as follow:)
Outdoor storage and display parking shall be limited to all areas
designated as such on the site plan dated November 23, 1998; and
2 o
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness, which includes:
a. ARB approval of landscaping,
b. Vehicles for display shall not be elevated,
c. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site
plan, and
d. ARB approval of a lighting plan.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-61. Triton Communications/Virginia Power
(Signs #61&62). Public hearing on a request to allow installation of panel
antennae on existing electrical transmission tower in accord w/ §24.2.2.6 of
Zoning Ordinance. Loc near 101 Riverbend Dr (St Rt 1116) near inter of Rt 250
E (Richmond Rd) & Riverbend Dr. Znd HC&EC. TM78,P17F2. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval
of the proposed tower with six conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on January 5, 1999, by a 4-2 vote, denied approval of the request.
Mr. Steve Blaine, the applicant's attorney, provided handouts to Board
members which included maps and other information pertaining to the applica-
tion. He said this is a monopole structure within an existing Virginia Power
tower near the Clean Machine Car Wash on Pantops Mountain. It is similar to
one at State Farm which was previously approved by the Board. Staff has
recommended approval of the application, since it is a co-location. He then
showed photographs of the site. He noted that the tower, which is in the
Entrance Corridor, is visible, but that staff believes it is so immediately
adjacent to the travel way that one cannot actually see it on the horizon.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins at an earlier meeting,
Mr. Blaine said Triton Communications provided the Board a map of their
location plan; it was also included as tab number eight in the handout
provided the Board.
Mr. Martin asked if all of Triton's towers are located on towers similar
to the examples shown. Mr. Blaine replied, ~Yes. Triton has co-located with
another wireless facility, or located on a Virginia Power pole or a building,
for 80 percent of their facilities." He said the remaining towers in the
system are for locations along 1-64.
The objective is to have as few sites as possible. He added it took
Triton 1.5 years, with staff's assistance, to locate all the sites. The
company's objective is basic coverage. He then showed coverage maps that
demonstrated the desired coverage. They currently have no location in this
license area. Their plan assumes that the WMZQ tower, a tower at State Farm,
and one at Court Square will be active. If not, there will be zero coverage
in many areas on Route 250. Propagation models were provided to show coverage
at the site.
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Martin said the Commission had a dispute over this item. It is
important that the Board not send mixed signals. The Board wants carriers to
co-locate, and when an applicant gives the Board what they want, and the Board
says no, the Board can hardly then say no when an applicant submits what is
not desired. He hopes in the future that some applications can be approved
administratively. This is a beautiful entrance to the City, but the Virginia
Power tower has been there for years, and he feels the proposal would not
detract significantly from the view. He does not think people will even
notice the tower. Ms. Thomas said she objects to the cumulative effect.
Mr. Martin asked what the coverage will be with the proposed height of
the antenna. Mr. Blaine said the map shoWs adequate coverage on Route 250 to
allow penetration into vehicles, but structures may not be able to receive a
signal in certain areas. Mr. Saeed Salimi, also representing the applicant,
said the maximum capacity of every site is six users per sector. At any time,
every site could support up to 18 users. If all 18 users are all in one
location at the same time, there would not be as good capacity. Additional
capacity can be added without additional towers. If a site is "maxed out"
with two boxes at the bottom, it could be fitted with two cabinets, which
would serve 48 users, or 96 calls, the maximum needed to serve any location.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak
on this matter, he then closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said she had examined the site. The existing tower is very
noticeable, rusty in color, and next to an ugly building. She thinks this is
a premier entrance into Charlottesville; therefore, she believes the visual
impact is greater than what staff thinks. The tower is too close to the road,
too tall, and the lattice-work is not sufficient to keep'it from adversely
impacting the character of the district. The tower is the worst thing in that
location and should not set an example for what else goes there. Mr. Bowerman
asked Ms. Thomas if she would still object if the antenna did not project more
than a couple of feet above the structure. Ms. Thomas said she was concerned
about the base, as well. It would end up being one foot in diameter, but
would also be made from concrete. She said she appreciates the applicant's
offer to co-locate on the Virginia Power tower, but thinks it will still have
the effect of accumulative clutter. She said there had been a proposal to put
in a modesty fence, but staff said that would actually bring more attention to
the tower. Mr. Davis said the ARB could require plantings.
Mr. Bowerman said he would not object, if the tower did not extend more
than two feet above the height of the existing tower. The request is consis-
tent with the Board's request for co-loc~tion. ThE apPliCation provides
reduced coverage, but it appears tO be adequate. He does not like the look of
the rendering, but does not think the addition will really make much of a
difference in the structure's appearance.
Mr. Martin said he could not conceive of approving today some of the
applications the Board had approved in the past. He wants to promote those
that use existing facilities. Ms. Thomas said the Board has been supporting
those requests.
Mr. Perkins said he did not even realize there was a tower in that
location. The one he noticed is near McDonald's Restaurant, and it is more
visible than this one. He said if someone is driving in their car, they
simply would not see it.
Mr. Bowerman said he was prepared to offer a motion to approve the
application with a reduced height, and let the ARB determine what, if any,
screening materials should be used. Mr. Salimi said Triton would have liked
to limit the height because of its visual impact, but the company is limited
by the law of physics. There is an interference between electrical lines and
the product, which must be avoided. The company has made this as close to the
top of the tower as possible.. The limit is ten feet from the end of the
antenna to the top of the device. Mr. Blaine said the power line is some
distance from the top of the structure. Perhaps the company could lower the
antenna. Mr. Salimi said if the power line is only a ground wire, it can be
as close as two feet.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board defer SP-98-61 to allow the applicant
to work with staff to determine the absolute lowest acceptable height for the
monopole. The item will be placed on the consent agenda for the February 3,
0002 '?
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
1999 Board of Supervisors meeting. He also asked the applicant to bring back
photographs showing examples of bases that have been constructed as proposed.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Mr. Salimi said coverage is not as big a problem as is interference.
The antenna has to exceed the existing structure by at least one-half the
height proposed (7.5 feet as opposed to 15 feet) to maintain a minimum of a
two foot separation between the power line and the antenna. It cannot go
below the ground line because of blockage.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr.. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.'
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-62. Triton Communications/Virginia Power
(Sunset Avenue) (Signs #72&73) . Public hearing on a request to allow instal-
lation of panel antennae on existing electrical transmission tower in accord
w/ §18.2.2.6 of Zoning Ordinance, resulting in add'l 20' in total power pole
height. 9.6 ac parcel loc on SE side of 1-64/Sunset Ave inter. Znd R-15 &
EC. TM76,P46C. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Da~ly Progress on
January 5 and 12, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval
of the proposed tower, with seven conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on January 12,1999, approved the request with seven conditions
requested by staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this antenna is a different style than what was
requested in the last application. Mr. Blaine said coverage is the factor.
The company's coverage objective is the 1-64 corridor. The last proposal was
a multi-directional array. With this one, there are only two panels to be
used and they do not need to have the same degree of separation (in this case
there is a 180-degrees separation) for the signal to be adequate.
Ms. Thomas asked if the height the antenna extends above the tower is
due to the panels being ten-foot panels within the site itself. Mr. Blaine
said the height of the tower is needed in order to achieve the coverage
objective along 1-64. Without the height, there have dropped calls. Mr.
Benish said the height is due to the tree line along the 1-64 interchange.
Mr. Blaine showed a photo of the monopole, noting that it is almost
impossible to see the tower because it is just above the tree line. The
propagation map shows that, without the tower, there is virtually no coverage;
with the tower at 110 feet, the height of the current pole, there still will
not be adequate coverage. They will be able to reach just basic coverage
along 1-64. He added that there are 42,000 vehicle trips per day in that
location, according to VDoT.
Ms. Thomas asked how many calls this tower could handle. Mr. Salimi
said it can handle six users per sector. New technology may improve those
figures. ~
Mr. Perkins said he understands why the applicant needs this h~ight. He
pointed out that at the intersection of the Route 250 Bypass and Dairy Road,
there is a tower that is visible above the tree line. Mr. Blaine said that
site is strictly driven by the coverage objective of that carrier. They still
have to meet the space requirements by law. Mr. Salimi said each technology
operates at different frequencies, so different companies may have to meet
different requirements. Interference is directly related to frequency and
power.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing. With no one present to
speak, he then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know how close together panels can be
positioned and still be effective, making a smaller profile. Mr. Benish said
he would ask the consultant for advice.
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Thomas said she likes the technology used here. Motion was offered
by Ms. Thomas, and seconded by Mr. Martin to approve SP-98-62 Subject to the
seven conditions recommended by the Commission. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
(Conditions are as follow:)
1. The attachment, including insulators, connectors and wires, shall
be shielded and painted in color to resemble the existing power
pole;
2. The attachment shall not exceed the diameter'of the existing power
pole;
3. The attachment shall be limited to the total of two (2) panel
antenna, whose height shall not exceed a maximum of 130 feet above
groundlevel;
4. Construction of the telecommunications tower within the existing
power line tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled
~CV-1-308C Sunset Vepco Utility Site" and initialed ELM 12/28/98
(copy on file in the Clerk's office);
5o
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning Administrator
once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report
shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user
that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
6o
The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from
the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and,
7. Albemarle County ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
At this time, Mr. Davis noted that when the Board acted on SP-98-61,
there was also an issue of a site plan waiver for the setback requirements for
the special use permit proposal. He suggested the Board defer that action
also to February 3, 1999, because the Board's decision on that action would
depend on whether or not the Board approves SP-98-61.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer action on the site plan
waiver for the setback requirements for the special use permit proposal, and
that the item be placed on the February 3, 1999 consent agenda. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearings to consider request for funding
under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA-
21) for the following projects:
(1)
A sidewalk/walkway construction program with multiple pro-
jects at various locations in the development areas. The
project(s) will construct new sidewalk/walkway or complete
gaps in the existing sidewalk/walkway systems in the devel-
opment areas. Albemarle County will provide all non-Federal
matching funds.
(2)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is request-
ing funds for bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic
beautification along Airport Road (Route 649) from Route 29
to Route 606. Albemarle County will provide all non-Federal
matching funds.
OOO7.,69
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
(3) For additional work on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway. Previ-
ous phases have been supported by the Board of County Super-
visors and funded under the enhancement program. The addi-
tional money would apply to items envisioned in the original
conceptual but not covered under previous grant applica-
tions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 6 and
13, 1999.)
Mr. Benish said staff is requesting the Board endorse three TEA-21
(Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century~ Enhancement projects in
Albemarle County. The TEA Program provides a means of financing activities
that go beyond the normal elements of transportation project. The intent of
the Enhancement Program is to more creatively integrate transportation
facilities into their surrounding communities and natural environment. Up to
80 percent of a transportation enhancement project can be financed with
federal STP funds. A minimum of 20 percent must come from other public or
private sources.
The three projects include: a sidewalk/walkway construction program at
fourteen locations throughout the development areas; bikelanes, sidewalks, and
landscaping/scenic beautification along Airport Road from Route 29 to Route
606; and~a trail that would provide pedestrian access from the western end of
Route 53 near its intersection with Route 20 with a tunnel under Route 53.
The County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development
proposes 14 sidewalk/walkway projects in the development areas of the County.
These projects will be phased over many years. The project(s) will construct
new sidewalk/walkway or complete gaps in the existing sidewalk/walkway system
in the development areas. The TEA-21 Enhancement application for 1999 will be
for up to $1,000,000. Staff intends to apply for funds every year until the
'ects are complete.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority requests funds for
bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic beautification along Airport Road
from Route 29 to Route 606. It is proposed that the enhancement funds will be
utilized to provide a means to make this corridor more usable for pedestrians
and bicyclists. The Authority was awarded an enhancement grant last year by
VDoT, but it was not for the full amount. The applicant is seeking additional
funds. The enhancement funds would be used to supplement Six-Year Secondary
Road Construction funds, Revenue Sharing funds, and Airport Access funds to
allow the Airport Road project to meet the County's desire to create an
aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian friendly corridor.
Last year the Airport Authority requested $730,000 in ISTEA Enhancement
funds. They were awarded $160,000, of which $32,000 is the County's share.
This year the applicant is requesting an additional $250,000 to help complete
this project. The County would be responsible for $50,000, if the applicant is
awarded their request for this year.
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation wishes to include a trail
providing access at the western end of Route 53 near its intersection with
Route 20 with a tunnel under Route 53. The trail would extend to the
Monticello Visitor Center located on Route 20.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution supporting these projects
following the public hearing.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
With no one present to speak on this issue, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
The Board suggested several minor revisions to the first resolution.
Numbers 4 and 5 should read, ~Hydraulic Road". Number 7 should read, ~Crozet
Elementary School". Number 9 should read, St. George Avenue".
Ms. Thomas said the Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) approved
these projects yesterday. Mr. Tucker said the Airport Commission approved
those in number 2. Ms. Thomas said sidewalks on Route 20 are very important.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, and seconded by Ms. Thomas to
approve the proposed TEA-21 enhancement grant applications by adopting three
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
resolutions. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Ms. Humphris.
(Resolution #1: )
pROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction
allocation procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications,.it is necessary
that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state
agency in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve an
enhancement project in the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to
fund a construction project for sidewalks/pathways at the following fourteen
locations:
1. Woodbrook Drive from Rt. 29 to Brookmere Road - sidewalk
2. Route 20 from Fontana Drive to Route 250 - sidewalk
3. Four Seasons Drive from Rio Road to Commonwealth Drive - sidewalk
Commonwealth Drive (and small part of Greenbrier Drive) from
Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive - sidewalk
Hydraulic Road from Route 29 to Georgetown Road (on the inside) -
sidewalk
6. Tabor Street from Route 240 to park - sidewalk
Rt. 810 from 240 to Crozet Elementary School and Rt. 240
from Rt. 810 to Crozet Pizza -sidewalk
8. Railroad Avenue from Rt. 789 to Route 810 - sidewalk
9. St. George Avenue from Rt. 789 to Wayland Avenue - sidewalk
10.
11.
South Pantops Drive from State Farm Blvd to Carriage Apt. -
sidewalk
State Farm Blvd. from Rt. 250 to South Panto~s Drive -
sidewalk
12.
Avon Street from Mill Creek South to Mill Creek Drive
(school road) - asphalt pathway
13. Greenway pathway from Key West area to Darden Towe Park
14. Greenway pathway from Dunlora area to Penn Park.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees
to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way,
and construction of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle
subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to reimburse
the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost
expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of
such cancellation.
(Resolution %2:)
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
Construction'procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications, it is
necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local
government or state agency in order for the Virginia Department of
Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of
Albemarle.
00027i
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth
Transportation Board to fund a project proposed by the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority to construct bikelanes, sidewalks, and
landscape/scenic beautification on Airport Road (Route 649) from Route
29 to Route 606.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby
agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design,
right-of-way, and construction of this project, and that if the County
of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby
agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the
total amount of the cost expended by the Department through the date the
Department is notified of such cancellation.
(Resolution #3:)
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applica-
tions, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the
local government or state agency in order for the Virginia Department of
Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of
Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth
Transportation Board to fund a project proposed by the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation to construct a trail that would provide pedestrian
access from the western end of Route 53 near its intersection with Route
20 with a tunnel under Route 53.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors
hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total cost for planning and
design, right-of-way, and construction of this project, and that if the
County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it
hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for
the total amount of the cost expended by the Department through the date
the Department is notified of such cancellation.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from
the Board.
Ms. Thomas commented on a letter the Board had received (copy not
provided) from a young woman who wants to pursue farming or landscaping.
She suggested the letter be forwarded to the school.system for consider-
ation by an after-school program.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that Mr. Terry Sieg's name was mistakenly
dropped from the Public recreational Facilities Authority. She asked
that the Clerk determine why this occurred and rectify the situation.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Planning Commission recently
adopted a resolution for the Industrial Development Authority, which
dealt with Westminster/Cantebury.
Ms. Thomas said she testified on behalf of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization in favor of a shuttle service at the Airport. The
opponent's attorney challenged her on the use of the word ~single
occupant vehicle", saying there was no such thing, because vehicles are
not built for single occupancy.
She advised the Board that earlier that day she had seen a ~single
occupant vehicle", developed by teenagers who develop solar powered
automobiles. She suggested the County should support this effort and
attend a demonstration that will be held in June. Mr. Tucker said he
sent a notice about this event to the School Division so they can drum
up support for the event.
January 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000272
Ms. Thomas advised the Board that she would be in Richmond the
following day attending to legislative matters.
Agenda Item No. 11. Motion to adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin
adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Cha irm~n
Approved by
Board