1999-09-15September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on September 15, 1999, at 7:00 p.m.,
Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.;
Mr. Charles S. Martin; and Mr. Walter F. Perkins, and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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.
Mr. John Martin said his comments relate to the joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors
and the City Council members which had been scheduled for tomorrow night, but it has been cancelled
because of the hurricane. As of 5:00 p.m. today, he placed some calls and learned that there was some
confusion as far as who sent out the notice of cancellation. There was some uncertainty as to whether it
should come from the Board of Supervisors and the City Council or the League of Women Voters. This
was distressing to him because he had hoped the meeting would be an official governmental joint session
of two bodies that was going to invite members of the public to come, speak and share what they know
and think. There has been ambiguity for some period of time as to exactly what this session is intended to
be. He asked if it was intended to be a joint session called by the governmental bodies or if it will be a
public meeting to which the elected representatives were invited. On May 19 he appeared before this
Board along with Dr. and Mrs. Bennett, and they requested the Supervisors to become involved in the
water supply planning. After that, there was a meeting of the members of the Rivanna Board of Directors,
and they said they did not want to have another public meeting. There was a critical editorial of this
decision, so at the very next meeting they changed their position and decided another public meeting
would be necessary. There is still ambiguity as far as who was going to call the meeting.
An ad hoc committee was formed to deal with this issue, involving the League of Women Voters
and the Rivanna Round Table, and on July 8, a letter was sent to the Board of Supervisors and the City
Council requesting a joint session of the two bodies. As far as he knows a written response never came
back, but a meeting time was set. Even with the lingering ambiguity, the meeting was going to be held
tomorrow night. However, there was still the uncertainty as far as whether the Supervisors or Council
members were going to speak, or just members of the audience, or whether there was going to be a dais.
This was very confusing. A press release has gone out canceling tomorrow night's meeting, but he
emphasized that a lot of people have gone to a lot of extraordinary work and trouble and personal
expense, and all they wanted to do was to help.
Mr. Martin then referred to a letter he wrote on August 19, 1999. He hoped it was helpful and
people have read it. However, this letter cost him $150.00 in copying, supplies and postage. He doesn't
have this kind of money to throw away, and he did it out of a sense of public service. This meeting has to
be rescheduled some time in the future, and he hopes the ambiguity gets resolved. If the Board members
want to hear from him and his group they need to say so, although the Supervisors can also say they are
not interested. There were a lot of people ready to come to the meeting which was proposed for tomorrow
night, and there was a whole presentation ready, as well as several experts involved. Trevor Cromwell
was going to be part of it. He really thinks it is necessary to resolve the ambiguity as far as this meeting is
concerned.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.3,
and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent, ZTA-99-04 Farmers Market, to amend the RA District of
the County Zoning Ordinance to permit farmers market.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent to amend
the RA District of the County Zoning Ordinance to permit farmers market.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
RESOLUTION OFINTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan recommends that support be provided for
agriculture and related industries; and
WHEREAS, "farmers' market" is currently allowed only within the C-1 Commercial and HC Highway
Commercial zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the definition of "farmers' market" contained in the Zoning Ordinance is deemed as
unnecessarily restrictive to allow the Board of County Supervisors to consider the appropriateness of
individual proposals; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County Supervisors to liberalize existing zoning restrictions
to allow agricultural efforts in the County to flourish;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board of County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of
intent to amend the definition of and supplementary regulations for "farmers' market" and to provide for
"farmers' market" within all commercial zoning districts and within the RA Rural Areas district; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is requested to hold
a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to return its recommendations to this Board of County
Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Item No. 5.2. Proclamation recognizing Constitution Week.
Mr. Martin read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Haugh, an officer of the National
Daughters of the American Revolution. Ms. Haugh said the DAR has also presented a copy of a print
illustrating the signing of the Constitution to the Board.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation recognizing
Constitution Week:
CONSTITUTION WEEK
September 17 - 23, 1999
WHEREAS,
our Founding Fathers, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their
posterity, did ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States of America; and
WHEREAS,
it is of the greatest importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles
contained in the Constitution in order to effectively support, preserve and defend it against
all enemies; and
WHEREAS,
the two hundred twelfth anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution provides an historic
opportunity for all Americans to remember the achievements of the Framers of the
Constitution and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities they afforded us in this unique
document; and
WHEREAS,
the independence guaranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or naturalization,
should be celebrated by appropriate ceremonies and activities during Constitution Week,
September 17 through 23, as designated by proclamation of the President of the United
States of America in accordance with Public Law 915;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17
through September 23, 1999, as
........ CONSTITUTION WEEK
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and urge all citizens to reflect during that week on the
many benefits of our Federal Constitution and the privileges and responsibilities of
American citizenship.
Item No. 5.3. Stormwater Agreement Modification for Airport Industrial Park.
Ms. Thomas said she does not have the expertise to question this item, but she is left with an
uneasy feeling. The staff report indicates that this agreement still maintains the necessary assurance
from the remaining property owners that the stormwater facilities will be maintained, and she asked if this
is true. This situation is different from anything with which this Board has had to deal.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Davis responded that this is typically a standard agreement that the County Executive has the
authority to execute, and this particular agreement for the Airport Industrial Park was recorded in the land
records a couple of years ago when improvements for the property were being developed. An attempt is
now being made to sell an eight acre parcel of land to VDoT for its facilities which are being planned for
this location. VDoT cannot meet some of the requirements in the standard agreement, which is holding up
the sale. The request is for VDoT to be allowed to be released from certain aspects of the agreement, but
the other property owners in the Industrial Park would still agree to maintain and be responsible for the
stormwater management facility. The other owners apparently are agreeable to taking on this
responsibility on behalf of VDoT, so he sees no legal reason to hold up the sale on that basis. This
agreement allows Mr. Tucker to sign an amended standard agreement and have it recorded to facilitate
the sale of the land to VDoT.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Stormwater Agreement Modification for Airport Industrial Park:
Conditional Release of Indemnity and Lien Provisions in
Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement
THIS CONDITIONAL RELEASE OF INDEMNITY AND LIEN PROVISIONS is made this 1st day of
July, 1999 by and among the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, (herein
the "County"); WACHOVlA BANK, N.A. ("Wachovia"), a national banking association, successor by merger
to JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK, the Declarant, sometimes referred to herein as the "Declarant"; MARK
W. HUTCHISON and GINA R. HUTCHISON (collectively "Hutchison"), owners of Revised Lot 7A, Airport
Industrial Park, also shown on Albemarle County Tax Map 32, as parcel 19B-8; RICHARD L. BENES
("Benes"), owner of Revised Lot 8A, Airport Industrial Park, also shown on Albemarle County Tax Map 32,
as parcel 19B-9, all of the foregoing parties herein to be indexed as Grantors; and COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("VDOT") contract purchaser of the Residue, to be
indexed as a Grantee
RECITALS
R-1. By Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
December 11, 1997, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 1663, page 201, the Declarant subjected certain property in Airport Industrial Park to the Agreement with
the County;
R-2. Wachovia has contracted to sell to VDOT all that certain parcel of land in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, containing approximately 8.09 acres and being more particularly described as Residue
Tax Map 32, parcel 19B (herein the "Residue") as shown on the plat dated October 8, 1998 entitled
"Subdivision Plat Showing Lots 7A and 8A; a Redivision of Lots 7 and 8 Shown on Plat at DB 1644, pp 328-
329 Airport Industrial Park near Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Rivanna Magisterial District, Albemarle
County, Virginia", prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, which subdivision plat is of record in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1762, page 550-551;
R-3. VDOT has represented to Wachovia and the County that as a state agency, VDOT cannot agree
to hold any entity harmless, as it would constitute a waiver of its sovereign immunity; and
R-4. The County has agreed to release VDOT and any other State agency from the indemnification
provisions of the Agreement and from the imposition of any liens against the Residue for any maintenance
charges, conditioned upon VDOT's acquisition of the Residue and its agreement to reimpose those provisions
upon a subsequent conveyance.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the
parties agree as follows:
· (1) VDOT Payment; No Lien: VDOT agrees that it shall pay an apportioned sum equal to the
stormwater facility maintenance charges (the "Maintenance Charges"), if any, for the Residue as such charges
are imposed by the Agreement. VDOT shall not be a member of the Association, if ever established. It is
expressly understood and agreed by all parties, however, that so long as the Residue is owned by VDOT, the
Commonwealth of Virginia or any department, agency or institution thereof, the Maintenance Charges shall
not be a charge or lien on the Residue land and any improvements thereon. Furthermore, so long as the
Residue is owned by VDOT, the Commonwealth of Virginia or any department, agency or institution thereof,
the Residue shall not be subject to any lien for such Maintenance Charges and no action to collect such
Maintenance Charges in the event of nonpayment shall result in the imposition of interest, costs or attorney's
fees against VDOT, the Commonwealth of Virginia or any department, agency or institution thereof, unless
such costs or fees are otherwise recoverable under Virginia law.
(2) Release of Indemnity Provision in Favor of VDOT: The County agrees that VDOT, upon its
acquisition of the Residue, and so long as the Residue is owned by VDOT, the Commonwealth of Virginia or
any department, agency or institution thereof, is hereby released from and shall not be bound by the
provisions of paragraph 8 of the Agreement relating to indemnification of the County of Albemarle. The
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
aforesaid indemnity provisions shall not be a charge on the Residue land and any improvementsthereon and
shall not be applicable to VDOT, the Commonwealth of Virginia or any department, agency or institution
thereof.
(3) Condition of Release of VDOT: VDOT covenants and agrees that in the event it acquires the
Residue and subsequently conveys the Residue (or any portion thereof) to any entity other than the
Commonwealth of Virginia or any department, agency or institution thereof, it shall subject the Residue or the
applicable portion thereof that is being conveyed to the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Agreement relating
to indemnification of the County by express covenants and restrictions contained in the deed or other
document of conveyance that will be effective upon such conveyance.
(4) Concurrence: Wachovia, Hutchison and Benes, the only other parties to the Agreement, join
herein to concur with the above action by the County.
(5) Effect: In all other respects, except as modified conditioned upon the acquisition of the Residue
by VDOT, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.
6) Counterparts: This conditional release agreement may be signed in counterparts, but will only be
effective when signed by all parties.
Item No. 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for August 10, August 17 and August 24,
1999, were received for information.
Item No. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board
meeting for July 14, 1999, was received for information.
Item No. 5.6. Letter dated August 23, 1999 from Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr., Secretary of Natural
Resources, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, concerning purchase of development rights, was received
for information.
"Governor Gilmore asked me to respond to your letter and the resolution from the County of
Albemarle Board of Supervisors.
Governor Gilmore's "Plan for Stewardship of Virginia's Environment in the Twenty-First
Century" states that the Commonwealth should promote the use of conservation easements
to preserve natural and historic resources, and should create funding opportunities for the
acquisition and operation of new natural areas and state parks.
As you know the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation has been revitalized and renamed
from the former Virginia Conservation and Recreation Foundation by Chapters 900 and 906
of the 1999 Virginia Acts of Assembly. The Virginia Land Conservation Foundation has
received $1.75 million in funding this year, the first time the Foundation has ever had any
monies to expend. I am delighted that the 1999 General Assembly recognized the worthwhile
goals of the Foundation and has enabled it to enrich and protect Virginia's rich natural
heritage.
Thank you for notifying the Governor of the Board of Supervisor's Resolution and recent
decision to earmark $1.0 million to the County's Purchase of Development Rights program
for FY 2000. I will keep your efforts and resolution in mind as we move forward with budget
preparations.
Thank you for writing the Governor on this very important matter."
Item No. 5.7. 1999 Statement of Assessed Values for LoCal Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies, as prepared by the Virginia Department of Taxation, was
received for information.
Item No. 5.8. Copy of letter dated September 1, 1999, from the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III,
Governor of Virginia, to the Honorable Daniel Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, re: drought designation
for Virginia counties, was received for information.
"On behalf of Virginia's poultry producers I thank you for agreeing to my request to have the
Emergency Conservation Program eligibility guidelines changed to include poultry producers.
This important change will be of great benefit and assistance.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Previously, I wrote you requesting drought designation for a total of twenty-three Virginia
counties. I am now also requesting that that you designate the Virginia counties of Albemarle,
Appomattox, Culpeper, Fauquier, Nelson, Nottoway, Rappahannock, Russell, Spotsylvania
and Westmoreland as primary disaster areas to ensure farmers in these counties are eligible
for any available emergency assistance.
Attached are the official damage assessment reports that were prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture for each Of these localities which show alfalfa, apple, corn, hay,
soybean, tobacco, wheat and pasture damages from the drought. Based on the damage
assessment reports, we estimate that the farmers in the ten counties covered by this request
have experienced losses in agricultural crops totaling more than $31 million. For all the 33
damage assessment reports that I have submitted thus far, total crop losses exceed $124
million.
I appreciate your attention to this request and look forward to your response in the near
futu re."
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-97-05. Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). Request to amend the Comp Plan for
property consisting of approx 53.89 acs located in Urban Neighborhood 4. TM76M(1), Ps2A&2B.
Property E of Fifth Street Extended (St Rt 631) & N of 1-64. The proposal seeks to change the
designation of the area from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from
LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Scottsville
Dist (deferred from September 1, 1999).
Mr. Tucker mentioned the following letter in the Board members' packets from Mr. Steven W.
Blaine, representing the applicant, withdrawing the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amemdment,
CPA-97-05.
"September 15, 1999
Mr. Charles S. Martin
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: CPA-97-05: Brass, Inc.
Dear Chairman Martin:
On behalf of the applicant in the referenced matter, we respectfully withdraw our application for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-97-05. This request is being delivered prior to the
Board's consideration of the application at its meeting tonight. Upon your receipt of this request,
the applicant expects that processing of the application will cease without further action by the
Board.
Very truly yours
(Signed) Steven W. Blaine"
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the original application to amend the Comprehensive Plan was at the
applicant's request. Mr. Cilimberg responded, "yes".
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is disappointed that the Board did not have the opportunity to
follow this process through to completion. He has met with the applicant, and he thinks it would be
appropriate to accept the withdrawal of CPA-97-05, Brass, Inc. He further stated that when the DISC
report becomes available, he thinks the Supervisors should review all similar sites such as this one on a
comprehensive and logical basis to implement strategies of urban area growth and development. He
reiterated that he is sorry the Board didn't have the opportunity to continue with this application, but he
understands the applicant's hesitation about going forward.
Mr. Marshall said he is very sorry that the applicant is withdrawing his request, and he is
extremely disappointed in the staff. He does not feel the staff listened to anything he said at the Board
meeting two weeks ago, and this application was for his district. He thought southern Albemarle had
some representation on this Board when he was elected, and the Supervisors are elected by district and
not at large such as the City Council. He had the same thing happen to him in the City of Charlottesville,
and he does not understand how something like this can happen. He cannot understand how this request
could be totally ignored when the vast majority of the citizens of southern Albemarle wanted a discount
store where they could do their shopping. He pointed out that this is $1,000,000 or more in revenue that
will be lost to Albemarle County every year. The piece of property is now being put back on the market as
an industrial site, and he does not believe this site will be used for anything nearly as good as what was
proposed. The applicant has been dealing with the situation for two and one-half years and has done
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
everything the Planning Commission and staff have requested. He thinks the applicant probably feels the
same way he did when he withdrew his request from the City Council in Charlottesville. He emphasized
that this is a loss to the citizens of southern Albemarle, and it is where most of the poor people live. Most
of the people who are either living on a fixed income or a limited income would have had a place to shop,
and they would not have to drive through the City of Charlottesville which takes 30 to 45 minutes.
He told all the Supervisors the same thing in his e-mail messages to them, and he is very
disappointed in the ones who did not support him in his district, when for years he has given them support
in their districts. He is very upset about this situation, and he hopes the applicant will reconsider and
come back with a plan that this Board will see fit to accept. He reiterated that the people of southern
Albemarle want a store such as the one that was proposed, and he does not think it is fair to the people
who live there that they don't have more support than they do.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that he was not being critical of the staff on this issue. Mr. Marshall
emphasized that he is being critical of staff.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting that sites be considered that might have
incorrect zoning. Mr. Bowerman replied that he is suggesting that there are scattered sites throughout the
urban area that are zoned for Light Industrial use. He mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan currently
calls for transitional use with the Sperry property. Mr. Cilimberg said the Sperry property is shown for
industrial use, and so is the proposed site. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks there are a number
of sites that can be reviewed comprehensively and the same standards could be applied. He thinks it
would be appropriate at that time to consider the issue again as well as any other issues that might deal
with the urban area. Comprehensive Plan changes or zoning changes could be reviewed which would
enable things to happen that currently are very difficult to have happen in the urban area. He remarked
that, since the applicant has taken this action, this could be a comprehensive review rather than a
piecemeal situation.
Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Marshall that he was disappointed in the staff's presentation to the
Board. Mr. Martin said when the Supervisors left this room after the discussion relating to this matter, he
thought they had all agreed on a very reasonable compromise. He thought things were moving forward,
and it was the type of thing that could almost be presented on the Consent Agenda. He was shocked to
find the level of detail being imposed based on the three changes that the Supervisors made as a
compromise. He is a member of the DISC and part of its recommendation is for flexibility, and he thinks
flexibility is the opposite of what was presented here. He then referred to the fact that different things
were requested for different portions of the property, which he said is the opposite of the DISC
recommendations. He explained that the DISC is recommending that certain overall mixed use concepts
be considered as far as how to determine how they will be done. DISC is not recommending a blueprint
where certain things have to be put on certain portions of property. This has nothing to do with whether or
not he would have supported the project. He thought the Supervisors left the meeting room with a
reasonable compromise, and he did not see such a situation come back to this Board.
Mr. Bowerman disagreed. He thought this was exactly what came back to the Supervisors. He
went on to say the problem lies with the detail of the submittal of the rezoning and the Planned
Development/Mixed Use issue. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was to outline to the
applicant things the County officials were looking for, and they did not choose how many were involved for
different things. He was hopeful that the applicant would then come forward with a plan of development
which would contain a number of elements that Could be mutually agreed upon which would accomplish
the applicant's goals, the community's goals as well as the County officials' goals. This was an attempt to ~
get to that point.
Mr. Martin stated that he thought the requirements were too specific. Mr. Marshall pointed out
that the applicant had already agreed to incorporate over 20 acres of open space, but the staff added an
additional five acres. This is micro-management. If a piece of property is going to be developed, and an
anchor is desired, then the anchor will have to be offered something to come there or the project will not
move forward. Without an anchor, this piece of property in question will not be successful. He
emphasized that the applicant had already given a lot to get to this point. Mr. Marshall said he wanted
more than the Rooker/Rieley compromise, and he was willing to go along with it, but the staff took it a step
further and made it impossible for the applicant to develop the property. He said market forces enter into
the situation.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he believes market forces would have come into play when the
development plan was presented. This is the opportunity that was lost. The Board tried to do something
creative which combined residential, a regional attractor, plus community use in an urban community.
This would have been a very unique situation, but he thinks it could have been done. Mr. Marshall
mentioned that this type of situation would have been in direct competition with the City of Charlottesville
and the mall and that is what everybody wanted to avoid.
Ms. Thomas stated that she feels it is very important when the staff is being criticized for those
Board members who do not feel that way to make their feelings known. She is very proud of the staff's
work, and she thinks the goals of efficient use of this land required a great deal of planning. If there was a
majority of the Supervisors who did not agree with the staff's recommendations, then this discussion
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
would not be happening. The staff members showed initiative in finding other sites and examples
because the Supervisors don't have this expertise, and they (the staff) took the comments of the
Supervisors at their meeting and worked with those comments. She is also proud of the community which
demonstrated the need for discount shopping. She is not a fan of this type of shopping, and she thinks
the community which showed that need would have been pleased with this business because it would
allow discount shopping in that location. She is also proud of the community that pointed out and did a
tremendous amount of research in telling the Supervisors the difficulties of the proposal. She learned a lot
from information sent in her direction. She thinks it is a shame the project is being dropped because she
believes it was one of the most exciting opportunities seen in a long time. This is an exciting and
interesting piece of property, but it can be a handicap to the person who owns it when the community gets
this involved. However, she thinks County officials developed a plan of which everybody would have been
proud. She stated that any subsequent applicant will know that a lot of planning effort went into this matter
as far as what should be done on this piece of property, and she is sorry the opportunity will be lost at this
time.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that it is viewed as an industrial site, and this is certainly a possibility.
Ms. Thomas stated that she believes the staff members have done some of the best planning they have
done for a long time, and she appreciates what they have done.
Ms. Humphris remarked that when she read the staff report she was elated because it solved a lot
of the details that were not totally resolved in the Board's work sessions. She felt the staff had finally
discovered how unique and special this piece of property is and how it requires special things to utilize it in
the best interest of the entire community. She felt as though the staff achieved this to the satisfaction of
City officials and the people who wanted discount shopping, as well as the people who have
environmental fears. She was looking forward to having this discussion tonight and making a good
decision that would have been best for the community, and she is disappointed that the applicant did not
see all the positive things included in the staff report. She thought the staff report was excellent and very
well done, and she is pleased to know the staff will go the extra step to give the Supervisors the
background information and creative ideas they need.
Mr. Martin commented that he is not criticizing the planning the staff did, but the staff doesn't own
the property nor does the Board of Supervisors. Things can be required, but it has to be done with
consideration of the property owner, because there has to be some working together before anything can
be accomplished. He hopes the County will start acquiring its own property through the PRD (Purchase of
Development Rights) Program, and although the County won't own the property, it will have a financial
interest in it.
Mr. Tucker noted that this was a complicated and complex project, and the staff worked hard to
try to pull together a variety of thoughts and comments. The staff members met with the applicant this
week and discussed some of the issues, and they believed there were areas that could be resolved
tonight. There are some areas that can be improved upon, but part of democracy is discussing such
issues at these meetings and hearing the different opinions.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the action that needed to be taken by the Board on this issue. Mr.
Martin answered that there is the option of voting for or against the application or allowing the applicant to
withdraw.
Mr. Davis explained that there are several options available to the Board. He stated that Board
members can decide for or against the application, or they can allow the applicant, at his request, to stop
the process and terminate the application. The Board would not have to vote on the matter in this
instance. He also explained that the Supervisors could defer the item for further input. He added that
another option would be to refer it back to the Planning Commission and have the Commissioners
examine surrounding properties, as well as this one, which were referenced in the staff report for an area
plan review that is more comprehensive.
Mr. Bowerman said he doesn't want to terminate the process, although the applicant doesn't have
to pursue it. He thinks Mr. Davis' fourth suggestion is a good one, and he referred to the100 acres
between this site and Avon Street. There could be less specificity about where things should be located,
but a community use is desired for that property. He would like to keep the opportunity open without
foreclosing it. Mr. Marshall stated that the community doesn't own the property. Mr. Bowerman
responded that the community doesn't own most properties, but ever since the beginning of civilization,
land use, laws, public service and public safety, there has been the process that is going on at this
meeting tonight. It will continue well beyond the depth of this Board.
Mr. Martin stated that he doesn't disagree with Mr. Bowerman's comments, because he would like
to have more discussion on the issue. If Mr. Bowerman's suggestions are followed, the Board members
will be implying that they may or may not want to follow the DISC recommendation after it goes to the
Planning Commission and then gets back to this Board. It seems to him if the applicant wants to
withdraw, he should be allowed to do so, and this would remove him from the process. After the DISC
report is known, the Board can decide what it wants to do not just for this piece of property and the
adjoining properties but Countywide. Mr. Bowerman concurred.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Humphris pointed out that Mr. Bowerman's original suggestion was to wait for the DISC report
and then do a comprehensive review of all such properties.
Mr. Bowerman said he is willing to accept the applicant's withdrawal of the application, but he
would like to keep the matter open by incorporating what is going on to date into ongoing work the staff
and Board will be doing. The staff has spent a tremendous amount of time, and the applicant has spent a
lot of money getting to this point. He stated that a lot has been learned and information has been
collected throughout the community. He would not like to see all of this terminated even though this
particular individual has chosen not to pursue his application. He added that, to a large degree as a
business person, he understands the applicant's frustration with the process. It can be a difficult and
tedious process. He mentioned an ARB matter that should have been done six months ago, but has not
been handled yet. Sometimes things take a long time to work out. He referred to the fact that 80,000
people live in this area and half of them live in the urban area. Albemarle County has a bigger urban area
than Charlottesville, but everybody is not ready for this type of planning.
Mr. Martin suggested that a motion be made to allow the applicant to withdraw.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to permit the applicant
to withdraw CPA-97-05, Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Next, Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board members learn by information gathered from the
experience with CPA-97-05 and that it be used in the current process. He also asked that the work which
has gone into this process not be lost from the Board's, staff's and the public's point of view.
Mr. Marshall reminded the other Supervisors that there are a lot of people from which they did not
hear who do not own computers. They are working class people, and they cannot come to these
meetings. He is the only representation they have.
Mr. Perkins commented that it seems the discussion has centered around making the site fit the
building, but he thinks the building should be made to fit the site. He mentioned that the County has this
problem with some of its school buildings. He has been very disappointed with some of the recent plans
because it seems as though it is so easy to move dirt and take down trees and have a flat spot on which
to build. It is different than it was 50 to 100 years ago, and even though it can be done easier now, he
thinks a building should be made to fit the land as closely as possible.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-36. Foxfield-CV202 (Sign #95).
~ooo~, ~- (Applicant requests deferral until October 20, 1990.)
Ms. Humphris commented that Mr. Cilimberg had a letter from CFW Wireless requesting that SP-
99-36 be deferred for 30 days to give CFW representatives time to study some additional information they
received from the County. She asked if Mr. Cilimberg knows anything about this matter.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the additional information to which Ms. Humphris referred is included
in the Board members' packets. This information includes the minutes of the Agricultural/Forestal District
Advisory Committee. CFW officials want to be able to further review these minutes and look at the
relationship of their proposal to the agricultural/forestal district.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to defer SP-99-36, Foxfield-CV202
until October 20, 1999. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None..
Mr. Perkins commented that the Advisory Committee's recommendation is not to allow these
towers in agricultural/forestal districts. He wondered why this request would not be denied, anyway. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that this is the recommendation to the Board. However the Board will need to make a
decision on the special use permit to establish whether or not the tower would actually be in the
agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Perkins asked who will make this decision. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
Board of Supervisors will have to decide.
Mr. Davis noted that the Agricultural/Forestal Ordinance specifically provides that the Board can
approve a special use permit in a Rural Areas zoning district that is in agricultural/forestal use, if it finds
that it is consistent and that it is not an intensified use by definition. The Commission approved the special
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
use permit and found that it was consistent with the agricultural/forestal district, so this Board could
approve it regardless of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Humphris stated that she has asked Mr. Davis for some more information on the item. She
would forward his answer to Mr. Cilimberg because it is very long, but it is very helpful. There are lots of
things that need to be understood when such a matter is before this Board the next time. She then asked
Mr. Davis if it was agreeable to him if she forwarded his reply to everybody. Mr. Davis answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the information the Supervisors have already received on this matter
should be retained or discarded. Mr. Cilimberg answered that anything the staff would provide as a follow-
up would be with a new executive summary. However, the staff report will stand as it is.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: ARB-F(SDP)-99-47. Colonial Auto Showroom. Preliminary review of
plan to construct new automobile sales showroom between two existing showroom buildings. Located on
W sd of Rt 29, S of Rio Hills Shopping Center. TM45 P94B. Znd HC & EC. Rio Dist.
"July 27, 1999
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey: -~.
This letter is to formally appeal the July 19, 1999 decision of the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and request a review of same.
The ARB staff advises us that written transcripts or minutes from their meetings involving our
application are not yet available. Therefore, I will attempt to outline below the course of events and
am enclosing copies of documents from my files that should more fully evidence this issue.
We are required to obtain approval from the ARB for a major site plan amendment to allow us to
build a small (4,000 square feet) showroom between our existing showrooms and build an
addition to our service department (not visible from Route 29).
We filed our application for a preliminary conference with the ARB on February 8, 1999. That
conference was held on March 1, 1999.
On May 17, 1999 we made written request to the ARB to be placed on their agenda for June 7,
1999, but that request was denied, as our request was not in the proper form.
On May 26, 1999 we submitted our Application for Certificate of Appropriateness with Addendum
and we were placed on the Agenda for Monday, June 21, 1999.
Many issues arising from our original preliminary conference on March 1, 1999 and the
subsequent meeting on June 21; 1999 have been resolved. The remaining outstanding issue is
that of landscaping along the entrance corridor (Rt. 29). A decision on that issue was deferred at
the June 21, 1999 meeting pending our submission of additional information.
To conform with the ARB's request for additional information arising from the June 21, 1999
meeting, we made inquiry, which resulted in the information outlined in our letter to Ms. Pickart of
July 15, 1999 (a copy of which is on file). Pursuant to that letter the ARB again reviewed this
matter on July 19, 1999 and their decision is attached (on file).
We believe the Architectural Review Board has not comprehensively reviewed our specific
circumstances and that their decision of July 19; 1999 does not reflect our best interest as a
commercial property owner engaged in a designated business on Route 29 in Albemarle County
for over ten years.
Our assertions would be that, (1) the 24 inch hedgerow would not enhance the visual appeal of
our property from the entrance corridor but, in fact, would detract from the "park-like" landscape
we have striven to maintain on this site over the past years; (2) we are in the automobile sales
business and to place a hedgerow of minimum 24 inch height along the curb in front of our
automobile display area would be detrimental to the business we are licensed to operate at this
location and; (3) that we are one of the few businesses along Route 29 that has a sprinkler
system which waters not only our grass but the VDOT right-of-way as well. The location of a
hedgerow would impede the ability of the sprinkler system to operate properly to reach the grass
we currently maintain. We are unable to relocate the sprinkler system because of the sewer
system easement explained in our July 15th letter.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
We would further assert that the planting scheme recommended by Virginia Power Arborist Kathie
McDaniel of the addition of two Amur Maples between each pair of pear trees in front of our
property and the placing of those two maples in an irregular bed planted with Purple
Wintercreeper would satisfy all utility restrictions, not unduly obscure the product we sell and
would be more visually appealing to the motorists on Route 29 than a hedgerow.
We respectfully request a review of this matter at this time by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
Please advise as to any further information you may require and/or any hearing dates, which are
scheduled.
Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
H. Carter Myers, II1
President"
Mr. Cilimberg said Colonial Auto applied for Agricultural Review Board (ARB) review of a major
site plan amendment for a new showroom building and an addition to the service building. The existing
Colonial Auto site is landscaped, but the landscaping does not meet the ARB's standards. The ARB
typically requires the upgrading of landscaping to meet the standards when existing sites expand.
The application progressed through preliminary (March 1, 1999) and final (June 21, 1999 and
July 19, 1999) ARB reviews, with most issues of concern being worked out between the Board and the
applicant. The final outstanding condition of ARB approval identified at the July 19 meeting was the
addition of a row of 24-inch high shrubs along the Route 29 frontage, instead of the proposed purple
wintercreeper, which would grow to only about ten inches tall. The ARB indicated that the addition of 24-
inch shrubs is intended to provide a consistent line of landscaping all along the Entrance Corridor. The
applicant indicated his desire to maintain visibility of the cars on display.
Subsequent to the applicant's August 9, 1999 letter of appeal, revisions were made to the
landscape proposal. The revisions, consisting of the addition of Amur Maples, Bar Harbor Juniper (which
would grow to about ten inches high) and Aaron's Beard Hypericum (which would grow to about 18 inches
high), were presented to the ARB at its September 7, 1999 meeting. The ARB did not approve the plan,
because the Iow-growing Juniper and the Hypericum groundcovers would not meet the intent of the ARB
landscaping guidelines.
The ARB has not approved either of the alternate landscape proposals because they do not meet
the ARB landscaping requirements. At its meeting on September 7, 1999, the ARB clearly stated its
position that 24-inch shrubs are an integral part of the Entrance Corridor streetscape. Staff recommends
that 24-inch shrubs be a required element of the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner, was present to answer specific
questions.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he drove up and down Route 29 North today looking at the
different sites, and it is true that a number of sites have bushes, and they are separated approximately six
feet on center. They are individual bushes and they are not hedges. Some sites such as Brown's was
significantly redone, and he assumes there is a landscape plan that hasn't been implemented. There is a
variety of landscaping arrangements, and although he understands the need for consistency, this plan is
so close it doesn't look as though it would make any difference. He went on to say the applicant's
proposal and the ARB's desires are represented in this plan in a close enough form with landscaping that
is already in that area in various forms to conform. Ms. Pickart responded that the ARB was considering
the height, and the proposal was considered by the ARB as ground cover rather than shrubs.
..... Mr. Bowerman inquired if an 18 inch shrub would be acceptable. The shrubs do not have to be
planted and then grow to a tall height. They can be trimmed, and it looks as though most of the
landscaping in that area has some sort of maintenance by the property owner. Ms. Pickart answered that
the shrubs referred to as being 18 inches will get to a maximum height of 18 inches. Mr. Bowerman said a
24 inch shrub is considered a high level shrub, and it is better because then the car bumpers cannot be
seen.
Ms. Thomas said she also drove up and down Route 29 and examined the landscaping there.
She was impressed with the landscaping newly planted at the First Citizens Bank. It had a hedge
appearance, and the bushes were mostly approximately 20 inches tall. If they had been a bit shorter they
would still have resembled hedges. She has the feeling the ARB desires a hedge appearance as opposed
to the Juniper ground cover appearance. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that all the hedges hav. e holes in
them. Ms. Thomas answered that the hedges at First Citizens Bank won't have any holes in them within a
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
year. Mr. Bowerman said if the hedges are trimmed, they will have holes, and most of them are trimmed
as individual bushes.
Ms. Thomas stated that she drove all the way to Washington D.C. and back again so she could
consider what other communities are doing. She added that this entrance corridor is so much nicer than
anything in other communities on Route 29, and Colonial Auto is one of the nice things to be seen. She
appreciates the lights installed there long before the County's ordinance required them. She was looking
for something to continue the hedge appearance, but would not be 24 inches in height. She added that 24
inches will cover up more of the cars, and when the owner is trying to show the public that there is a
particular type of car available, it doesn't help to see the windshield and above. She said cars tend to look
the same from the windshield upward. She stated that more of the car needs to be shown, so she was
searching for a compromise of something that was approximately 20 inches tall. She measured bushes,
and she thinks 20 inches is a nice compromise. She appreciates the ARB's attempt to have a shrub type
of appearance, and she appreciates the need of a business that is selling cars to be able to show the cars.
Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. Thomas can suggest the name of a 20 inch shrub. Ms. Thomas
replied, "no." She said Citizens Bank seems to have the right size shrub. Ms. Pickart stated that she is
sure there are lots of shrubs that could be chosen that will grow to 20 inches in height and could be
trimmed to stay at 20 inches. She said the ones shown in the current plan will not grow that tall.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to have the plan go back to the ARB so the ARB and the
applicant can work out a compromise. It seems they are so close, that any decision made by this Board is
arbitrary. The ARB members know what they are doing, and the applicant knows what he wants.
. Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, commented that he has lots of experience in
representing clients before the ARB, and he was surprised when he heard from his client that this issue
was outstanding. The pre-application meeting was held in January, and the applicant was in front of the
ARB. The ARB does an excellent job, and in this instance the members of the ARB felt that the design
guidelines called for 24 inch shrubs although the language indicates that the shrubs "should" be 24 inches
instead of "shall" be 24 inches. He suggested that perhaps this Board could assure the ARB that there
are circumstances such as those presented in this application where it is okay to relax the 24 inches
requirement and find a suitable alternative that both brings the owner of the property flexibility and meets
the overall objectives of the ARB which is to improve the entrance corridor. His client has complied and
gone beyond the landscaping requirements on a voluntary basis, and anyone driving down that segment
of Route 29 will be impressed by the maturity of the landscaping there. The improvements that triggered
the ARB approval are only a 4,000 foot addition on a site that is over 11 acres. He added that the client
has proposed major landscaping, and he is willing to do it. Mr. Blaine stated that he thinks the design
guidelines on the shrubbery are intended to address the sharpness of the parking lot that can be seen
from Route 29. The applicant's proposal will soften this sharpness with a ground cover which can grow to
approximately 18 inches without obscuring the display lot. He pointed out that this is a display lot for an
automobile dealership, and it is what customers need to see to know there is going to be a variety offering
of inventory. He remarked that it is critical to understand the interest of the business.
Mr. Bowerman read from the ARB's reaction to the applicant's request that, "shrubs shall be
provided as necessary to minimize the parking area's impact on entrance corridor streets." He wondered
if the sentence could be ended at this point, and he asked if this would give the ARB flexibility to look at
different sites and keep harmony among the different property owners but not require a definite size. Ms.
Thomas asked what the rest of the recommendation states. Mr. Bowerman replied that it indicates that
shrubs should measure 24 inches in height.
Mr. Davis said these guidelines were recommended to the Supervisors when they were adopted
some time ago. The Board has the ability to amend the recommendation of the ARB and to approve the
permit with this modification. It could be communicated to the ARB that the Board would like to see this
much flexibility. Mr. Marshall suggested that a motion be made tonight to this effect.
Mr. Blaine stated that he is not suggesting there is something wrong with the Board's design
guidelines. He then pointed out that the improvements are actually below the elevation of the street at
First Citizens Bank. Ms. Thomas disagreed. There is a double swale there. Mr. Blaine said the grade is
clearly above the elevation of the street at Colonial Auto Center. He commented that he hopes the Board
can support a motion approving the applicant's compromise proposal.
Ms. Humphris stated that she does not think the applicant's proposal is a compromise because
the applicant has proposed ground cover for the areas where there are supposed to be 24 inch shrubs.
She added that ground covers do not achieve the effect that the guidelines indicate should be achieved
along the street. She referred to the ARB's statement that shrubs are a critical component of the intended
streetscape structure. She cannot agree with accepting the ground cover instead of 24 inch shrubs
because that does not meet the guidelines. She thought 24 inch shrubs were being discussed versus 20
inches, and she didn't think the discussion related to ground cover versus 24 inch shrubs.
Mr. Blaine remarked that the height of the landscaping at the site must be considered because
there is an irrigation or a sprinkler system installed along the curb of the parking area. He added that if a
taller shrub is installed, the sprinkler heads will be unable to water the lawn area which is attractive in its
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
own right. The irrigation system cannot be located in advance nor in front of the shrubs because of the
constraints of utilities in the right-of-way. He explained that the applicant has worked with Virginia Power
and the Service Authority to find something that can be planted and maintained in this area. It has to be
recognized that there are utilities in the entrance corridor which will constrain the applicant. This is why
the design guidelines are not mandatory nor written as an ordinance but rather written with a view to
having some flexibility so unique circumstances can be recognized. The Board's message back to the
ARB approving this request would say that the ARB is doing a good job applying these guidelines across
the board, but this is a unique circumstance, which is why there is a review process.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she does not think the members of the ARB would have been so
perSistent if they had felt that ground cover was suitable. This situation has been going on for a long time,
and she thinks it shows that the ARB members meant what they said. She added that they wanted a
consistent streetscape, and ground cover didn't do it. She does not like going against the ARB's
recommendation when its members seem so positive that something other than ground cover is needed
there. Even if the bushes cannot be as tall as 24 inches, shrubbery could be used instead of a ground
cover.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman said the Board believes the ARB is doing an excellent job, as well as
the staff of the ARB. The streetscape along Route 29 is changing as was contemplated that it would over
time as new projects move in and old projects get redone, and this request has been instituted by a 4,400
square foot building. He saw a variety of plantings and a variety of ways to set up what the ARB is
attempting to do with landscaping along Route 29 North, and he recommended that the applicant's
proposal be accepted. He then moved approval of the applicant's appeal of the ARB's landscaping
requirement. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that hfs motion to approve the applicant's proposal is not taking
anything away from the ARB.
Ms. Thomas stated that she cannot support the motion because shrubs are different than ground
cover. She said flexibility should have come into play by not requiring that the shrubs be 24 inches tall in
front of an automobile show location. She saw evidence where a lot of other property owners in this
community have had to put in shrubs which means people are working together.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas is indicating that she thinks all the trees need to be taken out
and replaced with shrubs. Ms. Thomas answered that shrubs do not replace trees but, instead, they take
the place of ground cover.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99~47. 3D Studio Expansion (Sign #36). Public hearing on request to
allow construction of sound stage studio & 2 employees in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord
which allows for home occupation. TM21, P31, contains 23.46 acs. Znd RA. Located on Burnley Station
Rd (Rt 641) approx 3/4 mis from Rt 29. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.)
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 30 and September 6, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report for SP-99-47. The applicant is proposing to establish
a television sound stage to produce educational programs with two employees. The property is located on
Burnley Station Road (Route 641) approximately 3/4 miles from Route 29, and it is zoned RA. The sound
stage is proposed to be located in a 3,240 square foot building which is a 1,200 square foot addition to an
existing building of slightly over 1,000 square feet in size. He noted that deliveries to the site will take
place approximately once every two weeks in a regular size delivery van, and the two employees will be
coming and going each day. He said all activities will be conducted indoors, and although it has been
noted that there will be increased traffic with employees, the applicant will be working at home so he will
not be coming and going every day. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that VDoT has recommended that the sight
distance to the east be improved, and the entrance be upgraded to private standards, and the applicant
has agreed with these recommendations. The recommendations are part of the conditions that come to
this Board from the Planning Commission with some modification over the staffs original
recommendations. He pointed out that there are a total of six conditions, and the sixth condition includes
all the performance requirements that must be met to establish the special use permit.
There being no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Richard B. Drumm, the applicant, showed the Board members a model of the proposed
building, and he pointed out the existing structure which had been a garage. The main house is next door,
and in 1992 when he got married and moved into the house, the two buildings shared the same address.
He probably was not out of compliance with the home occupation permit at that time, but when E911 was
implemented and the studio got a separate address, perhaps at that time he was out of compliance. He
has rotated the building 90 degrees from the original plan to save a peach tree, and he created a model to
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
figure out the direction in which the roof was going to shed water. The proposed building is 40 feet long
and 30 feet wide with a double door for driving a vehicle into the building, if necessary, along with a few
windows and walk-in doors, It is basically a big, metal box with insulation to make it soundproof and quiet
inside, and it is to be used for a children's educational public television show.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, but no one came forward to speak. Mr. Martin
then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin mentioned that one of the members of the public, who spoke at the Planning
Commission meeting, had some questions regarding noise and how it will be monitored. He thought the
Planning Commission members did a good job in discussing these questions. He then recommended to
the other Board members that someone make a motion for approval.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-47 subject to the
six conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Humphris commented that 3,240 square feet is significantly larger than the maximum of 1,500
square feet that is in the plan for a Class B home occupation. She thinks this is an unusual circumstance
since there are no close neighbors, and nobody is opposing the application. This separates the request
from the other recent one which was very heavily opposed by the neighborhood, and that is why she is
supporting the motion.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be a zoning violation if there is one person, possibly the owner, still
working in the sound stage area at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Davis replied affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the exact time of operation will be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Drumm
responded that the time was not his suggestion, because he often works at night and sometimes
throughout the night. The hours started out as a suggestion, but now it is a requirement, so he will have to
live with it. He mentioned that he will be hiring two people, but it may be awhile before he can get the
program on a television channel. He was hoping the employees would have a day job with some other
source of income because there will be only limited times that his business will be in operation. He noted
that if the employee's day job is from 9:00 to 5:00, it will only leave one hour for his work, if these hours
are required. However, he will do whatever the Board requires of him.
Ms. Humphris inquired if the hours of operation were discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Drumm replied that the hours were not discussed. He was just told that these hours were a
requirement, and it came as a bit of a surprise.
Ms. Humphris wondered if there was a reason given to Mr. Drumm. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that
the Board members look at page three of the special use permit application. He read from the application
where Mr. Drumm described that there would be two people at work besides himself in accordance with
Class B rules, and the operating hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the puppeteers and possibly later
hours when it is just himself working late on an animation or editing. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning
Commission probably just gave a little lead time to Mr. Drumm and made the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
rather than 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He stated the decision as to which time frame is appropriate is up to
Mr. Drumm.
Ms. Humphris pointed out that given the nature of the business and the fact that noise is not going
to be an issue, she does not know why the hours should be restrained.
Ms. Thomas stated that probably the only thing neighbors will be concerned about is the noise,
and most neighborhoods would be as unhappy about it from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. as they would from
6:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. She wondered if condition two could be removed and still have the approval
as something that is responsive to the community.
Mr. Bowerman then amended his motion to approve SP-99-47 with the recommended conditions
of the Planning Commission with the deletion condition two dealing with hours of operation. Ms. Humphris
seconded the amended motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:
Not more than two employees except for family members who reside on site;
The home occupation shall be limited to the proposed 2,242 square feet studio area;
Improve existing driveway site distance to the east and improve the entrance to meet
private standards;
No signs for the business shall be posted on the property; and
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Use shall comply with the following provisions of section 4.14 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
4,14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as vehicles),
must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified below when
measured at the points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., the
permissible sound levels at an agricultural or residential district boundary where adjoining
industrial districts shall be reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall
band for impact noises.
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer, calibrated in
decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line from which the noise
level radiates.
4.14.1.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its
pitch.
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are those
whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values indicated on the
sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according
to its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands prescribed by
the American Standards Association in SI.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies for Acoustical
Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an amplifier and
an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a specified manner. It may
be used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in
discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band,
cycles/second
At residential
district boundaries
At other lot lines
within district
31.5 64 72
63 64 72
125 60 70
250 54 65
500 48 59
1000 42 55
2000 38 51
4000 34 47
8000 30 44
Overall for
impactnoise 80 90
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of earthborne
vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when measured at the
points indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording system,
capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The displacement shall
be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
At residential At other lot lines
Type of vibration district boundaries within district
Continuous .00 .015
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less) .006 .030
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours .015 .075
4,'14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes
such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot line, shall be
permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or
required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law. However, in the case of any
operation which would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. Such rules
and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from stationary
sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating furnaces; open
burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.
4.'14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
4.14.6 RADIOACTIVITY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and safety of
persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used. Determination of
existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the discharge of such
materials into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive
wastes shall be by reference to and in accordance with applicable current regulations of the
Department of Energy, and in the case of items which would affect aircraft navigation or the
control thereof, by applicable current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any
applicable laws enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the
requirements of the Virginia Air Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.'14.7 ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely affect the
operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any operation which
would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall apply.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-99-48. Emmanuel Episcopal Church (Sign #35). Public hearing on a
request to allow the old manse to be used as Sunday school rooms & offices in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of
the Zoning Ord which allows for church building & adjunct cemetery. TM70, P13, contains 11.619 acs.
Znd RA. Located on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt 250) approx 14 mis from Charlottesville near intersect
w/Rt 691. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 30 and September 6, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that SP-99-48 is a proposal from Emmanuel Episcopal Church to use the
existing manse for church offices and Sunday School classrooms. The special use permit will bring a
nonconforming church and cemetery into conformance and allow expansion of the church use. The
church is located on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) approximately 14 miles from
Charlottesville, near its intersection with Route 691. He explained that no external changes are planned
for the building, and although the church would welcome new members, the renovations are to handle the
existing congregation. The church has been in this location since the 1860's, and the manse has been
there since 1910. He pointed out that VDoT recommends the entrance be widened and the radii
improved. Staff supports VDoT's recommendations and the applicant has also agreed to them. The
Health Department has approved the proposed use for the septic system, and the staff as well as the
Planning Commission, recommend approval of the request with six conditions.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Douglas Gilpin, an architect for the project and member of the congregation of Emmanuel
Episcopal Church, acknowledged several members of the congregation who were present in the
audience. He stated that primarily the project involves an interior remodeling job, but the church is so old,
it never had a site plan, so this is a site plan process. It is shown on the National Register of Historic
Places on Route 250 West. He would be delighted to answer any questions from the Board.
There were no questions for Mr. Gilpin, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-99-48, subject to the six
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
There shall be no day care center or private school on site without a separate special use
permit;
VDOT's approval of the entrance width and entrance radii;
Approval from the Health Department;
Future burials in the cemetery shall be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood plain;
No expansion of the mausoleum structure (tombs inside may be added); and
Any future expansion of the church structures or use shall require amendment to this
special use permit.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-99-49. Winndom Farm Bridge (Sign #34). Public hearing on a request
to allow construction of bridge over Jumping Branch (A tributary of the Rivanna Reservoir), in accord
w/Sec 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM44, P19B, contains 35 acs. Znd RA. Located on Woodlands
Rd (Rt 676) approx 2 mis W of Hydraulic Rd. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.)
Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 30 and September 6, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg informed Board members that the applicant for SP-99-49 is seeking approval of a
bridge crossing for farm/agricultural purposes on Winndom Farm, which is located on the southern side of
Woodlands Road (Route 676) approximately one and one-half miles west of the Rivanna River Reservoir.
This is within the floodway of Jumping Branch, and there is fill associated with raising the elevation of the
road to the bridge deck. The bridge, with its associated fill, has been installed without prior County
approval, which is a violation that has been cited by the Department of Building Codes and Zoning
Services. The site is the location of an existing farm road that served as an access from the main dwelling
to the stables across Jumping Branch, and prior to the bridge's installation, vehicles used to ford the
stream. This is a Rural Area designated zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. The bridge is to provide
access to the stables and farm so it falls under the category of an agricultural use because it is intended to
provide limited support to an agricultural population. Since the bridge placement and fill are located in the
alignment of an existing farm road, and the fact that no additional trees were destroyed, the intrusions into
the stream valley have not resulted in a loss of aesthetic resource. He further stated that in an effort to
prevent any residential traffic from using the bridge, a condition has been included which indicates that the
gate located on the southern side of the stream near the stables shall be closed at all times. He explained
that this condition was further modified by the Planning Commission, and he has a suggestion tonight for
additional modification to clarify the intent of the condition.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the request and has revealed no substantial detriment
to life, property or public costs for flood control, and the Engineering Department does not expect the
bridge abutments or fill for the roadway to have a significant increase of flood levels. He commented that
any small increase of flood levels will only affect the applicant's property. He remarked that to verify this,
the applicant must update FEMA's detailed study and obtain a map revision from FEMA for changes in the
flood plain. Also, because the abutments and approaches are within the stream buffer, a mitigation plan is
required by the Water Protection Ordinance. He said staff has recommended approval subject initially to
seven conditions. However, at the suggestion of staff, the Planning Commission added an eighth
condition in its recommendation to this Board requiring the applicant to receive the necessary approvals
from the appropriate State and Federal agencies within six months of the special use permit approval. He
explained that the seventh condition spoke to limiting use of the bridge, and as recommended by the
Planning Commission, not only is there a stipulation that the gate will be closed at all times, but it is also
noted that the bridge shall not serve as access for residential development throughout Route 676, which is
to cut off any through traffic for residential purposes going over the bridge. He then read some language
to the Board which further clarifies this condition and which he thinks would be the appropriate language to
use. He stated that, "The gate located on the southern side of the stream near the stables shall be closed
at all times.. The bridge'shall not serve as access for residential development to Route 676 nor for
Winndom Farm to Route 658."
Ms. Thomas inquired about condition one relating to Engineering Department approval of
computations and plans verifying structural adequacy of the bridge. She referred to page nine of the
Planning Commission minutes that it was suggested by Mr. Morrissett that Engineering should ascertain
that these conditions have been met prior to the item going before the Board of Supervisors. She asked if
the Engineering Department has, in fact, verified structural adequacy of the bridge. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that he does not know if this has been done, but it is a condition that has to be met before the
special use permit can be exercised.
Ms. Thomas verified that there will still have to be a zoning clearance to make sure the structure is
adequate, even if the Board of Supervisors approves the request. Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Martin wondered what would happen if the Board did not approve this application, since the
bridge is already there and in use. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the bridge would have to be torn down.
At this time, Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Peter Eades, representing the applicant, stated that he is in possession of an engineering
report specifying that the bridge is built to higher standards than what would normally be expected for this
type of structure. This was done to protect it from washing away, and it was also built larger to keep the
abutments away from the stream banks to keep erosion down. The property does not have a right-of-way
through any other properties, so the bridge is basically to serve the main structure of the house. The
owner wants to create a park-like setting to beautify the area. He added that Ms. Humphris has looked at
the situation, and he thinks she will verify that the owner is trying to do what he can to protect the area
from future development.
Since there were no questions for the applicant, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sean Flynn remarked that his family has owned the adjoining property next to Winndom Farm
for 30 years. Mr. Winn has created a beautiful property next to him and is committed to maintaining open
space. The bridge and improvements made to cross the stream have cut down on erosion and beautified
the area. As far as the community is concerned, Mr. Winn is doing what people in the area want him to
do, and he is not trying to put in a big subdivision. He said Mr. Winn is trying to enjoy horses and his
agricultural property.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris commented that she had an excellent tour of the bridge and the road leading to it
by Mr. Eades, Ms. Winn and Mr. Flynn. She feels they are going to do their best to please everyone with
what they have done with the property. She would like for condition seven to be changed to read as Mr.
Cilimberg indicated. She repeated condition seven and indicated that with this change she was offering a
motion to approve SP-99-49 subject to the recommended eight conditions. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the land is under conservation easement. Mr. Eades said the land has
been proposed to be put into a perpetual trust for the children of the owner of the property that they will
always keep. There is a family cemetery, and the land will be looked upon as a family heirloom situation.
Ms. Humphris noted that Ms. Winn had explained to her that a right is available for each of the two
sons to build a home on the property.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
Engineering Department approval of computations and plans verifying structural adequacy of the
bridge;
Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the
floodplain;
Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the
stream channel and any associated wetlands;
The applicant shall obtain a map revision from FEMA for changes to the floodplain of Jumping
Branch;
Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream
buffer;
Water quality measures and mitigation methods shall be provided subject to the approval of the
Water Resources Manager;
The gate located on the southern side of the stream, near the stables, shall be closed at all times.
The bridge shall not serve as access for residential development to Rt. 676 or for Winndom Farm
to Rt. 658:-
The applicant must receive the necessary approvals from the appropriate State and Federal
agencies within six (6) months of the SP approval; provided, however, that if the permits are being
prosecuted in good faith, the Zoning Administrator, in consultation with the Chief of Engineering,
may extend the time of such expiration for not more than three (3) successive periods of one (1)
month each.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural
and Forestal Districts, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia:
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
§3-209, Addition to Buck Mountain Aqricultural/Forestal District to add 13.5 acs to
the district. TM17, P321 Znd RA. Located to the S of Davis Shop Rd (Rt 671).
§3-211, Review of Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District to conduct review of
the district. TM97,98&99 consists of 8 parcels & 1,238.145 acs. Znd RA. Generally
located W of Rt 29 (Monacan Trail Rd) & S of Rt 697 (Sutherland Rd) near North
Garden.
§3-221, Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District to add 154.638 acs to the district. TM90,
PIs12&14A. Znd RA. Located NW of Scottsville Rd (Rt 20S).
§3-226, Review of Sugar Hollow Aqricultural/Forestal District conduct review of the
district. TM25,26,27,39&40 consists of 50 parcels & 4871.97 acs. Znd RA. Generally
located to the N & S of the Moormans River.
Creation of the Nortonsville Local AqriculturallForestal District. To create the
Nortonsville Local Agricultural/Forestal District. TM8, P26 comprises 92.575 acs. Znd
RA. Located NWof Nortonsville & S of Boonesville Rd (Rt 810).
Creation of the South Garden Aqricultural/Forestal District. To create the South
Garden Agricultural/Forestal District. TM109, P70 & TM110, Pis 08, 18,&18E.
Cumulatively, the parcels comprise 1265.13 acs. Znd RA. Located S of Cove Garden Rd
(Rt 633). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 30 and September 6, 1999.)
Mr. Martin suggested that it was not necessary for the staff's report on these items. He asked if
there were any questions regarding the seven agricultural/forestal district proposals.
Ms. Thomas referred to the Planning Commission minutes where Mr. Hoague suggested that the
County invest in a few signs to indicate that certain properties are in agricultural/forestal districts and
asking if other people have considered putting their property in one, also. She added that County officials
are always trying to find ways to get people to join agricultural/forestal districts, and she thought this was a
new and interesting idea. She suggested that during budget work sessions, the Supervisors might
consider such signs which could be movable from property to property. This might intrigue some people
as far as this concept is concerned.
Ms. Humphris stated that the Commissioners seemed to have picked up on the idea, because
there was even a discussion as to where the signs should be placed.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that when the Planning Commission reviewed the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural/Forestal District, there had been one withdrawal of property. There has been a second
withdrawal of another portion of a property since that time, although it was not the whole parcel. He added
that he would make this information available to the Board
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, since there were no further comments from the Board
members.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas inquired if all of the agricultural/forestal district items could be voted on at one time.
Mr. Davis responded that there is a single ordinance in the Board members' packets that would
amend and create all six of the agricultural/forestal districts that are at issue. He then noted that he was
not aware of the second withdrawal, and he asked Mr. Cilimberg if the ordinance reflects it.
After reviewing the ordinance in the Board members' packets, it was noted that the second
withdrawal was not included.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the ordinance could be approved as it is before this Board, with the
understanding that there is one piece of property that is listed incorrectly.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the item be listed on the Consent Agenda for the next Board of
Supervisors' day meeting for discussion. .
.... Mr. Davis asked Mr. Cilimberg to describe the parcel. Mr. Cilimberg indicated it is a part of the
property shown on Tax Map 27, Parcel 8E. He noted that Parcel 8E has a total acreage of over 700
acres; and 62 acres would be removed at the owner's request. Ms. Humphris pointed out that this
withdrawal is shown in the report of agricultural/forestal districts given to the Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed that it is shown in the report, but it is not included in the ordinance.
Mr. Martin thought it would be good to follow Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that the item be placed
on the Consent Agenda for the next day meeting of the Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman stated that it is clear
the Supervisors want to approve these districts, but they want them to be accurate. Mr. Tucker noted that
the next day meeting is October 6, 1999.
Ms. Humphris made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer approving the Ordinance to
Amend and Reenact Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The'Code of The County of
Albemarle, Virginia until October 6, 1999.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris.
None.
(Note: The Board took a recess at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Route 250 West Corridor Study.
Mr. Tucker informed Board members that Mr. John Maddux from Whitman, Requardt and
Associates, is the consultant for the Route 250 West Corridor Study, and he will make a presentation to
them on this matter.
Mr. Maddux noted that his company was retained by VDoT to do the Route 250 West Corridor
Study. He made a slide presentation during his report and pointed out a map showing the location of the
project from Interstate 64, through Ivy to Route 29, and to the west corporate limits of Charlottesville. The
2015 Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) recommended to VDoT that this study be done.
This seemed to be implemented by the old CATS plan which identified Route 250 as needing to be
upgraded from two to four lanes. He added that the modeling for the 2015 update showed from two to
four to perhaps six lanes on Route 250 West, and this needed to be studied further, as well as bicycle,
pedestrian and transit movements in the corridor. He explained that this is a transportation planning
study, and there is no money funded for design, rights-of-way acquisition nor construction. It is basically
to assist with the next updating of the CATS plan, so it involves long range planning. This plan discusses
Route 250 West being improved up to four lanes, which is incorporated by the County's current Land Use
Plan.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to which portion of Route 250 West would be upgraded to four lanes.
Mr. Maddux replied that the report only indicates that RoUte 250 West will have four lanes. However, the
report also discusses the Ivy Road Design StUdy.
Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Humphris explained that the four lanes situation is just for the area
examined by the Ivy Road Design Study which was from Emmet Street to the Route 250 Bypass.
Mr. Maddux stated that the Ivy Road Design Study recommended a typical section for proposed
long term improvement of a four lane section and a planted median. This is what has happened in the
past with the study process, and part of that was coordinated with the Citizens' Advisory Committee
established by the County. He remarked that this resulted in a lot of alternatives being studied as well as
a lot of interesting debate about the corridor. He noted that accident data was examined, and there is an
above average accident rate in the Mechum's River area so if a corridor study is being done, this will need
to be taken into consideration. A lot of traffic counts were done for the study, including the Mechum's
River area. He added that the area was expanded to include the Crozet Growth Area to show how traffic
will operate there in the future. The traffic model is based on the County's current approved Land Use
Plan and traffic is generated for a certain area.
He then mentioned short range improvements which amounted to adding left turn lanes and small
safety type improvements. There were five improvements which were discussed, and they were put in
priority order, although there was not a lot of controversy about them. Some other needs were identified,
such as the sharp curve at Mechum's River and the clearances at the Ivy railroad bridge. These type of
things were regarded as future improvements because there was a lot of controversy about these types of
improvements not being minor or short range. However, he wanted to note them. He said 14 long range
alternatives were also considered, and he discussed the ones that were eliminated. First, there was an
upgrade only at Dick Woods Road, and it was eliminated as an alternative by itself, but it was included in
another alternative with reduced speeds on Route 250. An upgrade of Dick Woods Road and widening
Route 250 were eliminated, because if Route 250 is widened, Dick Woods Road doesn't need improving,
since the traffic would be on Route 250. He mentioned that the interchange at Miller School Road was
brought up by the Committee, and a lot of modeling was done with this alternative. There is an inter-
change now at Yancey Mills and 1-64, but the Committee wanted to consider an interchange just east of
there to hopefully draw traffic out of the Crozet area. When the model was done, it basically moves the
traffic from the existing interchange to the new interchange and did not have a major effect on traffic on
the Route 250 corridor, so this was eliminated from further study. To add another interchange to an
interstate facility would also involve a justification study from the Federal Highway Administration and it
was felt it would not be approved because it just shifted the traffic patterns. He then mentioned that an
upgrade of 1-64 to six lanes was considered which was to make sure the capacity of 1-64 was enough to
handle the traffic that wished to travel there. This had an effect on some of the traffic on Route 250, but it
was not enough to indicate that 1-64 had an effect on Route 250 from a capacity standpoint.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the alternatives were eliminated. Mr. Maddux answered that the
alternatives were eliminated through discussions with the Committee, although they were not presented to
the public. There was a lot of support for adding an interchange from the Committee. Mr. Bowerman
wondered if there was support as well as opposition from the Committee members for adding the
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
interchange. Mr. Maddux responded that more of the Committee members supported it. However, from
an engineering standpoint, it was felt that it was very unlikely it would ever be approved at the federal
level. Mr. Bowerman commented that it appears VDoT eliminated the 1-64 interchange because it was felt
that the project would not be approved with federal funding, since it was so close to the other interchange.
Mr. Maddux replied that no matter how it is funded, the fact the interchange was so close to the other one
is the reason it was eliminated.
Mr. Maddux said another alternative was to four lane the western part and eastern part of the
corridor and leave the middle of Route 250 as two lanes. He added that the Committee felt as though it
was just another four lane alternative, and so this was eliminated for that reason. He next pointed out
some other alternatives which he said did not meet the transportation demand on the c°rridor, and
although they slightly reduced the traffic demand, they weren't significant enough by themselves. They
were included in the candidate alternatives, and they were not eliminated. He then mentioned the transit
express bus from Crozet, and he noted that now this area is served by JAUNT. It was felt in the future if
the demand is there, the locality will want to extend better bus service to the area, so it was included in the
candidate alternatives to try to lower the peak hour traffic demand. The Route 240/250 connector is a
planned road, and part of it has been built in the Crozet Growth Area. He noted that it caused a change in
the traffic patterns along the corridor, and it is something the locality supported, so it was included in the
alternatives.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if a model was done showing this road in place. Mr. Maddux responded
that each alternative was modeled and the difference in the traffic was computed. Travel demand
management relates to tele-commuting and staggering work hours. These efforts had a small percentage
of effect on the peak hour demand, and since it is a good thing for any area to promote, it was included in
the traffic modeling.
Mr. Maddux then referred to the upgrading of Route 684 (Half Mile Branch Road) which is a road
that is west of Crozet. It is the desire to draw more traffic from the Crozet area back to the existing
Yancey Mills interchange with 1-64. The locality was pursuing this with VDoT, and there was support for it,
so it was included. This took traffic that was on existing Route 240 over to Route 684 so it affected the
traffic in the western part of the corridor, but there was not much effect on the eastern end of it. He then
referred to the candidate alternatives that were taken to a public workshop. He mentioned Alternative 6
which is the four laning of Route 250, and Alternative 8 which relates to reduced speeds on Route 250 of
approximately five to ten miles an hour, as well as the upgrading of Dick Woods Road to try to get more
traffic over to 1-64. Alternative 8-A deals with reduced speeds on Route 250, and Alternative 12 is an
upgrading of Route 250 to four and six lanes. This alternative came from a modeling effort that was done
for the 2015 CATS plan. Traffic was analyzed with the candidate alternatives in the traffic model which
uses long range planning. He next discussed some graphs on traffic showing average daily traffic on
segments of Route 250 starting at 1-64 and going into Charlottesville. A free flow Level of Service (LOS) is
shown on one of the graphs for discussion purposes. He added that the eastern end of the corridor
already has signals, so it is more of an urban type section. Traffic starts on the western end of the
corridor and builds as it comes into Charlottesville. These are existing actual counts on the corridor. He
remarked that traffic is first analyzed from a capacity standpoint. He mentioned a shaded area on one of
the graphs, which shows the LOS "A" through "C," where there are good operations and people are
comfortable driving the road. He pointed out the LOS "D" area where driving is beginning to be some
nuisance, but drivers consider it to still be okay. The LOS "E" is where there are weekly occurrences of
backups but things are still operating, and the LOS "F" shows more of a daily type of backup along the
corridor. He pointed out that when the level between "E" and "F" is reached, which involves 18,000 cars a
day, no matter what two lane facility is in place, there will begin to be operational problems. Additional
signals will have to be added to get onto the facility, and there will be difficulty making turning movements
on and off the road.
Mr. Maddux commented that next the Land Use Plan and the traffic model were used to project
traffic, but the model only goes to 2015, because that is where the County has done its projections for
growth. This was extended to the year 2022, and a design was used for this period. He showed the type
of traffic expected on a two lane facility at that time, and he pointed out that there are capacity problems all
the way back to the river with the two lane alternative, as well as all the way into town. When this graph is
considered, it doesn't show much traffic growth, but there are more people desiring to use Route 250.
However, because of the congestion, they go to other routes. He remarked that because of the two lanes
on Route 250, the delays there caused people to switch to other roads. It was found that approximately
6,000 cars a day in the year 2022 will divert to Owensville/Garth Road to try to get into the Route 29 North
area. It was felt that this was a negative aspect, and as far as planning for long range, the road is not
designed to handle 12,000 cars a day. Approximately 6,000 cars were diverted to 1-64 which is a good
place to divert traffic, so these two options will have to be weighed. He indicated that the traffic model also
develops travel times, and for 1997 in a congested peak time, the travel time is just over 28 minutes to
travel the whole corridor. If Alternative 8-A is considered, the travel time will be extended almost 20
minutes, so it would be 40 more minutes a day travel time if a person is traveling the whole corridor. He
said the average speed along the corridor would drop about ten to twelve miles an hour with a two lane
alternative. He stated that next improving Route 250 to four lanes was examined. He said because more
people are desiring to use Route 250, the whole 6,000 vehicles that were diverted to Owensville/Garth
Road comes back to Route 250. He mentioned that with a four lane alternative, about 3,000 of the cars
that were diverted to 1-64 come back to Route 250, and it is all still local traffic. There are different ways
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
out of the subdivisions, so there will be a 1or of local traffic coming back to Route 250 and not drifting out
the back of the residential areas. As far as travel time and speeds are concerned, the four lane alternative
brings the traffic back to what it was in 1997, and in 2015 it is predicted to be about the same. He then
referred to Alternative 12 which is the four and six lanes alternative and brings additional traffic back from
1-64. Alternative 12 has no diversion of traffic desiring to use Route 250, so it meets all the desires of the
traveling public in the area. He mentioned that there would be a little less delay and a better average
speed for Alternative 12.
He then gave a summary of the public's comments. He stated that about half the people felt there
is a traffic problem on Route 250, and there were numerous requests for additional signalized
intersections to help people get onto Route 250. There appeared to be support for lowering the speed, as
well as developing better access throughout the area to 1-64 from Crozet. He said members of the public
were significantly opposed when they were asked if they supported the multi-laning alternatives rather
than the two lane alternatives. Three petitions were received opposing any widening of Route 250 West.
At this point, it was felt the Citizens Advisory Committee, as well as the individual citizens' responses,
definitely had an opinion that they wanted Route 250 to remain two lanes. There was an engineering
meeting held to discuss the travel demand in this area. He added that it was felt this needed to be
summarized and a recommendation made based on engineering judgment alone just to let the decision
makers understand the whole picture. From an engineering recommendation, the traffic in the western
end of the corridor didn't grow that significantly, so it was felt two lanes could be kept from 1-64 to the
River with improvements made involving from two to four lanes from the River into Charlottesville. This
would have the same traffic as Alternative Six because there was extra capacity there, and it was
operating at a very good level of service in the design. This would improve the area where there is a
higher accident rate, and it would not divert traffic to the Owensville/Garth Road. It would still dived some
traffic to 1-64, but not as much as a two lane alternative, and there would also be improvements for
pedestrians and bikes. He commented that an evaluation is always necessary, so a matrix has been
included with his report. It compares two lanes versus multi-lanes. There are significantly more costs for
multi-lane improvements when construction rights-of-way are considered, and short term improvement
costs were included. He next showed the pedestrian and bike geometric standards and pointed out that
the two lane alternatives do not provide for any improvements in these areas. The multi-lane does provide
for these things.
Mr. Maddux remarked that another issue relates to the impact to Route 250 which is a scenic
byway. There is no impact with the two lane alternatives, although some people may debate whether or
not traffic backing up is an impact. He noted that with the multi-lane alternative there is an impact
because the facility is being widened and construction is being done. As far as the environmental impacts
are concerned, an environmental overview was done on the corridor. This is a planning study, and it is
not an environmental document as has been seen on other projects. This will have to be studied, and
although there would be some impacts, they are not significant enough to keep the project from being
built. Alternative 8-A would have no impacts, but with Alternative 8, which is the upgrading of Dick Woods
Road, there would be an environmental impact, because the facility would be widened. He pointed out
that public support is strong for two lanes, but there is little support for multi-lanes. He reiterated that the
Citizens Advisory Committee has been in support of the two lane alternatives, and is not in support of the
multi-lane alternatives. The Route 250 corridor in the CATS plan has been in the planning stage to be
upgraded from two to four lanes for some time. He added that through the engineering evaluation of this
corridor, no reason can be seen to stray from that. There is a definite demand created by the projected
development in the area. He noted that local traffic will be using Route 250, and no matter which
alternative is considered, it remains a local traffic issue. He commented that it is not diverting through
traffic off of 1-64 onto Route 250. He had an animation of the traffic to show the Board members whenever
they have time to look at it.
Mr. Marshall inquired if Mr. Maddux actually means three lanes when he is talking about two
lanes. Mr. Marshall pointed out that mOst of Route 250 is already three lanes. Mr. Maddux responded
that the road was originally built as a three lane facility, but most of it has been converted so the center
lane is an optional turn lane. However, there are some passing areas available. He said, as far as
analyzing traffic is concerned, although the passing areas help people get around cars, they don't really
alter the congestion nor the functions of the traffic. When he speaks of two lanes, he is talking about
leaving the facility as it is.
Ms, Diana Strickler, a member of the Route 250 West Citizens' Advisory Committee which was
appointed by the Board of Supervisors in May, 1997, stated that all the members of the Committee live or
work in the Route 250 West corridor that stretches from the City/County line west to Yancey Mills. The
Chairman of the Committee, Thomas W. Payne, Jr., is also present, but due to pressing business
commitments, he has asked her to speak for the Committee. The Committee appreciates the opportunity
to respond briefly to the presentation by VDoT and the consultant, and she noted that she will use the
names of VDoT and the consultant either together or interchangeably. The Committee's final meeting with
VDoT and the consultants was in May of this year, and at this meeting the consultants presented to the
Committee their engineering recommendation. She added that much of what the Supervisors saw tonight,
the Committee members have not seen. All the information has been presented to them, but it was not
put together quite this way, so she is at a little bit of a disadvantage. It probably took some time for the
consultant to draw together the information in this summarized manner.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
In May, as he did tonight, VDoT's consultant emphasized that the recommendation is based on
engineering only, such as road geometrics and traffic projections for the year 2022. She added that this
means the recommendations do not take into account in any meaningful way the views of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee nor the public comments received as a result of the public information meeting held
by VDoT in February of this year. In fairness to VDoT, she thinks the consultant has made it clear tonight
that the engineering recommendation is only one piece of a three piece evaluation matrix; the other two
being input from the Citizens' Advisory Committee, as well as the public. VDot told the Committee at the
May meeting that it is up to the decision makers, namely the Board of Supervisors and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), to make a decision based on three factors -- the engineering
recommendation, the views of the Citizens' Advisory Committee and public opinion. She went on to say
the Citizens' Advisory Committee has been consistently opposed to any widening of Route 250 West, not
because they don't believe that traffic will increase in the corridor, but because the overriding concern is to
maintain the scenic and community character of the road. It is important to note that the statement made
by VDoT that approximately half of the respondents think there is a traffic problem along the Route 250
West corridor, while true, was in response to a question that required a simple yes or no answer. She
added that more significant is that the vast majority of these same respondents is opposed to the widening
of Route 250. Of the 325 written comments received, 285 are either opposed to the widening alternatives
or they are in favor of the no build option. Only 29 people expressed any support for widening the road.
In addition, VDoT received petitions with a total of 284 signatures stating strong opposition to widening
Route 250. From the very beginning of this study, the Committee members have been concerned about
VDoT's stated goal of achieving a LOS "C" which refers to free flowing traffic with no delays on the Route
250 corridor. The information Mr. Maddux posted shows the two lane options are at LOS in the year 2022
and multi-lanes are shown at LOS "C." Even in the beginning the Committee felt that this stated goal
might lead automatically to a recommendation to widen Route 250 and would undermine the Committee's
input in this study. As a result, the Committee sought written assurance from VDoT that the consultants
and the Citizens' Advisory Committee would not be bound by the goal of achieving LOS "C" in the corridor.
VDoT responded to the Committee in a letter stating, "Improving traffic operations based on agoal of
Level of Service "C" is only one of the components to be considered in selecting an alternative." It is
interesting to note that the engineering recommendation presented tonight by VDoT is indeed based on
achieving that LOS "C," confirming the initial misgivings which the Committee expressed 18 months ago.
In evaluating the future of Route 250 West, one cannot overemphasize the fact that according to VDoT's
own traffic survey and, as the consultant said tonight, 95 percent of the traffic on the corridor is local. It
seems clear the view of the people who live and work on the corridor should predominate in the
determination of its future. If'those who use Route 250 daily are willing to accept a level of service lower
than "C" in exchange for the preservation for the essential character of the corridor, then they should be
allowed to do so. The Board of Supervisors must study this important issue in order to arrive at a decision
that is not only the best one for the community but also one that reflects the wishes of the community.
In preparing for this meeting she re-examined the letter from Charlotte Humphris, who was then
the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, that she and other members of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee received upon their appointment more than two years ago. She read from a portion of the
letter that, "You will be participating in a study prompted by VDoT's traffic projections for the Route 250
corridor. It is an interesting time for such a study because of the increasing interest among planners in
finding ways to more efficiently move persons and goods without only considering the width of the
pavement. Route 250 is a highway of national significance to Congress. It is also a local commuting
route, paralleled by Interstate 64, and it handles school buses, trucks, a few bicyclists and about 11,000
cars a day. Your participation will be important in shaping its future." The members of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee certainly hope their participation has made a difference and that their voice and the
voices of the neighbors they represent will be heard as County officials shape the future of Route 250
West. She then read the stated position of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. (See statement dated June
25, 1999 and received by the Board of Supervisors on September 15, 1999.) She thanked the Board for
the opportunity to serve on the Committee and for listening to her tonight.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the Citizens'AdvisoryCommittee is opposed to widening the entire length
of Route 250 west from Emmett Street. Ms. Strickler answered, "no." They were opposed to the widening
to four lanes of Route 250 from the County line west.
Mr. Bowerman referred to Ms. Strickler's comment that the public and the Committee would have
a large part in the decision making process. Ms. Strickler replied affirmatively. She stated that she would
like for the VDoT consultant to correct her if she is wrong, and she would like for the Citizens' Advisory
Committee to corroborate what she is saying. The Committee was very definitely told that this would be a
decision made by the local community because it is a community road. The VDoT consultants did not
foresee a situation in which widening would be imposed. Mr. Bowerman indicated that this is not the usual
process. Mr. Martin stated that he thought Mr. Bowerman's question could best be answered by the VDoT
consultant. He said Ms. Strickler is just repeating what she has been told.
Mr. Marshall asked the location of the City/County line. He went on to explain that between
Emmet Street and the Route 250 Bypass, a large portion of the land belongs to the County. He wondered
if Ms. Strickler is saying that Route 250 should be two lanes west from Bellair. Ms. Strickler answered that
the Committee would like for Route 250 to be two lanes west from the Bypass. Mr. Marshall noted that
Townside is located in the County, and he asked if the Committee is oppoSed to this section being more
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
than two lanes. Ms. Strickler stated that the Committee was thinking of the area of Route 250 from the
Bypass west to Yancey Mills.
Mr. Scott Peyton explained that he is President of Scenic Route 250, which is a County-based
citizens' organization whose membership exceeds 500 citizens of Albemarle County. His group is
adamantly opposed to any widening of Route 250 west of the City line to the western boundary of
Albemarle County. Route 250 is unique in Albemarle County among all the other County roads in that it is
paralleled by a federal interstate highway along the entire expanse of the corridor. In his group's mind
there is no logical justification for building a road which would be similar to a second interstate highway.
His group is also very concerned about the VDoT process, because it seems its study is crafted to support
a preconceived notion that Route 250 will be widened. He referred to Ms. Strickler's comment that some
of VDoT's questioning seems to be directed toward answers with little variation for options of thought.
Some of VDoT's own modeling showed that widening Route 250 would in fact pull traffic that would have
otherwise stayed on the interstate onto Route 250. This information was conspicuous in his mind by its
absence in VDoT's presentation tonight. He also noted'that there is overwhelming opposition by the
public to VDoT's proposal, and this was clearly demonstrated. There is virtually no support in the
community for widening Route 250. The proposed widening would destroy the scenic and community
character of Route 250 as it is known. He mentioned that VDoT touched briefly on the issue of shod term
improvements, and he strongly encouraged that there be the opportunity for community and citizen
involvement in analysis and review of shod term improvements. This summer has been a particularly
strong example of short term improvements that have taken place along the corridor to the extent that
residents who live along the road and people who use the road were in no way aware that these
improvements were going to be made. He is not suggesting that improvements are not needed in some
places, but he is speaking to the desire for establishing a process to provide for the opportunity of
community citizen involvement in the decision making process. He is not suggesting citizens play the role
of engineers, but he is suggesting that VDoT should have the opportunity to benefit from public community
input. The solutions to issues relating to Route 250 require thoughtful and deliberate consideration by this
Board, and those solutions ought not include widening. He offered, as a resource, the Citizens' Group of
Scenic Route 250 as a partner to work with the County in analyzing, evaluating and identifying issues
impacting Route 250 so the most appropriate solutions can be developed to address these problems
within the community.
He then requested the opportunity for a public hearing on this matter specifically to be held at the
October 13, 1999 Board of Supervisors' meeting. The Supervisors owe it to themselves to have the
benefit of public input, and surely the public should have the opportunity to express its views to them
regarding this road in which the citizens feel a strong sense of ownership and pride. He thanked the
Board for the opportunity to make his comments.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that he thinks one consideration has been overlooked, although it may be
out of the scope of the project. If improvements are made to Route 250, the amount of traffic at the City
limits will create a tremendous problem. He suggested that it might be better to keep it spread out on
Route 250, Garth Road and 1-64.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board would be receiving a copy of the consultant's report. Mr. Tucker
answered affirmatively, although it will be awhile before the report is prepared.
Ms. Humphris next asked if a public hearing is a logical step for the Supervisors to take and, if so,
would it be possible to fit it into the October 13, 1999 agenda. Mr. Tucker replied that this is up to the
Board. However, he is uncertain as far as what is already scheduled for the October 13 agenda.
Ms. Thomas commented that there will either have to be a repeat of this presentation by the
consultant or the report will have to be done in writing. She asked about the time frame of the consultants.
Mr. Maddux noted that it will be two months before the report is ready in writing.
Mr. Marshall said the Board has already had a presentation, so he wondered why there has to be
a public hearing. Mr. Martin agreed that the public has made its wishes known.
Mr. Marshall stated that he has no intention of widening Route 250 West. He thinks the people
are exactly right, and widening the road will just put more traffic there and ruin a beautiful road that he
remembers all his life. He would like for the road to remain that way. If people know it will take longer to
get to town, they do not have to move there.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if VDoT is requesting an official position of this Board on this issue. Mr.
Martin stated that this Board needs to decide what the next move will be. He is not trying to stifle public
opinion by not having a public hearing, and he thinks public opinion is necessary. However, the public
does not want the road widened. He wondered what the Supervisors need to do to voice their opinion to
VDoT.
Mr. Wayne Woodcock, a VDoT representative, replied that this is a planning study, and the
purpose of it is to lay out the ultimate plan for this corridor 20 years from now. VDoT is looking for an
endorsement by the Board to adopt this as part of the Comprehensive Plan to use as a planning
document for the Board's planning processes in reviewing development proposals as they occur. He
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
stated that sufficient rights-of-way need to be allowed so that at some point when and if widening the road
is needed, the opportunity is not precluded to do so.
Mr. Perkins asked if such things are not protected anyway in an entrance corridor. Mr. Woodcock
replied that the rights-of-way are there today to the extent that they could be provided for when and if four
lanes are ever needed. Mr. Perkins pointed out that any building along the corridor has to have a 75 foot
set back so it appears that VDoT is already protected. Mr. Woodcock inquired if this is true along the
entire length of the corridor. Mr. Perkins answered that any entrance corridor in the County is protected.
At this time, Mr. Martin suggested waiting until the report is available, and if the Board wants to
hold another public hearing at that time, it can do so. The Supervisors can definitely take action at that
time in terms of their recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan regarding Route 250, which could be
done in a public hearing.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the public hearing held by the consultants was very well attended,
and there were informative materials available, including some things that were not shown here tonight.
She remarked that the public meeting showed an animation of what the traffic will look like if there is no
improvement made to the corridor, as well as how it will look at places such as the Farmington traffic light.
Mr. Woodcock stated that the animation of the vehicles moving is available tonight, if the Supervisors
want to see it.
Ms. Thomas said she was referring to the fact that members of the public had access to quite a bit
of information, and even after seeing all of that, people did not want the highway widened. She
commented that in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, the 6,000 extra vehicles have to be considered that
would end up on Garth Road, and the impact to Dick Woods Road has to be examined also, because it is
also heavily impacted by the alternatives. The Comprehensive Plan considers a wider portion of the
County than just the corridor. She would not insist on having a public hearing if it is felt the public's
feelings are already known, and there was good input already from the public in VDoT's public hearing.
She noted that some of the people asked her how this plan fits in with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
She does not know, and she feels she did not give them an adequate answer. She wondered at what
point does this Board make some sort of decision, and should the Board send its representatives to the
CATS meeting with a charge that would include the Board's reaction to this engineering study as well as to
the public. She also asked if any portion of the Comprehensive Plan has to be revised.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not need to be revised unless the
Supervisors are going to accept the improvements called for by the study. When the study is received,
the Board members can make their comments for consideration during the CATS update which
automatically becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that the Supervisors see the
report and take whatever action they feel they want to take regarding the study, and then go to the MPC
with this action for use during the CATS update. He explained that the CATS plan is currently in the
collection data stages of the update.
Ms. Humphris suggested that after the Board members receive the study, they could have a brief
work session on it. They can discuss it with the facts in front of them and propose their response to it
based on their discussion. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board's response needs to be provided to VDoT
because VDoT is part of the MPC and CATS process, but it also needs to be provided to the Board's
representative on the MPC and those who will be working on the CATS update. He added that by the
time all of this is in place, the next Land Use Plan will be under review, so it all fits together.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she thinks there should be a public hearing held by members of the
Board of Supervisors, if there is any thought that they might propose to widen Route~ 250 West in the near
future. At this point, the public input received is opposed to this widening.
Mr. Woodcock called attention to one aspect of the study through this process. The Land Use
Plan the County provided was used through 2015. He said obviously without some improvements to the
Route 250 West corridor, it cannot support this level of land use in that corridor. When the County's Land
Use Plan is revised, this needs to be considered.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Woodcock is implying that consideration needs to be given to people
working, living and shopping in Crozet. Mr. Woodcock said that is part of what is being planned now. Mr.
Perkins noted that the idea for the Routes 240/250 connector road is to try to make improvements to get
more people to use Interstate 64. Mr. Marshall said the Board will do whatever needs to be done.
Mr. Scott Peyton stated that on behalf of Scenic 250, he would like to strongly encourage and
recommend that this Board take a position to remove widening Route 250 West from the CATS plan. Mr.
Bowerman pointed out that the CATS plan currently calls for a study.
Mr. Martin clarified the Supervisors' comments by saying that the Board will proceed by waiting for
the report. Once the report is received, the Board will have a work session. He stated that if it looks as
though the Supervisors might accept the recommendations of the study, then a public hearing will be held.
If not, things will be left alone, and the word will be passed along to the appropriate people.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Perkins suggested that part of the Board's procedure would be to appoint a standing
committee to review the short range improvements needing to be made to Route 250.
Ms. Thomas suggested discussing the committee, to which Mr. Perkins referred, at the Board's
work session. She then explained that the Citizens' Advisory Committee was a well appointed committee,
and she would like to officially thank those committee members. It was an interesting composition,
because the idea was to get every segment of the public who used the highway, as well as the people
who lived along the highway, on the Committee. The Committee members met a lot of times, and worked
very hard.
Mr. Martin emphasized that he thinks it is important to note, since it was mentioned several times,
that Route 250 is parallel with 1-64, and 1-64 should be used to take the traffic. This makes Route 250 a
local road as opposed to 1-64 which is a through road. He looks at this situation as he did with the
Meadow Creek Parkway going through Forest Lakes. He went on to say it was clearly stated in the study
that it was only for the convenience of the people in Forest Lakes, and if they didn't want it, he was 100
percent behind them not having it. In some ways, he sees this as a similar situation, because 1-64 is for
through traffic, and if the people who are going to tolerate the LOS "F" do so willingly, then he feels it is
their decision. Mr. Bowerman remarked that it was interesting to him that the Supervisors' comments
could carry so much weight for a primary highway.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the data gathered for this study will be very useful both for the next
CATS plan and the Land Use Plan. The consultants have done a good job of compiling the information,
but it is new and greatly enlarges the amount of traffic data available to the County before this study.
Mr. Martin thanked everyone for coming and for their comments.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 10(A), 1997 and April 21, 1999.
No minutes were read.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Tucker announced that he, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas attended a Fraternal Order of Police
dinner recently and accepted an appreciation award which was presented to this Board for its support of
law enforcement in the community. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the award be flamed and placed in the
hallway.
Mr. Tucker informed Board members that the East Rivanna Fire Department has opened a
hurricane shelter in regard to the hurricane threat. Two other shelters located in Crozet and Scottsville will
be certified by the Red Cross in case they are needed. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the shelters are
overcrowded, will an announcement be made, so people in the community will have this knowledge. Mr.
Tucker explained that additional shelters can be opened if needed.
Mr. Perkins referred to Mr. John Martin's comments as far as the water supply meeting being
cancelled. Mr. Tucker answered that the meeting was to be held at Monticello High School, and the
school system's policy is if schools are closed then all activities scheduled in the schools are cancelled.
The school system did not make a decision to close the schools until this afternoon.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County Office Building will be closed tomorrow because of bad weather.
Mr. Tucker said this decision would be made tomorrow, although the City has already closed its offices.
Ms. Thomas inquired if a resolution has been prepared about a state funding source for the
Purchase of Developments Rights program. Mr. Tucker answered that the resolution has not been
prepared. A letter will be sent over his or the Chairman's signature indicating to the state the Board's
concerns over the state's funding of PDR's. He said no motion is necessary.
Ms. Thomas noted that a proposal has been prepared for the use of the state's Conservation
Fund which is something that was requested during the last session of the General Assembly and was put
into effect but was not funded at the requested level. A proposal does exist as far as how the money will
be distributed, and no money goes to the local PDR program. County officials had thought this money
would be coming to their PDR program, but the proposal indicates it could be used site by site. She stated
that if County officials had a particular property they wanted to purchase, they could run it through the
grant application process which would probably take two years. She and Mr. Tucker had discussed
having a letter from this Board's Chairman suggesting that one portion of the proposal be changed. She
then distributed a description of the dedicated funding source for land conservation in Virginia and a
request that there be more funding.
September 15, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Thomas next mentioned that there was an article in a Scenic Virginia Newsletter about CFW
and Trigon and how Albemarle County is working with cellular phone providers. She passed this
information along to the other Board members.
Mr. Martin recalled that he sent an e-mail to all the Board members regarding information from Mr.
Schooner, of the Federal Highway Administration. He stated that it was self-explanatory but he would like
to see the staff's analysis of this information possibly as an item on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas summarized the information, to which Mr. Martin referred, by saying that the state
and the MPO are required to work together. However, if they don't, the local MPO will be penalized.
Mr. Bowerman announced that he will be discussing the urban drainage basin at a meeting to be
held at the Senior Center tomorrow, September 16, 1999, at 5:30 p.m., unless it is cancelled because of
the hurricane.
Mr. Martin suggested that County government operate as the school system has which is with
caution first and practicality second.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to September 16, 1999, for Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City
Council, at Monticello High School.
Due to bad weather, the Board did not adjourn to the Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City
Council, at Monticello High School, which was cancelled. Instead, at 10:00 p.m., the Board adjourned to
its October 6, 1999 regularly scheduled day meeting.
Approved by Board
Initials