1999-10-20October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on October 20, 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; 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 Chief of Planning and Community Development, Mr. David Benish.
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 expressed concern about a Daily Progress newspaper article about a stray bullet
entering a residence recently. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has not responded
to Mr. Tucker's request for information on arrests made during last year's hunting season. Someone
needs to make sure penalties are high enough and laws are strict enough to reduce arms violations.
Mr. Tucker said he will set up a meeting with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and County
deputies to discuss enforcement, request the additional arrest information, and ask Ms. Lee Catlin,
Community Relations Officer, to release public service announcements to inform hunters of increased
enforcement.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve item 5.1, and to accept
the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Reappropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program, $688,677.36 (Form
#99038).
The executive summary states that construction began in FY 1998/99 on the Piedmont Regional
Education Program building located behind Albemarle High School. As of June 30, 1998, construction
had not been completed. This appropriation will reappropriate those construction funds necessary to
complete the building in FY 1999/00.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the reappropriation totaling $688,677.36, as
detailed on Appropriation #99038.
Mr. Perkins asked whether these were cost overruns. Mr. Tucker said, "No, the purpose of the
reappropriation is to reappropriate construction funds."
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following reappropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99~00
NUMBER: 99038
FUND: UNITED WAY DAY CARE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF PREP CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE
1 9810 61194 312350
1 9810 61194 800200
1 9810 61194 800605
1 9810 61194 999999
DESCRIPTION
PREP ENGINEERING/PLANNING
PREP ENGINEERING/PLANNING
PREP CONSTRUCTION
PREP CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT
$65,,640.05
151,000.00
289,928.34
182,108.97
TOTAL $688,677.36
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $688,677.36
TOTAL $688,677.36
Peace,
Item No. 5.2. Letter dated September 30, 1999 from Ms. Rose M. Chioni, President, Our Lady of
regarding Albemarle County residents living within its facility.
"Our Lady of Peace is pleased to report that it has exceeded the requirements of the agreement
dated November 24, 1992, by and between Our Lady of Peace, Inc., a Virginia non-profit
corporation, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Our Lady of Peace now has in residence
within its Assisted Living Facility twelve indigent Albemarle County older adults. In addition, there
are ten other limited income Albemarle County elderly residents in our thirty bed Nursing Center.
The Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace would like to convey our deepest and most sincere
appreciation to you and the members of the Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support of the
indigent elderly.
We invite you and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to visit Our Lady of Peace at
your convenience to see first hand the quality care all of the residents at Our Lady of Peace
receive. Thank you again for your continued hard work on behalf of the elderly poor of Albemarle
County."
Mr. Martin commended Our Lady of Peace for following through on their contract with the County.
Item No. 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board
meeting of August 12, 1999, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-36. Foxfield-CV202 (Sign #95). Request to allow telecom fac in
accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for radiowave transmission towers. Loc on Free
Union Rd (Rt 601) approx 0.6 mi N of Garth Rd (Rts 601/676]. TM 43, P 30N, contains 120 acs. Znd RA.
(This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Jack Jouett Dist. (deferred from September 15,
1999). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and 9, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary, which states that staff recommends
disapproval of the request based on the fact that this property is located within an Agricultural/Forestal
(A/F) District. While the tower did not change the character of the District, it also did not forward the
purpose and intent of the A/F District. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 1999,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-99-36 with ten conditions. The Board of Supervisors held
a public hearing on this request on August 18, 1999 and deferred action to allow review of the request
by the A/F District Advisory Committee.
The A/F District Advisory Committee reviewed this request on August 30, 1999. The
Committee recommended disapproval of this request as long as the site was in the A/F District.
Ms. Humphris said she had been concerned about a possible conflict with requests for towers
within the NF districts. -Thc 2JF---Distrir, t Advise,"; Comm, ittee s~id thcrc w~,s no conflict, as did staff and-
· -,the Pl:n,-,ing Cemm!ss~o;~. She agrees that this does not provide a more intensive use of the property, the
tower cannot be seen from the road, and it does not interfere with agriculture. However, she suggested
adding a condition detailing the distance within which trees can be cut. Mr. Benish said applicants usually
cannot cut trees within 200 feet of a tower.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Easter, the applicant, whether Virginia Power would put their lines in the
trees, as he requested. Mr. Easter said he did not know how Virginia Power chose the location.
Ms. Thomas noted that in one case, getting power to a pole in another location did a lot of damage to
someone else's property. Mr. Dick Shearer, Site Acquisition/Construction Manager for CFW
Communications, said his company had nothing to do with Virginia Power's installation decision. He
added that Virginia Power has to get an easement from Mr. Easter prior to installation. Mr. Bowerman
noted that the applicant has no intention of cutting any trees down except dead ones which will be used for
firewood.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has to consider the protection of rural areas whenever possible,
while at the same time providing income to the landowner. Ms. Humphris said she felt it was not a good
idea to require landowners to withdraw from A/F districts before installing a tower; rather, the Board should
strictly limit land use.
Ms. Thomas asked if the property will be pulled out of land use taxation. Ms. Humphris said,
"Yes." Ms. Thomas said the larger issue facing the A/F Advisory Committee revolves around what
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
constitutes "agricultural use". She asked that Planning staff discuss the installation of towers when the
Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan is discussed. Ms. Humphris said this application
represents a non-intensive use. Mr. Joseph Jones, the Chair of the A/F Advisory Committee, said the
committee requests that the Board provide it a definition of "commercial".
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-99-36, Foxfleld-
CV202, with the ten conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Conditions are as follows:
The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the elevation of the tallest tree
within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the
height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend an additional three (3) feet above the height of the
tower;
The tower shall be
a. The tower
b. Guy wires
c. The tower
designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
shall be of wood;
shall not be permitted;
shall have no lighting; and
d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color.
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless Survey
of a lease parcel and Ingress/Egress Easement" initialed WDF 6/30/99;
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be limited to three (3) flush-mounted panel antenna and
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited;
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless
telecommunications providers as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan
requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a
good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such
other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that
it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a
good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has
offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for
reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider
within Albemarle County;
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special
use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or
this property.]
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that ail light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire.
For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of
maintenance only;
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation
of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of
Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees
may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly
authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred 9200) feet of the tower, or the equipment building;
8. The permittee shall comply with § 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall
not be required;
9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date is
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and
10. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user
that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-26. Jones Stream Crossing (Sign #40). Public hearing on a request
to allow stream crossing of the Moormans River in acor with Sec 30.5.5.2(d)6 & 30.3.5.2.1(2) of Zoning
Ord which allows stream crossings in flood plain. Contains 174 acs. Znd RA. TM26, P56. Loc on
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
(Rt 614) Sugar Hollow Rd approx 1.36 mis E of Rt 674 (Sugar Ridge Rd). White Hall Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on October 4 and 11, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part
of the record. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for the stream crossing with
conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 1999, unanimously recommended
approval of the petition subject to six conditions.
Mr. Joseph Jones, the applicant, said he needs the crossing to eliminate vehicle brakes freezing
in the wintertime. The crossing will be located where the current crossing exists.
Ms. Thomas asked what will happen if the cattle guards are impacted by a flood. Mr. Jones said
they will have concrete footers, so hopefully they will not wash away. Mr. Benish added that the pipes
were designed to reduce the impact of flooding.
Ms. Thomas noted that condition #6 says, "The landowner shall have "the right" to repair..." She
suggested the wording be changed to read, "The landowner has" a duty" to repair..." Mr. Davis said there
is no way to require a landowner to perform such a clean up.
Ms. Thomas asked what distinguishes this crossing from requests for crossings at Sugar Hollow
which were denied. Mr. Benish said this is an extenuating circumstance, because it is an upgrade to an
existing ford and it supports the agriculture use in the area. There is no other reasonable access to the
area. Ms. Thomas said if a residence is added later, she is concerned that other people will want to add
another crossing. Mr. Bowerman said a future Board would have to address any such request. He did not
think the applicant wants to develop a subdivision.
Ms. Humphris noted a typographical error in the conditions provided by Planning staff.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to SP-99-26, Jones Stream
Crossing, with the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Conditions are as follow:
2.
3.
4.
Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan;
Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating
activities affecting wetlands and watercourses;
Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for
encroachments into the stream buffer;
Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing.
These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of
floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts]
of the Zoning ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and
elevations;
Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations; and
The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair, and replace the bridge and floodplain
crossing provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the
original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the
Engineering Department.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-46. St. Luke's Chapel (Sign #37). Public hearing on a request to
allow existing church & new parish hall in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of Zoning Ord. Contains 0.8664 acs.
TM92, P46A. Loc at 1936 Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) approx 2 mis from at inter of Thomas
Jefferson Parkway & Rt 732. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 4
and 11, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part
of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request with four conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on September 21, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of SP-99-46 with four
conditions.
He advised the Board that conditions #2 and #3 appearing in the staff report should have been
deleted, as they were not recommended by the Planning Commission.
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Perkins noted that condition #2 requires the church to commence construction of the building
addition within five years after the issuance of the special use permit. That seems like a long time before
action has to be taken. Ms. Humphris said the church does not know how much time it will take to raise
the funds. Mr. Davis said if the condition is deleted, the church will have to begin construction within 18
months. Mr. John Berberich, the church treasurer, said the church might need five years to raise enough
funds.
Ms. Thomas said churches often find they need a special use permit. Mr. Berberich said this is a
non-conforming use due to the age of the church.
Ms. Humphris noted a typographical error in the conditions provided by Planning staff.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Marshall offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-99-46. St. Luke's
Chapel (Sign #37), with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Conditions are as follow:
Church development shall be limited to the building addition and parking areas shown on the
sketch plan dated 9/9/99 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables,
children's play equipment, and walkways. Location of improvements may change as a result of
Architectural Review Board requirements;
The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at all, within five (5) years after
the issuance of this special use permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
by the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time the
building permit is issued shall be satisfied;
The applicant shall complete all preliminary BMP calculations and, if required by the Engineering
Department, provide BMP facilities for the addition and parking lot; and
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
(Note: Mr. Martin said Agenda Items No. 9a and No. 9b would be held concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 9a. CPA-99-01. Ashcroft Phase 6. Public hearing on a request to amend the
Comp Plan, Land Use Plan, to change existing land use designation for property consisting of approx 20
acs from RA to Neighborhood Density Residential, & to change existing land use designation on adj
property consisting of approx 17 acs from Neighborhood Density Residential to RA. TM78, P51A. Lies
w/in Ashcroft PRD & is loc on N side of Rt 250 E (Richmond Rd) off Hansen's Mountain Rd (F-179).
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 1999.)
Agenda Item No. 9b. Public hearing on a request to amend service area boundaries of Albemarle
County Service Authority for water service only to property described as TM78, P51A, Ashcroft
Subdivision VI, located on the N side of Rt 250E (Richmond Rd). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 27 and October 4, 1999.)
Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary, which states that at its meeting on
February 17, 1999, the Board approved a rezoning for Ashcroft PRD which essentially transposed the
land use designations north and south of the power line crossing Lego Drive. The property north of the
power line (approximately 20 acres) is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan; this has now
been rezoned PRD and consists of lots ranging in size from 0.918 to 1.182 acres. A redesignation to
Neighborhood Density Residential is proposed with this application. The property south of the power line
(approximately 17 acres) is designated Neighborhood Density Residential; this has been rezoned to PRD
as a single lot. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request on the basis of several factors: the
"exchange" allowed the new lots to become and appear to be part of Ashcroft Subdivision; the proposed
lot size is consistent with Ashcroft, and the single 17-acre lot is consistent with others on Hansen's
Mountain Road; Locust Shade, a property which has been surveyed and is potentially eligible for the
historic register, will be less impacted by one large lot adjacent to it than numerous small lots; and with
development of the property designated Neighborhood Density Residential, it would have been hard to
justify retention of Rural Area between it and the Ashcroft boundary.
With approval of the rezoning, the Board adopted a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan
to modify the Development Area boundary for Neighborhood Three. The original intention was to include
the appropriate text and map changes in the next update of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the
applicant has submitted a Jurisdictional Area Amendment request for water service to the rezoned
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
property, and the Board indicated that it wishes to adopt revised Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan
language concurrent with the Jurisdictional Area Amendment. (Since the rezoned property has been
admitted to the Development Area, it is eligible for public water and sewer.)
At its meeting on October 12, 1999, the Planning Commission considered the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, and recommended approval with adoption of the following text, to be added to the
"Recommendations" section of the Neighborhood Three (Pantops) profile:
That portion of the Ashcroft Planned Residential Development located immediately south of the
VEPCO high voltage overhead transmission line and west of Lego Ddve (consisting of 17. 884
acres) does not lie within the Development Area and shall be maintained as one parcel. Because
of its location adjacent to a surveyed property (Locust Shade) which is eligible for the historic
register, it is to remain rural in character and usage other than for agricultural purposes is
discouraged.
The "Location" section of the Neighborhood Three Profile will also be amended to reflect the new
boundary, as follows (shown in italics):
Pantops is bounded on the east by the 600 foot elevation of the Southwest Mountains, the power
line south of Ashcroft, and Lego Drive (excluding the property consisting of approximately 17
acres located at the northwest comer of Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive), on the south
by Interstate 64, on the west by the Rivanna River and on the north by Key West and Franklin
Subdivisions.
Staff further suggested (and the Planning Commission recommended) adding a note clarifying the
status of the Ashcroft PRD (specifically Phase 6) with respect to water service, as follows (shown in
italics):
Utility improvements include:
-The approved sections of Ashcroft PRD (Planned Residential Development) are eligible
for provision of water by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Benish added that Parcel 51A has always been in a development area. The area below the
transmission line is not addressed. Mr. Rick Beyer, representing the applicant, said the 17-acre parcel will
remain one parcel. Mr. Martin added that the request only addresses Parcel 51A development. If the
applicant needs water, there is a process to be followed.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing. Mr. Davis reminded Mr. Martin that both public hearings were being held concurrently.
Mr. Martin then reopened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 9b. With no one rising to speak,
Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve CPA-99-01, Ashcroft
Phase 6, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the request to amend
the service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to property
described as TM78, P51A, Ashcroft Subdivision VI, located on the N side of Rt 250E (Richmond Rd). Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: Mr. Martin said that Agenda Items No. 10a and 10b would be discussed concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 10a. Appeal: ARB-F(SDP)-99-48. Crozet Convenience CenterNirginia Oil.
Proposal to add soffit lighting around the building & install channel letter wall sign instead of externally
illuminated wall sign. Request for waiver of the spillover requirement from the Planning Commission.
TM56A1, P124. Located at NE corner of intersec of Rt 788 (Railroad Ave) with Rt 810 (Crozet Ave) &
Rt 240. 0.73 acs znd C1 & EC. White Hall Dist.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Appeal: SDP-99-100. Crozet Convenience Center Outdoor Lighting
Waiver Request. Request waiver to allow lighting from parking lot luminaires to spillover onto public roads
in excess of one-half (1/2) foot candle, in accord w/Sec 4.17.5(a)1 of the Zoning Ord.
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Benish summarized the executive summary which states that the applicant is appealing two
decisions: 1) an October 4, 1999 decision by the Architectural Review Board, and 2) an October 12, 1999
decision by the Planning Commission.
Following final Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and approval with conditions of a plan for
the Crozet Convenience Center, the applicant made revisions to the design of the building and site and
returned to the ARB for approval of the revisions on October 4, 1999. One of the revisions was the
addition of 14 lights to be flush mounted in the soffit that encircles the top of the building. The ARB has
consistently not approved the lighting of buildings unless the lighting is for safety or security purposes. In
addition, the ARB has consistently not approved building lights that would appear as an illuminated band
around the building, or that would illuminate the building in such a way as to act like a sign. Due to the
location of parking spaces, expected paths of pedestrian travel, and the level of light provided under the
canopy, staff recommended that the four soffit lights closest to the canopy be eliminated from the design.
This would provide for lighting in areas where safety might be a concern, and would remove lights that are
unnecessary due to the provision of other lights nearby. The ARB approved the revision to the design
with the condition that the four soffit lights be deleted from the plan. The applicant is appealing this
decision.
The applicant submitted a final site plan for the Crozet Convenience Center for review and
approval. The photometric plan shows lighting spillover that exceeds the .5 foot candle limit. Section
4.17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for a waiver of this lighting requirement and the applicant's
request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 12, 1999. Final approval of the site plan
cannot be granted without resolution of the spillover issue. The applicant's justification for the request is
that pedestrian and traffic safety issues would be reduced by the additional spillover. (The applicant may
provide additional supporting information as part of this appeal.) Staff recommended that initial lighting
spillover should be maintained at .5 foot candles or less, based on the finding that the lighting would have
a negative impact on the general welfare and that pedestrian and traffic safety issues would be better
addressed by off-site improvements. The Planning Commission denied the waiver request.
By ARB action, it is recommended that the four soffit lights identified in the sketch be deleted from
the plan. By Planning Commission action, it is recommended that the waiver request be denied.
Mr. Benish said following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant met with staff regarding
possible alternatives to the originally proposed lighting. The alternate scheme would locate lights in such
a way that they would provide more pedestrian lighting in front of the convenience store. It addresses
concerns of staff regarding the effectiveness of lighting for safety purposes. The issue now is balancing
total illumination of the site to provide both pedestrian and street lighting. If the Board likes the proposal, a
waiver is still necessary.
Mr. Martin asked if staff recommends approval of the alternate plan. Mr. Benish said if the waiver
is granted, staff must have the ability to administer the accompanying lighting plan to make sure it meets
lighting requirements. The applicant now proposes pedestrian lighting that illuminates the sidewalk, but
staff is still concerned about the total illumination of the site. Ms. Thomas asked if illuminating the
sidewalks is considered "spillover." Mr. Benish said there would still be spillover onto the road from the
lighting on the sidewalks; however, this alternative would allow consistent lighting of all pedestrian areas,
unlike the original proposal.
Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin said the Board should deal with the appeal of the actions of the ARB
and the Commission. Neither group has seen the new proposal.
Mr. Bowerman asked how requirements were established for lights installed for public use.
Mr. Benish said public lighting has to be approved by Virginia Power and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT). The Crozet Community Plan includes lighting downtown, but VDOT has not yet
reviewed the project.
Mr. Perkins said the project has been ongoing for a long time, and he wanted to hear from the
applicant. The issue boils down to only two-tenths of a foot candle of light. Mr. Bowerman said the
County will review the Dark Skies Ordinance in the future.
Ms. Humphris said there are many examples of bad lighting already in existence. A property
owner must be careful not to "light the neighborhood" instead of the site. If the applicant has an alternate
proposal, it should go through the proper channels. Mr. Perkins said any lights installed will lose some of
their brilliance after they have been in place for awhile. Ms. Thomas said the proposed lights might take
care of the spillover problem. Mr. Bowerman asked who would decide whether the plan is acceptable.
Mr. Bill Atwood, the project architect, said the developer met with the community in a spirit of
cooperation and made adjustments to meet residents' concerns about lighting and the orderly progression
of traffic. For example, citizens wanted food service, so a Dairy Queen was added. This business will be
located at a major county intersection, but it is an urban environment. There will be a lot of foot traffic, so
additional lighting is necessary. One citizen suggested the company provide streetlights. The owner
consequently said he would take out the four lights he had previously requested and replace them with
downlit pedestrian lights. Mr. Atwood then showed an example of lighting commonly used. He also
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
showed a light that appears in the Crozet Community Plan, but which violates the Lighting Ordinance.
Finally, he showed an example of a light recommended by staff, which would eliminate light spillover.
Mr. Atwood said the ARB appeal for the four soffit lights will be surrendered if the owner can
obtain approval of the proposed change in the site development plan. Mr. Tucker said staff is more
receptive of this new plan. The Planning Commission was concerned that there might still be some light
spillover, which could create yet another appeal. There is a precedent of lighting sidewalks, so the
applicant would have to ask the Board to approve this alternative. Mr. Benish said staff can work with the
applicant to provide the proper lights.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the brilliance of lights changes over time. Mr. Atwood said road
pavement and lights' lenses get dark over time. Lights on Pantops Mountain, for example, are much
dimmer than when they were first installed. Ms. Thomas said the Knorr Frozen Custard place meets the
requirement for spillover. That site is well-lit and has a lot of pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Martin asked if there was anyone in the audience who could represent the views of the Crozet
public. Mr. Carroll Conley, a Crozet resident, said the applicant has worked closely with the Crozet
residents. No one from the public would oppose the project, because at this time there is no place in
Crozet to purchase gasoline. (Note: Several members of the audience applauded in support of
Mr. Conley's remarks.)
Mr. Bowerman suggested giving staff the authority to review the lights to ensure that they meet
the requirements for pedestrian lighting. Mr. Davis suggested dealing with the waiver first, because if the
Board supports a waiver, the applicant may want to withdraw his appeal. Ms. Thomas said she would not
support a blanket waiver. If a waiver is granted, it has to be specifically worded to address light fixtures
which are on the edge of the property and which light the sidewalk. It is not good to light the sidewalk at
the risk of blinding drivers. Mr. Davis said the ARB will have to approve the streetlights.
Mr. Perkins said roadblocks have plagued this application. For example, the County told the
applicant he had to obtain a signature from a woman who has been dead for years. He called the
Planning Department months ago and was told that everything was going well. He met with staff late in
September and staff said the same thing. This matter needs to be resolved. The spillover is less than
one candle, and the Crozet community wants the project to move forward. Even if the request is approved
at this meeting it may be too late for construction to begin this late in the year.
Mr. Bowerman said other supervisors have experienced similar frustrations. Hopefully an
amenable solution can be reached since the community supports the project. The Board wants to get
away from measuring foot candles by setting design standards that meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. If a proposal meets most of what the County wants, it should be approved.
Ms. Humphris asked what the foot candle standard is. Mr. Benish said he did not know public
street lighting project requirements. He said staff provided direction to the applicant on what the
requirements are. If the Board approves the waiver, it would be done to provide street lighting to the
sidewalk. Mr. Tucker said if the applicant did not meet established standards, the matter would be
brought back to the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to limit the amount of spillover while granting the waiver,
due to the effect of lighting on drivers. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, said the
Street Lighting and Pedestrian Lighting Program does not have set foot candle standards. Virginia Power
determines which lights will provide the proper illumination of a given area. The proposal then goes to
VDOT to make sure there is no conflict between pedestrians and automobiles. If both Virginia Power and
VDOT review the design, the County will have received adequate guidance. The County's only standard
in the Lighting Ordinance is that the light be fully shielded "down lighting." The Zoning Ordinance deals
with the spillover of light from one private property to another. In a VDOT right-of-way such as this, there
is no prohibition on spillover from property onto a roadway. Mr. Benish said when installing sidewalks,
intersections sometimes get illuminated too.
Ms. Humphris said this is a handsome design and the business will be a centerpiece for Crozet.
However, she is not pleased with granting the waiver because it is too indefinite. She would like more
input from staff. Mr. Martin concurred.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has a standard that deals with the safety of both pedestrians and
motorists. The applicant's proposal meets the County's desires.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to deny the appeal of
ARB-F(SDP)-99-48, Crozet Convenience CenterJirginia Oil. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to grant a waiver for the minimum
number of pedestrian lights necessary to provide consistent and uniform lighting of the "public" sidewalk
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
located along the full frontage of the Crozet Convenience Store site in a manner consistent with public
street lighting projects of this nature, and which minimizes the spillover of light onto the public road for the
safety of passing motorists. The lighting shall be subject to administrative approval and shall otherwise
meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Martin and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA
Stormwater Basin to the County.
Mr. Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, said the Colonial Auto Center and Storage
USA sites are required to have stormwater flood and water qualitY management programs due to the large
area of impervious surfaces on both sites. When the Colonial Auto Center site was developed in 1989,
the owner constructed a large, three-quarter-acre stormwater detention basin located between the two
adjacent properties. Storage USA also utilized the same basin to fulfill stormwater management
requirements when that site was developed. The basin straddles and is located on both properties in the
swale of a small stream. While runoff from upstream properties including Berkmar Drive, the mobile home
park and Greenfield Court passes through the Colonial/Storage USA basin, maintenance and repair of the
basin is the responsibility of the two property owners. Section 17-309 of the Water Protection Ordinance
allows stormwater management facilities to be offered to the County for dedication. The County would
assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the basin if the dedication is accepted by the Board.
Maintenance costs are anticipated to be minimal. Nine similar detention basins are currently controlled by
the County.
The Engineering Department identified the Colonial/Storage USA basin as an important link in a
regional stormwater management program during a study of the Woodbrook Channel in 1995. The study
showed the basin was an important measure to control flooding and erosion in the channel. The basin
can also provide stormwater management for a larger, 50-acre drainage area designated for future
development. Dedication of this basin to the County would improve our opportunity to effectively
coordinate stormwater management as development occurs. As a regional basin, contributions from
developers can be used to fund improvements to the basin. By utilizing one large detention basin, the
requirement for smaller ponds located on multiple sites can be minimized.
CMA Properties has offered to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. Initial contacts with
Storage USA indicate it may also be willing to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County, The basin
has been recently inspected and is in good condition. CMA Properties is requesting a waiver of the
requirement to sign our standard Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement in view of its offer to dedicate
the basin to the County. The Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement requires CMA Properties to
maintain and repair the basin, and is a normal condition of approval for a site plan revision. CMA
Properties has submitted a revised site plan and is anxious for approval so construction may begin before
the onset of inclement weather.
Staff recommends the Board accept dedication of the Colonial Auto/Storage USA stormwater
basin to the County, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA, allow the Engineering & Public Works
Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating
dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and require CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater
Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if Storage USA does not
offer its portion of the basin for dedication.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can require developers who feed into the basin to contribute to
its maintenance. Mr. Tucker replied, "Yes."
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to accept the dedication of the
Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwater Basin to the County, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA,
allowing the Engineering & Public Works Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin
Maintenance Agreement anticipating dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA, and requiring
CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy if Storage USA does not offer its portion of the basin for dedication. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), 1999.
No minutes were read.
October 20, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Perkins suggested lights be installed under the Crozet railroad bridge because of the high
volume of foot traffic. Mr. Tucker said Engineering staff will look into this. Ms. Thomas added that there
are many handicapped persons who use that area.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the Paramount Theater. One group has already raised
over $2 million to restore the theater, and they will ask the County for $15 million toward the restoration
project. He hopes the Board will make the con. tribution when it is requested. Mr. Bowerman said
members of the group made it clear that the theater will be available for use by all members of the
community.
Ms. Thomas asked if other Board members plan to attend a meeting on greenways sponsored by
Rivanna Trails at 6:30 p.m. on October 28, 1999. At least three members said they are going to the
meeting. Mr. Tucker said the Clerk did not have to be present.
Ms. Thomas noted that some Board members attended the Piedmont Regional Education
Program Open House dedication. She said it is a unique building perfectly designed to its use.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Laurel Wood Subdivision is a closed session matter. Mr. Davis said it
can be discussed in a closed session in November.
Mr. Martin gave Mr. Tucker a letter he received providing information from the Virginia Department
of Motor Vehicles regarding collecting monies for the Dog and Cat Sterilization Fund.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn 9:05 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., October 28, 1999 Rivanna meeting.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting to the
Rivanna Trails Association meeting at 6:30 p.m. on October 28, 1999. (Note: Only two Board of
Supervisor members were present on OCtober 28, and, therefore, this was not an official meeting of the
Board.)
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date {
Initials