1998-10-21O0000 L
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 21, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bow~rman, 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, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Chief of Planning, Ronald W. Keeler, and Chief of
Community Development. David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters brought up by the public at this time.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to ~approve Item Nos. 5.1 through 5.7 on
the Consent Agenda, and to accept Item No. 5.8 for information. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the fo~ilowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Item. 5.1. Revised Concurrent Resolution to Establish the Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission.
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on December 3,
1997, the Board approved a concurrent resolution with th~ City of Charlottes-
ville and Fluvanna County to create the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commis-
sion. The resolution outlined the membership of the Commission and set out
the primary powers and responsibilities of the newly-formed commission in
anticipation of the new juvenile detention facility. A new Concurrent
Resolution has been forwarded to the Board which replaces the resolution
approved last December in order to add Greene County as the fourth member of
the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission. In addition, No. 5 has been
inserted into the resolution requesting that the Virginia Department of
Juvenile Justice approve a funding request and seek to have the future
commitment of State funds included in the 1999 amendments to the Appropriation
Act for the current biennium. Staff recommends approval of the new Concurrent
Resolution of the Boards of Supervisors of the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna
and Greene and the Council of the city of Charlottesville.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was
adopted:
Concurrent Resolution
of the
Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna and
Greene and the Council of the City of Charlottesville Creating
the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Establishing the
Membership of Such Commission, and Detailing it~ Powers and
Responsibilities, and Requesting the Virginia Board of Juvenile
Justice to Approve State Participation in Funding the
Construction, Equipping and Operation of a 40-Bed Detention
Facility to Be Constructed by Such Commission.
WHEREAS, a need has been identified for the construction
of a juvenile correctional facility to serve the Counties of
Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene and the City of Charlottesville
(the ~Participating Jurisdictions"); and
October 21, 1998 (ReDl~lar Night Meeting) 000002
(Page 2)
W~EREAS, a ~needs assessment" performed at the direction
of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle
indicates that their combined anticipated demand for juvenile
correctional space will be sufficient to utilize a 40-bed
juvenile detention facility expandable to 80 beds; and
WHEREAS, preliminary considerations indicate that this
need can best be met by building a new facility; and
WHEREAS, a program planning study performed for
Charlottesville and Albemarle by Mosely-Harris & McClintock
estimates the total project cost to design and finance the
construction of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (the
~New Facility") at approximately $6.14 million; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle, Charlottesville and Fluvanna have
previously approved a resolution to create a regional juvenile
detention commission, as authorized by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to
16.1-322, to be the appropriate legal entity to plan, finance,
design and construct the New Facility; Greene County wishes also
to become a Participating Jurisdiction; and Albemarle,
Charlottesville and Fluvanna wish to accept Greene's
participation; and
WHEREAS, all four jurisdictions wish to formalize their
request for state participation in the cost of constructing,
operating and equipping the New Facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE BOARDS
OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE, FLUVANNAAND
GREENE, AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THAT:
t. The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Home Commission (the
~Commission") is hereby created and established as a public body
corporate under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
2. The Commission shall have four members, who shall be
the county administrator/executive and city manager of each of
the Participating Jurisdictions, or their alternates designated
as-permitted by state law. As required by Va. Code § 16.1-316,
the Participating Jurisdictions have consulted with the chief
judges of their respective juvenile and domestic relations
district courts concerning the appointment of the county
administrator/executive and city manager to the Commission.
3. The Commission shall have all powers and-
responsibilities conferred upon juvenile detention commissions
generally by Va. Code §§ 16.1-315 to 16.1-322 or successor
statutes, and by any other state laws. Without limiting the
generality of this delegation of powers and responsibilities,
the Commission shall be authorized to:
a. Develop a Service Agreement among the Commission
and the Participating Jurisdictions to establish the basis on
which the Participating Jurisdictions will commit juveniles to
custody in the New Facility.
b. Take such actions as may be necessary to insure
maximum allowable state participation in the cost of
constructing, equipping and operating the New Facility.
c. Upon approval of the Service Agreement by the
Participating Jurisdictions, issue such debt obligations as the
Commission may deem necessary to fund the development of the New
Facility, including any costs incidental to the issuance of such
debt, the establishment of reasonable operating and .debt service
reserve, or any costs incurred by the Commission in anticipation
or execution of such development or the opening of the New
Facility.
d. Arrange for interim financing, from one or more
of the Participating Jurisdictions or otherwise, and agree to
reimburse any of the Participating Jurisdictions for any sums
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
advanced or expenses incurred on the Commission's behalf prior
to the Commission's securing permanent financing.
e. After securing the necessary financing, proceed
with the design, and construction and equipping of the New
Facility and employ architects, engineers, financial advisors,
attorneys, contractors and other technical experts as necessary
to complete such project.
f. Retain the necessary staff, and adopt rules and
regulations as necessary to operate the facility.
4. Any Participating Jurisdiction may withdraw
unilaterally from membership in the Commission at any time prior
to its approval of the Service Agreement. After approval of the
Service Agreement and until any outstanding debt obligations of
the Commission have been fully paid, no Participating
Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the Commission
without the unanimous consent of the remaining Participating
Jurisdictions.
5. By the adoption of this Resolution, the governing
bodies of the Participating Jurisdictions respectfully request
the Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice to approve the maximum
allowable state participation in funding the cost of
construction, equipping and operating the aforesaid New
Facility, subject to further approval of a planning study and
final design, as provided by law, and further request the
Virginia Board of Juvenils Justice to seek to have the
appropriate language indicating the future commitment of state
funds included in the 1999 amendments to the Appropriation Act
for the current biennium, with actual expenditure of such funds
not anticipated to occur until after July 1, 2000.
Item 5.2. Amendment to service (jurisdictional) area boundaries to
provide water and sewer service to proposed Fontana Recreation Center (SDP-98-
64), Fontana Subdivision, Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (portion of).
It was noted in the staff's report that a public h~aring was held April
1, 1998, to consider a request by Hurt Investment Company (previous owner) for
water and sewer service to 119 acres located on Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (portion
of). The subject property is part of Fontana Subdivision, which received
preliminary plat approval on December 19, 19970which in turn was part of the
original "Luxor" parcel. It is located on the east side of Route 20 North,
north of Wilton Subdivision and the Garnett Treatment Center. It lies within
a designated Development Area (Neighborhood 3).
Fontana Recreation Center is located on a 2.15 parcel in the center of
Fontana Subdivision. Use of the center is limited to residents only.
Amenities will consist of a clubhouse, pool and tennis courts. The project
received preliminary site plan approval on October 7, 1998. Amendment of the
service area boundary is required before final site plan approval can be
granted.
At the April 1, 1998, meeting, the Board approved an amendment of the
service area boundaries for water and sewer servmce to Fontana Subdivision as
recommended by staff, provided that a note was included on all plats
indicating that no public water will be provided on those lots above the 600-
foot elevation. The 600-foot elevation serves as the Development Area
boundary. Two of the lots along the eastern edge of the property straddle the
Development Area boundary, and have both P~A and R-4 zoning. Consistency with
County policy permits extension of service only to that portion of these lots
lying within the Development Area. The recreation center is located entirely
within the Development Area in the portion of the property zoned R-4 which
lies below the 600 foot contour. Water service is available on-site adjacent
to and south of the parcel. Sewer service is available east of the site, also
on the Fontana property. It is anticipated that a similar request will be
submitted for Phase IIA of Fontana Subdivision, located adjacent to the
recreation center, within the Development Area and below the 600 foot contour.
This request is consistent with the Board's April 1 action approving
amendment to the Service Area boundaries for the Fontana Subdivision. With
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000004
the Board's concurrence, staff will amend the Service Area map to allow
provision of water and sewer service to the recreation center and to require
that notes be included on the final site plan limiting service to building
sites within the designated Development Area.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the amendment of
the Service Area map to allow provision of water and sewer service to the
recreation center and to require that notes be included on the final site plan
limiting service to building sites within the designated Development Area.
Item 5.3. Appropriation: JAUNT Transportation Gr~nt, $260,917.00 (Form
#98036).
It was noted in the staff's report that in November, 1997, the
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Fluvanna Departments of Social Services in
conjunction with JAUNT, a community transportation system in central Virginia,
received a Transportation Initiatives grant from the State. The grant has
removed the employment barrier of transportation for all VIEW participants in
Charlottesville, Fluvanna County and Albemarle County. From November to May,
more than 6300 trips were provided by JAUNT and 4450 fixed route bus passes
issued. For the 181 clients participating in the program, transportation
services are vital to maintaining employment. However, funding is only
sufficient until August, 1998. Further funding is requested for an additional
11 months taking the program through June, 1999.
It is obvious as new VIEW clients register in the program and as current
clients continue to work that the need for the transportation program is
great. If the program is allowed to continue, Charlottesville, Albemarle and
Fluvanna will continue to make welfare reform succeed. Staff recommends the
approval of Appropriation #98036 in the amount of $260,917.00 all of which
represents State funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99
NUMBER: 98036
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR JAUNT TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATE~QRY
1 1556 53140 343000
1 1556 53140 343001
1 1556 53140 343002
1 1556 53140 343003
1 1556 53140 343004
1 1556 53140 343005
1 1556 53140 343006
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TRANSPORTATION BY CONTRACT $228,900.00
TRANSP SERVICES SALARIES 25,409.00
TRANSP SERVICES FICA 1,944.00
TRANSP SERVICES RETIREMENT 1,383.00
TRANSP SERVICES HEALTH/DENTAL 2,139.00
TRANSP SERVICES WORKER'S COMP 64.00
TRANSP SERVICES TELEPHONE 1.078.00
TOTAL $260,917.00
REVENUE CODE
2 1556 33000 330535
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
VDSS/TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES $260,917.0Q
TOTAL $260,917.00
Item 5.4. Appropriation: Deer Control/Hunting Enforcement, $9937.00
(Form #98037).
It was noted in the staff's report that on May 6, 1998, the Board
approved the use of local funds to supplement the enforcement efforts of local
game wardens during hunting season. This enforcement would be provided by
auxiliary sheriff's deputies, who would assist the two local game wardens
assigned to the County in answering calls, deploying on stakeouts and decoy
details, and responding to calls for service. The local game wardens have
agreed to provide training in game laws to the deputies, who would be assigned
County-owned vehicles to respond with radio communications. As recommended by
staff, records will be kept of these enforcement activities and outcomes, with
a status report presented to the Board following the end of each season.
000005
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
The Board has already approved a total of $9937.00 in local funding for
these enforcement activities. However, formal action to transfer these funds
from the Board's Reserve 5o the Sheriff's budget was never taken. Staff
recommends approval of Appropriation #98037 in the amounm of $9937.00 to cover
the cost of hunting control enforcemens.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of
Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1998-99
NUMBER: 98037
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TO
FUNDING FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
ASSIST IN HUNTING CONTROLS
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGQRy
1 1000 31022 120000
1 1000 31022 130000
1 1000 31022 210000
1 1009 31022 270000
1 1000 31022 600888
1 1000 31022 600859
1 1000 31022 800300
1 1000 31020 800300
1 1000 95000 999990
DESCRIPTION
OVER-TIME WAGES
PART-TIME WAGES
FICA
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
VEHICLE OPERATION
VEHICLE OPERATION
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
BUDGET CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$2,400.00
5,760.00
624.00
153.00
500.00
500.00
2,000.00
(2,OO0.0O)
(9.937.00}
$o.oo
REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.00
Item 5.5. Resolution to accept roads in Lake Reynovia, Phases 2A and 2B
(SUB-89-225) into the State Secondary System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, as requested by the County's
Engineering Department, the following Resolution was adopted:
RES OLUT IOin
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia, Phases 2A and 2B
(SUB-89-225) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated May 28, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and '
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the VirgiDia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet
the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 28, 1998, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats~ and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000006
1)
Blackhorn Lane from Station 10+11, left edge of
pavement of Reynovia Drive (Station 14+40) to
Station 33+81.32, right edge of pavement of
Blackhorn Lane (Station 20+64), 2370 lineal feet, as
shown on plat recorded 3/13/92 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1210, pages 394-400, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, and additional right-of-way
widths recorded on 6/8/93, in Deed Book 1314, pages
340-344; additional drainage easements'recorded on
7/29/97 in Deed Book 1629, pages 553 and 556;
3/23/98 in Deed Book 1685, page 420; and 7/23/98 in
Deed Book 1727, page 658, for a length of 0.45 mile.
2)
Stonecrop Court from Station 10+10, right edge of
pavement of Blackhorn Lane (Station 15+64), to
Station 12+55, rear of cul-de-sac, 245 lineal feet,
as shown on plat recorded 3/2/94 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1210, pages 394-400, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, and additional drainage
easements recorded on 7/29/97 in Deed Book 1629,
page 553, for a length of 0.05 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.5 mile.
Item 5.6. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to Execute
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Refunding Bonds Series 1997I.
It was noted in the staff's report that on November 20, 1997, the
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) issued its School Financing and
Refunding Bonds Series 1997I. With a portion of the proceeds of this bond
series, the VPSA refunded Albemarle County's outstanding 1991A series. This
refunding resulted in the new bonds being issued at a lower interest rate.
VPSA has notified the County that the refunding has resulted in a realized
savings for Albemarle County in the amount of $53,834.26. This savings can
only be expended for public school capital purposes and a special account with
the State Non-Arbitrage Program has been established for this purpose. Draw
downs will be done to reimburse the County for qualifying expenditures.
In order to complete this refunding issue, the VPSA has requested that
the County adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Use of Proceeds
Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and other documents necessary
to comply with requirements for maintaining the tax exempt status of the
bonds. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution
authorizing the County Executive to eXecute the docUmehf~i
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution Authorizing
the Execution and Delivery of a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Use of
Proceeds Certificate and Any Other Necessary or USeful Tax Law Documents in
Connection with the Distribution by the Virginia Public School Authority of
the Net Savings Realized by the Virginia Public School Authority Through the
Issuance by the Virginia Public School Authority of its School Financing and
Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 1997-I, Certain. of the Proceeds of
Which Refunded Albemarle County, School Bonds, Series 1991A; and Authorizing
Any Other Actions Necessary to Achieve the Objectives Contemplated Hereby, was
adopted:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, USE OF PROCEEDS CERTIFICATE AND
ANY OTHER NECESSARY OR USEFUL TAX LAW DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE DISTRIBUTION BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY OF
THE NET SAVINGS REALIZED BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY OF
ITS scHooL FINANCING AND REFUNDING BONDS (1997 RESOLUTION)
SERIES 1997-I, CERTAIN OF THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH REFUNDED
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 1991A; AND AUTHORIZING
ANY OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES
CONTEMPLATED HEREBY
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority (the
"Authority") pursuant to a resolution duly adopted on August 13,
1987, as amended and supplemented (the "1987 Resolution")
issued, amongst other series, two certain series of bonds
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
000007
designated as "Virginia Public School Authority School Financing
Bonds (1987 Resolution) 1991 Series A" and "Virginia Public
School Authority School Financing Bonds (1987 Resolution) 1992
Series A" (the "1987 Resolution Bonds") for the purpose of
purchasing general obligation school bonds of certain cities and
counties within the Commonwealth of Virginia;
WHEREAS, the Authority used a portion of the proceeds of
the 1987 Resolution Bonds to purchase certain duly authorized
and issued general obligation school bonds of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, designated Albemarle County, School Bonds,
Series 1991A ("Local School Bonds");
WHEREAS, the Authority refunded certain of the 1987
Resolution Bonds (the "Refunded Bonds") from a portion of the
proceeds of its Virginia Public School Authority School
Financing and Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 1997-I
(the "Refunding Bonds") issued pursuant to a resolution duly
adopted by the Authority on October 23, 1997 (the "1997
Resolution");
WHEREAS, the Authority anticipates delivering to the
County of Albemarle, its allocable share of the savings realized
from the refunding of the Refunded Bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority in effecting the refunding has
pledged the Local School Bonds for the benefit of the holders of
Bonds issued under its 1997 Resolution;
WHEREAS, the Authority is required to assist the
underwriters (the "Underwriters") of the Refunding Bonds with
their duty to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule");
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, to execute a Continuing Disclosure
Agreement in order for the Authority to assist the Underwriters
in complying with the Rule, and;
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, to execute a Use of Proceeds Certificate
and any other instruments necessary or useful to evidence
compliance with the requirements for maintaining the tax-exempt
status of the Virginia Public School Authority's bonds;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, considers it to be advisabi~r the County
to fulfill the request of the Authority to execute a Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, Use of Proceeds Certificate and other
instruments necessary or useful to comply with requirements for
maintaining said tax exempt status;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Continuing Disclosure Agreement.
The County Executive and such officer or officers as he
may designate are hereby authorized to enter into a Continuing
Disclosure Agreement in the form presented at this meeting as
Exhibit A hereto, containing such covenants as may be necessary
in order for compliance with the provisions of the. Rule.
2. Documentation Required for Tax L~w Purposes.
The officers of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a Use of Proceeds
Certificate and any other instruments, including an 8038-G form,
(collectively, the "Tax Documents") necessary or useful for
evidencing compliance with the requirements for maintaining the
tax-exempt status of the Virginia Public School Authority's
bonds.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8) ~ ~
3. Further Actions.
OOOO0$
The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action
as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable
in connection with the execution and delivery of the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement and the Tax Documents and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
4. Effective Date.
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Item 5.7. Adopt Resolution Authorizing County Executive to Execute
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Refunding Bonds Series 1998A.
It was stated in the staff's report that on April 30, 1998, the Virginia
Public School Authority (VPSA) issued its School Financing and Refunding
Bonds Series 1998A. With a portion of the proceeds of this bond series, the
VPSA refunded Albemarle County's outstanding 1994A series. This refunding
resulted in the new bonds being issued at a lower interest rate. VPSA has
notified the County that the refunding has resulted in a realized savings for
Albemarle County in the amount of $5276.19. This savings can only be expended
for public school capital purposes and a special account with the State Non-
Arbitrage Program has been established for this purpose. Draw downs will be
done to reimburse the County for qualifying expenditures~
In order to complete this refunding issue, the VPSA has requested that
the County adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Use of Proceeds
Agreement, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, and Other Documents Necessary
to Comply with Requirements for Maintaining the Tax Exempt Status of the
Bonds. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution authorizing the
County Executive to execute the documents.
By the recorded vOte set out above, the following Resolution Authorizing
the Execution and Delivery of a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Use of
Proceeds Certificate and Any Other Necessary or Useful Tax Law Documents in
Connection with the Distribution by the Virginia Public School Authority of
the Net Savings Realized by the Virginia Public School Authority Through the
Issuance by the Virginia Public School Authority of its School Financing and
Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 1998A, Certain of the Proceeds of
Which Refunded Albemarle County, General Obligation School Bond, Series 1994A;
and Authorizing Any Other Actions Necessary to Achieve the Objectives
Contemplated Hereby, was adopted:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, USE OFPROCEEDS'CE~TIFICATE AND
ANY OTHER NECESSARY OR USEFUL TAX LAW DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE DISTRIBUTION BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY OF
THE NET SAVINGS REALIZED BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY OF
ITS SCHOOL FINANCING AND REFUNDING BONDS (1997 RESOLUTION)
SERIES 1998A, CERTAIN OF THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH REFUNDED
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND, SERIES 1994A;
AND AUTHORIZING ANY OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE
OBJECTIVES CONTEMPLATED HEREBY
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority (the
"Authority") pursuant to a resolution duly adopted on June 26,
1991, as amended, supplemented and restated (the "1991
Resolution") issued, amongst other series, two certain series of
bonds designated as "Virginia Public School Authority School
Financing Bonds (1991 Resolution) Series 1992" and "Virginia
Public School Authority School Financing Bonds (1991 Resolution)
Series 1994B" (the "1991 Resolution Bonds") for the purpose of
purchasing general obligation school bonds of certain cities and
counties within the Commonwealth of Virginia;
WHEREAS, the Authority used a portion of the proceeds of
the 1991 Resolution Bonds to purchase certain duly authorized
and issued general obligation school bonds of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, designated Albemarle County, General
Obligation School Bond, Series 1994A "Local School Bonds");
000009
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, the Authority refunded certain of the 1991
Resolution Bonds (the "Refunded Bonds") from a portion of the
proceeds of its Virginia Public School Authority School
Financing and Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 1998A
(the "Refunding Bonds") issued pursuant to a resolution duly
adopted by the Authority on October 23, 1997 (the "1997
Resolution");
WHEREAS, the Authority anticipates delivering to the
County of Albemarle its allocable share of the savings realized
from the refunding of the Refunded Bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority in effecting the refunding has
pledged the Local School Bonds for the benefit of the holders of
Bonds issued under its 1997 Resolution;
WHEREAS, the AUthority is required to assist the
underwriters (the "Underwriters") of the Refunding Bonds with
their duty to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule");
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, to execute a Continuing Disclosure
Agreement in order for the Authority to assist the Underwriters
in complying with the Rule, and;
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, to execute a Use of Proceeds Certificate
and any other instruments necessary or useful to evidence
compliance with the requirements for maintaining the tax-exempt
status of the Virginia Public School Authority's bonds;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, considers it to be advisable for the County
to fulfill the request of the Authority to execute a Continuing
Disclosure Agreement, Use of Proceeds Certificate and other
instruments necessary or useful to comply with requirements for
maintaining said tax exempt status;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT REsoLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Continuinq Disclosure Agreement.
The County Executive and such officer or officers as he
may designate are hereby authorized to enter into a Continuing
Disclosure Agre%ment in the f0~ presented at'~h~ '~ting as
Exhibit A hereto, containing such covenants as may be necessary
in order for compliance with the provisions of the Rule.
2. Documentation Required for Tax Law PurpQ$~.
The officers of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a Use of ProCeeds
Certificate and any other instruments, including an 8038-G form,
(collectively, the "Tax Documents") necessary or useful for
evidencing compliance with the requirements for maintaining the
tax-exempt status of the Virginia Public School Authority's
bonds.
3. Further Actions.
The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action
as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable
in connection with the execution and delivery of the Continuing
Disclosure Agreement and the Tax Documents and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
4. Effective Date.
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
O~to~or 2t, 1998 (~g~l~r N±ght ~ooti~g)
(P~ge 10)
Item 5.8. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for September 22 and
October 6, 1998, were received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING to consider granting easements to the
Albemarle County Service Authority over County-owned property adjacent to
Monticello High School pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-1800. (Notice of this
public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on October 9 and October
13, 1998.)
Mr. Tucker said that as part of the infrastructure supporting the new
high school, public water and sanitary sewer were extended to the site. These
public utilities are to be dedicated and maintained by the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA). A deed and plat, documenting the necessary
easements for both the newly-constructed water and sanitary sewer lines and
for future extension of these public utilities, has been drafted. Both have
been reviewed and approved by staff. State law requires that a public hearing
be held prior to the granting of such easements. After holding the public
hearing, staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to
execute the Deed of Easement and Plat. i
Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no member of the public
rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to authorize
the County Executive to execute the Deed of Easement and the Plat.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING to consider the FY 1999-2000 through
2004-2005 Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on October 9 and October 13, 1998.)
Mr. David Benish said the Board had received a copy of the proposed
County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements, and a draft VDOT Six-Year
Secondary Road Construction Plan based on that priority list. That priority
list was reviewed and recommended to the Board by the Planning Commission.
The Board discussed it at a work session earlier this month, and there have
been no substantive changes since that time (see minutes of October 7, 1998).
There has been further information received from the public regarding the
Catterton Road project. So, 'staff recommends that ~W~S~ L~i~h Road be added as
a Rural Addition Project to the priority list. The Board had requested over a
year ago that this private road be added to the Secondary Public System. In
order to use Rural Addition funds, the project will ultimately have to be
included on the VDOT Priority List so it needs to be shown on the County's
Priority List. Staff recommends that it be shown as the top priority on the
Rural Additions List because those are special funds, and this project would
not take away from other projects on the list. Staff can work out with VDOT
later the exact priority listing the road should receive.
Ms. Thomas said her property is located on that road, and the State will
have to accept a deed for property from her. Therefore, she will remove
herself from any consideration of priority for the road project. The
Commonwealth's Attorney has said she does not officially have a conflict of
interest, but when it comes to setting priorities, she does not want to be
involved in that aspect.
Mr. Benish drew the Board's attention to Page 2 of the Executive
Summary,. to Project #20, Blenheim Road Improvement, which shows an amount of
$500,000.00 and it actually should read only $50,000.00.
With no further questions at this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. John C. Martin said he lives on Catterton Roadl He and some of his
neighbors would prefer that Catterton Road remain gravel road. He has written
several letters to the Board. He brought along a chart to illustrate for the
Board members the condition of Catterton Road. He said this all has been a
October 21, 1998 (Regular Nigh% Me~tihg';
oo00 .
distressing, painful process. It is a small road, and it has been neighbor
against neighbor. He wondered if in the future the Board might offer help so
that people can resolve these types of situations. He does not know all the
history of this road, but apparently, this all started about ten years ago.
People deeded the right-of-way for the portion of the road that is in the plan
now. There were seven people who deeded property. Since that ti-me, three no
longer own that property, two have changed their minds and do not want the
road paved, and two still want the road paved. He does know when or how the
project got in the Six-Year Plan the first time. The road does not go
anywhere. It is not a through road. It runs from ROute 601 to Buck Mountain
Road. About one and one-half miles of the road are already paved. Of all
property owners, both residents and non-residents, sixty-eight percent want to
keep the road gravel. There are only three houses on the section to be paved.
Two others are affected because they are at the midway point of the unpaved
section. No person on the road now has to travel more than one mile to get to
paved road.
Mr. Marshall asked if Governor Allen owns propersy on that road. Mr.
Martin pointed out Governor Allen's property and said he signed the petition
yesterday.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Martin to point out where his home is located.
Mr. Martin did so. He said his property is 4.179 acres.
Ms. Jackie Morris said she lives on the paved part of Catterton Road and
her children ride the school bus. She said that last year they had numerous
bus drivers. They came from both directions, Free Union Road through
Catterton, and Buck Mountain Road through Catterton. She said this is still a
farming road with farm equipment using same. There are livestock carriers
with horses and cattle using the road, joggers with dogs, bike riders and
horse riders. If one meets a school bus, it is hard to find a safe place to
pull over to let traffic pass. She asked what will happen when Buck Mountain
Road is closed when the new reservoir is built. She said the natural beauty
in the area is wonderful, but she feels the safety of family, friends,
neighbors and animals are more important. She asked that Catterton Road be
included in the plan for paving.
Mr. William Finley said he has lived in Free Union all his life.
Catterton Road is much the same today as it was back during the Depression.
It is a dusty, dangerous road. The school bus must make sharp turns on sharp
grades. Regarding the petition and the paper Mr. Martin discussed, Mr. Finley
said his name was placed on the petition without his permission. On the
petition are the names of twelve people who live on the paved portion of
Catterton Road. They are not on the section under consideration. He does not
know why they are opposing paving to the northwest. They say they want a
tree- lined rural road, but collectively they own one and one-half miles of
road frontage that has nothing but weed-killed, weed-ea~%h fence rows. There
are no trees at all. Considering the property owners who live on the portion
of the road one mile past Buck Mountain Ford Road toward'Route 601, a majority
favor paving the road. The 67 percent Mr. Martin mentioned obviously includes
people who do not live on the unpaved portion. He asked the Board to give
this request consideration. Some people have been trying to get that road
paved for more than 50 years. Families on Catterton Road have dedicated
rights-of-way for the road and have gotten nothing in return in terms of road
safety or paving. Right now he has a hard time operating his farm equipment
due to the narrow road. He said it is a state route.
Mr. Lee Waibel said he is concerned about the improvement of Catterton
Road from Route 776 (Buck Mountain Ford Road) to Route 601. He appreciates
modern-day amenities and would prefer to have an improved road. Gravel roads
are part of the good old days, and are not necessarily good in this day and
age. The road is a narrow, gravel road. School buses use it extensively. He
feels it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. Farm equipment
uses the road, impedes traffic and exposes the driver to unnecessary risks.
It is dangerous to walk the road due to the speed of traffic. He said that
coupling the improvemenss of this section of Catterton to that currently in
the Six-Year Plan would make good cost-saving sense. Many long-time residents
have wanted the improvement of Catterton Road for decades, however, a
nucleolus of new landowners are attempting to block the rights of longer term
residents. At this time, all the right-of-way agreements and most of the
construction easements have been obtained and submitted to VDOT. For those
areas where construction easements are outstanding, a solution to realign the
road has been suggested. He asked the Board, on behalf of himself and several
0000 2
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
neighbors, to add to the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads, the improvement of
Catterton Road from Route 776 to Route 601.
Ms. Ginger Ashcom said some people object to clear cutting,
straightening and making Catterton Road a ~super" highway. This afternoon she
drove out to the Sugar Hollow Dam. That road has been upgraded without clear
cutting. It is a crooked road and you can't go fast because of the curves, so
that is a safety factor. One thing that would make Catterton safer in a
couple of places would be to grade and to fix it for sight distance. It is a
narrow road. She is not in favor of paving the road except to improve it.
Catterton Road will possibly be a dead-end road when the Buck Mountain
Reservoir is built. If it is paved, she would like to see it paved in a
manner similar to what has been done on Sugar Hollow Road to ensure it retains
its country atmosphere. To make broad cutbacks into the hills and take down
the big trees would destroy the area totally. The road is not a main
thoroughfare, but used by the residents and landowners along the road. It is
not a direct route anywhere.
Mr. Allen Ditman said he has been a resident on Catterton Road for about
ten years. He does not support paving the portion of the road which is under
consideration. Originally, he thought it would be nice to have the road
paved. It is dusty. You have to drive slow because of the graveled surface.
After thinking about it and seeing that VDOT's proposed plan would completely
change the character of the area, he and his wife have changed their opinion.
They now feel they would like to see the road stay as it is. It is a narrow
road, but it is fairly well-maintained by VDOT. He said the people who live
along and travel the road every day know a safe speed is less than 45 miles
per hour and they know that there are portions where they have to be very
careful because of hidden and blind corners. It is his opinion that Catterton
Road would be better left as it is.
Ms. Katie Hobbs said she is a resident of the County. She came tonight
to observe the meeting for the LOWV. As a member of Development Area
Initiatives Study (DISC) Committee it troubles her that the Board is
discussing paving more rural roads. DISC has been agonizing trying to find
incentives so people will either stay in the growth areas or move into the
growth areas. She thinks the Board should think about this for a long time
before adding any more paved roads to the Rural Area unless it is an absolute
necessity. Mr. Marshall said he could not tell if Ms. Hobbs was for or
against this proposal. Ms. Hobbs said she thinks the Board should look long
and hard at paving roads that are not primary roads in the Rural Area. She is
against paving Catterton Road.
Ms. Martha McClay said she lives on the Route 601 end of Catterton Road.
She is concerned about the paving of this dirt road. Originally, she thought
it might be beneficial to the people who live along the road because people
travel at speeds which are unsafe for a dirt road a~d ~h~ dust and mud can be
a nuisance. Upon closer scrutiny of the details of the proposed project, it
seems that paving the road would require widening and thereby cutting down
many trees. Land would have to be surrendered by residents to the State for
this widening and it is not clear which residents this would most impact.
Another concern is about how much the widening would increase runoff in an
area that is designated to have a new reservoir. Streams and springs on Buck
Mountain are in the watershed which feed Buck Mountain Creek and will
eventually flow into the new reservoir. She understands the County is
concerned with development in this area effecting this future water source.
Cutting the trees and widening and paving this road would greatly increase the
amount of runoff from the road. Catterton Road is a dirt road used primarily
by residents of the road as access to Route 665 on one end and to Route 601 on
the other end. It is not a thoroughfare nor a short cut.to anywhere. Why
would people choose to use sparse highway moneys to pave this road when there
are obviously many other projects more worthy of improvements? This, coupled
with the results from the Catterton Road petition showing signatures from a
majority of the residents expressing the wish that Catterton not be paved,
should speak clearly to the Board of the folly of pursuing this project.
With no other member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Martin said he is also a member of the DISC committee. In reference
to Ms. Hobb's statement, there are proposals on the table to limit the paving
of roads in the future, but that concept has not passed the full DISC
committee or has it been before the Planning Commission or this Board. He
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
does not really think that is an issue here tonight when talking about the
current Six-Year Road Plan.
Mr. Marshall said he went out to see Catterton Road. There are no trees
in the area that is to be paved. The trees are on the other part of the road.
It appears to him that there are just fence rows. He asked Mr. Perkins if
that is correct.
Mr. Perkins said there are two different sections. The section in the
Six-Year Plan, as indicated on the map, is from the end of the surfaced road
to Route 776, one mile. There are some people asking that the entire length
of the road be put in the Plan for surfacing. He has always been an advocate
of paving dirt roads. If people think they can keep things rural by not
paving the roads, they are mistaken. Most people seem to move into rural
areas where the roads are not paved, and once they get there, they want to
have them paved. He sees no need to make any change in the Six-Year Plan
concerning Catterton Road at this time; it is scheduled for the year 2002. He
thinks Ms. Ashcom made a good suggestion. Why make a super highway out of
that road, or any gravel road? The Board has talked to Highway Department
representatives about that, and their answer is that they have to built it to
these standards or they have a tore liability, etc. He does not believe that
statement, but he does believe improvements need to be made to the road. It
is unsafe. He does noc think it needs to be a extremely expensive improvement
for a one-mile section. He thinks the $300,000.00 shown could be used to
improve the whole road and make it much safer and more suitable for the
traffic load it carries.
Ms. Thomas asked the staff what process would be followed if the Board
suggested making something like spot improvements. She has suggested to her
constituents at times such improvements, and they have io turn talked with the
Highway Department. Sometimes the improvements were too extensive to be
considered in this way, but at times things have been done by VDOT using their
maintenance funds. Mr. Benish said he understands the Catterton Road project
is not eligible for the Pave-in-Place program. Under an unpaved road process
with VDOT, they indicate they have to built it to their current standards. An
alternative project would be to include a spot improvement project on the
County's Priority List. He asked Ms. Angela Tucker to confirm that a spot
improvement project would be very limited to some of the blind curves and
hills, but might not address the paving concerns which are an issue with some
of the residents. They do want the surface treated.
Ms. Thomas asked if the road could be widened which is one of the things
several people have mentioned. Mr. Benish said it can address sharp curves
and drainage problems. There are projects on the Board's list which are
comprehensive spot improvement projects and which are fairly expensive
projects. 01d Lynchburg Road down to Walnut Creek Park is listed for spot
improvements at over $1.0 million and it is an already paved road. Staff has
not looked at Catterton Road for spot improvements, but he believes there are
some locations where improvements could be made for safety.
Mr. Perkins said there is another thing which needs to be clarified. In
his opinion, there is more erosion from gravel roads because the silt, etc. is
carried off by rain and he thinks the water quality is helped when the road is
paved.
Mr. Benish said a spot improvement project would be a separate set of
funding in the unpaved road projects. That is a mandatory allocation of money
that is spent. A spot improvement project falls in with all the other
projects and is prioritized relative to the other projects. Hopefully, most
of those projects can be done within the existing right-of-way. If not, it
could significantly delay the process of going co public hearing for those
types of improvements. The timing of the improvements could be dependent on
whether additional right-of-way, beyond what was dedicated, ts needed.
Mr. Marshall said the Board needs to vote on the Six-Year Plan tonight.
He asked for a consensus of the Board members to direct Ms. Tucker to look at
Catterton Road for some other type of project.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said she would like to clarify the
difference between the Pave-in-Place program, and spot improvements. Spot
improvements are defined on regular projects to include improvements to paved
roads. In reference to gravel roads, VDOT either does nothing at all, or they
improve the road to minimum VDOT standards. It does involve liability. She
does not think that spot improvements would apply to a gravel road. The other
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
consideration is that when VDOT improves a gravel road, it does so between
fairly set termini, either other state road intersections, or from a state
road intersection to a dead-end. It is not likely, except where there are
extreme mountain grades, there would be any pavzng on a gravel road except for
a very short section due to spot improvements. She does not feel that legally
a spot improvement on a gravel road is a possibility because of the liability.
The Pave-in-Place program would not apply to the road because the fills and
cuts to the road are generally such that they have to be tied back into the
land beyond the 30-foot prescriptive easement that the program allows. That
does not mean that if VDOT does not get all of the dedicated right-of-way
necessary for a gravel road project it cannot work within temporary easements.
Too much of Catterton Road is now gravel, so it would require working outside
of the 30 feet in order to get an 18-foot pavement, two-foot shoulders, and,
at least a three-foot ditch line when the drop off is not down hill from
there.
Mr. Marshall said that clarifies this project for him. He asked for a
motion of some sort so he will know what the Board is considering.
Mr. Perkins moved that the Board accept and adopt the Six-Year Secondary
Road Plan as presented tonight and recommended by staff with the addition of
West Leigh Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas said Item ~31 on VDOT's Priority List and the County's
Ranking 955 is Grassmere Road. She said every year it is noted that full
right-of-way is not available and every year the Board discusses it and it
turns out that the right-of-way is available. She asked the status of this
project. Mr. Perkins said the land is owned by WESTVACO and VDOT has to go
through the process with them just as with any other landowner. Mr. Benish
said he believe the right-of-way is committed. Ms. Tucker said deeds are
being reviewed so that should not be an issue and the wording in the Plan can
be changed.
Mr. Perkins asked if that road would qualify for the Pave-in-Place
program. Ms. Tucker said one section that now has guardrail concerns her.
There must be room for a shoulder and ditch on the cut side of that road. Mr.
Perkins said this project is only on 400 yards of road, less than one-third of
a mile, and it is costing $425,000.00. He thinks that is ridiculous. Ms.
Tucker said VDOT will look at those concerns. She cannot address them at this
moment.
Ms. Thomas said she knows that is a road where the residents want it
paved. Another project, Wyant Lane, has been on the list for more than a
dozen years. She wonders if people have also changed their minds about that
project. She finds herself being more opposed ~o paving rural roads after
Broad Axe Road got paved. Mountainous standards were vigorously worked on by
all of the residents. They thought these would give the least paving and be
the least destructive to the road. The project was very destructive. Now,
the residents are complaining about the speeding traffic on the paved road.
She finds herself thinking that the people who are arguing that they don't
want it paved may end up with a result they can live with longer than the
people who have been 'eating dust" for a long time. She understands their
feeling that they want the road paved, but she urges them to go out to Broad
Axe Road and drive over it and make sure that is what they want.
Ms. Humphris said she would like a clarification of the motion. Is it
to approve the current improvement to Catterton Road as it appears in the Six-
Year Plan, but not to do anything about the other section from Route 776 to
Route 601 which is not paved? Mr. Benish said the motion also included the
addition of West Leigh Drive and for simplicity to make West Leigh Drive as
Priority #1.
Mr. Perkins agreed that had been his motion. Ms. Thomas said she does
not know how to vote since she does not want to vote on the priority for West
Leigh Drive. Mr. Davis said based on what Ms. Thomas has said for the record
tonight, she can clarify that she is not voting on that particular aspect of
this plan. Since the Commonwealth's Attorney has said she does not have a
conflict, the record will adequately reflect her abstention on her own road
project.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
( Page 15 ) .~ .;f. '~.t % '.[ _..[ .,iL :f ;;~M!.
000 5
LU
--I
Llll
> ~ Il
Il
Il
October 21, 998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
II
"
.
II
,,,,
,,
Il
,,
"
"
II
,," ~ ~,
II
,, ~ ~
II
I1
I1
~ W il
~~~~8 8 ~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II ~ ~
II
o S ,, ~ ~ o = = ~ ~ ~ ~
II
II
"
E
O II ~ ~
II
II
~ ~ ~ Ii
~ ~ II
II
II
~ ~ II
~ ~ II
II
' -" -
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17) ~ ~
0000 7
II
II
II
II
Il
II
Il
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
ii O
II 0 [::: ~ ~
'u 'u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,," ~S
II ~
II
II
" ~
II
II
II
II
II
II ~ ~
II
Il
Il
, II ~ 0
H ~
~ ~ 0 0 0
Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z c c 0 0 0 ~ c 0 0 ~ ~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
,' II
I}
II
11
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18) ..........
0000i8
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
,, ~'~'~ '~'~'~'~ .~ .~.~-~
II
II ~ ~
. ~ ,~,~
II ~
II
~~°
" 9 9 9
II
II
II
II 0
II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o m m o o o c~ c5 o o
II 0 N ~ N 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0
II
II
II
II
II
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000019
II
II
II
II
I~ '~. Il
> I~. II
II
II
00002.0
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-98-20. Pantops PD-MC (Sign #94). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request for approval of an Application Plan for general
development of 49.34 acs znd HC & EC. TM 78, P's 20A, 73, 73A, 75 & 76.
Located on S sd of U.S. Rt 250E & W of State Farm Blvd. Property in
Neighborhood 3 of the Urban Area of the Comp Plan is recommended for Regional
Service. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 5 and
October 12, 1998.)
Mr. Keeler said Hurt Investment Company has developed an Application
Plan for its current properties which are zoned PD-MC, Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial, at Pantops. In addition, included in the plan is a 2.8 acre
lot zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This lot is included for access restriction
and traffic generation purposes and no change of zoning classification is
requested. The Application Plan proposes an internal private road network,
sidewalks, utilities and conceptual stormwater measures. Only two sites are
proposed for immediate development The Kroger Shopping Center and the
Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles facility. The remaining sites show a
variety of uses/building area estimates which were employed in the traffic
studies. These uses are not proffered, but, a traffic generation figure is
proffered.
Mr. Keeler said staff focused primarily on transportation issues when
reviewing the Application Plan. The Board has been forwarded a copy of a
fQur-party agreement which would insure the completion and fruition of these
plans. He mentioned the following items set out in the agreement:
a)
Construct a full length turn lane and sidewalk on Route 250 from
the western property edge to Rolkin Road.
b)
When determined by VDOT, extension of the existing raised median
in Route 250 to prevent left turns into or out of Hansen Road.
c)
d)
Extension of the westbound left turn lane in Route 250 onto Rolkin
Road for a minimum of 400 feet full width) plus 150 feet (taper),
etc.
Traffic signal at intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250.
e)
Improvements to Rolkin Road at intersection with Route 250 as
shown on the Application Plan.
f)
Improvements to entrance of Montessori School to align the
entrance with the improved intersection of Rolkin Road with Route
250, to the extent that such improvements are required by VDOT
regulations and legally within the power of the developer.
g)
Extension of right turn lane alon~ ROut~ 2'50 from Rolkin Road to
tie into the existing turn lane at State Farm Boulevard.
h)
The cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of State Farm
Boulevard and Hickman Road when VDOT determines the same to be
warranted in accordance with its regular procedure.
Mr. Keeler said all of these improvements will be made by the developer.
To clarify Item No. f (the improved entrance to the Montessori School), no
clarification has been received from the School saying they agree with the
proposed improvement. VDOT has indicated that as long as the traffic volume
at the Montessori entrance remains comparable to the present count, it will
continue to function. VDOT will recommend, during site plan approval for any
more intensive use by the. Montessori entrance, that the entrance be improved.
By leaving the entrance at its current location, there will need to be come
subsequent changes to the traffic signal. It would behoove the Montessori
School to enter into this agreement and have that improvement done at this
time.
Regarding Item No. g, Mr. Keeler said it requires the participation of
Virginia 0il Company and Virginia Oil has signed the agreement. In regard to
participation in the signal at State Farm Boulevard and Route 250, another
participant in the cost of that signal is Peter Jefferson Place. That was
provided for in a three-party agreement during review of the Peter Jefferson
Place project. Others participating in the road network include Guaranty Bank
(a letter has been received stating that they agree with the amended plan and
the additional access to their property) and the Carriag~ Hill Apartment
October 21, 1998 (Regular Nigh~.Meeting)
(Page 21)
complex (they do not need to sign the agreement because there is already a
condition on their development to obtain access to Route 250 because of the
number of units being constructed). Combined with improvements obtained
during the review process of Peter Jefferson Place, there would be a
limitation of seven points of access including the existing roadways, Rolkin
Road and State Farm Boulevard, from the western edge of the property to the
ramp at 1-64, a distance of 5900 feet. There would be signalization of Route
250 at all warranted points, and there would be an additional eastbound lane
from the western property boundary to the 1-64 ramp.
Mr. Keeler said the applicant has proposed sidewalk from their western
boundary to Rolkin Road. There would be no sidewalks to the west across an
undeveloped parcel of property, or to the east across property of Virginia Oil
Company, the DMV site and Guaranty Savings and Loan Company. Sidewalk would
be provided along the eastern side of Hansen Road from the Carriage Hill
apartment complex to Route 250 at the time of construction of that roadway.
Asphalt walkway behind the ditch line would be provided along the rural
section of Rolkin Road as sites develop. Sidewalk would be provided along the
urban section of Rolkin Road from the rural section to Abbey Road and along
the south side of Abbey Road, at time of construction of. those road segments.
These improvements will ultimately enable pedestrian access from the apartment
complex to the existing banking facilities on State Farm Boulevard as well as
to intervening properties. Sidewalk connections from the Route 250 sidewalk
into the outlots can be required at time of individual site plan approvals.
Ms. Thomas asked what developments on Rolkin Road will trigger the
pedestrian way. Mr. Keeler said that two sections are shown for office space.
Until there is commercial development, it is likely that the only traffic
using Rolkin Road would be from the apartment complex. He explained the road
system and noted staff's recommendations on different configurations. He said
that originally the plans showed a road which went through the parking area of
Guaranty Savings. Staff did not support that option. That road has been
redesigned and Guaranty now has a ~T" intersection into that road which also
connects to Hickman Road. A person could travel by vehicle from the apartment
complex all the way to State Farm Boulevard, but it would be a circuitous
route. Staff did not want traffic volumes at Hickman and State Farm increased
to the level of warranting a signal light because it is a relatively short
distance from Hickman Road to Route 250. It has been VDOT's position for a
long time that they do not support a traffic signal at that intersection.
Mr. Keeler said in earlier versions of the Plan, the Rotkin Loop Road
was not shown. Rolkin Road gets traffic to a signalized intersection and it
goes straight out without having to make left turns. There are also existing
conditions which require externalization of design and connection to other
properties. There have'been several designs of this road system during the
process.
Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Keeler meant by ~limiting access to seven
points." He asked how many access points there could have been. Mr. Keeler
said as a result of the PD-MC zoning category placed on Pantops in 1980, the
County has been able, on over one mile of roadway, to limit that frontage to
six additional points of access.
Mr. Martin asked how many points of access there could have been. Mr.
Keeler said every owner of land fronting the road could have one entrance to
their property.
Mr. Keeler said that on Pages 10 and 11 of the staff;s report there was
a list of recommended actions for the Planning Commission to take if they had
recommended approval of this request~ The Planning Commission, on October 6,
1998, by a vote of 3:2, did recommend denial of ZMA-98-20. He does not
believe the Commission had any expressed concerns about the actions
recommended by staff. He said this proposal requires four modifications or
waivers which are spelled out on Page 10 under Item 3.
Mr. Keeler said 3a is for a waiver of restrictions to development on
critical slopes be granted for and restricted to the Kroger Shopping Center
site, the DMV site, and to those areas shown for roadways and other
infrastructure improvements on the Application Plan. Any subsequent request
for other critical slope waivers as other site plans are presented would go
before the Commission. He said the issue is primarily related to the
Monticello viewshed to insure that future development would be sensitive to
that viewshed.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Keeler said 3b is a request for relief from stormwater detention
requirements. The County Engineer's Office is authorized to make a
modification to provide that relief. Staff reviewed the request for
consistency with general planning/policy issues and did not find it to be
contrary to general planning/policy issues. Staff did, therefore, recommended
that County Engineering be allowed to provide that relief based on their
obtaining satisfaction to concerns about adequacy of water quality measures,
as well as adequacy of downstream channels.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Keeler to explain this condition again. The County
has just passed a new Water Protection Ordinance, but she read this condition
to say the applicant would not be required to follow the. ordinance. Mr.
Keeler said there are two parts to the Ordinance. One deals with quality and
the other deals with quantity. The applicant is asking for relief from the
detention requirements because the Rivanna River is a receiving stream for
this area. In the past, that waiver had been granted under prior require-
ments. He said this new ordinance combines several ordinances which were in
effect in the past. That waiver had been granted based on adequacy of the
channels leading down to the Rivanna. There is no request for relief from
water quality standards. Basically, there will not be a great difference in
the facilities because in order to provide the quality measures, they must
still detain the water.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to be sure they will not be dumping water
directly into the Rivanna River just because it is nearby, but the water will
have to meet the County's quality tests before it is dumped. Mr. Bowerman
said water can no longer be discharged directly into the River. Ms. Thomas
said she just wanted to be sure they are not having that requirement waived.
Ms. Humphris said provisions would be required for water quality requirements.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Keeler to point out the detention area on the map. Mr.
Keeler pointed out the location and said it is in an area of critical slopes.
Staff has asked the Engineering Department and the applicant to look for
another location so there would not be unnecessary removal of trees in order
to install this basin. There is another smaller basin downstream to which the
applicant does not have access.
Mr. Keeler said in review of development proposals in the Pantops area,
staff encourages applicants to meet with representatives from Monticello and
to make modifications to their plans to satisfy any of their concerns. That
process had not been completed at the time of this plan, so the County
Attorney developed language to insure that takes place and the project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation regarding the Monticello
viewshed.
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Dan Jordan called him today to say that he has
talked with Mr. Silverman and is satisfied the applicant will do what is
necessary. He has no problem with the Plan. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Cilimberg
had also talked with Mr. Jordan today and Mr. Jordan outlined some of the
measures because he feels the Plan could be a little more sensitive to the
Monticello viewshed. Mr. Marshall said the applicant will construct the
buildings in an earth-tone and some trees will be left on the property, so Mr.
Jordan thought that would be satisfactory. Mr. Keeler said the objective is
to make this development more sensitive to the Monticello viewshed. In the
past, the applicant and Monticello worked these things out. That had been
very successful. Staff has not been directly involved in the discussions.
Mr. Keeler said the Board has the four requests for modifications/
waivers listed in their materials. He will not continue reading them.
Mr. Bowerman said he also spoke with Mr. Dan Jordan. Mr. Jordan was
concerned that the actual, physical development, when it is finished, minimize
the visual impact as much as possible.
With no further questions from Board members, the public hearing was
opened.
Mr. Steve Melton, representing the applicant for the Pantops Master Plan
Application, spoke first. He said Mr. Silverman is present and would like to
address the Board. There are also two representatives from the Department of
Motor Vehicles out of Richmond Who came to answer questions in regard to the
DMV site plan. He said a lot of hard work has gone into this plan and he
would like to thank Mr. Keeler and all the County individuals for their
efforts and support of this project. The applicant did receive, late this
0000 ,8
October 21, 1958 (R. egul~r Night Meet-ir, g)
afternoon, the draft for the four items that Mr. Keeler just mentioned. The
applicant is in agreement with the document, but he would to like to qualify
in Item ~3 about the rooftop style (Mr. Silverman will comment on that item.).
Mr. Melton offered to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris said she and Ms. Thomas had met with the applicants
recently. They had described what could be done in terms'of additional
sidewalks. She asked where that will be memorialized. Mr. Melton said it can
be done on the final site plan. In trying to get all of the documents to the
County before this meeting, that was not written in, but they are willing to
work with the County on that. Ms. Humphris said the applicant had sketched it
on their plan, but it does not show on the Board's plan.
Mr. John Silverman, with the Regency Development Group of Cincinnati,
Ohio, was present representing the applicant. He said they are the developers
of the Kroger Shopping Center portion of the project. He said that when he
met with Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris they talked about some specific changes
to make the project more pedestrian friendly. The idea is to have people walk
to the project instead of driving. There are some large landscaped islands in
the roadway and they have agreed to install sidewalks going from the front of
Kroger to the outparcel area on both sides of Kroger. Going across the
shopping center drive will be some kind of paver system to delineate the
walking area and force cars to slow down. They will pick up on the same theme
in the outparcels and create a sidewalk on one side so that when the
outparcels are developed, one could walk over to the outparcels. Mr.
Silverman said they have met with Mr. Jordan and they are pleased that it was
communicated with the Board members. The applicant is comfortable with the
four items Mr. Keeler mentioned, except for the statement relating to the
rooftop style. They envision a situation similar to that at State Farm
Insurance which is a flat roof but in a style and color that blends it in with
natural tones and mitigates any view problems for the Monticello viewshed.
The applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board and made some
enhancements to the front of the shopping center to make it more of a ~human
scale." They are pleased with the appearance and feel it will blend in well
with the community. They hope their modifications will gain the Board's
support and they look forward to proceeding through the site plan process.
Mr. Mike Spooner said he grew up in Charlottesville, but now lives in
Richmond, and he owns parcel t3A which is just west of the project. He is in
favor of the development. He wants to make sure that in the planning stages
any harm to his property is minimized. There is a significant hill going down
into a gully where there is a drainage easement and pipe. He planned to
extend that pipe further down the property line. A couple of years ago he
proposed it to the County but because of ordinances in effect at the time, it
was not approved, so he has not done anything since that time. He just wants
to make sure he is not harmed by the project because his property does consist
of 1.3 acres. He has talked with people involved in the project, and there
was some conversation that there might be a way to jointly work together. He
said it will probably be the last piece of undeveloped land along that
corridor, and he thinks it would be an ~eyes0re" if that'is not considered.
He asked that when the Board looks at the project, that he is not hindered,
and he wants to say he is willing to cooperate within the confines of the
project to keep it attractive.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Keeler to explain. Mr. Keeler said that during
construction of the Route 250 East project, part of Mr. SpoOner's property was
graded in conjunction with the easement project when VDOT discovered they
needed better material than they had at their disposal[ Mr. Spooner wanted to
be able to fill his property The land is in trees, and the CoUnty's
ordinance prohibits removal of trees until there is an approved plan for the
property. He believes Mr. Spooner, at this time, woUld like to have some of
this fill moved to his property for the same reason, but that type of activity
is still prohibited until he has an approved plan. The grade in that area is
about a 2:1 slope from elevation 500 down to elevation 455, so it would be a
constant grade down toward Mr. SpOoner's property front and back.
Representatives from the County's Engineering Department are present, and they
have heard this request. He feels they will consider whatever drainage
measures are.needed to help protect Mr. Spooner's property.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
000024
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24) ~ .. · ~
Mr. Martin said there has been a lot of work by many parties including
the private sector and County staff to put together this plan. He said the
Planning Commission opposed the plan on a 2:3 vote. The primary objection had
nothing to do with anything the staff had recommended, but rather to limiting
the amount of trees being cut. One Planning Commissioner was also very
concerned about the effect of this project on the viewshed from Monticello.
Mr. Martin said it sounds like most of that concern has now been taken care
of.
Ms. Humphris said she had one question. In the agreement, #3b says
~extension of raised median in Route 250 to prevent left turns into and out of
Hansen Road at such time as VDOT shall require such extension." She asked if
this is a good idea. Does the County have to wait until VDOT requires it?
She said on that busy section of road, it makes sense to'have right in and
right out from the beginning instead of changing it later. She asked if the
Board has the right to require that to take place now.
Ms. Angela Tucker said VDOT was willing to wait until such time as some
sort of objective facts show themselves in accident history, which is not
always desirable. VDOT thought the closing may not be prompted until the
outparcels along the frontage of Route 250 are developed. There is another
option to allow only right turns out of Hansen Road onto Route 250.
Mr. Martin said at this time, that turn is not a problem other than
during rush hour. Ms. Humphris said she wanted to be sure the Board did not
wait for that accident history to develop if common sense says something needs
to be designed and changed earlier. Ms. Tucker said a modified entrance could
help, and it does not have to be triggered by accident statistics. VDOT gives
weight to calls received referencing close calls at a location. Based on
people's perception of the area, a change could be made. She said there is
adequate sight distance in all directions at that location, and a standard
curb cut is already in place.
At this point Mr. Martin offered motion to approve ZMA-98-20 to include
the four modifications as suggested by staff and the four requirements for
Application Plan approval which were distributed to the Board this evening
(set out in full below).
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note:
Modifications and Requirements, as approved, are set out in full
below:
MQ~ifications for Application Plan approval:
The Board granted a waiver of restrictions to development
on critical slopes for and restricted to the Kroger
Shopping Center site, the DMV site and to those areas
shown for roadways and other infrastructure improvements
on the Application Plan. Subsequent requests for other
critical slopes waivers as may be requested as other site
plans are presented will be entertained by the Commission;
The Board did not find the request for relief from
stormwater detention requirements to be contrary to
general planning/policy issues. The Board will allow
administrative determination by the Engineering Department
subject to satisfaction of Engineering Department concerns
as to adequacy of water quality measures as well as
adequacy of downstream channels;
Co
The Board can determine no compelling reason to
incorporate commercial roadways into the public road
network. Private roads will generally allow more
flexibility in site design due to more flexibiity in
setbacks and improvements which may occur within the
right-of-way. Therefore, the Board approved usage of
private roadways internal to the development. This should
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25) ' '
do
not be viewed as a zoning restriction/prohibition to Board
approval of these roads as public roads at some future
date; and
The Board believes the PD-SC parking standard was intended
to encourage a Planned Development approach for shopping
center development. The Board found that this intent has
been accomplished through this petition and that usage of
the PD-SC parking standard would be appropriate with this
intent as well as with standards of the Comprehensive
Plan.
R~quirements for Application Plan approval:
A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings
and parking areas visible from Monticello shall be
provided as a condition of site plan approval for all
development. The landscape plan may preserve existing
trees or provide plantings which shall provide the
necessary screening within fifteen (15) years.
2 o
A street tree plan providing a visual buffer for Hansen
Road and Rolkin Road shall be provided as a condition of
site plan or road plan approval. Large street trees shall
be planted on both sides of such roads in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be
staggered on opposite sides of the road.
3 °
Ail buildings shall be designed to provide rooftop style,
treatment and color schemes which assure minimal visual
impact on the Monticello viewshed. Assurance of such
style, treatment and color schemes shall be a condition of
final site plan approval. Such approval may be given by
the Director of Planning and Community Development after
providing notice to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation and an opportunity for Foundation comments to
be considered.
4 o
Approval and execution of the Four-Party Road Improvement
Agreement substantially in accord with the document dated
October 20, 1998, and attached hereto, shall be required
prior to the approval of any development plan.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:30 p.m., and reconvened at 8:43 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-50. Division of Mo~6r Vehicles (Sign %32).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish DMV fac of approx 9140 sq ft w/one
drive-through window [31.2.4, 22.2.2.10] on 2.7 acs znd PD-MC & EC. TM78, P73
(part of). Located on S sd of Route 250E (Richmond ROad) between existing
Virginia Oil Service Station & Guaranty Bank. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on October 5 and October 12, 1998.)
Mr. Keeler said with review of the entire development on Pantops, the
circulation and access patterns for DMV received more scrutiny than other
opportunities the County has had for drive-through windows. During the
process, the size and shape of the site changed because of road realignment.
Staff recommends approval, and did recommend approval to the Planning
Commission. One concern with drive-through Windows, in addition to access and
circulation patterns, is traffic volumes. The Four-Party Agreement states
that whichever development starts first and if it occasions the needs, a
signal will be installed at Rolkin Road and Route 250. The Volumes on the
existing Rolkin Road almost warrant that now[ If DMV is constructed before
the shopping center, that intersection will be signalized and access provided
to DMV.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6,
1998, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-50 subject to four conditions.
He said the drive-through window is actually located on the backside of the
building. There will be some stacking visible from Route 250. The ARB's
concerns in the past have been to situate drive-through windows out of sight.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
With no questions from Board members, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Melton was present to represent the applicant, but had no
comments.
Ms. Thomas asked if new drivers taking their driving tests will be
exiting onto Route 250. Mr. Melton said people taking tests to drive
motorcycles and trailer trucks will take that test on the site. He does not
know about people taking the test to drive a private vehicle.
Mr. Bernie Barker, representing the Division of Motor Vehicles in
Richmond, said DMV typically establishes several road test routes in and
around the neighborhood. On occasion, they might have a route onto Route 250.
They do not know what those road routes are at this time.
Ms. Thomas asked how much larger this facility is than the current
facility. Mr. Barker said the present facility is about 5500 square feet.
This facility will have over 9000 square feet.
Mr. Keeler said he had a letter from Virginia Oil Company he would like
to read into the record (letter dated October 14, 1998, from Mr. Frayser F.
White is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Keeler said this site plan and
the Application Plan results in some site plan changes to the Virginia Oil
site. He said in the case of existing properties, staff has worked out in-
house a system to amend those plans as other plans are approved.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-98-50 subject to the four
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Bowerman said he visited the current DMV site on Commonwealth Drive,
and he was impressed with the service, the helpfulness and the way it was
arranged in terms of customers. It is much different from their facility of
fifteen or more years ago. He commended DMV on its customer service.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. B°werman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
3 o
Drive-through windows will be limited to one (1);
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness;
The stacking lane must be widened to tWelve (12) feet; and
Appropriate signage must be placed at the entry to the
stacking lane.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-42. Michie Tavern Motor Coach Parking (Sign
#57). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow off-site parking in accordance
with Sec 5.1.38 of the Zoning Ordinance on 0.848 acs Znd RA. Located approx
400 ft from Rt 53 on Michie Tavern Lane on the E sd of Michie Tavern Lane.
TM77, P26E. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 5
and October 12, 1998.)
Mr. Benish said Michie Tavern Corporation had applied for a special use
permit to provide off-site parking for tour buses. The applicant currently
uses the adjoining property owned by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) for
motor coach parking. He said that on September 22, 1998, the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to two conditions as
recommended by the staff.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Greg McDonald, the applicant, said he would be happy to answer
questions. He said Mr. Brian Smith was present to make their presentation.
000027
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Smith said this project is very small. The parcel size itself is
less than one acre. The parking lot (they would like to have a gravel lot) is
less than one-third of an acre. A little more than one-half of the lot drains
to the back, with the remaining portion draining to the front. The applicant
and staff have discussed gravel versus pavement. The other issue, which is
very important, concerns the downstream improvements about 350 feet down
Michie Tavern Lane and across the road. There is an eroded ditch at that
point which does need to be repaired. He does not feel it should be Michie
Tavern's responsibility. The amount of drainage from the Michie Tavern site
is only seven percent of the drainage area. The cost to repair the ditch
could be as much as $30,000. He feels it should be a VDOT project since all
of the water comes from the road. He asked that this not be included as a
condition of approval on this project. They do offer to. put in a drainage
pipe under the adjacent property (the FOP entrance) because there is no
drainage pipe at that location now. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission make the requirement to which Mr. Smith objects. Mr. Bowerman said
he does not see it in the requirements, unless Mr. Smith can point out the
specific language. Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission recommendations do
not include that requirement.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed. Mr. Marshall said this property does lie in his district. He cannot
make a motion, but would like for the other Board members to know that he
supports the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-98-42 subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.)
The surface of the parking lot shall be gravel;
Engineering Department approval of preliminary and final
site plans including:
a. Approval of an erosion control plan;
b. Approval of stormwater management BMP plans. This
will include receipt of a completed facilities
maintenance agreement. The'preliminary computation
given in the interim design manual must be
completed. The manhole structure in the front must
have the required BMP volume, as well as an outlet
drain protected against clogging;
c. Receipt of easements or letters of permission from
property owners for off-site.work at the neighboring
entrance;
d. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and
drainage computations; and
e. Engineering Department approval of adequate channel
computations according to the minimum standards
given in the Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-43. Rosewood Village (signs #38 & 55).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct an assisted-living facility at NE
corner of Greenbrier Dr & Westfield Rd on 2 acs Znd C-1. This request is to
develop a 60-bed facility that would provide residential, assisted &
intensive-living care 24 hours a day. TM 61W, Sec 2, P 1. Rio Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 5 and October 12, 1998.)
Mr. Keeler noted that a copy of this Plan was posted on the wall, and a
copy of the location map also. He said it will be lOcated to the Senior
Center off of Route 29 North. The other adult care facilities in the area
include Our Lady of Peace Nursing Home and Assisted-Living, Branchlands
Retirement Community, and the JABA Adult Day Care Facility. This area has
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
0"90028
been developed with elderly-oriented facilities. It is convenient to shopping
and other needs. This petition is before the Board because the property is
zoned commercially, and residential use of the property requires a special use
permit.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its me,ting on September 22,
1998, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to three
conditions. He wished to add language to two of those conditions. No. 1
reads: ~Maximum usage is limited to 60 residents in the facility." No, 2
reads: UNo part of the property may be utilized for any activities other than
those directly related to the adult care residence." He suggested adding a
sentence to make the intent clear. The sentence would read: ~This condition
is intended to regulate parking." No. 3 reads: "This special use permit
authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an assisted-living
level of service, as defined in 22VAC40-71-10.~ He suggested adding the
words: ~... as provided under the Virginia Administrative Code." He said the
Commission also approved a modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow activity on critical slopes.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Virginia Tahboub, the applicant, was present. She said she and her
husband are developing this project. She said they appreciate the process so
far with the staff. It seems to have been going smoothly. She thinks that
most of the items that have been addressed, have been met.
Ms. Thomas asked if the people living in this facility are able to walk
around. Ms. Tahboub said there will be three levels of care; residential,
assisted-living and intensive assisted-living. There is mobility in the first
group.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is an area on the site where these residents
will be able to walk. Ms. Tahboub said in one part of the building there is
an internal garden that will be completely enclosed. It is on a level piece
of ground so that people can walk. There are also walking areas within the
facility as designed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Tahboub envisions the use of public sidewalks
by any of the residents. Ms. Tahboub said if that would be the case, they
would be accompanied by staff. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is contemplated that
any of the residents might make use of the Senior Center. Ms. Tahboub said
that is a possibility. Ms. Thomas asked if there is a sidewalk between this
site and the Senior Center. Ms. Tahboub said there is. There is sidewalk
along the property at street level on both Greenbrier Drive and Westfield
Road.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes this use is completely consistent with the
area and fits in well. He then moved that the Board approve SP-98-43 for
Rosewood Village subject to the three conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission, and with the additions as stated by Mr. Keeler tonight.
The motion was seconded by Ms Humphris. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, MS. Thomas, Mr. BoWerman, Ms Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
3 o
Maximum usage is limited to sixty (60) residents in the
facility;
No part of the property may be utilized for any activities
other than those directly related to the adult care
residence. This condition is intended to regulate
parking; and
This special use permit authorizes only an adult care
residence which provides an assisted-living level of
service as defined in 22VAC40-71-10 as provided under the
Virginia Administrative Code.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29) ~'~'~? ~ '-.~ ~.~ ......
000029
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-97-02. N & S LLC (South Pointe) . PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to amend the Comp Plan for Neighborhood 5 to change the
designation of land located in the SW quadrant of the Fifth Street/I-64
interchange from Transitional to Regional Service. This area includes approx
41 acs. TM76, Pls 46A, 55B & 55D. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 5 and October 12, 1998.)
Mr. Benish said this is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for
property consisting of approximately 41 acres located in Neighborhood 5 in the
southwest quadrant of the Fifth Street/I-64 Interchange area. The property
lies in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The request is to change the
Land Use designation from the current Transitional and Urban Density
Residential designations to what is now a request for Community Service. The
proposal is to ultimately allow for a shopping center and hotel/motel
development in the area. The modification has been heard by the Planning
Commission on four different occasions, one of which was a joint session with
the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 29,
1998, by unanimous vote, recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to approve the Community Service designation which includes a change
in the County's Land Use Plan Land Use Map and additional text for the
Neighborhood Five Profile Recommendations. He said the recommended language
is set out on Attachment I which was forwarded to the Board members prior to
this meeting. He said the Commission focused its discussion on two issues.
One was the need for commercial and its value to the neighborhood and
community and of the location of commercial on this particular site. Two had
to do with the design issues related to this type of. development. That has
been the focus of the discussion, and is the focus of most of the language
recommended for the Land Use Plan.
Ms. Thomas asked why the decision this Board made not too long ago
concerning this property is before it again. Mr. Benish said under the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, private requests for amendments to the
Plan are treated just like other requests for rezonings or site plans. There
is a review process. Staff runs that process through the Commission, and the
Commission decides whether it wants to consider or study an amendment. Once
that is done, staff brings them an analysis of the change and they make a
recommendation to the Board. The Commission agreed to study these plan
amendments and ultimately recommended a change. Staff made the Commission
aware of the previous decisions during review of the Land Use Plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board says a compatible use for Community
Service can include hotels and motels, is the Board committing itself to
agreeing that kind of interstate-related usage could take place? How much is
it simply saying that is a possibility? Mr. Benish said the way the language
is proposed in the Land Use Plan at this time, expectations for the types of
uses which can occur on this property have been identified. Hotels have been
noted as a potential use under the Community Service designation. The Land
Use table indicates that compatible Regional Service uses are appropriate in
Community Service areas. One issue staff and the Commission had was with the
scale and type of hotel and how that hotel fit into the character of the
neighborhood. He said the consensus of the Commission was that a hotel
development could be in keeping with the Community Service designation in the
area while providing Highway Service uses as well.
Ms. Thomas said when this item was last discussed by the Board, she felt
there was a consensus that having interstate traffic heading in the direction
of that neighborhood was not desirable and not a desirable impact on the
neighborhood. She asked what has changed since that meeting. Mr. Benish said
that during review of the Land Use Plan, the Commission recommended a Regional
Service designation, and the Board decided not to include that designation.
When the Interstate Interchange designation was taken off of that quadrant,
the applicant said that in order to achieve the character of development for
the commercial area as proposed and expected by the Commission, the hotel and
highway-oriented uses are a key ingredient to making the whole project work
(financially). Considering how the Commission acted on this request, he
thinks the Commission felt that may be the case and it was a reasonable
compromise.
' 000030
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Cliff Hamner said he was present to represent the applicant. He
reviewed the project. He said it is a 37+ acre parcel located in the
southwest quadrant of the 1-64/Fifth Street Interchange. The applicant
requests that the Comprehensive Plan designation be changed from the existing
Transitional designation to a Commercial Service designation in order to
facilitate an eventual rezoning of about 14 acres to Highway Commercial for a
hotel and restaurant complex. The remainder is requested for Planned
Development-Shopping Center for a village-oriented Community Service center.
He said the plan for South Pointe was achieved after careful study and
evaluation and with a lot of input from the community, County staff and the
Planning Commission. He said it supports the tourism industry and is in an
area where there is a definite need for appropriate, well-located facilities.
It allows the County to realize a positive fiscal impact from the project. It
creates a balance of land uses in Neighborhood 5 which does not exist
currently. It supports the comprehensive Plan by having in-fill in a
designated growth area. It also provides a nice alternative to Route 29
North.
Mr. Hamner said the proposed project enjoys the support of the
surrounding community and its neighbors. The neighbors do not want additional
housing at this site, and they do have a desire to satisfy some of their
shopping, service and entertainment needs closer to home. Most importantly,
this project supports aesthetic and architectural issues associated with the
site. It has quality of life issues which are missing in most projects that
come before the Board. It utilizes concepts promoted by the CHK consultants
paid by the County to educate all about better and more responsible develop-
ments. The applicant does not believe current zoning would allow for
attention to these issues. They have made a strong commitment to the County
working with its staff and the Planning Commission and the neighbors to bring
forth a quality project. He asked the Board to help fulfill the promise of
South Pointe by voting to approve a change in the Comprehensive Plan so the
applicant can bring forth a rezoning request and a site plan for the project.
Mr. Hamner said that Mr. Stan Tatum, the applicant's lan~ planner, Mr. John
Matthews the applicant's architect, and Mr. Ivo Romenesko, financial
consultant, would like to address a few key issues, and then the applicant
would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Tatum said about six months ago, they met with people in some of the
neighborhoods to ask what type of project they would like to see on this
property. They made it plain that they did want to see a lot of housing. The
neighbors said they do not like conventional development projects - shopping
areas. They don't like having to travel on Route 29 to do any serious
shopping. They don't like a lot of the things that are reasonably convenient
to them because they don't like either the feel or the look of those
businesses. The applicant began to put together a plan that incorporated the
kinds of things they wanted - to be able to walk to this site, to walk within
the site, to ride a bicycle, to use this without having to get into their
automobile. They like the kind of services and facilities that would make
their day-to-day life easier. There is a network of path systems and
sidewalks to facilitate walking into the area. Now, people walk along Fifth
Street Extended getting exercise. They asked that they be able to walk
through the site. The character represented in the plan is one that is
heavily landscaped. They want more green. They want parking 10ts that do not
look like parking lots.
Mr. Tatum said the plan demonstrates a level of quality and an approach
the applicant feels is responsive to what the neighbors have said they would
like to have, and what would serve them. The architectural style is one that
is reflective of Virginia architecture, traditional, solid construction,
attractive. It will be and area one can enjoy being in. He said the
neighborhoods this would serve are projected to grow significantly. This will
not all be done at one time. It will take a period of time for this
commercial development to happen. It is not intended to bring people from
other places to this point. He asked that the Board support the request. He
said this is not ~the" plan. It is representative of the kinds of facilities,
services and such that the people have indicated they would like to have.
Obviously, the plan will change some. It does represent a level of quality
and an approach that is different, and they think will be a positive
contribution to the entire community.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
- 00003
Mr. Bowerman asked if the vision is consistent with the topography that
exists on the site. Mr. Tatum said not entirely. This is the remaining
single, largest part of what was at one time the Pirkey track. Mr. Heischman
has owned the property since the late 1960s. The first thing that disrupted
it was the Interstate highway. It cut off the piece of the property which is
now on the other side of the interstate. Fifth Street Extended cut off
another piece which is now developed as the Wachovia Bank's operations center.
With the realignment of Old Lynchburg Road another piece was cut off. This is
the remaining part, so it is a patchwork of left over valleys and hilltops,
etc. There is some open area, but there is a fair amount of wooded land.
Development of this scale would require a considerable amount of adjustment.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the center of the property is where the detention
basin would be located. Mr. Tatum said ~yes". Mr. Bowerman said at a
Previous meeting the topographical changes from one end of the site to the
other, were discussed. Mr. Tatum pointed out the area where the detention
facility is located. He said that facility is designed to serve this
property, as well as the Bank facility, and a certain portion of property
which lies on this side of Old Lynchburg Road. It is their intention to make
that more than a ~muddy pond". It should be a feature, and it can also serve
as a dividing portion within the property.
Mr. Matthews said the present owner of the property is a resident of
Charlottesville and has owned this land for decades. He is not an out-of-town
developer coming in to "make a quick buck" and leave. He is committed to
developing this land in a sensitive fashion. They have all been working as a
team, and everything the Board sees tonight is a result Qf their meetings with
residents. They started with no plan, and what is presented tonight was the
final result of these efforts. He said he would not explain how the plan
works, but would actually just show the plan in images to show the character
of the space. He said to get a 50,000 square foot building to be pedestrian
friendly and part of an urban environment is a challenge, and not easily done.
The project has to look good and be what the neighborhood wants, but it has to
work financially also. The project has to be reasonably affordable to build.
It has to be something the local community wants. It has to be a place where
potential retailers will want to relocate. The applicant hopes the Board sees
the project as a positive statement. It is much in line with issues that may
not have come to the Board yet, but ones which the Development Area
Initiatives Study Committee (DISC) is studying. He offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if any residential is anticipated, such as on the
second story of buildings. Mr. Matthews said he feels it would be helpful
because he thinks any development today needs to be flexible. He thinks the
developer would agree that if he could get a return on housing, he would be
prepared to put the housing component there. The space is flexible enough to
accommodate housing.
Ms. Thomas asked if one of the structures shown was a parking garage.
Mr. Matthews said what Ms. Thomas saw was what they are ~eferring to as
~parking orchards." Most of these buildings will have double fronts, and most
of the parking would be behind the buildings. The parking cannot be so far
away that it is awkward. The model they used for this concept is the villages
at Shirlington on Route 395 outside of Washington, D.C. The concept is for a
sensible, practical and walkable community.
Mr. Romenesko of the Appraisal Group spoke next. In providing
consulting services to the applicant, he did an analysis of both retail and
lodging facilities. His analysis shows that about 88.6 percent of all retail
space is located along the Route 29 corridor. If you were to draw an
imaginary line along the Route 250 corridor running through Charlottesville,
you would find that nearly all of the shopping facilities, particularly food
store facilities, are located north of the Route 250 corridor. Only a couple
of these are located south of Route 250 and in these areas there is only one
brand of food store. He did a similar analysis of lodging facilities in the
area. The majority are located along the Route 29 corridor or the Route 250
Corridor. He has studied historical trends. 'It shows that the room night
demand has been increasing aboUt 3.2 percent per year. The facilities not
included in his analysis are the resort facilities (Boar's Head Inn and the
Keswick Club). The average room rates in this market moved up an average of
3.8 percent annually from 1991 to 1997. The room night supply has been fairly
flat at 1.8 percent increase annually from 1991-97. The.age of the lodging
facilities has been increasing. There are few new facilities being added to
0000;32
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
the market. One third of the facilities are 30 years old or older making them
less attractive to the traveling public. He also studied the trends in
lodging/restaurant sales to show how the demand has been progressing in the
Charlottesville market. He has data projected through 1999. It shows an
annual average increase of 5.6 percent. His analysis also shows a minimum
future demand of at least 300 additional rooms by the year 2001, without
taking into account any demolitions, any loss of facilities, and without
taking into account the one-third of the market that is over 30 years of age.
He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she had a question regarding hotel ages. She asked if
they are still regarded as old even if they have undergone a recent, massive
renovation. Mr. Romenesko said if it has had a complete renovation its age is
rolled back to almost the same as a new facility. Partial renovations are
considered only a temporary fix.
With no further questions of the applicant, Mr. Marshall invited the
public to speak.
Mr. Tom Foley said he was present to speak in favo~ of the South Pointe
project. He lives in the Redfields Subdivision. About a year ago, he went
through his subdivision and compiled a survey and sent a petition to Ms.
Thomas. He found little opposition to this project because they are in need
of services. There is only one grocery store south of the Route 250 line.
That grocery store provides terrible service because it is overworked. He
found that people on Route 29 South and Old Lynchburg Road could be served by
this project. He said it has been his experience that the developer has
sought input from the community at many meetings which he attended. He was
astounded when looking at the renderings because they are things which the
community asked the developer to do. The community is interested in some use
of the detention pond, being concerned about how it will effect their
community. They are interested in the architecture and in the fact that they
will be able to walk into and out of the project, get to a grocery store, buy
their groceries in a safe place, and then come back home. He said there is
support for the project in his neighborhood. The only people who were not in
support (less than five or ten people) said they didn't have enough informa-
tion about the project. There have been many conflicting reports both in the
newspaper and from the developer.
Mr. Herbert Green said he lives at 357 Stagecoach Road which is directly
across the street from where this project will be developed. He was on the
opposing side when the plan was for a truck stop and apartments on this
property. He is now in favor of this project. The developer came to the
community and got their input. The developer has turned negatives into
positives. This project will not add traffic on Ridge Street or Route 29
North. He said he drives on this road a lot, and now it is a speedster road.
The developer said he will put traffic lights at his entrances which will slow
down the traffic. A lot of elderly people live in the neighborhood and they
walk. The developer is putting a trail around the project so it will keep
them off of the main road. It gives them a place to walk and shop in a Safe
environment. The people in the neighborhood are in favor of this project.
Mr. Donald Jones said initially he was very vociferous in his objection
to the plan proposal they had at the time. He is now in favor of the project
as proposed. It has gone from a possible problem area to a community service
area. His main reason for being here this evening is to congratulate the
Board on their perseverance and doggedness in seeing this through to the final
conclusion. He thinks both the Board and the Planning Commission have done an
admirable job in listening to their constituents and acting on their wishes.
Mr. Gary Leavel said he lives in Sherwood Manor. He also supports the
plan. He knows of no one in his neighborhood who is against the project. He
is on the Board for Sherwood Manor, and every time there has' been a South
Pointe issue everyone has been informed through their newsletter and he has
received no negative telephone calls. His neighbors believe this project will
enhance the neighborhood. They like the concept of the project and the way it
is set up. It has been referred to as a ~village" and is a scaled down
project which will not hit the neighborhood in an overpowering way. It will
be a nice addition. The traffic coming off of 1-64 has been mentioned. It is
one and one-half miles from Sherwood Manor down to Hardee's. There would not
be cars coming to Sherwood Manor or to Redfields. He hopes the Board will
favorably consider this project.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night' Meeting) 00003~
(Page 33)
Mr. Ron Higgins with the Charlottesville Planning Department said he was
present to speak on behalf of the City Planning Commission and City Council.
He applauded the applicants and the County Planning Commission for involving
the City in the process. There were joint meetings, and the City neighbor-
hoods were also part of the overall discussion process along with people in
the County. The concerns that the City Planning Commission and Council
expressed were largely aimed at the Regional Service category. They had
concerns related to traffic, the level and scale of development as it would
look to the community passing through. Economic impact is of concern. There
are ample studies available that talk about the "big box" type of Regional
Service issues and how they have detrimental affects, particularly on central
cities. They also want to thank the County Planning Commission for not
recommending the Regional Service believing Community Service is correct. One
of the things the City's Planning Commission said is that everything they have
shown in the exquisite drawings is possible under Transitional zoning. What
the Board has not seen is what really would happen to the other piece of that
property. If they do it as well as the plans show, then the County has a gem.
No one knows that at this time. Future processes will be able to determine
that because he believes those processes are adequate. He urged the Board to
save a set of the drawings shown tonight and remember them, and hold the
applicant up to the drawings when this project does get final approval. He
asked that the Board not approve Regional Service feeling there could be some
serious impacts from that category.
Ms. Jane Green said she would like to know more about the housing part.
Mr. Hamner said the housing question came up as a concern of the staff and
Planning Commission. In light of that, the four-acre parcel on the other side
of Old Lynchburg Road was not included in this request. Consideration can be
given to housing at a later time if it is deemed necessary by the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Marshall asked what type of housing would be anticipated on that
property. Mr. Hamner said their plans are for professional offices, health
center type activities, and other activities along those lines that were
requested by the neighborhood on the four-acre parcel. The Planning
Commission and the staff wanted to reserve a housing component if needed in
the future. The developer held that four-acre parcel back and will evaluate
that at a later date.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Benish said he would like to speak about not recommending that the
four-acre parcel be changed. It is a very small parcel shown for Urban
Density Residential. This category would have allowed R-10 and R-15, which by
special permit allows for similar types of uses. Depending on what the
applicant might request as a specific proposal, that property may not need a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Board would have the latitude of a
legislative act through a special permit to evaluate whether professional
offices, or a mixture of uses are appropriate in that area. It does not mean
a Comprehenszve Plan Amendment will not be needed in the future. Leaving it
as Urban Density Residential maintains that residential component. But,
within that residential component there is flexibility in the rezoning process
to consider non-residential uses. That is allowed by the ordinance at this
time.
Ms. Humphris said she thought Ron Higgins said the Board could do what
has been shown with the Transitional canegory. Mr. Benish said Attachment 4
to the staff's report explains why their proposal cannot take place under the
Transitional designation. They indicated one large retail area of between
40,000 and 60,000 square feet. It is a Community Service-oriented scale of
commercial development. The Transitional designation allows for a mix of uses
which would have Office and Service uses and Commercial and Retail uses that
would serve a neighborhood need. General markets, restaurants, banks are all
consistent uses for a Transitional designation and are similar to the types of
things the applicant has proposed. The reason the Transitional designation
cannot be used for their proposal is the scale of development. They are
proposing a commercial development at this time which is aboun 190,000 square
feet. Transitional limits commercial activity to about 40,000 square feet.
Ms. Thomas asked for an example of an existing development of 190,000
square feet. Mr. Benish said Riverbend is 177,000 square feet. Shopper's
World is 148,000 square feet. Albemarle Square is about 200,000 square feet
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34) .-- ...... %~ ~ ?:~L.
000034
and is in a Community Service designation. That shopping center originally
had a grocery store and a drug store, but it has now been converted to other
types of uses.
Ms. Thomas said when she heard about this request she was concerned that
the motels and restaurants might be built first and the Community Service uses
the neighbors want might not materialize. She asked what process suggests
that that would not happen. Mr. Benish said the applicant should address that
concern in terms of their financing of the developmen5 and other components of
their decision-making. That can be addressed potentially during the rezoning
process. Staff has recommended that development of this property be under a
Planned Development so the Board can approve the design concept, and also
conditions relating to the phasing of the development. He said it is a very
valid issue. This project would have a traffic impact on Fifth Street which
is different from that under a by-right zonzng. The applicant has indicated a
willingness to address some of the traffic issues such as signalization.
Ms. Humphris said it seems to her the Board needs to take a clear look
at this proposal. Ail remember that there were plans for a truck stop on this
property, for high density on this property, and there was a letter sent to
the nezghbors to get them all upset. The fact is that this plan, which is so
beautifully shown on the colorful drawings, has been sold to the neighborhood
as what they are going to have. She hopes the neighborhood understands that
there is no way this Board can make that happen. She said that both Mr.
Rieley and Mr. Rooker made two good comments which are in the Planning
Commission's minutes. Mr. Rieley said his greatest concern has been that
~once the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is made, the rezoning proposals which
will follow will be fairly ordinary interchange kind of developments which do
not add up to a cohesive whole." Mr. Rooker said ~if and when the applicant
comes back for a rezoning of the property, we are going to expect as part of
the proffers, some kind of design for the property that is going to be adhered
to. Throughout this process the applicant has shown a design (he means a
particular design) and we would certainly expect that what we have seen is
what we are going to get or something very close to it." Ms. Humphris said
she knows it does not have to be what the Board has seen, but she thinks there
should be an understanding right now that the applicants have put themselves
on the line (all three were at a meeting she attended at the Holiday Inn, and
she saw them bring people in and say ~support us", this is what we are going
to gzve you), and she thinks that promise needs to be fulfilled to those
neighbors because they are giving their support.
Mr. Marshall said he has been dealing with these people in the
neighborhood for a long time. He knows these people well, and he does not
want to see them disappointed. He also knows the developer and he has been a
busmnessman in this community for many years. If he goes back on his word, he
must realize he doesn't have much future in this community. He takes him at
his word that this will happen. Mr. Marshall said he will support this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He thinks there are many reasons why the Board
should support this amendment, and he thinks it has all been stated by people
who live in the neighborhood. He thinks it will cut down on some of the
traffic on Ridge Street. The area is growing and he thinks Mr. Romenesko did
a good job of showing that the area is lacking not only in shopping, but in
the area of hotel/restaurant services as well. It is a beautiful plan. He
hopes it can happen, and he will expect it to happen.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Romenesko about some of his statistics. There
were concerns expressed tonight about phasing and whether there could be some
Neighborhood Service along with the hotel. If the Board approved this request
tonight, and then at the rezoning stage imposed conditions relative to
phasing, would there be a problem in offering the community what it expects
along with providing the parts of the project that make the most economic
sense. Mr. Romenesko said he believes phasing would occur naturally in a
project of this scale. Franchise facilities for a hotel/motel would probably
not build just one facility to account for the number of rooms needed in this
area. It would most likely be more than one franchise, so for that function
there would be a phasing in, rather than all of the construction at one time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is reasonable for the Board to expect a
reasonable phasing schedule. Mr. Martin said Mr. Bowerman is saying the Board
does not want to see two big hotels built, and nothing else, and then the
applicant come back and say ~we can't afford to do the other.~ Mr. Romenesko
said he understands that. There is interest in both types of uses. There are
hotel/motel operators looking at the market in Charlottesville every year.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35) ~ ~ i~ ~i~i~:!~ ~
Also, there are retailers looking at the market.
000035
They are aware that
retailers are looking at the area on the south side of town. He thinks it
would be a phasing of retail, as well as a phasing of hotel facilities,
simultaneously.
Mr. Bowerman said the answer to Mr. Martin's question is Uno". The
applicant would not build all the hotel and all the interchange-oriented
services first. Mr. Romenesko said ~not necessarily." There is location
selection for a franchise, siting, and getting approvals. It would take a
fair amount of time to accomplish that, plus the retail would be handled
likewise.
Mr. Bowerman said he was trying to decide at this time what reasonable
expectations could be attached to a rezoning. He is trying to make sure at
this point, based on what the BOard heard from the applicant during the
presentation tonight, and what the Board heard from the public tonight, that
none of this would come as a surprise to the applicant at the time of a
rezoning request. He believes the Board would be interested in certain
aspects happening concurrently and would be asking for that to happen.
Ms. Thomas said sometimes County staff and the developer say the Board
has taken them by surprise. She just wants to be sure the developer is not
taken by surprise if the applicant comes in with very highway-related
development and the Board does not see anything of what was the selling point
to the community. The community has been ~riled up", so no one should be
surprised if the Board did not look favorably on such a request. She asked
the applicant to excuse the Board for doing a bit of lecturing. She said this
developer sent a very misleading letter to those same neighbors, It turned
out that he got the neighbors concerned and they have came to meetings at a
participation rate that was praiseworthy so something good is about to come
out of that. She said the Board wants to see the whole thing and not just the
first bits and pieces that are profitable. She said to excuse her if she has
misstated what any other Board member would have said.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks all the members are saying that the
neighbors have high expectations that they are going to get things out of this
that they want and that they need. They are expecting the Board to see that
they do. Therefore, the Board has to expect that the developer will see that
they do.
Mr. Bowerman said he likes the concept presented because it is something
the Board is looking for. It promotes a sense of community.
Mr. Martin said that is what he was saying.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what he is envisioning based on the
Comprehensive Plan text and what the applicant has presented.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant foresees this whole project as being
economically feasible and working out according to the plans shown to the
Board tonight. Mr. Romenesko said he does. He had a difficult time trying to
address the question because he does not know if there is just a single
answer. These types of uses have different time lines. For a motel, it only
takes one franchise to sign an agreement. For a shopping center, there has to
be an anchor tenant in place first. Then the service providers go along with
those anchors. In order to get a retail center concluded, signed, and
financed, there have to be signatures obtained from the anchor and seven to
ten others at the same time. Mr. Bowerman said he understands all of that.
Mr. Martin said there is one other thing he wanted to say. The DISC
committee has used the concept that has been used here and found it.to be
fairly successful in helping coordinate neighbors. It appears the applicant
applied the same type and style of concept and got some similar results.
Hopefully, in the future, regardless of what the DISC Committee recommends,
this style of approaching the community will continue to. exist. He
appreciates that. Mr. Romenesko said he believes the developer did an
excellent job.
Mr. Marshall said if there was no further discussion, he would request a
motion. Ms. Thomas then offered motion to approve CPA-97-02 with text as
recommended in the Neighborhood 5 Profile by the Planning Commission.
October 21, 1998 (Regular Nigh% Meeting)
(Page 36)
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None. ~
(Mote: The approved language is set out in full below.)
Neighborhood Five Profile Recommendations (pp. 64-66 of the
County of Albemarle Land Use Plan):
The Community Service area located southwest of, and
immediately adjacent to, the 1-64/Fifth Street interchange
is intended to serve as a commercial/office services
center for Neighborhoods Four and Five and other
residential development located south of 1-64. This area
is larger than what is normally associated with Community
Service areas. Therefore, the square footage limits
outlined in the Land Use Plan are not necessarily a
maximum limit. Expectations for development of this area
include development under a master plan emphasizing:
a village center character, design theme and scale
which blend with nearby residential development;
construction materials appropriate for a village
center type commercial district (no metal
buildings);
a community center function for the Neighborhood;
mixed use allowing some residential occupancy or
conversion thereto;
pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the
site;
areas of open space/recreation for shoppers and
Neighborhood residents;
maintenance of a vegetative buffer along Fifth
Street and 1-64;
internalized parking to the greatest extent
possible; use of trees and other landscaping
material to minimize visual impact of parking areas
(parking orchard concept);
A compatible Regional Services use for the Community
Service area can include hotels and/or motels, provided
they have an internal site and building orientation (as
opposed to a ~motor court" design), incorporate uses which
support the Neighborhood (meeting facilities, restaUrants,
recreational facilities, etc.), are compatible in scale to
the height of the largest buildings within the shopping
center to the south, and are designed to visually connect
and blend with the shopping center located on the same
Community Service site. Service stations are not
considered to be a compatible Regional Service use.
Transportation improvements include:
Roadway interconnection of Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street
(the "Southern Connector"), which would provide access to
Interstate 64 and traffic circulation within Neighborhoods Four
and Five. This improvement is needed if the Community Service
area at 1-64/Fifth Street is to be accessible to residents south
of 1-64 and serve as a commercial/office service center.
When development of the Community Service area at I-
64/Fifth Street occurs, the following improvements should
be constructed:
signalization of Fifth Street/Old Lynchburg Road
intersection;
signalization of the Fifth Street/StagecoaCh Road
intersection, which will be the location of a major
point of access to this site;
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
000037
continuous right 5urn lane from Fifth Street to
entrance to site from Old Lynchburg Road;
Approval of further development along Fifth Street may be
dependent upon the following improvements to. the I-
64/Fifth Street interchange:
signalization of the interchange ramp intersectmons;
double laning of the interchange ramps;
possible dual left turn lanes on Fifth Street for
interchange ramps.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 1997.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 17, 1997, and offered motion
to approve same. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said part of the papers the Board got on South Pointe
involved asking the Planning Commission, and then discussing with the Planning
Commission, a study of how much commercial space the County actually needs.
When the Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted a couple of
years ago, the Board was told the County had enough commercial land for the
next ten years, and enough industrial land for the next 20 years. She asked
staff how many pending commercial rezonings are being proposed at this time,
and they said they total 251 acres. Staff made some suggestions about looking
into how you assess how much the area should have. Part of the real estate
crash that took place in Northern Virginia was occasioned by their overzoning
and building on an over supply of commercial land. It is possible to do
damage to the community by overzoning. She is not suggesting that the Board
discuss this tonight, but she wondered if there is interest among the Board
members to have the staff discuss this further. The information she referred
to did not seem to be about South Pointe, so she was surprised to find it mn
the packet. There is a good discussion of the question in this paperwork.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Romenesko if there is any proprietary basis to
the information or is it readily available in terms of supply and demand,
amount of leasable commercial office space, etc. Mr. Romenesko said his firm
publishes a market review showing office and retail space. There is some data
available. The problem with analyzing what is an appropriate amount is that
it is constantly changing. With changes in electronics,'transmission of
informatmon, people working from home, the landscape for the amount of office
space needed has been changing. The amount of retail needed is being changed
by retailers mn their repositioning in the markets. Planners have wrestled
with this issue, and developers have wrestled with it, and no one can give you
the right number because by the time you get the right number, and the right
plans together, the market changes.
Ms. Thomas said when someone asks if a new building and the uses
proposed for that building can "make a go of it", it seems that in the market
today the answer would be ~yes." What isn't involved in that analysis is
which building is going empty because someone is moving into a new building.
The people at the University Research Park are now saying that most of their
tenants are going to come from local businesses. If that is true, there will
be a lot of empty buildings. That ms something she feels responsible for
looking at, but it is never going to get looked at by the person proposing a
new building. Mr. Romenesko said it is a complex matter. In the case of
hotels, they do have a life expectancy, and the market does decide. The
Internet is providing people with an access to choices. They can select
certain franchises, so franchises are the source of business. The Internet is
becoming the source of contact with franchises. Those with the better
franchises are likely to do better, and those that can't afford to maintain
the facilities because they haven't signed up with the r~ght franchise will
lead to obsolescence. To some extent, these changing modes of connection to
October 21, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
000038
business are causing certain areas to rise in demand, and others to settle
down. That may or may not be different from what it has been for a hundred
years.
Mr. Bowerman said, at the same time, Albemarle Square has been
completely redeveloped. Charlottesville Shoppers World is completely
redeveloped in existing space. He assumes that some of the 30-year old hotels
eventually reach the point where somebody buys them and rehabilitates them, or
tears them down and puts something else up. As long as the economics work,
there is a demand.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can control the oversupply. Mr. Bowerman said
only to the extent that the market cares to support it. If it's not there,
it's not going to be proposed. If it's cheaper to redo Albemarle Square, or
to buy those apartments on Commonwealth and rehabilitate them completely, that
is what will happen because that is the most economical. There has been a lot
of adaptive reuse of existing County facilities. The City has also done this.
It's a balancing act.
Ms. Thomas said that is why she feels the Board should discuss this with
staff. Mr. Marshall said he does not believe staff could ever answer the
question.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Romenesko ever does pro bono work for the
community. Mr. Romenesko said he would be happy to chat with staff. His firm
does provide information to various individuals and organizations. It is a
challenging problem to try and determine how much zoning in any category is
enough in any area. The market is constantly changing. Also, it is never
known which employer or user might drop out because of acquisition by another
corporation, changes in industry, etc. There tends to be a range, and he
thinks the County can keep attractive and keep revitalizing. ~Adaptive reuse"
is a good term because that is the key to an area that is aging, such as the
area around the urban ring. As long as property owners keep revitalizing
their property (in some cases demolishing and rebuilding, in some cases 3ust
adding new facades), that is the key. Usually it is done through providing
good services, services where people feel they want to congregate and work in
a central area rather than spreading out over a large area.
Mr. Davis said regarding the West Leigh Drive project that was added to
the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan tonight, the County has received the deeds
for the right-of-way and the easements that are necessary to construct that
road lmprovemens. He asked that the Board authorize the County Executive to
accept the easements and property on behalf of the County so the deeds can be
recorded and the project advanced.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to authorize the County Executive to
accept the deeds for the right-of-way and the easemenss which are necessary to
consEruct the road improvements ~o West Leigh Drive which was added as the top
priority to the list of Rural Road Additions in the Six-Year Secondary Road
Plan tonight, so the deeds can be recorded.
The moslon was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Ms. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Chairman/'
Approved By the
Board of County
Supervieors