1998-12-09December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
O00:L$2
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 9, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Kevin Cox reminded Board members that in the past he has been
interested in programs that try to preserve land through use of government
funds, such as land use taxation and other programs. When he heard the Board
was considering allocating $850,000 to purchase development rights, he wanted
to know more. He has been through the report on the Purchase of Development
Rights (PDRs), and it has generated a lot of questions in his mind. He
intends to go through the report and write down every question, no matter how
simple it may be. He will then pass these questions on to Roxanne White and
Sherry Buttrick, and he hopes his input and a different perspective will help.
He is sure the Supervisors realize that $850,000 is not going to buy
anything, and he feels the County will be lucky to get control of 100 acres
with that amount of money. In order to make this program work, tens or
possibly hundreds of millions of dollars will have to be spent over the long
term. The PDR Committee has indicated that it is important to, ~avoid a token
acquisition of conservation easements program." He quoted again that, "A
program with minimal funding may do more harm than good." He was curious
about these statements because the Committee members had requested $1,000,000.
They got less than they wanted, and they are saying too little will do more
harm than good. He does not understand how a lesser amount of money than
requested can cause any harm.
He was really shocked when he heard the recommendations of the Committee
members for easement terms. He then read that, "Guidelines for permitted
subdivision would allow subdivision in parcels greater than 100 acres." He
added that parcels greater than 100 acres can be divided in 100 increments,
and he explained that if there are 325 acres available, four parcels could be
created. Three parcels would contain 100 acres, and one would contain 25
acres. This began to give him some clue as to why the Committee recommended
that only 12 to 30 percent of the assessed value be paid for the development
rights. With large parcels, it will be possible to subdivide the land and
develop it under this agreement.
Mr. Cox then referred to the agreement within the appendix which
indicated that, "No permanent or temporary building or structure shall be
built or maintained on a rural preservation tract other than a permanent
single family dwelling and outbuildings." He assumes this is referring to
equestrian estates. He does not think very many people realize this, and he
was shocked because he thought a purchase of development rights meant nothing
could be built on the property. Apparently if the land is subdivided into 100
acre parcels, a house and associated outbuildings can be built on it. The
sample agreement indicates that, ~no historic structure shall be demolished or
removed, and no other buildings shall be constructed except in a way that
would in the opinion of the grantees be in keeping with the historic character
of any historic structure." He supposes if a building is done in brick, and
it has columns on the front, it would be in keeping with the historic nature.
He emphasized that these are questions members of the public need to hear, and
they need to start asking these questions. Members of the public are already
starting to ask why Albemarle County has a Capital Improvements budget that is
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Megting> 0001~3
(Page 2)
underfunded and yet there is talk of spending thousands and thousands of
dollars on these conservation easements. He also believes that if this
program is funded at the level it needs to be funded for it to work properly,
taxes will have to be raised, and/or the schools Capital Improvements budget
will have to continue to be sacrificed.
As a City resident he has been concerned for a long time about two
things. First, he mentioned the dramatic difference in the real estate tax
rate between the City and County. If this program is funded, the difference
will change, and it is going to help the City. Next, he referred to the
perception that the City schools are not as good as County schools. Actually
the City schools are very good, and he is proud to send his children to them.
His children were home schooled when he lived in the County, but now they are
in the City, and the school system is great. He will get back to the Board
with his list of questions when he gets them written, and he hopes the
Supervisors will consider them.
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Catterton Road in Free Union, spoke on
the issue of hunting and public safety. He reported that last Friday morning
he got a call from his neighbor who lives two houses down the road from him,
and she was hysterical. She was standing in the second floor window of her
home when she saw a deer come into her side yard where there is a board fence.
Just beyond her side yard there are some gas line pipes coming up out of the
ground, and a gas line employee was examining these pipes. As the neighbor
watched, the deer, a young buck with short spikes, bolted for the road, jumped
over the board fence and ran across the road. As soon as the deer got on the
shoulder on the other side of the road, shots rang out from behind his
neighbor's house. A shot hit the deer in its hindquarter, and it was later
learned the bullet went through its stomach. The deer ran into the neighbor's
field across the way, writhed around and died. As soon as he got down his
driveway, he saw two carloads of hunters. He is calling them hunters because
they had on blaze orange, and there were high powered rifles in their gun
racks. He had no idea who they were, but he followed them. When he got to
his neighbor's house, she was in the middle of the road, hysterically asking
the hunters as they were passing by if they knew anything about the incident.
This was as incredibly a dangerous situation as he can imagine. He remarked
that Mr. William Finley, a government official, was also on the road that day
in his pickup truck repairing his barbed wire fences. There were other people
passing by on the road, too. If the deer had bolted in the direction of the
gas line employee, who was concealed by brush from anyone in the back of the
property, the gas line employee would have been killed. This once again
raises the issue of the need to separate hunting activities from residential
neighborhoods, and some serious study needs to be done. He doubts this
shooting was an accident. He thinks it was deliberate, and it was probably a
criminal type of conduct. The more he thinks about it, the more he sees that
these are irresponsible people who are in locations where they can disguise
themselves as responsible hunters.
He thinks separation needs to be provided for schools, neighborhoods and
parks. He is not suggesting banning hunting but, instead, he is suggesting
some type of meaningful separation between hunting activities and where people
live, go to school and play. He understands recently the children at Cale
Elementary School have written letters about their concerns as far as the
hunting activity around their school. He saw in the paper last week where a
multi-acre park in Esmont had been approved, and he suspects this park plan
was approved with absolutely no thought given to how the park should be
protected from hunting activities. He also understands from the former
Principal of Yancey Elementary School that there is a lot of hunting around
that school.
Mr. Martin next referred to an article in today's newspaper concerning
hunting, where Mr. Charles Martin was quoted as saying, "When you have rural
areas, you have hunting. Hunting was here before most of us were, and if you
don't like it, move to the City." Mr. Martin said he does not intend to move,
and he intends to continue to work responsibly within the community and within
the political process to try to get some study of this issue and, at some
point, some change. To abandon this problem would be to abandon an important
right that he has as an American citizen, and he is not inclined to do so. He
intends to continue the process.
Mr. Charles Martin stated that the incident Mr. John Martin described
was clearly an illegal action and an enforcement issue. He hopes this type of
thing never happens again in this County or any other county.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. John Martin responded that it is difficult to say it is totally an
enforcement issue. He had his cell phone, and he called the police. Two
officers came, but it took a one-half hour for them to get there. A sheriff's
deputy got there first and then Officer Dove came. There is no doubt in his
mind these officers got there as quickly as they could, but if they had gotten
there five minutes after the shot was fired, the person would still probably
have gotten away. There was absolutely nothing the officers could do, and he
suspects this is not an unusual circumstance in the County. Attention needs to
be given to this problem, and for protection, there needs to be a reasonable
study undertaken of separation measures.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that he is on record as being in support of
hunting rights, although he cannot speak in support of some of the hunters.
He will be speaking to a group of hunters tomorrow night, and he will remind
them of the problems to which Mr. Martin alluded. Mr. Marshall stated that he
is a hunter, and he certainly would not do any of these things described by
Mr. Martin. Even if such a law was passed, there are people who would break
it, and most of these irresponsible hunters live somewhere else. There are
other people such as himself, who were born and reared here, and have hunted
all their lives, who would never do such a thing. He was taught better. He
had a gun in his hands when he was nine years old, and the first thing his
daddy told him was never to point the gun in any direction of a house, vehicle
or a person. This was part of an education that he received early in life.
He then mentioned that there are Virginia game laws requiring people to take
classes before they can get their licenses. However, not everybody does what
they are supposed to do.
Mr. Marshall next announced that he has E-mailed the other Supervisors
that he will not be a candidate for election to the Chairmanship of this Board
for another year due to health reasons. He was surprised that a reporter
found out about this announcement, and word got out about his situation. He
has enjoyed being Chairman. It is quite an honor for someone who was reared
in a community to rise to such a position. It is something he really would
like to do, but he can't, and there are capable people who can replace him as
Chairman. It has been a tremendous honor, and he thanked everybody for
allowing him to serve. He will continue to serve as a member of this Board
for a while longer.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion by Ms. Humphris, seconded by
Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4, and to accept the remaining
items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Appointment of Virginia Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Housing Rehabilitation Advisory Board.
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administers
the federally-funded Community Development Block Grant Program which awarded
Albemarle County a Community Improvement Grant of $770,989 for housing
rehabilitation and production in the Porter's Road/Yancey School neighborhood.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) requires that
a Housing Rehabilitation Advisory Board be appointed by the local governing
body to advise the Grant Administrators, Jane Andrews of B_HIP and Virginia
McDonald of the County's Housing Office on the administration of the grant.
The primary activities will be the selection of the eligible families, the
selection and development of an eligible contractor's list, and advice on
various issues and problems that may arise during the 30-month term of the
grant. DHCD requires that a member of the local governing body serve on the
Board or in lieu that the County Administrator serve. DHCD has agreed to Mr.
Tucker's appointment of Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive to fill that
capacity.
Staff recommends the appointment of the following seven individuals:
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
ORGANIZATION
1. County Executive
(required)
2. President, Southern Albemarle
Organization, Community Representation
3. County Finance Office
4. AHIP Board Member
5. County Zoning Administrator
6. County Housing Office
7. AHIP Board Member
000165
APPOINTEE
Roxanne White
Rev. Carlton Luck
Robert Walters
Lorraine Whitley,
Treasurer
Amelia McCauley
Cliff Hammill,
Housing Inspector
Marian Pebbles
Co-grant Administrators are not members, but serve as staff:
Jane Andrews, AHIP
Ginnie McDonald, County Office of Housing
By the above shown vote, the Board appointed the seven individuals, set
out above, to the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing
Rehabilitation Advisory Board.
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Traffic Safety Grant, $13,333 (Form
#98042).
Traffic activity continues to increase in the County of Albemarle.
Patrol officers on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do
much traffic enforcement. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
recognizes this problem and has funded grants using federal pass through
monies to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement
assignments employing officers working overtime. The grant period
commences October 1, 1998 and extends through September 30, 1999.
The federal award is $10,000. There is a local match of $3,333. The
local match is funded from current operations.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 98042 in the amount of
$13,333.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
of appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98042
FUAiD: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DMV TRAFFIC GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1531 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $12,386.00
1 1531 31013 210000 FICA 947.00
TOTAL $13,333.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1531 33000 300001 FEDERAL GRANT $10,000.00
2 1531 51000 512004 GEN'L FUND TRANSFER 3,333.00
TOTAL $13,333.00
Ms. Thomas said the grants are all for very good purposes, and she is
delighted with each of the programs. However, she hopes someone is keeping
track of all of them. She remarked that the expectation seems to be that new
programs are created by having more overtime, and she supposes this is
welcomed by the police. She often gets concerned because it seems to be a lot
of these types of grants.
Mr. Tucker responded that he does not think this is an issue or problem
for the staff, but he will discuss it with the Police Chief.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
O00 IG6
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
1998, $25,363 (Form #98043).
FY
The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the
US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing
units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime
and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a
police officer in the Esmont area. This is the first year of an additional
two year Law Enforcement Block Grant.
The federal award is $22,827. There is a local match of $2,536. The
local match is funded from current operations.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98043 in the amount of
$25,363.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
of appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER: 98043
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 1998 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1537 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $23,561.00
1 1537 31013 210000 FICA 1,802.00
TOTAL $25,363.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1537 33000 300001 FEDERAL GRANT $22,827.00
2 1537 51000 512004 GEN'L FUND TRANSFER 2,536.00
TOTAL $25,363.00
Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY
1997, $23,903 (Form #98044).
The Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized by the
US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing
units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime
and improve public safety. This grant will be used to fund overtime for a
police officer in the Esmont area. This is the second year of a two year
Law Enforcement Block Grant.
The federal award is $21,513. There is a local match of $2,390. The
local match is funded from current operations. Staff recommends approval
of appropriation 98044 in the amount of $23,903.00.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
of appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1998/99
NUMBER 98044
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR 1997 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1536 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $22,204.00
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA 1,699.00
TOTAL $23,903.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
2 1536 33000 300001
2 1536 51000 512004
FEDERAL GRANT
GEN'L FUND TRANSFER
TOTAL
0'001 7
$21,513.00
2,390.00
$23,903.00
Item No. 5.5. Copies of minutes of the Planning Commission for November
10 and November 17, 1998, were received for information.
Item No. 5.6. Monthly update on the FY 1998/99 Project Schedule Report
for the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of November 23, 1998, was
received for information.
Item No. 5.7. Update on feasibility of broadcasting Board of
Supervisors meetings on Adelphia's public access channel and/or developing
other informational programming, was received for information.
At the January 7, 1998, Board of Supervisors meeting there was a"
discussion between Board members and County Executive staff regarding the
possibility of broadcasting in some way the meetings of the Board of
Supervisors to allow for greater viewership of and participation in these
meetings by local residents. Because the current Board meeting room is not
technologically capable of supporting a live broadcast and would require a
significant upgrade to do so, staff reviewed several other options in
addition to a live broadcast that would provide some level of Board-
sponsored programming for citizens. At that time the Board decided against
expending the funds and manpower resources necessary to create programming
for Adelphia Cable based on factors explained below but indicated that the
issue would be reviewed in a year's time to reassess the situation. Staff
has again looked at the issue and has developed the following response.
In assessing the possibility of developing programming for the Board
of Supervisors to be broadcast on Adelphia Cable we last year identified
three distinct options to consider which remain one year later as the
feasible options:
Live Broadcast of Board of Supervisors Meetings
This option would require at least $4000 $5000 (plus the cost of
mounting a permanent camera and switching equipment) to upgrade our
technology to permit live broadcasts from the current Board meeting room.
The major upgrade would involve the activation of a ~return path" on the
existing cable to allow a live feed from the COB to the Adelphia studio.
If we want to pursue this option, Adelphia management has offered to have
an engineer assess the meeting room to look at other technical issues like
lighting, audio, etc. Several other issues should be considered if this
option is seriously pursued including the need for the county to identify
and train either volunteers or staff members who would be responsible for
covering these meetings on a regular basis a minimum of 15 hours a month
would be required for filming the meetings themselves plus some studio time
for graphics, production, etc. Viewership is also an issue, particularly
during the often lengthy day meetings which can last up to seven hours at a
stretch. We do not anticipate that many viewers will be interested in
watching a meeting for that length of time and may well tune out before
crucial issues are discussed. Adelphia's public access staff does not
work mornings, so any difficulties encountered during Wednesday morning
meetings would be difficult to address.
Taping Board of Supervisors Meetings to be Broadcast at a Later Date
This option would not require any significant technical changes to
the current meeting room. We would still need to identify and train a
dedicated corps of volunteers or staff members who could tape the meetings,
edit and produce the final product and get the tapes to Adelphia. Equip-
ment availability is something else to consider as our film crew would have
to pick up, set up, take down and return the video and audio equipment -
equipment is limited and is available to interested parties on a first-
come, first-serve basis. Adephia has indicated a willingness to run taped
Board meetings on a regular schedule which would allow consistency in
viewership, although the length of some of the meetings, especially the day
meetings, is still an issue.
000 ;$
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Production of an In-Studio Show
If the intent of the Board is to provide timely information on critical
topics rather than broadcasting Board meetings in their entirety, another
option is for the county to produce its own in-studio show. Members of the
Board, county staff and others could gather in the Adelphia studio on a
regular basis for a roundtable-type discussion that could summarize or
highlight relevant Board topics. This option would require the creation of a
production team that could tape the show, produce the necessary graphics and
edit the program. Some sources of help for this team such as the Walton
Middle School crew are available, but the creation of a consistently high
quality show that would run on a regular schedule would require trained and
dedicated staff or the hiring of an experienced video production crew.
Staff does not see that any issues of cost or viewership have changed
significantly since this topic was discussed last year and again recommends
that the Board carefully consider exactly what objectives should be accom-
plished with the creation of programming for the public access channel before
moving ahead with any of the above options. The Board should recognize that
the production of a regularly scheduled, quality broadcast of any type will
require a significant investment of Board members' time as well as time and
financial resources from county staff. Adelphia is willing to provide public
access time to air our programming, but has not yet firmly committed to
running 15-20 hours of meetings monthly.
The critical question is what the audience wants and could potentially
receive from our programming while the concept of live broadcasts seems
attractive at first glance, the expense and staff commitment of getting it up
and running combined with a realistic assessment of how many people actually
will watch six to seven hour meetings at a sitting may make other avenues of
communication more feasible and productive.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was asked to come to the County Office
Building on Saturday morning to help collate the responses received from a
questionnaire that was sent out in the real estate tax bill. As of last week,
20 percent of the possible responses had been received, which is very good,
and it did not coun~ the rush of people who will probably mail their
questionnaires mn with their checks. It occurred to her this might be a
method of getting responses from the citizens on other issues. If such a
questionnaire is ever done again, she thinks the citizens should be asked if
they would watch live broadcasts of the Board of Supervisors meetings, as well
as whether or not they live in an area where they can get the cable. A couple
of questions along these lines might really help, because the service is not
cheap, and at this point, it is unsure if anyone would be watching.
Ms. Humphris agreed that this service is not cheap, and although it is a
good idea, it would be very difficult to implement. Even the suggestion that
the Board tape a show involved a lot of time and effort. The Supervisors
don't have that kind of time and neither does the staff.
Mr. Martin wondered if there was any information on the number of people
watching the City Council meetings. Ms. Thomas stated that she understands a
lot of people watch the City Council meetings. Mr. Marshall noted that people
watching the Supervisors meetings would have to have access to cable service.
Mr. Tucker said he would ask if such information is available on City Council
meetings.
Ms. Humphris recalled that the last discussion about this issue was held
approximately a year ago, and information was available at that time about the
percentage of people in the County who had cable. She was astonished at the
low percentage because she had thought it would be around 50 percent or more.
However, it was significantly lower than that.
Item No. 5.8. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, at the November 3, 1998 General Election, was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-98-18. Waylands Grant (Sign #81). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to rezone 19.20 acs from R-6 to PRD for 95 dwelling
units. TM55, Ps66&66A. Density of R-6 zng is 6 du/ac. Proposed density is 5
du/ac. Located on N sd of Jarman's Gap Rd appox 3/4 mi from intersec w/ Rt
240. (Property in the Development Area Community of Crozet & recommended for
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Urban Density Residential use of 6-34 du/ac.) White Hall Dist.
in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 1, 1998.)
(Advertised
Mr. Cilimberg directed the Board members' attention to the plan for the
Waylands Grant rezoning proposal to change the zoning on this parcel from R-6
to PRD. The property contains 19.2 acres of undeveloped vegetated land, and
it is located adjacent to the recently rezoned Gray Rock property in Crozet.
The proposed plan is for multi-unit development and a mix of offices with the
remaining area being available for a mix of single family detached and single
family attached homes, as well as townhouses. The design is characterized by
a central green or commons area which would act as a central park. He noted
that there is an urban cross section of streets with sidewalks on both sides
and curb and gutter, as well as a greenway type area at the rear of the parcel
which is protected by a stream buffer and contains open space. He pointed out
the areas on a map along Jarman Gap's Road which would involve the mixed
multi-unit and office development. He noted the vicinity of the parking area,
and he indicated that the units and buildings would face outward to the street
with facades on all public streets. The proposal shows interconnections to
adjacent parcels on both sides -- Gray Rock to the west and the Haberly
property to the east. He stated that dedication of rights-of-way and street
trees are proposed along Jarman's Gap Road as well as a right turn lane. He
reiterated that sidewalks are proposed for all streets in the subdivision. He
mentioned that where the street enters Gray Rock, a rural section is proposed
to match the Gray Rock street system, and a path with sidewalks to match the
Gray Rock system will need to be extended from Waylands Grant over to Gray
Rock. He noted that Best Management Practices (BMP's) are proposed along the
intermittent stream, and lots are left out of the stream buffer. A nature
trail is proposed in the open space near the stream. He said staff has
recommended approval of this rezoning subject to the proffers received, and
the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval as well. However, in
order to better specify the design component of this proposal, the Commission
recommended a proffer stipulating that the development's design and format
will be in keeping with the conceptual sketch which has been provided by the
applicant. This sketch is attached to the proffers provided to this Board.
This is addressed by the general conditions to the conceptual plan which is
dated November 20, 1998.
There were no questions from Board members for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mr.
Marshall asked the applicant if he would like to make any comments.
Mr. Cliff Fox, representing the Barclay D~velopment Company, stated that
he is present to answer the Board's questions. The applicant has asked for an
increase in density to 85 units with 4,000 square feet of professional office
space.
Board members had no questions for Mr. Fox, so Mr. Marshall opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Paul St. Pierre, representing Fried Companies, Inc., which is the
developer of Gray Rock, said his two concerns involve fair and equal
treatment, as well as the possible impact of commercial activities on Gray
Rock's home sites along the border of the Bargamin tract. He recalled that a
50 foot buffer was required between the rear of the homes and the rear lot
lines on the west side of the Gray Rock property. This buffer is required to
be maintained in a natural state and to be planted with trees. However, he
understands that nothing in the rezoning ordinance requires anything more than
20 feet to the property line from the 'rear of any of the buildings on the
Bargamin tract, even though multi-family and commercial development will be
built on that space. He said from his reading of the proffers, the offices
could be mixed with multi-family dwellings or built separately. He stated
that the Board, though, can require additional space as it did in his rezoning
request. He stated that the Bargamin application represents a reduction of 20
percent of the required parking on the grounds that the professional offices
will be operating between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Although there appears to
be sufficient street parking, he does not want office visitors and multi-
family residents with more than one car per family to use access to Gray Rock
or park there. He added that it is most likely that these professional
offices will be doctors' offices which generate large parking requirements.
The staff summary to the Planning Commission states that the offices will be
restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and he wondered who will
police this restriction. He recalled that this Board required Gray Rock to
convey property with a buffer and a fee simple situation because it was felt a
proffer for an easement would be too difficult to monitor. He added that
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
residents of the single family detached houses to the west of Gray Rock
declined any inter-parcel access. Gray Rock representatives agreed to this
based on the configuration at that time of the Bargamin tract as being single
family detached homes. He asked that the Board consider now the reactions of
Gray Rock homeowners when multi-family and commercial activities take place 20
feet from them without any buffer or protection and commercial traffic comes
through their development.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said Mr. Fox, who is the represen-
tative of the applicant, has spent considerable time working with the commun-
ity on this development. Mr. Loach stated that he thinks this development has
a great deal of potential, but the design component requires a leap of faith,
because what is seen on the diagrams has been neither proffered nor promised.
He referred to the traditional neighborhood guidelines, and he hoped they
would be used in the future to guide the developer and the neighborhood in
understanding types of developments and the way houses and layouts should be
designed. These types of things are being developed now by the consultant.
The biggest problem with this project is infrastructure. He added that this
is the second such development, and it will include 250 homes with Gray Rock
next to it. The question the Jarman's Gap neighborhood is asking is whether
the Board will act according to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and
accept higher density and mixed use development. However, for that the reward
is to redistrict the children out of Crozet Elementary School. He pointed out
that this has already been done with the Western Ridge children which is in
direct conflict with the Crozet Community plan that calls for the children in
the Crozet Community growth area to attend Crozet Elementary School. He
suggested that this could be avoided, in lieu of the $600,000 already spent
toward the old Crozet School, if some community consensus could be reached for
a long range plan to see if the old school might have to be used again as a
school. He reminded the Supervisors that there are still approximately 700
acres of developable land in Crozet. He said it may be time, as long as the
old school is being considered, to look at the long range plan to see how an
educational community can be developed within the context of future planning.
He then remarked that interconnectivity in developments is an important point
that has been brought up by the DISC Committee, and he would like to make sure
the connections to Gray Rock stay in the plan so the interconnectivity can be
kept open in this pedestrian neighborhood.
Mr. Paul Grady mentioned that four groups have worked on future plans
for Crozet, and all four groups located a school next to Crozet Park. He said
now that particular property is for sale, and he thinks there are two parcels
there. He stated that the possibility of buying this property for a new
school might be considered.
No one else came forward to speak, so at 7:35 p.m., Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to point out the place in the report
which refers to the hours the office space is to be open. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that it is in the attachment to the proffers which is called the
general conditions for Waylands Grant. He said the d) section on the second
page of these conditions is tied to the parking reduction.
Ms. Thomas asked if the general conditions are also proffered. Mr.
Cilimberg replied, "yes."
Ms. Humphris called attention to the sentence stating that the
"Professional office will be in operation during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. when most residents would be at work," and she asked how these hours
can be enforced. She noted that there are not many offices with such strict
hours. She said a dentist, for instance, may want to see patients late, or
someone may want evening office hours. She added that this is a heavy
restriction and one that would be very difficult to enforce. She stated that
restrictions should not be included that will cause a lot of questions and
problems. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the restriction would have to be self-
enforcing, and it would probably be through complaint if it was noted that the
offices were open beyond the hours that are listed.
Ms. Humphris wondered if this restriction would be under the purview of
the Neighborhood Association. Mr. Cilimberg answered that it would be handled
by the the Zoning Administrator as a proffer enforcement. He went on to say
there is on street parking designed into the plan, which is another factor in
reducing the parking need in the parking lot itself.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
0001?l
Ms. Humphris stated that she hopes the situation is not trying to be
rationalized. She said she does not know how much something of this nature is
based in fact. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this is done a lot now in terms of
trying to actually promote areas where there is some density of development,
and there is some parking provided. However, it is not the level of parking
that has typically been required by ordinances, particularly where there can
be some pedestrian traffic rather than auto traffic. He added that as the
DISC Committee members look further at these kinds of requirements, he
believes they will make suggestions along these lines. He does not know what
form the suggestions will take, but fairly regularly now, there have been
implications that the County has parking requirements that are too grandiose.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the hours and parking do not totally depend on
one another. She stated that she can picture a dentist having evening hours
one day a week, and the neighbors being delighted with this, because it is
their chance to walk to the dentist. This definitely fits in with the
thoughts of the DISC Committee, yet it would not be strictly legal for a
professional to have evening hours. However, it might be the very way to keep
people from getting in their car and driving all the way to a dentist
somewhere else. She said such a situation might be ideal, and she would hate
to have it outlawed.
Ms. Humphris commented that if there can be less parking, it is a good
idea. She said, though, she does not think there should be a stipulation
which may cause problems, if it is not necessary. She stated that even if a
dentist is going to have evening hours, there will not be that many vehicles
involved. She said she thinks evening hours should be allowed, if a balance
can be reached with the residents.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would rather leave the situation to the
Homeowners Association to enforce, rather than the County Zoning Administra-
tor. The Homeowners Association will certainly speak up, if parking becomes a
problem.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there is not a huge amount of office space
involved. He noted that his office is 3,300 square feet, and it does not
involve a lot of space. There could be room for two to four professional
offices depending on their size. He stated that it helps the community if
there are some services available, and neither the hours nor the parking are
of concern to him. He agreed with staff that this use should be able to work
there, and restrictions should not be added that make it hard for it to work.
He said it should be flexible enough to provide a real benefit to that
community and to the Community of Crozet. He emphasized that it is not as
though there was going to be 40,000 square feet of office space involved.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant may want to speak to the proffer
relative to the office hours. Mr. Cilimberg added that he believes this was
offered as a way to justify the reduced parking spaces.
Mr. Fox remarked that he feels there is more than adequate on street
parking. There are 17 parking spaces on the south side of the block that the
park is on, and all streets are designed for on street parking. He stated
that it was felt that this more than adequately replaces the reduction of the
on site spaces. As far as the hours are concerned, he would love to extend
them, or remove the restriction. He still feels as though there is adequate
parking even if the restriction is removed.
Mr. Marshall stated that he does not think hours are going to be a
problem. He noted that he has owned a medical building for 40 years, and he
has rented to dentists and pediatricians, and now he has a gynecologist, a
neurologist and a dermatologist in the building with him. He said his
drugstore has been open at night, but in the 40 years he has been there, he
does not recall seeing any of the doctors come back at night or on weekends.
Mr. Martin commented that he lives close to one of Martha Jefferson's
buildings, as well as a University of Virginia property, and at 5:00 p.m. the
parking lot is empty, except for one or two cars.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that doctors may come back to do paper work, but
they do not usually see patients after hours. The patients coming to his
drugstore after 5:00 p.m. are generally from the Emergency Room at Martha
Jefferson.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000 72
Ms. Humphris said she wants to know if the restriction on hours is
necessary.
Mr. Perkins stated that he does not think it is enforceable. He
mentioned, though, that there are other types of professional offices rather
than doctors and dentists. He does not know if staff has any figures on the
type of professional office that would generate the most or the least traffic.
However, if tax preparers were in one of the buildings, for example, they
would probably be working late at night from April 1 to April 15.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the applicant made the proffer, and she does
not know if this Board can amend it, but she suggested that only the 20
percent parking reduction be requested in both Blocks A and B.
Mr. Marshall suggested that it be left as it is and see if there are any
complaints. He does not think there will be any complaints.
Ms. Humphis said it would not be fair for the applicant to have to go
back through this process again. She then suggested that the part of the
proffer relating to the hours for the professional offices be deleted, if the
applicant is willing.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the last sentence of the proffer should be left
in, because it regards on street parking.
Mr. Martin asked about the width of the streets where on street parking
will occur. Mr. Fox answered that the streets are 28 feet wide, and they will
be 36 feet wide in the front.
Mr. Martin recalled a neighbor in one of the neighborhoods with which he
is familiar complaining about on street parking. The biggest County fire
truck was taken there, and it couldn't get through because there was parking
on either side of the street. Now, there are no parking signs posted on the
street. He assumes the applicant has taken into consideration the width of
the streets in the proposed plan relative to cars being parked there and
whether or not they will still accommodate fire trucks. Mr. Fox answered
affirmatively. The VDoT regulations were used, and unrestricted parking is
allowed on a 28 foot curb to curb width.
Ms. Thomas said JAUNT was mentioned in the description. She asked if
these streets would be big enough for a large van if more public
transportation becomes available in the future.
Mr. Perkins stated that if a fire truck can get through, the streets
will accommodate the types of transportation to which Ms. Thomas referred.
Mr. Cilimberg concurred.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he likes small streets in neighborhoods.
Ms. Thomas agreed. However, she said exceptions for such things as fire
trucks and transportation vehicles have to be considered, although she cannot
picture big buses ever being in these types of neighborhoods.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that school buses will have to have access to
the neighborhoods.
Ms. Humphris remarked that a fire truck could never get into the Royal
Oaks Subdivision because of on street parking. This is the situation to which
she has been referring for years near Mill Creek.
Mr. Martin recalled that this Board approved the reduction in the
highway requirements at Forest Lakes. He said, though, one neighbor
complained, and officials took a fire truck out there, and no parking signs
were installed as a result of this visit. Mr. Bowerman agreed that such
things have to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Martin stated that Forest Lakes has upgraded its security by paying
overtime to police officers. However, parking tickets are given out when
people are just trying to park for birthday parties.
Ms. Thomas called attention to e) under the general conditions for the
Wayland's Grant proposal relating to the planting of trees. She asked if the
trees will be maintained. Mr. Cilimberg answered that if the trees are part
000.'I. 73
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12) ~ ~ ~
of a proffer, they are subject to being maintained. He then referred to the
fact that the Zoning Ordinance requires landscaping to be maintained.
Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Planning Commission had a good
discussion about the street trees, but one of the comments was that the
Albemarle County Service Authority didn't like manholes in the sidewalks. The
County doesn't have much control over VDoT, but it should have something to
say with its own Service Authority. She asked if having utilities under the
sidewalk is an issue. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Planning Commission
has not had such discussions with the Service Authority. There are a couple
of things the Authority feels it needs to preserve in its system, and one is
the restriction of plantings over the lines. He stated that apparently
another is the location of manholes. This may very well be something that
needs discussion. He mentioned that whenever there is talk about reducing
setbacks and getting the fronts of homes closer to the streets, area is being
restricted which causes public rights-of-way, sidewalks, plantings and
utilities to be combined.
Ms. Thomas remarked that since it is the County's own Service Authority
making these restrictions, she wondered if perhaps the applicant has had this
discussion. Mr. Tom Muncaster, an engineer on the project, stated that he has
had firsthand experience dealing with this type of situation with the Stone
Gate neighborhood where the Planning Commission required sidewalks on both
sides of the streets. He originally had the sewer lines under the streets,
but VDoT didn't want the manholes in the streets. He didn't want to put the
sewer lines in the easements, because the homeowners would not be able to
plant trees in their front yards, so he wanted to put the sewer lines under
the sidewalks. However, the Service Authority informed him that it did not
want the manholes in the sidewalk. When he asked how far behind the sidewalks
he should put the manholes, the Authority representatives told him they did
not want the manholes there either, because the homeowners would want to put
their plantings there. The Service Authority took the matter under discus-
sion, and after a week or so, he was told to put the manholes two feet behind
the sidewalk. He mentioned that now there is an easement in all the residents'
front yards which means that trees can't be planted because of sewer lines.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Muncaster if, as an engineer, he thought it was
reasonable to have the sewer lines under sidewalks and have the manholes in
sidewalks. Mr. Muncaster replied affirmatively. However, the Service
Authority doesn't want manholes in sidewalks, because if a line has to be
replaced, the sidewalk would have to be replaced.
Mr. Bowerman referred tO the street trees on Route 29, and he recalled
that there are different species and things that can be done to keep the root
systems out of these structures. He said access easements and the location of
utilities should not be an issue that would bring bad planning into play. He
stated that because of the types of species available and the way things can
be done, it should not cause any problems to the utility or VDoT. Mr.
Muncaster stated that this is getting to be more and more of a problem because
of the DISC Committee's recommendation for higher densities, as well as
shorter front setbacks, and there is no place to put the utilities.
Mr. Bowerman said there has to be some flexibility that allows utilities
to be installed, with reasonable access to the utilities under 95 percent of
the circumstances. He stated that it does not have to be 100 percent
guaranteed that shrubs, etc., will not ever be disturbed.
Ms. Thomas wondered how this relates to the discussion on street trees.
Mr. Martin remarked that it is a separate issue, and he thinks the Board
members should stay with the proposal before them. The DISC Committee will
probably get into some of these discussions.
Mr. Bowerman stated that things to be considered would involve
regulations in the County's ordinances, as well as utility issues and VDoT's
concerns.
Ms. Thomas commented that she hopes the DISC Committee will take this up
with the Service Authority because it is part of the County.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Waylands Grant plan is ahead of its time, and
he wondered if there are things the DISC Committee is considering that would
have an impact on this project.
000 .74
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Bowerman stated that there will be a lot of suggestions from the
DISC Committee, but there is a length of time in which they need to be worked
out and implemented. He said an application is before this Board tonight
which has a lot of the things the County officials have been looking for, and
he wondered how the Supervisors can make the plan work rather than the
reverse.
Mr. Martin said the DISC Committee has given a vote of confidence to
this project. Ms. Thomas remarked that there are a lot of things in the
project that she likes. Mr. Marshall said he is looking forward to the DISC
Committee's report.
Mr. Martin mentioned some concerns of his about the project. He and Ms.
Humphris were the only ones of the present members who were on this Board when
the zoning issue occurred on this property. Mr. Bowerman commented that he
was a member when the lawsuit was brought against this Board.
Mr. Perkins said the property at that time was zoned R-6, and he felt
the density was too high. He stated that things have changed, but he still
feels the density is too high. He added that there is a 72 percent increase
in density over the R-6 allowance. He explained that the property was zoned
R-6 because of the smallest lot size in that subdivision of 51 lots. He said
Blocks A and B of this project have a minimum lot size of 1,500 square feet so
this raises the zoning to possibly R-30. He added that he is not saying he
disagrees with the zoning, but it will have a lot of impacts, and one of them
will certainly be on the roads. He was disappointed to see that even though
there are a lot of on site proffers, there are no off site proffers. He
emphasized that this project will have an impact on Jarman's Gap Road which is
to be improved. He also recalled a $500 per lot proffer made by Gray Rock
representatives, and he mentioned that he would like to see the reaction of
the applicant relative to a proffer of $500 per unit to go toward sidewalks or
a bike trail along Jarman's Gap Road. He went on to say the owner certainly
has a good use for the property with the way it is zoned now. He added that
if this request is not approved, the owner still has a viable use for the
property. He thinks County officials need to look at any zoning of this type
and expect some kind of proffer from the developer that will help the whole
community and ultimately the whole County. He remarked that if the developer
doesn't pay for the sidewalk and the bike trail, then it is going to have to
come out of the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any discussions to this effect with the
applicant. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He said, though, the
applicant did not offer such a proffer because he felt he was doing other
things on site that the County officials were hoping to achieve.
Mr. Bowerman then inquired as to the tradeoffs offered by the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that tradeoffs involve things such as the urban cross
section sidewalk development, the green area, and the full development design.
He said dwelling costs were not proffered, but the description of the project
indicated a desire to provide some of the units at a rather low cost. He
stated that Mr. Rieley raised the same question at the Planning Commission
meeting, and he favored putting the money toward the quality of the develop-
ment in dealing with the off site issues. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff had
raised similar questions, as well, because of the recent Gray Rock rezoning.
He reiterated, though, that the applicant did not offer such a proffer.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks Mr. Perkins' question and the
staff's discussion with the applicant are valid, and he thinks this Board
should consider all the information it has available.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that a good reason to consider Mr. Perkins'
remarks is the information relating to the'fiscal impact. She pointed out
that the fiscal impact to the taxpayers annually in the by right development
is $150,000, but under the proposed project, it is $197,000. She emphasized
_ that it will cost the taxpayers $47,000 a year. She noted that this project
means additional school children.
Mr. Cilimberg said the dilemma is that under the County's growth
management program, the desire is to develop in these areas. Yet, sometimes
proffering can discourage projects, and development may'then take place
somewhere it is not desired at the same cost to the County or maybe even more.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Marshall noted that development somewhere else could mean additional
transportation costs.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the money might then have to be spent on
improving an old secondary road. This is the dilemma, although it is not to
say that the question is not valid, because the impact is obviously there.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the families and children are going to be
somewhere, but it is a question of where they will be located. The opportuni-
ties are there with general agreement by the Board and the Planning Commission
as far as the concept of what they are trying to accomplish. He stated that
this is considered in terms of the overall strategic plan of the County in
trying to get people to a higher density where services can be provided more
efficiently. He said a school is going to have to be built in Crozet, and
although the new elementary school there could have been built for 600
students, it was built for 400. He stated that the same number of children
will have to be educated, and the same number of people will be living here.
He added that this is another tradeoff, but it is intangible, because it
cannot be seen. He went on to say the DISC Committee is examining how to
encourage such things with incentives rather than new regulations and new laws
that cost more.
Ms. Thomas stated that it will cost less per unit to the community with
this project. She said although the total cost is higher, the cost per unit
is lower which shows some advantages of clustering and density. She added
that the advantages are probably far greater than the model shows compared to
85 units being sprawled down a country road.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Perkins if he was prepared to make a motion
relative to this proposal. Mr. Perkins replied that he thinks any developer
should consider the whole community and not just the small segment involved
with his project. He stated that the sidewalk and bike path will make this a
much more desirable project. He mentioned that the DISC Committee is also
examining how to make such projects part of the overall community and without
a pedestrian type of connection, it will not happen. He said once the people
get into their cars, they will be just as inclined to drive to Waynesboro or
Charlottesville as they are to Crozet. However, if they can make the trip on
foot then they will probably go to downtown Crozet.
Mr. Bowerman stated that County officials would have liked to have seen
a lot of things in Gray Rock that did not happen. He added, though, that
there are things in this development that County officials desire for such
projects, and there is more money being spent on site within the development.
He commented that at some point there has got to be recognition by this Board
and the public that County officials are working with a different developer on
each site. He said each developer is going to have a different goal of what
he wishes to accomplish. In this particular site, more is being done as far
as what County officials want, than with the other site. He thinks there are
occasions when the public sector has to be part of the density increase in
terms of sidewalks and road improvements.
Mr. Perkins commented that the public sector always has and always will
do its part in density improvements. He realizes that this project may not be
successful, but the developer is gambling that it is something he can sell,
although there is no proven track record. Mr. Perkins stated that he is
trying to make a point that any developer who comes before this Board should
look at off site proffers as seriously as on site proffers. The on site
proffers sells the project, but, in this case, he thinks the off site proffers
will also help sell the project. He said if the buyers are sure there is
gomng to be a sidewalk in place, it will make it a much more attractive
project.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that although there was not'a proffer to improve
Jarman's Gap Road, the developer made a proffer to dedicate rights-of-way for
the widening of the road with bike lanes and sidewalks.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this is something that used to be required,
but it was illegal. Mr. Cilimberg explained that nothing can be requested in
site plans for frontage improvements that were not directly associated with
the project. In this case of rezoning, it was felt that it was a feature for
the community for which the developer needed to allow.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000:1.76
Mr. Bowerman remarked that otherwise such improvements would have to be
sought through VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg concurred.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that County officials do not have the right to
impose impact fees. Mr. Perkins explained that this improvement is something
that is added on and paid for as a building permit is issued for each unit.
The fee will then go into the Capital Improvements Program. He asked if the
applicant would want to address this question.
Mr. Fox stated that representatives of his company have spent hundreds
of hours with the community. Mr. Perkins commented that Mr. Fox has had four
meetings, and there were 19 people at these meetings. Mr. Perkins said he has
talked to people who live across the street from the proposed project, and
they have not heard of it. He stated that the fault lies with these people,
but there has not been a single person from Orchard Acres who has been at any
of the meetings. Mr. Fox pointed oun that he walked up and down Orchard
Drive, and he spoke to the people there. Mr. Perkins said these people don't
appear to care now, but they will probably come to a meening of this Board and
complain when the project gets started.
Mr. Fox stated that he zs no~ in a position at this point to make a cash
proffer. He explained that he is trying to do a lot of things with the
housing stock, and the front two blocks will have a substantial near
traditional flavor to them. To keep the pricing of the products between
$100,000 to $125,000, he does not feel additional cash proffers can be made at
this point. He also noted the value of the common green which has the
potential to be six lots.
Mr. Perkins stated that there are 51 lots now, but if this request is
approved, there will be 85 lots plus 4,000 feet of office space. He asked how
much this is worth. Mr. Fox answered that the value of the 4,000 square feet
of professional space will return revenue to the County. Mr. Perkins then
mentioned the additional 30 plus development rights, and wondered about their
value. Mr. Fox said he is unsure of Mr. Perkins' question.
Mr. Perkins went on to explain that Mr. Fox had indicated the common
green was worth $150,000 because slx units can be put on it. He then asked
how much 36 additional units would be worth, if they are approved. He asked
if they are worth the same value of $25,000 a piece. He said certainly a $500
fee per unit is not very much. Mr. Fox restated that he is not ready to make
a cash proffer.
Mr. Marshall asked again if Mr. Perkins would like to make a motion.
would support the motion, since the proposed project is in Mr. Perkins'
district.
He
Mr. Davis stated that he would like to make a comment before the motion
is made. The case law in Virginia is such that if the only reason given to
deny an application is the fac5 that someone does not give a voluntary cash
proffer, it would put this Board in a very difficult position to defend the
rezoning on that basis. He wanted to make sure this is not the impression
that has been left, because he does not think that is what is intended. He
commented that there have been various reasons given as to why there is some
concern about this development, and he thinks these need to be articulated, if
this Board has an inclination not to approve the application. He repeated
that just because a cash proffer has not been offered is not a valid reason to
deny the application.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it seems to him the application has most of the
amenities, such as mixed uses and mixed housing cost types, and it seems to be
going in the direction County officials have been asking developers to go in
communities. He understands Mr. Perkins' questions, but he is considering the
total picture involving the community of Crozet and the fact that Jarman's Gap
Road is going to have to be improved. He said if a lot of things are put on
site there is not enough money to work with off site. He is willing to accept
this application because he thinks it is the best the Supervisors can do at
this point with the current ordinances and the knowledge they have. He stated
that it will not be 100 percent perfect for anyone, but it will be another
step closer in that direction. For that reason, Mr. Bowerman offered a motion
to approve ZMA-98-18 with the associated proffers.
Mr. Perkins said he would second the motion. However, he added that any
proffers made on site usually benefit only that particular project because it
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
000177
makes the development more attractive for the people who buy there. He would
like to establish some guidelines that would require the developer to add
amenities for the whole community that would benefit the whole County. This
cannot be done if applications are automatically approved. He mentioned,
though, that this application is somewhat different from others.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he wouldn't have brought up Gray Rock, except
someone is present from that development who doesn't like this plan.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that Mr. St. Pierre, the Gray Rock
representative, did not say he didn't like the plan. He said Mr. St. Pierre
only indicated that he had some concerns. Mr. Bowerman agreed that Mr. St.
Pierre had some concerns about setbacks, etc., that were imposed on Gray Rock
that were not imposed on this application. There are a lot of on site
amenities in this plan that were not in Gray Rock's plan, and County officials
are interested in such things.
Mr. Perkins noted that Gray Rock offered a lot of amenities other than
the original proposal.
Mr. Martin commented that he feels the Waylands Grant project is moving
closer to the recommendations that are going to be made by the DISC Committee.
He said because of this, he thinks it has Countywide implications and not
just for this particular property or the neighbors surrounding it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin feels the implications are good or bad.
Mr. Martin answered that he thinks they are good implications.
Ms. Thomas said this conversation is good for the record in the sense
that developers need to know there is the feeling that off site improvements
and responsibility for the community as a whole is something desired by County
officials.
Mr. Tucker concurred that this is the only way the Board can make the
developer understand that the Planning Commission and/or the Board of
Supervisors are anticipating some type of proffer with these kinds of
developments as applications are made.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she agrees with Mr. Martin's comments, also.
Ms. Humphris stated that if this application had arrived without these
amenities, the Supervisors would not have been nearly so positive about
receiving it. She said when the developers arrive with an application, they
need to know they have to include some good things for the community.
Mr. Marshall said he does not have anything to add.
Mr. Perkins recalled a past meeting when Mr. Lindstrom said to him when
a rezoning was approved that the Board had just made $2,000,000 for the
developer. He noted that over 30 development rights have been added, so if
the application is approved, this developer will have made some money.
There was no further discussion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Proffer Statement
Barclay Development Corporation
Robert E. Jr. and LeAnne C. Bargamin
Rezoning Application Z~4A 98-18 Wayland's Grant
Robert E. Jr. and LeAnne Bargamin (the "Applicant") are the fee simple owners
of that certain property described in rezoning application #ZMA-98-18 and is
all of Tax Map 55, parcels 66A and 66. If Applicant's rezoning application is
denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and have no further
force or effect. These proffers shall supersede all other proffers made prior
to this date.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Plans and Illustrations.
II.
000 .?$
III.
Applicant has presented as part of its Rezoning Application, an
application plan entitled, "Wayland's Grant Conceptual Plan", dated
10/20/98, revised 11/2/98, revised 11/9/98, and initialed "EKE", which
is attached to these Proffers and General Conditions.
Density
No more than 85 dwelling units may be constructed on the Property.
Road Improvements
2.1
Dedication. As a condition of plat approval for the subdivision,
Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the
Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarman's
Gap Road) not to exceed 30' to the centerline of the existing
prescriptive easement as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Applicant
and successors in title shall grant easements for temporary
construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed.
2.2
Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an internal
public road network. As a condition of plat approval for the
subdivision, Applicant shall construct as a single improvement, a
100 foot right turn lane and 100 foot taper for westbound right
turn movement into the Property from State Route 691 as indicated
on the Conceptual Plan.
Public Roads: The public streets within the neighborhood
shall be at the widths shown on the Conceptual Plan and
designed and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996
Subdivision Street Requirements.
2.3
Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the
property, in Sec. 2.1 dedicated pursuant to proffer is not used
for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being
undertaken within 10 years of receipt of the property by the
County, then the property shall revert to HOA.
2.4
Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a 50-foot right-
of-way for a future street to provide inter-parcel accesses to the
adjoining properties, east and west of the Property. The
locations are shown on the Conceptual Plan. In the event that the
area reserved for a street(s) is not used for the purpose for
which it is hereby proffered within seven (7) years from the date
of approval of ZMA-98-18, then such reservation shall be released
and the Applicant then may use the area(s) for building lot(s)
notwithstanding the density limitation contained in Article 1
above or at Applicant's option, such area may accrue to the
adjoining lots. For the connection to the Gray Rock parcel to the
west, the Applicant shall construct a road meeting County rural
profile standards in the r.o.w, prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the 50th unit.
Open Space
3.1
Open space for the development is shown on the Conceptual Plan as
Community Open Space and Community Commons.
3 2
Within the Community Open Space, Applicant will construct a tot
lot and a nature trail. The nature trail will be constructed
within the stream buffer zone shown on the Conceptual Plan with
the improvements for the lots adjacent to the stream buffer. If
the trail is to be constructed adjacent to the stream and the
stream meanders onto adjacent property, the trail may be placed on
adjoining properties if the County obtains the necessary easements
on those adjoining properties. The HOA will reserve the stream
buffer including the nature trail for dedication to the County at
such time that adjoining properties convey a greenway or similar
path system to the County for continuation of the greenway on the
unnamed intermittent stream which leads to the greenway along
Powell's Creek.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18 )
000 .79
3.3
Applicant will convey in fee simple the Community Open Space and
the Community Commons to the Wayland's Grant Homeowners
Association ("HOA") before final bond release for public
improvements for the development.
IV.
Owners Association and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions
4.1
Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the
Property, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(the "Declaration").
The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and
development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner.
The Declaration shall set forth covenants, conditions and
restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the
Property. A clear intent of the Declaration will be that the
County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce
such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration
shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or
Albemarle County regulatory or minimum code standards, except as
allowed by the regulations and/or the Albemarle County Code.
4.2 Fixed Standards.
(a)
The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be
referenced in the Declaration:
(±)
Types of materials to be used in construction of
buildings;
(ii)
Minimum setbacks from properties adjacent to the
Property, lot/building area ratios, restrictions;
height restrictions; and
(iii) Types of materials to be used and standard for
landscaping.
4.3 Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines also shall:
(a)
Provide the standards for development within the Property
and explain how such standards are implemented;
(b)
Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The
County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design
Review Committee).
(c)
Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for
approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with
design and construction within the Property; and
(d)
Include requirements for builders to install low flow
showers and toilets as water conservation techniques.
4.4
Maintenance of Landscaping and Open Space. The Declaration shall
provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping
and open space, within the Property, including the following:
(a)
The Applicant shall organize The Wayland's Grant Home Owners
Association (the "HOA") as a non-stock corporation under the
laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such
lands and improvements owned or entrusted to the HOA.
(b)
The Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions
running with the land shall bind the HOA. The Applicant or
such HOA shall be responsible for the perpetuation,
maintenance and function of all open space areas.
(c)
The Applicant or such HOA shall provide a means for
identifying Community Open Space as to location, size, use
and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such
covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the
maintenance of such Community Open Space. The Declaration's
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Me'ting)
(Page 19)
000 1
method of identifying open space areas shall not supersede
any applicable requirements to identify common areas in a
site development plan or subdivision plat.
(d)
The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a
period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be
automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five
(25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the
Declaration.
(e)
The HOA shall continue in effect so as to control the
availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and
to maintain the open space for its intended function. Such
Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such HOA
dispose of any open space, by sale or otherwise, except to
successor organizations conceived and organized under the
same standards and principles set forth herein for the HOA
to own and maintain the open space.
V. Miscellaneous.
5.1
Certificate. The undersigned, Robert E. Bargamin, Jr. and LeAnne C.
Bargamin certify that they are the only owners of the Property that
is the subject of this application.
5.2
The Applicant. These proffers shall run with the Property and
each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall
include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's
successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property
or any portion of the Property.
Barclay Development Company
By: R. E. Bargamin, President (Signed) 12/9/98
Robert E. Bargamin, Jr. (Signed) 12/9/98
LeAnne C. Bargamin (Signed} 12/9/98
General Conditions for Wayland's Grant
These general conditions are a part of the Conceptual Plan dated 10/20/98
revised 11/2/98 and 11/9/98 and proffered as a part of the rezoning
application for Wayland's Grant.
A}
The purpose of this development is to provide a mixed-use community with
opportunities for resmdential, office and PRD and R-6 by right uses in
the Crozet Growth Area. With design features such as minimal setbacks,
sidewalks, a central green, preservation of stream valleys, dedication
of open space, the development is intended to accomplish in Crozet a
design in keeping with the goals and objectives of the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
B}
The uses allowed in the Wayland's Grant Planned Development shall be all
of those uses allowed by right in the R-6 Zoning District and all of
those uses allowed by right in the PRD Zoning District identified as
Sections 16.2.1; 16.2.2; 19.3.1 and 19.3.2 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, copies of which are attached, with the restrictions as
to dwelling unit types indicated in Condition C below.
Uses allowed by special use permit shall be all of those uses allowed by
special use permit in the R-6 Zoning District and PRD Zoning District, with
the following exceptions:
16.2.2.4
16.2.2.8
16.2.2.10
16.2.2.13
16.2.2.14
16.2.2.9
19.3 .2.8
19.3.2.3
Commercial swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facility;
Mobile Home subdivisions;
Hospitals;
Cemeteries;
Mobile Home Parks;
Rest home, nursing home convalescent home, orphanage or similar
institution;
Commercial swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities;
Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar
institutions.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
O00:l.8:i.
Approved as a part of this development as a special use are professional
offices, 2000sf each in Blocks A and B; community center; temporary sales
center to convert to a residential unit or professional office; and
recreational or athletic facilities for this development.
c)
Uses and conditions allowed by block as shown on the Conceptual Plan;
Residential types shall be limited as listed in the blocks below.
1) Blocks'A and B.
Development will be in accord with the axonimetric drawing
entitled "Front Block Schematic", dated "11/19/98", and initialed,
~EKE" as to the following elements only: buildings will be
aligned generally along the outside of the block in.a "U" shape,
facing a center courtyard. Buildings may be single storied or
multistoried with basements or half basements; pitched roofs will
be provided for all structures. All other elements of the drawing
are illustrations only and are not proffered.
a)
b)
The following uses are allowed: Professional office: 2000sf
each in Blocks A and B for a total of 4000sf in the
development, single family detached (SFD), single family
attached (SFA), townhouses (TH), Multifamily (MF), community
center (CC), Recreation or athletic facilities for the
community (PAF), temporary sales center (TSC), condominiums
(c).
Building facades will face public streets.
c)
Parking shall be interior to the block, landscaped to
minimize view of parking from all streets, with the
exception that dwelling units on the east side of Block B
may be rear loaded and dwellings on the west end of Block A
may be rear loaded as governed by private driveway
regulations.
d)
The Applicant requests a reduction in the parking require-
ment of 20% per the parking regulation 4.12.4 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in both Blocks A and B.
The streets have been designed for on-street parking which
will provide parking opportunities well in excess of the
requested 20% reduction.
e)
Large variety trees, 2.5 inches in caliper, or larger, will
be installed along Jarman's Gap Road at an interval of
approximately every 50', as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
These trees will be indicated on the site plan or
subdivision plat and installed and bonded in conjunction
with improvements provided for Blocks A and B.
2. Park Block.
Uses: SFD, SFA, TH, TSC, CC, RAF, and Community Commons as shown
on the ConcePtual Plan.
3. Block C:
Uses: SFD, SFA, TSC, CC, RAF.
4. Block D:
Uses: SFD, SFA, TH.
5. ' Block F:
Uses: SFD, SFA.
6. Community Open Space and Community Commons.
Uses: tot lot as shown on the Conceptual Plan and in conformity
with Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance (Copy attached), nature
trail, public utilities, storm water management devices, erosion
control measures necessary for the development.
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Additional recreational areas for this community, such as a
community canter and/or fitness canter may be developed by the
Applicant or the HOA in an area designated by the Applicant.
D) Sidewalks.
Sidewalks, 4 feet wide and constructed of concrete, shall be provided
along the streets and other areas shown on the Conceptual Plan.
E) Street Trees
If, after consultation with the County, VDOT, and the Albemarle County
Service Authority, utility location is allowed in the streets, the
applicant will provide street trees roughly 50' apart in a planting
strip between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. However, if
negotiations are unsuccessful the applicant will construct the sidewalk
adjacent to the curb and no street trees will be provided.
F) Setbacks, Maximum Height and Minimum Lot Sizes.
a) The front setbacks shall be a minimum of 10'
b)
On detached lots, the side yard setback for primary and secondary
structures shall be a minimum of 3'
c)
On attached lots, a zero side yard setback shall apply along
common walls and for any accessory structures along the respective
property line.
d) The rear setbacks shall be a minimum of 20'
f)
If and where shared driveways are constructed, the setback from the
shared access easement shall be a minimum of 3'
g) Maximum height of any structure is not to exceed 45'
h) Minimum lot sizes:
Minimum lot size for detached units in Blocks other than Blocks A
& B shall be 4500sf;
Minimum lot size for attached units in blocks other than blocks A
& B shall be 2000sf;
Minimum lot size in Blocks A & B shall be 1500sf.
G) BMP'S,
Storm water BMP's will be implemented as per the Conceptual Plan.
H) Flag lots shall be permitted.
I)
Variations in site development plans and subdivision plats from approved
application plans may be permitted by the director of planning and
community development upon a finding that such variations are: generally
in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved application
plans; in accordance with the comprehensive plan; and in accordance with
regulations currently in effect. Changes other than permitted herein
shall be made only by rezoning application.
At 8:16 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
8:26 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-51. Triton PCS/Vepco/Allan (Sign #37).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility
on an existing Vepco high voltage power line. SUP required in accord w/
provisions of Sec 10.2.2(6) of Zoning Ord. Proposal to locate antenna approx
4 ft above height of existing Vepco monopole located on W sd of Barracks Rd
approx 0.26 mls E of Rt 601, Old Garth Rd. Property consists of approx 53
acs. TM60,P3. Znd RA. (This site is not located in a designated development
area.) Jack Jousett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25
and December 1, 1998.)
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
000 1.33
Mr. Cilimberg reported that SP-98-51 is a request to place additional
antennas on the existing VEPCO tower located south of Barracks Road, which
will be for Triton Communications. The proposal is to locate antennas
approximately four feet above the height of the existing Vepco monopole
located on the west side of Barracks Road approximately 0.26 miles east of
Route 601, Old Garth Road. He stated that both high and low voltage power
lines cross Barracks Road at this property, and the high voltage lines are
supported by 116 foot tall monopole structures. The antenna will be placed on
top of one of these structures, and he noted that there will be no clearing
for access for the provision of electrical service required. He stated that
this antenna will primarily serve the Barracks Road corridor. He commented
that this is an area that is located in the entrance corridor, but the visual
impact in using the power line tower would be less than what would occur if a
free standing tower of the same or similar height was constructed outside of
the corridor. He noted that the ground based equipment will not be visible
from Barracks Road due to the terrain, and it will make use of an existing
utility corridor. He said while existing power line corridors have negative
visual impacts in most instances, and these utility corridors have towers
which are as tall as the tallest conventional free standing personal wireless
service towers, the use of these towers for antennas allows for a large
service area without significant additional negative visual impact. He stated
that because of the large service area, the total number of sites required by
a personal wireless service provider can be reduced, which will potentially
reduce the overall impact on the County. He next called attention to the
illustration provided in the staff report. There is an existing reasonable
use of the property, and this request will not be establishing a reasonable
use beyond what is available now. He added that the staff's opinion is that
the site will accommodate the proposed facilities without creating adverse
impacts and has recommended approval of the request with four conditions. The
Planning Commission concurs.
Mr. Marshall called attention to the next agenda item dealing with a
similar request. He said the Board would deal with each one separately.
Ms. Humphris mentioned the first and second paragraphs of Page One of
the staff report where the words, ~antenna" and ~antennas" are both used.
However, she expects more than one antenna is involved. Mr. Cilimberg
referred to the top of Page Six where there is a picture of the triangular
shape of the supporting structure. The vertical antennas themselves are
located in three locations on each side of the triangle.
Ms. Thomas stated that she was looking at all of the different antennas
when she was driving back and forth to Richmond today, and it looked to her as
though there were a number of them with six panels rather than nine. Mr.
Cilimberg said the applicant would have to speak to that.
Ms. Thomas stated that there is a lot of difference in the way the size
and heaviness of the clusters of antennas look on different towers. She said
she had always thought they were about the same, but she noticed on this trip
that there is a difference among them. She said she would ask for a response
to this question when the applicant comes up to speak.
Mr. George Cummings, a representative of Triton PCS, commented that Mr.
Steve Blaine, from the law firm of McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe, will
represent his company.
Mr. Blaine stated that he feels the staff report addresses the zoning
issues. He then responded to Ms. Thomas' question by saying that the reason
for the multiple antennas is to provide a multi-directional signal. The site
Ms. Thomas saw in Richmond probably provided a different coverage objective.
Ms. Thomas asked if nine panels are needed here instead of six. She
said she saw a number of triangular towers with only two panels on each side
instead of three. Mr. Blaine answered that less panels reduce the direction
in which the signal can be sent, which reduces the amount of coverage that can
be provided.
Ms. Thomas said some of the towers had connections holding them together
at the top of each of the panels, but the sketch included in the Board
members' information doesn't have this. She mentioned that there was quite a
difference in how heavy the triangular portion looked depending on how much
was there in addition to the panels. Mr. Blaine replied that he has a
photograph of an existing facility that is similar to the one in Richmond. He
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
000i 4
said it is not a simulation, and it will give the Supervisors an idea of how
the nine panels will look.
Ms. Thomas next stated that there is a toWer in Charlottesville which
actually has the panels below the top set of arms rather than above. Mr.
Blaine said he believes Ms. Thomas is referring to the one on the Route 250
Bypass. He went on to say the height is important for the coverage objec-
tive, although there is not a physical requirement that it would have to be
above the arms, of which he is aware. He stated that the Route 250 Bypass
tower obviously meets the coverage objective with its antenna array.
Ms. Thomas then asked if the antennas could be placed below the top set
of arms. Mr. Blaine answered that it could be done in this manner, but the
coverage objective would be lost. Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Blaine had a
printout indicating the effect on the coverage if the antennas were lower.
Mr. Blaine stated that he does not know if models are available to show the
effect on the coverage if the antennas are reduced from the proposed height to
a lower height. There may be some flexibility in the attachment of the
antenna array, and Triton representatives who are present tonight may be able
to address this. Mr. Blaine went on to say the antennas are approximately
five feet in height and four inches wide, and they would be mounted on center
with the stanchions that form a triangle on top. However, there may be a way
to move them in closer to the pole. He asked if this answers Ms. Thomas'
question.
Ms. Thomas said she would be interested in anything that would reduce
the heaviness of the tower. She remarked that for a pole, this particular
tower is fairly nice looking and part of the reason is because of the design
and how it is held together. She added that the Board members are getting
into technicalities, and they don't know what is possible, but their goal is
to have something they and Triton could use as a model. The nicer looking the
tower is, the easier it would be for Triton to use it as a model and go
through this sort of hearing more easily.
Ms. Humphris explained that the Supervisors need to know how the
antennas will look when they are in place. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is
trying to get a scale in terms of the distance between each one of the
antennas. Mr. Blaine referred to a scale drawing in the staff report on Page
Six.
Mr. Hooman Parsia, a design engineer and consultant to PCS, said the
proposal is to get the optimum performance to meet all of the coverage
requirements. He stated that if they start diverting from this design, the
quality of the signal being transmitted to the mobiles will decrease and
therefore drop the quality of the calls.
Mr. Blaine mentioned that there has been an attempt to address the
heaviness of the towers by painting the structures to match the surroundings.
This could be a condition of approval. He asked if the Board members could
suggest other ways to address this, but still get the desired coverage.
Mr. Parsia replied that there are other alternatives, but if other
alternatives are used there will be a tradeoff in the quality of service for
the site. He said if the Board members are asking for a reduction in the
separation of antennas, it will reduce the quality of service. He stated that
the plan is designed to get the most efficient signal out of the antenna
array.
Ms. Humphris remarked that the Board members need to know what the
structure will look like, and there is nothing in the report to show this.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the antenna is five feet high, and there is 12 feet
between each one of the three, but he does not know what goes in between. He
then asked if the size of the structure was reduced, what size would be the
most efficient. Mr. Parsia explained that it is just a triangular panel that
is non very thick or bulky, and the three antennas themselves are spaced five
feet apart from one another. Mr. Bowerman inquired if there is a total of
nine antennas. Mr. Parsia responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman said this is
helpful. The Supervisors are looking at a drawing that, from the side, it
looks as though there are three antennas. Mr. Parsia remarked that unless
someone was looking at the tower from above, only three will be seen. Mr.
Bowerman wondered what the cross hatching in the drawing represented. Mr.
Parsia said it is the construction grating for support of the antennas and
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
0001 5
cables. Mr. Blaine explained that the mounting structure will be open. He
added that it will not be a solid structure.
Ms. Thomas inquired if there was only one location indicated. The
illustration makes it look as though there are two. Mr. Marshall said it
looks to him as though there are three locations. Mr. Blaine stated that
there may be co-locations shown. He went on to say the illustration does not
adequately represent the structure because there will only be a single
platform involved.
Mr. Perkins wondered if it would be possible to mount the antennas at 80
feet instead of 120 feet. Mr. Parsia answered that coverage would be lost if
this was done.
Mr. Perkins asked if it would be feasible to mount the antennas at 80
feet if the needed coverage could be received at that height. Mr. Parsia said
the antenna is constructable at that height, but the question is whether it
will meen the requirements.
Mr. Perkins inquired as to how the antenna is mounted. Mr. Parsia
replied that there are climbers who actually build the structure.
Mr. Marshall asked if the picture included with the Supervisors'
material is accurate as far as the appearance of the structure. Mr. Blaine
responded that the picture shows double decking, and Triton will only have one
deck. He said, though, the overall scale is accurate as far as what the
Supervisors can expect to see. Mr. Marshall asked about the distance between
the structures. Mr. Parsia answered that it depends upon the design of the
network, but on average, the spacing would be two to three miles.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that there are not many places in this community
where the power lines go along the roads, because they usually tend to cut
across them, instead. Mr. Blaine said this is a good point because along
Barracks Road there is just that one spot where this plan will work. Mr.
Marshall stated that he does not think he will see the structure when he is
driving along the road.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the electrical transmission lines won't be
beautified, but the structure should not stand out visually. He went on to
say if this picture is the way the structure will look in place, then he
doesn't think it is an unreasonable accommodation of an existing structure.
Mr. Martin said the structure in the picture certainly beats what is
seen in other communities. Mr. Blaine explained that this depiction is a
condition of the special permit.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the antennas are above the lightning
protection wire. Mr. Parsia said the antennas provide their own lightning and
grounding equipment.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, stated that he is not speaking
directly to this particular application. He said his comments would be
generic. He noted that his remarks may be dated, because he wrote them a
month ago, but there were no tower applications on the agenda at that time. He
mentioned that he drove a friend of his to the airport in Richmond this
morning, and he was amazed at the number of towers along Interstate 64. The
concept the Board has adopted recently of hiring a consultant who may charge a
cellular tower applicant up to $5,000 to review the application is seriously
flawed. He stated that the process has become so complicated and so expensive
that applicants are going to start looking for alternate solutions which means
VDoT may start putting cellular towers along all their highways and not just
the interstates. He referred to the lawsuit filed against the Board of
Supervisors, and he assured the Board that there would be more. Instead of
the adversarial relationship that has developed, he suggested that the
Supervisors should be trying to make the process as painless as possible on
everyone, and he had an idea as to how this could be done. First, he
suggested that consultants be asked to scour the County and pick locations for
as many towers as could ever possibly be needed. He said then the County,
itself, or in a joint Authority with the City, should build and own all the
towers. He added that space on the towers could then be rented to as many
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~'~G
(Page 25)
cellular companies as desire to do business here, instead of the system now
where each company is competing for tower locations. He stated that there
would be no more public hearings, lawsuits or controversy. There would just
be business contracts between the cellular companies and the Authority which
would make a constant source of revenue. He emphasized that VDoT would then
have no reason to ever consider building towers on its rights-of-way. He
-- asked the Supervisors to consider this proposal seriously, because he believes
it is the best solution to the problem.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Davis if this suggestion is legal. Mr. Davis
· ~ responded that Fairfax County considered a similar type of solution by having
~ towers on property that is already publicly owned. He is not sure, though, if
any jurisdiction has acquired property to establish this sort of utility, and
he doesn't know whether or not there is current enabling authority to allow
the County to do this. However, he thinks it would be interesting to deal
with the constituents in various neighborhoods to find sites.
No one else came forward to speak, so at 8:49 p.m., Mr. Marshall closed
the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she likes the concept to which Mr. Grady
referred.
Ms. Humphris inquired if a condition relating to lighting is necessary,
as it is for everything else. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the Supervisors
could add such a condition. He explained, though, that based on all FA3t
regulations now in place, this project would not require lighting.
Ms. Humphris said to be consistent, she would support adding a condition
with the usual language. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he does not have the
wording with him at this meeting, but he will make sure the language is
included in the action. Mr. Bowerman stated that the condition could state,
for now, that the antenna shall not be lighted.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphirs, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to
~ ~ approve SP-98-51 as recommended by the Planning Commission, with an additional
condition #5: "The tower shall have no lighting". Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr.
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Attachment to the power line tower shall be in general accord with the
plan titled "CV-t-303C Existing Power Pole Vepco-Allan' attached to this
report and initialed WDF 10/28/98 (on file in the Clerk's office);
2. All cables supporting the antenna and the antenna themselves shall be
the same color as the existing power line tower;
3. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per
year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify
each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless
telecommunications service provider;
4. The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site
within ninety (90) days of the date their use for wireless
~i l telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and
_~ I 5. The tower shall have no lighting.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-52. Triton PCS/Vepco/Allan (sign #35).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility
on an existing Vepco high voltage power line. SUP required in accord w/
provisions of Sec 23.2.2(3) of Zoning Ord. Proposal to locate antenna approx
18 ft above height of existing Vepco lattice tower located behind State Farm
Bldg at Pantops. Property consists of approx 30 acs. TM78,P20F. Znd CO.
(This site is recommended for Office/Regional Service in Neighborhood 3.)
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 1,
1998.)
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report relating to SP-98-52 which is a
proposal to construct a telecommunications pole within the existing VEPCO
power line tower located south of the State Farm Regional Headquarters site at
Pantops. He remarked that the high voltage power line is supported by 110
foot tall lattice structures, and the request is to locate antennas
approximately 18 feet above the height of the existing Vepco lattice tower by
constructing a monopole tower in the middle. The base level for the existing
and proposed poles is approximately 50 feet below grade of the State Farm
Building. He noted that in order to contruct the proposed facility no
clearing for access and provision of electrical service will be required, so
the only impacts reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance is the location of the antennas above the existing power line
tower and the location of the ground based equipment. He commented that the
tower is intended to provide service to the Interstate 64 corridor and the
developing area along South Pantops Drive. The Open Space Plan notes that
wooded areas visible from Monticello which protect Monticello's setting and
viewshed should be preserved. In this case, he reported that the siting does
not require any change to the wooded area, although there is an "Important
Wooded Area" designated in the Open Space Plan immediately adjacent to this
particular site. He said it has been determined that visual impact from
Monticello is minimal considering distance and the existing towers and power
lines connecting those towers. He went on to say staff has recommended a
condition that the new monopole be painted a matching rust color to blend in
with the lattice tower. He stated that there is existing reasonable use of
the property, but the staff's opinion is that the site will accommodate the
proposed facility without creating adverse impacts. He added that staff has
recommended approval of the application with four conditions. However, the
Planning Commission did not recommend approval due to concerns about
visibility of the monopole above the existing tower.
Mr. Blaine, representing the applicant, stated that since the Planning
Commission meeting, there was a continuing concern by one particular commis-
sioner about the Monticello viewshed. Mr. Blaine said he contacted the
Director of Restoration at Monticello and sent him a staff report. He stated
that after checking with Dan Jordan, the Director of Restoration indicated
that they did not have an objection to the proposal. Mr. Blaine said he has
some photographs and graphic information available. He believes if there had
been better presentation and the questions from the commissioners had been
more fully answered, then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if this project will have the same platform as the
one just reviewed by this Board. Mr. Blaine answered, "no." He said it is a
different array. He then displayed a photograph which he called Exhibit One,
and reported that there would be a monopole constructed through the lattice
structure of the Virginia Power pole. He pointed out the cleared right-of-way
in the photograph which allows installation and maintenance and access without
any land disturbance. He stated that there is an actual easement from State
Farm to obtain access to the tower installation. This photograph was taken
from the 1-64 span over the Rivanna River.
Mr. Marshall wondered which pole would be involved with this project.
Mr. Blaine responded that it is the third pole in the photograph.
Ms. Thomas noted that it is the sixth pole from one side of the
interstate, but it is the third one from the vantage point to which Mr. Blaine
referred. Mr. Blaine showed the Supervisors a picture of the actual existing
tower. The base is significantly below the grade of the parking lot at State
Farm, which is partly why the antenna structure will need to go above the
lattice structure.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this particular tower was chosen instead of one
to the east or west of it. Mr. Blaine answered that this tower had a multi-
directional coverage purpose, and it will provide coverage for the 1-64
corridor as well as the developing South Pantops area.
Next, Mr. Bowerman inquired about the distance between the utility
poles. Mr. Blaine said he does not know the answer to this question.
Mr. Bowerman wondered why this particular tower was in the best
position. Mr. Blaine replied that the two closest to the river are further
down grade, so they don't achieve the coverage objective. Mr. Bowerman noted
that on the other side the towers move away from the corridor, so the tower
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
000± 8
selected will achieve the optimum power, and the height selected gives maximum
coverage. Mr. Blaine concurred.
Mr. Marshall said it also looks as though the selected tower has the
easiest access. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there is another application
from the same applicant for a location farther north on this power corridor.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many total towers are needed currently. Mr.
Blaine answered that Triton is a new entity to this market, and its represen-
tatives have been working with staff and property owners for over a year to
employ their entire system. They requirel6 towers and have approvals for 13
involving some that are coexisting and some that are located on existing
structures. He stated that Bill Fritz and staff have helped a great deal in
locating a lot of those sites by agreement with other wireless carriers and
from Mr. Fritz' knowledge of the industry through his work on staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these two, plus one more will complete the 16
total towers needed. Mr. Blaine responded that there will be three more after
this application. He then noted a map where the existing facilities were
shown in red. He commented that the yellow color represents co-location on
rooftops. He said 80 percent of the system is deployed on rooftops or
existing structures, and there are three projects still in planning stages or
in negotiations with landowners that are raw land sites. He remarked that
this company has tried to develop a system that maximizes co-location on
rooftops.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the two sites shown in photographs tonight.
Mr. Blaine replied that they are located near State Farm and Barracks Road.
He then showed an illustration of a similar structure in Richmond.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that this exhibit shows a pole going through
the middle of the structure with a tower on top. He wondered if this is how
the proposed one will look. Mr. Blaine answered affirmatively. He said the
one in the photograph is approximately 15 feet above the lattice structure.
He stated that the one proposed is 18 feet including the top elevation of the
antenna. Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. Blaine's statement by saying that the
proposed structure will actually be three feet taller than the one in the
photograph.
Mr. Marshall asked about the height of the tower on Pantops. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the tower to which Mr. Marshall referred is 110 feet
tall. He said with the additional antenna, it would be 128 feet.
Mr. Bowerman next wondered if the same array in its exact configuration
will be used as is shown in the photograph. Mr. Blaine replied, "yes." He
referred to an illustration in the staff report showing the array, and he
pointed out one correction. He stated that the antenna mount will be in the
center, and the ones in the exhibit are at the top.
Mr. Marshall voiced his opinion that if such structures are going to be
built, this is the proper way to do it. Mr. Blaine noted that the subject
tower is clearly shown as being located in a hole and the need to put the
antenna above the structure is to achieve the coverage objective. He said if
the antenna was mounted on the nearby building, it would require significant
structure height above the building to get a similar coverage objective. He
stated that it was the applicant's position that this was more of a negative
impact than the proposed plan within the lattice structure.
Mr. Marshall pointed out the huge chimney shown in the illustration to
which Mr. Blaine referred. He said it was the old Charlottesville power
company's chimney during the turn of the century. Mr. Blaine said the chimney
was considered as an alternative, but the structure is unstable, and the
access is almost impossible. The next illustration depicted the difficult
cabinet installation at the base of the tower which is approximately six and
one-half feet high.
Mr. Marshall noted that this installation is down in a hole and will not
be seen from anywhere except the parking lot at State Farm. Mr. Blaine
responded that someone would have to go to the edge of the parking lot to see
it.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the monopole is needed for support for the
antennas. Mr. Blaine answered that in some instances the monopole is needed
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
0001 9
as a separate structure because the lattice structures are not built rigid
enough. In this case, the monopole is used mainly to get the antennas high
enough for coverage.
Ms. Thomas recalled an application recently where a separate monopole
was being built even though there were existing long distance transmission
line structures similar to this. The Board was told the structures could not
be used because they were old and not strong enough to take on the additional
panels. She stated that the monopole through the middle of the structure
might be a possibility for the weaker structures. Mr. Blaine concurred.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the structural strength of the tower, itself, is
needed and the monopoles attached to the tower gives additional stability.
Mr. Blaine answered affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas wondered about the vantage point of this tower. Mr. Blaine
said the tower can be slightly seen from the 1-64 span over the Rivanna River
going west, but people would have to look over their right shoulders.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about the visibility of the tower as vehicles are
traveling eastbound on 1-64. Mr. Blaine answered that the vantage point will
be similar going eastbound on 1-64, if people look to their left. Mr.
Marshall pointed out that people going eastbound would also have to look
across other lanes of traffic.
There were no further questions for Mr. Blaine, so Mr. Marshall opened
the public hearing relating to SP-98-52. Mr. Marshall closed the public
hearing, since no one came forward to speak.
Mr. Martin stated that he is sure all of the Board members have read the
minutes of the Planning Commission and noted the objections some members of
the Planning Commission had to this proposal. He said after seeing Mr.
Blaine's presentation, as well as discussing at length the application before
this one, he thinks this company has done a good job to come to this area and
get as much done without having to come before this Board in controversial
hearings. He added that this shows it can be done, and if the County is going
to be forced to accept these towers, doing it this way is the best way he has
seen.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-98-52 as recommend-
ed by the Planning Commission, with an additional condition #3: "The tower
shall have no lighting".
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the November 12, 1998 letter to Mr. George
Cummings actually was sent with only the two conditions shown. Ms. Humphris
noted that these two conditions just related to the site plan.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the November 12, 1998 letter was
informing the applicant that the Planning Commission had denied the request.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she drove both ways on 1-64, and she also went
to State Farm. She said if anyone objects to this project, she thinks it
should be State Farm. She added that she went to Monticello today, and tried
to see the tower, but she couldn't see it. She went on to say she figured out
that if her height was increased the same proportion as the proposed increase
to the tower, she would be six feet tall. She emphasized that this is not an
insignificant increase for the tower. She then seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance
of a building permit if the area of disturbance exceeds 10,000 square
feet;
2. Provision of one parking space;
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
3. The tower shall have no lighting.
000 190
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that a citizen in Henrico, who happens to be a
research librarian, read a newspaper article about Albemarle County's PDR
proposal. She said she had met the woman at a meeting a month ago. Ms.
Thomas stated that this lady has written a 30 page study of all the different
states that have PDR programs and how they are funded and how much they have
been used. She added that there is only approximately one page on each state
so it is not in great detail, and copies will be made available for any of the
Board members who are interested in this study. She also noted that she spent
today listening to a report of the Virginia strategy on economic development.
She stated that there was nothing new or startling in this report, but the man
who works with Toshiba in Manassas was asked to tell why Toshiba had chosen
Virginia. The number one thing was difficult to pin down, but it was quality
of life, and probably the quality of the schools was the thing that contribu-
ted the most to quality of life. She commented that company representatives
are working with their local schools to assure that the quality of schools
will continue. She said for anyone who would like to attract more people to
the community, this is an interesting point.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she had a phone call from a lady who is very
knowledgeable about the environment, particularly about such things as the
water supply. She said she is unsure if her phone call was triggered by an
article in the media about the dry spell the County is having and the
possibility of major fires, but her position was that the County should
immediately implement conservation measures. Ms. Humphris stated that she
explained that the County Service Authority had such measures ready to
implement when the supply of available water dropped to 70 percent of the
normal supply. The lady still believes that the County should promote
conservation a great deal more so people become accustomed to it, understand
it and do it as a normal way of life, instead of wasting water and then having
restrictions imposed. She added that she promised the'lady she would pass her
thoughts along to the Board members. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Service
Authority is starting to do a really good job of raising citizens awareness of
the importance of not wasting water because it is such a valuable resource.
She added, though, that this lady would like for County officials to do more
along these lines. She said she agrees with her.
Mr. Perkins asked if anyone from the staff has been notified today about
whether or not the burning ban has been lifted by the Goverhor. Mr. Tucker
answered that he has not heard anything to this effect.
Mr. Marshall reported that the Christian Aid Mission has made a request
for tax exempt designation, and he has asked Mr. Davis to speak to this
matter. Mr. Davis stated that he does not believe the Supervisors have dealt
with this type of thing for awhile with the exception of the JABA request.
Mr. Marshall recalled a similar situation with Our Lady of Peace Nursing
Center.
Mr. Davis indicated that he had not seen the request yet, but the
message he got was to call the Christian Aid Mission once the request was
forwarded to him to discuss it. Mr. Tucker said he heard the request was sent
on Saturday, December 5, 1998. Mr. Davis said he got the same message.
Mr. Marshall noted that he did not get the request to which Mr. Tucker
and Mr. Davis referred. He said instead, he got a letter, which he left in
the Clerk's office.
Mr. Davis next indicated that the deadline under the law for submission
of such a request to the General Assembly is the first day of the General
Assembly which is January 13, 1999. He stated that a prerequisite for the
General Assembly considering this bill is that the Board of Supervisors has
conducted a public hearing and makes a recommendation as to whether or not it
would support the tax exempt designation of that type of property. He stated
that if the Supervisors want to have a public hearing to consider this
request, they should authorize it for the January 6, 1999 meeting date. He
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
000 9
referred to the fact that the staff had given this Board a recommendation for
a policy a couple of years ago that basically cautioned against this as a
matter of general strategy for dealing with these types of recommendations.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to go to public hearing on
January 6, 1999 relating to the request from the Christian Aid Mission for tax
exempt designation. He thinks the Board should at least consider it.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. However, she recalled how difficult
the situation was with Our Lady of Peace. The County managed to quickly
assist with nine beds for indigent people, but if the minutes of this meeting
were in front of the Supervisors, they would see that the situation with Our
Lady of Peace is very different from this request. She said she always
hesitates to set a public hearing for something if she feels it is not the
consensus of the Board. She added, though, that it is something this Board
should be doing, because it gives encouragement. She stated that she can't
say now the matter should go to public hearing without having a chance to
review the material on which the decision was made before, because she would
like to have this opportunity.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not see the necessity to get the
recommendation to the General Assembly by January 13, 1999. Ms. Humphris
concurred. She noted that the Christian Aid Mission has been in the area for
years, and it has never before made such a request.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Mission is now in a new building which may
have prompted the request.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it may be a priority from the Mission's point
of view, but from the point of view of public interest, it needs to be given
due consideration. He added that he does not mind setting a public hearing,
but this Board may decide not to do anything.
Ms. Humphris commented that a thorough staff report is necessary before
the Supervisors make a recommendation.
Mr. Martin said even though it is the Mission's fault that the
Supervisors have been put in this time frame, he would not like to turn the
request down without considering it. Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not
feel a responsibility to get this matter settled before January 13. Ms.
Thomas concurred. She said she does not want the staff to have to hurry and
give the Board a report on something they have not received as of this date.
Mr. Davis noted that the statute provides that before the General
Assembly can consider the request the County has to either adopt a resolution
in favor of it or against it or fail to act after being timely asked to do so.
He said without this Board's support, it is unlikely a legislator would
introduce such a bill. However, there is a possibility that if the Supervi-
sors fail to act, and it is deemed to have been timely requested, it could
still go forward without the Supervisors' recommendation.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Davis is indicating that this Board would have
to have a work session, a public hearing and a resolution ready on January 6,
1999.
Mr. Davis answered that the Board of Supervisors would have to hold a
public hearing on January 6 and adopt a resolution prior to January 13. He
said since the Supervisors do not have another meeting scheduled before
January 13, they would have to do it all on January 6, 1999.
At this time, Mr. Martin withdrew his motion, because he felt it was too
much to do in that length of time. Ms. Humphris concurred. She said perhaps
the Mission could be asked to take the normal course and come back in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Davis emphasized that the Supervisors don't have to act on the
request, although Mission representatives could ask a member of the General
Assembly to introduce legislation to grant the exemption and claim that this
Board did not act timely on it. His guess, though, is that it would be
unlikely anyone would introduce the bill without this Board's consideration.
Mr. Martin said he believes a public hearing could be held and the
Supervisors could have a staff report which would include the staff's
December 9, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
recommendation from the last time this issue was studied.
However, if the
resolution had to be done at the same meeting, there would not be time to
listen to the public and discuss the situation during a work session and then
put together a resolution based on this information.
Ms. Humphris pointed out that the staff will also have to investigate
this entity in order to make a decision, and there is not time to do this
between now and the sixth of January.
Mr. Marshall remarked that Mr. Davis will need to advise the Christian
Aid Mission representatives that they will need to go through the proper
channels. Mr. Bowerman commented that the Mission has the option to take its
chances with the General Assembly, but he does not think County officials were
given ample time to examine the request. Ms. Humphris stated that Mission
representatives probably have no idea as to how this Board operates.
Mr. Davis said he would call tomorrow and advise the Mission of
the process.
Mr. Marshall announced that this was the last official meeting of the
Board of Supervisors for 1998.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 9:27 p.m., there being no further
business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.