2000-09-20September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 20, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, 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,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, 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. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Bulletproof Vest Grant, $7,132.05 (Form #20014).
It was noted in the staffs report that the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance has recently started
=
a program to subsidize the purchase of bulletproof vests. The County Police, Sheriff and Regional Jail
have applied for and received approval to purchase bulletproof vests with reimbursement at 50 percent.
The Bureaus grant is $3566.02. The Police Department's local match of $2367.45, the Sheriff
=
Department's local match of $804.00, and the Regional Jail's local match of $394.58 will be funded from
current operations. Staff recommended approval of Appropriation Form #20014 in the amount of
$7132.05.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20014
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PURCHASE OF BULLETPROOF VESTS
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1241 31013 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES POLICE$4,734.90
1 1241 31020 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES SHERIFF1,608.00
1 1241 33024 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES JAIL 789.15
TOTAL$7,132.05
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1241 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT$3,566.02
2 1241 51000 510109 TRANSFER3,566.03
TOTAL$7,132.05
__________
Item 5.2. SP-00-017, CVR-318, Mt. Jefferson (Signs #34 & #35), Conditions of Approval (deferred
from September 13, 2000).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on September 13, 2000, the Board requested
=
staff to amend the format of the conditions of approval for SP-00-017, Mount Jefferson, in accordance with
the revised standard format for wireless communications facilities. This executive summary is meant to
provide those changes and the language, which was added to address the trimming of a 113-foot tall tree
located nearby, within VDOTs right-of-way.
=
SP-00-017 ALLTEL/Yancey Mills (Revised Conditions). Request for a special use permit to allow
construction of a personal wireless communications facility with a wooden monopole above tree top level
(total height of 115 feet) and associated ground facilities. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Section
2, Parcel 3, is located on approximately 1.39 acres zoned R-1, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor, in
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
the Samuel Miller District.
1.The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten
(10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at
or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL).
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be
located above the top of the pole;
2.The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The monopole shall be made of wood and shall be a natural wood color;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided
by Condition Number Nine (9) herein;
d.The ground equipment cabinets, concrete pad, antennas and all equipment
attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than
the specifications set forth on the attached plan entitled "Triton PCS, INC.
CV-1-318-B Mount Jefferson";
e.A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feet above the top of the pole, and
with a width not to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the base and tapering to
a point, may be installed at the top of the pole;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement
to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the
tallest tree, as identified in Condition Number One (1);
g.Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the
pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea
Level (ASL); and
h.The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as
described in Condition Number One (1) of these conditions of approval,
without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit;
3.The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Triton PCS, INC.
CV-1-318-B Mount Jefferson";
4.Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a.Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled
"Triton PCS, INC. CV-1-318-B Mount Jefferson";
b.Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; and
c.Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project
out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure,
shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from
the pole more than twelve (12) inches.
5.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets,
or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed
by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and
identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site, both inside and outside the
access easement and lease area, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning
and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation
associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for
construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred
(200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. This condition shall be
implemented in accordance with ARB Condition Number Three (3) which prohibits
the removal of any tree within a fifty (50) foot radius of the pole. For the purposes
of this condition, the certified arborist report shall include the proposed trimming of
limbs at the top of the one hundred thirteen (113) foot tall poplar tree located in the
VDOT right-of-way;
6.The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days
of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7.The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per
year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with Condition Number
One (1);
8.No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be
created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
9.Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor
luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary is a complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the
light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10.The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing
of the lease area shall not be permitted;
11.The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or
flatter; and
12.Holly trees, no smaller than six (6) feet in height and bayberry trees of no smaller
than three (3) feet in height shall be used for screening of ground equipment.
By the recorded vote set out above, SP-00-017, CVR-318, Mt. Jefferson, was approved
subject to the 12 conditions set out above.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed issuance of school bonds of Albemarle
County in the estimated maximum principal amount not to exceed $2,605,000. The purpose of the
proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said the FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to issue
approximately $2,605,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for the following
projects: Burley Middle School Additions/Renovations, Northern Area Elementary, Southern Area
Elementary and Maintenance/Replacement Projects.
Resolutions authorizing the application to VPSA were approved by the School Board on August 14,
2000, and by the Board of Supervisors on August 16, 2000. In order to proceed with this process, a public
hearing was scheduled for this date. After holding the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board
adopt the appropriate resolution to proceed with this project in order to meet bond issuance guidelines.
There are two other documents which need to be approved as to form and which will be completed during
the actual bond sale process.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. There was no one present to address this issue. The public
hearing was closed, and the matter immediately placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution
approving the bond issue, and to also approve as to form the actual Bond Sale Agreement and the
Proceeds Agreement:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL
BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,605,000,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its
general obligation school bonds (the "Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $2,605,000 for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 20, 2000,
on the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) in accordance with the
requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia
Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board
to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines
that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell the Bonds in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $2,605,000 for the purpose of financing certain capital
projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the
Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to
accept the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the
County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair
and accepted by the County Executive, that is not less than 98% of par and not more
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
than 103% (105% for bonds with a final maturity or amortization schedule of 10 years or
less) of par upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County
Executive and such officer or officers of the County as the County Executive may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated
as of October 10, 2000, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in
substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby
approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of their issuance and
delivery; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2000A," shall
bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15
and July 15 beginning July 15, 2001 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates
established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15
in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule
I attached hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of
this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby
authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the
VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent
(0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal
payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of
the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the
true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed seven and one-tenth percent (7.1 %) per
annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to
change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is hereby authorized and
directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and delivery of
the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest
rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single,
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall
apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments
of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately
available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment
Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date
is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or
before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date,
Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest
shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and
Paying Agent for the Bonds. The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any time
the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent with another qualified bank or trust company as
successor Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by
the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2011, and the definitive bonds for which the
Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2011, are
not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal
Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2011, and the
definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature
after July 15, 2011, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County
prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2011,
upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or
redemption:
DatesPrices
July 15, 2011, through July 14, 2012102%
July 15, 2012, through July 14, 2013101
July 15, 2013, and thereafter100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption
prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written
consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered
mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any
Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds
and to affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full
faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any
of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with
law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local
taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if
any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall
become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to
all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the
County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman
of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either
may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the
expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA
Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such
Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall
comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the
County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on
the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County
Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds.
The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and
investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in
the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository,
substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby
approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom
may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure
Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the
reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be
necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by Section
3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a
MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with
the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of
them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
_____
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1$___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation School Bond
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Series 2000A
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value received, hereby
acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY the principal amount of _____________ DOLLARS ($__________), in
annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on
July 15, 2001, and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 2020 (each a
"Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid
installments, payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year,
commencing on July 15, 2001 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any
Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set forth on
Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter
provided. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the
United States of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this
Bond, SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, or any successor appointed by the County, as
bond registrar (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender hereof, to the
Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on
the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment
Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the
Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of
principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available
funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment
Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner
of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written
acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and
the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the
payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond
Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the
principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by
the Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section
15.2-2624, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be levied and
collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this
Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to
the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such
purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the
Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act
of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly
adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the
County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from
the Virginia Public School Authority, at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more
occasions for one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and,
in any case, in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof, and having an equal aggregate principal amount, having principal installments or
maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturities of and the interest
rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This Bond is registered in
the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the books of the County kept by the
Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of
this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon
receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall
exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to
be registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees
named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2011, and
the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July
15, 2011, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2011, and the definitive
Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2011, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated
maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2011, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to
be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus
accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
DatesPrices
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
July 15, 2011, through July 14, 2012102%
July 15, 2012, through July 14, 2013101
July 15, 2013, and thereafter100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption
prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior written consent of the
registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be
given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than
ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or
redemption.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the
issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form
and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the
County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle has
caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be
signed by its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the
signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated
____________, 2000.
Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the
Albemarle County Code by amending Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly & Disabled
Persons, to increase the income & financial worth maximums for elderly or disabled persons to be eligible
to qualify for a tax exemption & to increase the percentage of the tax exemption applicable based on the
amount of income of the person claiming the exemption. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 2000.)
Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on July 5, staff presented three options to the Board for expanding
participation in the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled program. The Board approved bringing Option 2,
which raises the maximum eligibility requirements to $25,000 in combined income and $80,000 in
combined net worth, to a public hearing.
The projected total cost of the current program is $171,434 based on 364 qualified parcels at an
average property value of $75,870. The total cost of the expanded program is estimated at $190,229
based on 408 parcels at a projected average property value of $80,422. The estimated cost increase to
expand the income and asset guidelines is $19,265, which can be absorbed within current budgeted
dollars.
The amended ordinance revises the combined income limits upward from $22,000 to $25,000 and
the combined financial worth upward from $75,000 to $80,000. In conjunction with the higher income limit,
the ordinance also revises the graduated percentages of exempted real estate taxes to a 10 percent tax
exemption for a $24,001 to $25,000 combined income to a 100 percent tax exemption for income levels $0
to $16,000.
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance to become effective January 1, 2001. Citizens may
apply under the new guidelines beginning in January and will see the first impact of the change in their
June, 2001 tax bills.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was immediately closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by Amending Article VII, Real Estate
Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, Section 15-704, Persons Eligible for Exemption, and
Section 15-705, Amount of Exemption.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to be able to offer this exemption to other than elderly people, but
that is not allowed by the State Code.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, SECTION 15-704,
PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION, AND SECTION 15-705, AMOUNT OF
EXEMPTION.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chapter 15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Article VII,
Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, Section 15-704,
Persons Eligible for Exemption, and Section 15-705, Amount of Exemption, as follows:
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption.
Persons who satisfy all of the following requirements are eligible for the exemption
established in section 15-703:
A.The person claiming the exemption shall have either:
1.Reached the age of sixty-five (65) years prior to the taxable year for which
the exemption is claimed; or
2.Became permanently and totally disabled prior to the taxable year for
which the exemption is claimed.
B.The person claiming the exemption shall be a person owning title or partial title
in the dwelling.
1.The person claiming the exemption shall own title or partial title to the real
estate for which the exemption is claimed on January 1 of the taxable year.
2.A dwelling jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify if either
spouse is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or is permanently and totally disabled.
3.Except as provided in paragraph (B.2), the exemption shall not apply to a
dwelling jointly owned by a person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or who is
permanently and totally disabled (an "exempt person"), and a person who is not an
exempt person.
C.The person claiming the exemption shall occupy the dwelling as that person's
sole dwelling.
1.The dwelling shall be occupied only by the person claiming the
exemption, the person's spouse and the person's relatives. The dwelling shall not be
occupied by persons who are not relatives of the person claiming the exemption,
regardless of whether such persons pay rent.
2.The dwelling shall not be used for commercial purposes.
3.The fact that a person who otherwise qualifies for exemption established
by this article resides in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for
physical or mental care for extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that
the real estate for which the exemption is sought does not continue to be the sole
dwelling of the person during such extended periods of other residence so long as such
real estate is not used by or leased to others for consideration.
D.A manufactured home is real estate eligible for the exemption established by
this article if the person claiming the exemption demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
director of finance that the manufactured home is permanently affixed. Either of the
following shall be evidence that the manufactured home is permanently affixed:
1.The person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title to the
manufactured home and the land on which the manufactured home is located, and the
manufactured home is connected to permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or
2.Whether or not the manufactured home is located on land on which the
person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title, the manufactured home rests on
a permanent foundation and consists of two (2) or more units which are connected in
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
such a manner that they cannot be towed together on a highway, or consists of a unit and
other connected rooms or additions which must be removed before the manufactured
home can be towed on a highway.
E.The total combined income shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.00) for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
F.The net combined financial worth shall not exceed eighty thousand dollars
($80,000.00) as of December thirty-first of the calendar year immediately preceding the
taxable year.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; 6-12-85; 5-13-87; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93;
Ord. 96-8(2), 12-11-96; Code 1988, 8-26; 9-9-81; Ord. 12-19-90; Code 1988, 8-26.1;
''
Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(3), 9-20-00)
State law reference--Va. Code 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3214, 58.1-3215.
''
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption.
The amount of the exemption established by this article from the real estate tax for
any taxable year shall be as follows:
Amount of IncomePercentage of
real estate tax
exempted
$0--$16,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
$16,001$17,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90%
C
$17,001$18,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%
C
$18,001$19,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70%
C
$19,001$20,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60%
C
$20,001$21,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50%
C
$21,001$22,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40%
C
$22,001$23,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30%
C
$23,001$24,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20%
C
$24,001$25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10%
C
(2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, 8-27; Ord.
'
98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(3), 9-20-00)
State law reference--Va. Code 58.1-3212.
'
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on whether to recommend to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board the restriction of through truck traffic on Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) b/t Airport Road
(Rt. 649) & Earlysville Road (Rt. 743). The alternate route being proposed for through truck traffic would be
Airport Road to Route 29, Route 29 to Rio Road, Rio Road to Earlysville Road, Earlysville Road to
Dickerson Road. This restriction would apply to trucks, trailers & semi-trailers. Pickup trucks & panel trucks
would not be restricted. (Signs #31 & #41.) (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on September 4 and September 11, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg said on August 2, 2000, the Board authorized staff to begin the necessary steps to
officially request that VDOT restrict through trucks on Dickerson Road (Route 606) between Airport Road
(Route 649) and Earlysville Road (Route 743). Since the Board's decision, an official from Crutchfield
Corporation contacted staff concerning this proposal. Crutchfield has a warehouse on Reas Ford Road
(Route 660). Their offices are located on Dickerson Road north of the proposed restriction. Their vehicles
use the proposed restricted section of Dickerson Road on a regular basis to reach the warehouse on Reas
Ford Road. If the proposed through-truck restriction is approved, use of the proposed alternate route will
create a significant increase in travel time for this business. This change would also have the potential to
impact other businesses because of the industrial zoning on Reas Ford Road and along Airport
Road/Dickerson Road. While the proposed restriction meets three of the five VDOT criteria, the lack of a
reasonable alternative route for some truck traffic is an important consideration. The intent of the restriction
is to keep trucks coming to and from Airport Road from traveling on Earlysville Road. Staff cannot propose
an alternate other than Earlysville Road, which the Board has already disregarded because of the impacts it
would create. An alternative to a through-truck restriction could be to contact companies in the vicinity of
Airport Road and request them to avoid using Earlysville Road for trucking purposes except when the origin
or destination is in the Earlysville area.
Mr. Cilimberg said that for future requests of this nature, staff believes a process for through-truck
restriction which provides more direct public input, e.g., petitions, etc., is necessary prior to any public
hearing. Staff will draft guidelines in the near future for the Boards review.
=
Mr. Martin agreed there should be a process in place that the public would have to follow when
asking for truck restriction. He then opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Burch said he is Vice-President of Luck Stone Corp. He said they supply about ninety
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
percent of the stone that goes into the Earlysville market area from their Greene County quarry. If this road
is closed, it will cost customers an additional $2.00 per ton. Also, there are load limits on all of the bridges
coming in from Greene County, so the route mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg would be the alternative. That
route would increase gas costs and add traffic on a road that is not suited for the traffic because of blind
curves, numerous driveways and inadequate shoulders. By keeping Dickerson Road open to through truck
traffic, the Board would be using Albemarles limited road resources to provide the Earlysville area with
=
transportation alternatives that are more economical, environmentally efficient and safer.
Mr. Charles Smith said he is a manager at Crutchfield Corporation and a resident of Hollymead.
He understood the intent of this proposal was to restrict traffic on Earlysville Road itself. He said there has
been a lot of increased traffic in the area since the Krauss-Heinz building has been split into a lot of different
operations. He distributed a copy of commercial truck traffic counts which he had prepared showing the
companies in the area. He said that virtually all of the companies felt this would have a negative impact on
their business. Approaching from Greene County, all the bridges carry weight restrictions. About a week
ago, he went down Earlysville Road followed by a semi-trailer and at 55 mph it was not a pleasant trip. He
thinks this would make traffic on the road worse, and accomplish the exact opposite to what is intended.
Mr. Jim Morris said he is a resident of the County and is a manager of the Krauss-Heinz building,
which houses many businesses. There are about 100 people employed in that building at this time by
Crutchfield, Technicolor and National Linen. It would be detrimental if trucks could not get to that building
by using Dickerson Road via Route 29. There would just be more traffic on Earlysville Road. This building
was abandoned for a number of years and became an eyesore. It is nice to see it as a viable business
center now. He said this proposal would be detrimental to that business center.
Mr. Donnie Foster, owner of Foster Well Company at the Airport Center, said his business uses this
road 90 percent of the time. Most of their business is on the Free Union/Earlysville side, so if they had to go
Route 29 North and come back to that area by another route, it would effect their pricing. If they were
required to go along Rio Road to Hydraulic and then use that road, the entire route is through residential
areas. He does not think this is a good idea.
Ms. Katherine Stupak said she is a resident of the area, and has no business interests in the area.
Recently she had an incident with a truck coming down Reas Ford Road. She clocked the truck at 63 miles
per hour as it went down Earlysville Road, and actually could not catch it. The truck did not go down Route
606, but along Earlysville Road which is mostly a residential area. She agrees with everyone who has
spoken that there should not be a restriction on trucks on Route 606; it should be on Route 743 instead.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman said the solution proposed by staff to his original request seemed to be good, since
the intent of the original proposal had to do with tractor-trailers on Route 743. Mr. Cilimberg said the
original request was to restrict tractor-trailers on Route 743. The proposal before the Board today was
generated by the Board itself. Mr. Martin said that is why he agrees with Mr. Cilimberg that there should be
some process followed for such requests. Mr. Bowerman asked what the problems were with the original
request. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Perkins had said there are trucks which have to use those roads. Mr.
Cilimberg said some of those are logging trucks going into the Free Union area, and that was an issue. He
said staff didn't even consider the old Cooper Industries facility which could be affected by a restriction on
Route 743.
Mr. Bowerman said Route 743 parallels Route 29 and you can get to Routes 606, 743 and 660 via
Airport Road. He said Earlysville Road is a heavily traveled road with residential development along its
entire way. He didn't think that using Airport Road and coming back about one mile to 743 would be a
hardship on them.
Mr. Perkins said there are some people in the Advance Mills area in the farming community who
did not want to have to go out to Route 29, down to Rio Road, and back around. Mr. Bowerman said they
could use Dickerson Road.
Mr. Martin said since this is a public hearing on the restriction of through-truck traffic on Dickerson
Road, he suggested that the Board focus on the subject of the public hearing tonight, since the Board
would have to readvertise for a public hearing on any other suggestion.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would save time if the Board heard from the public on the second alternative
now. Mr. Martin said he would prefer that anyone with concerns be contacted by staff later.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman not to proceed with this request to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) to have a through-truck restriction on Dickerson Road. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-00-036. Barbara J Fried Physical Rehab Therapy, LLC (Sign #60).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow a physical therapy business in home. Znd RA. TM 14, P4
contains 318 acs. Loc at end of Rt 765. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4
and September 11, 2000.)
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to operate a Class B-
Home Occupation in an accessory structure to her home near White Hall. This farm is almost completely
surrounded by Innisfree which is a village for developmentally disabled adults. Innisfree occupies
approximately 600 acres of undeveloped land in the rural areas. The home occupation would allow Ms.
Fried to let a physical therapist operate in her exercise gym to provide services to the adults needing
physical therapy at Innisfree.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff had originally recommended that the use be limited to just the clients who
would be in Innisfree, which is essentially on site. The applicant requested a Class B-Home Occupation
because the use is in an accessory structure and the use involves outside employees. The applicant
requested that the home occupation be limited to the Innisfree clients plus seven additional outside clients
A@
per week. The Zoning Department views the seven clients, plus the Innisfree client use to be over and
above the amount they would certify as a by-right level of traffic. Therefore, the applicant must also
A@
request certification of consistence with the traffic generation anticipated in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes there will be little impact of having the use in an accessory
structure on adjoining property since adjoining properties are so far from the Frieds exercise barn. Staff
=
also believes there will be little impact on the roads because the Innisfree patients would travel on an
internal road system between Innisfree and the Fried Farm, and the staff does not believe the additional
seven trips would be excessive to the traffic generated in a residential setting. Primarily, the internal trips
make the impact on external roads unnoticeable. Staff recommended approval with three conditions. On
September 5, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-00-036 subject
to the same three conditions.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Fried, the applicant, said she is president of Innisfree and also owns the adjoining farm. She
said Innisfree is connected to her property by a private road which is paved and in good shape. She is only
asking for this permit because they need Medicare certification and the facility has to be certified. It is a very
complicated procedure and one which Innisfree does not want to undertake. The seven people from the
community would be people who need these services and who do not want to travel to Charlottesville. She
said they did provide a petition signed by 35 area residents in support of the request.
Ms. Lei Sato, said she is a physical therapist and an adjoining property owner to Innisfree. At the
moment she works as an on-call basis at Health South Hospital. She has met many neighbors at the
Hospital who ask why she does not offer this service closer to their homes. She does not have the room in
her home to have it certified as a Medicare/Medicaid facility. She has a long relationship with Innisfree
residents, and has long wanted to see them in the area rather than coming into Charlottesville where she
also has an office.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed and
the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said Innisfree offers a great service to community in the area of mental health. He then
moved approval of SP-00-036 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The Home Occupation, Class B, shall comply with Section 5.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2.The Home Occupation shall serve no more than seven (7) clients per week in
addition to the residents of the Fried Farm and the Innisfree facility; and
3.Health Department and Building Inspector approval of the facility for this use
shall be required.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-99-10. Creekside (Signs #78 & #79). PUBLIC HEARING on a request
to rezone 22.1 acs from R-1 to PRD, to allow dvlpment of apts & assoc recreational facilities. TM 91, P 2C.
Loc at intersec of Scottsville Rd (Rt 20 S) & Mill Creek Dr (Rt 1150). (The Comp Plan designates this
property as Urban Density Residential, recommended for 6.01-34 du/ac in Neighborhood 4.) Scottsville
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the County has received properly executed
proffers. The proposal is for a 264-unit apartment complex with PRD zoning. The ARB provided
preliminary review and approval of the development with conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said there were two reviews of this petition with the Planning Commission. Of
particular note were concerns about the traffic volume on Route 20 South, and improvements to Route 20.
Staff noted in its report that the traffic counts on that road were last taken in 1997. They also noted that
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Route 20 is the #2 widening project on the Countys Primary Road priority list of improvements. This will
=
probably not take place for more then three years from now. Because of this anticipated widening project,
VDOT did not obtain additional traffic information for the project. As to site development, profiles were
provided by the applicant showing the difference in massing between the houses in Willow Lake and the
apartment buildings. Other building types would provide for less massive buildings and could be proposed
for the site which would provide a lower density. As proposed, the density is about 12 dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Cilimberg said slope plantings have been provided through proffers. The applicant committed
to making these plantings with the proviso that the ARB or staff may require changes where necessary to
achieve better aesthetic stability or maintenance. There was a question about affordable housing
possibilities. The applicant does not yet know what the rents will be for the apartments. It was suggested
that in lieu of the high retaining wall, there might be additional grading on the Monticello High School
property. The applicant discussed this with the Schools, and the School Boards staff agreed to
=
recommend regrading of the slope to remove the need for tall retaining walls. That suggestion has been
approved by the School Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has clarified the application plan as to open space, and shows five
and one-half acres (just less than 25 percent of the site) remaining undisturbed. The total common open
space would be 8.42 acres and another 5.4 acres is proposed to be left open with no parking or buildings.
Staff recommended that the 25 percent undisturbed open space requirement be waived to allow for only
24.92 percent undisturbed open space.
Mr. Cilimberg said that pedestrian access was an issue before the Planning Commission. They
suggested access from Willow Lake and the High School from this development. The developer of Willow
Lake indicated that pedestrian access is not desired for their development. Near the School, the applicant
proposed installing a staircase up the regraded slope. The School Boards staff did not support that
=
suggestion and it was not considered by the School Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is noted in the staffs report that there are sidewalks on both sides and the
=
County is requesting that sidewalks be constructed as part of the widening project for Route 20. The
sidewalks can provide pedestrian access across the Route 20 frontage of Creekside to Monticello High
School, as well as the frontage of the Willow Lake development. The applicants internal road system also
=
has sidewalks on one side connecting to both Mill Creek Drive and Route 20.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the proffers that had been
offered. The Planning Commission vote on this application was 3:3. Those not voting for the application
expressed concern about the developments scale, orientation and form, the lack of low- to moderate-cost
=
housing, and potential traffic impacts. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Martin asked if Board members wanted to ask questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked for the increase in traffic that would occur with full development of this project.
Mr. Cilimberg said with full development of the 264 units (estimated at seven trips per dwelling, per day),
traffic would be approximately 2000 trips per day. Mr. Dorrier asked the present traffic count. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is no current count, but the count in 1997 was 7700 per day.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak first.
The applicant, Ms. Denise LaCour, said the Comprehensive Plan recommends urban density for
this site at a density of 6.1 to 31 units per acre. She is proposing 264 units which translates to 12 units per
acre. The site is ideally situated lying between the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Route 20 South,
which has been approved for widening. They have dedicated 75 feet from the centerline of Route 20 for
that widening project. Being in a quadrant is important because it allows them to provide two places for
ingress/egress which helps dissipate traffic and mitigates the impact of the development on just one road.
Ms. LaCour said in trying to be neighborly, they sank the buildings into the topography to minimize
the massing of them. Instead of the 20-foot setback which is mandated by the ordinance on the Willow
Lake boundary, they have self-imposed a 40-foot setback. Also, 63 percent of the site will be left
untouched; there will be a lot of green space. The architecture will be earth-toned brick, earth-toned
shingles, green doors and trim on the windows. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the proffers. Ms. LaCour said the only change made to the proffers
was a change in the corporate name.
Ms. Thomas said she thought there had been a more recent traffic count than the one given by Mr.
Cilimberg. Ms. LaCour said one was done by VDOT at the request of the Planning staff on Thursday and
Friday, the first week of school at Monticello High School, and the count was 10,300 vehicles.
Mr. Martin then asked the public to speak. Ms. Bonnie Stevens said she is a parent of a Monticello
High School student. She is concerned about Creekside, believing the highest and best use of the property
would be to leave it as a recreational area and a living laboratory for students at Tandem School.
High-density housing would negatively impact traffic. This development would detract from the natural
beauty of the area. She said Route 20 is being widened for reasons of safety. She suggested that
Albemarle County purchase the land to provide recreational use and a living laboratory for students. She
noted that the additional units would increase the traffic to 12,000 trips per day.
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Len Hartman said he is part of a corporation which owns property to the east of this proposed
development. Speaking for himself, he believes this development is not suited for this site and would
detract from the value of his property which is on a historic road. He does not think this development is the
best use for the property. He realizes that the County has to allow homes in the urban area, but he does
not think that within this area, which already has four schools, the development should be allowed. He has
lived in the area for 69 years, so is very emotional about the development. He said with the schools in the
area, and with the housing, it would be a great area to attract drug dealers.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many traffic fatalities Mr. Hartman had seen on this stretch of Route 20 while
living in the area. Mr. Hartman said at the curve where Mill Creek Road enters Route 20 he has seen ten to
twelve on a one-mile stretch of road in the 50 years he lived there.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cilimberg said in reply to Mr. Dorriers earlier question, the additional trips per day to be
=
generated are estimated at 1850.
Mr. Dorrier said he walked the property with Ms. LaCour. He has wrestled with this decision for
several months because he knew it would be before the Board. It has been a hard decision. He looked at
the whole area and the situation between Route 20 and Mill Creek Drive. Originally this was a 29-acre
parcel on both sides of Mill Creek Drive. Originally apartments were suggested for the land on the Tandem
School side, but that land has now been sold, and ultimately will be owned by Tandem School. He has
three concerns. First, there is the slope of the land. His overriding concern is that this property is going
from a by-right use for 30 single-family dwelling units to 264 dwelling units in an area that is difficult
traffic-wise. He walked down to Route 20 and looked down the road toward the bad curve, and the sight
distance is not good, especially since cars come around that curve at 55 mph. There was a steady stream
of traffic along that section yesterday afternoon at 5:30 p.m. That was without any traffic exiting from
Creekside development or the increase in density. This development would add 700+ people in that area
with a bad road system. Even when Route 20 is expanded to four lanes, it will be hard for cars exiting
Creekside to head northward. Then there is the traffic from Monticello High School.
Mr. Dorrier said he knows this is a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan, but it would be
irresponsible planning on the part of the County to compound a safety problem and compound a density
problem by approving the development. He cannot in good conscience vote for an increase in this density,
considering the school site. Schools should take priority over the private rights of citizens. If it were
possible, he would have preferred that this land be part of the Countys property in the area. For those
=
reasons, he cannot support the request. Another problem is that the DISC plan calls for pedestrian-
friendly areas and mixed uses. There is a shopping development up the street, and there are sidewalks on
the inside of that property, but with the traffic on Route 20, he does not think there will be a lot of pedestrian
traffic. Also, there is a fence being installed at the rear of this development to separate it from Monticello
High School. That indicates there will not be that much pedestrian traffic from this development to the
school.
Ms. Humphris said the Comprehensive Plan is wise in designating this area for a much higher
density. Given the topography, she believes the developer has done the best that can be done with the
property. She remembers that when the County purchased the high school property from Dr. Hurt, he did
not want to sell this parcel to the County. She said the Board knew at the time that any new school would
be an attractor of new residents. Route 20 will be widened as quickly as can be done. There are two points
of ingress/egress and that will allow traffic to flow over to Avon Street. The Planning Commission discussed
how it would fit into the Neighborhood Model, but the topography does not lend itself to a grid pattern. The
fact that forty-nine percent of the development will be in one-bedroom apartments is an excellent idea.
Even though it is not exactly as she would like to see it, she thinks the developer has done the best possible.
Mr. Perkins said he is not excited about the proposal. But, he agrees with both Mr. Dorrier and Ms.
Humphris. This is what the Board is asking people to do in the urban ring. He does not know of a better
design for the property. No matter what plan is proposed, somebody will disagree. He thinks that in the
overall, this plan is about as good as can be obtained.
Mr. Martin said he understands Mr. Dorrier's concerns. He agrees that they are major and
legitimate concerns. On the other hand, when the Board looked at building the high school in this area, the
Board knew this property might eventually be proposed for high-density development. More importantly,
the Board has made a commitment to the citizens to look at in-fill places to try and keep growth in the urban
area where there is infrastructure. Even though Mr. Dorriers traffic concerns are legitimate, this site
=
actually has some of the best infrastructure available because the road is only two years away from being
improved, and there is a connector road which is brand new. The Board needs to stay committed to putting
high density in the urban area where it can be supported. Otherwise, the Countys whole plan unravels.
=
That is why he feels he must support this petition.
Mr. Dorrier said he has no problem with putting high-density in the urban area. The problem he
has is that there are two schools back to back in this urban area, and he does not think the Tandem School
would have bought their property if they had thought there would be a problem. He thinks that five or ten
years from now there will be a big problem. He does not disagree that the development is probably as
good as the site can handle if the special use permit is approved. He does not agree with putting that many
people so close to the school because of the safety concerns.
Mr. Martin said he has a reverse view of this. He wants to see children walking to school.
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Dorrier said there will not be people walking to school, because this development is intended
for the 45 to 60 age group. There won't be that many young families in these apartment houses.
Mr. Bowerman asked about Mr. Dorriers concern about drugs. Mr. Dorrier said the DISC model
=
mentions concerns about drugs and parking areas. The Neighborhood Plan has a different configuration
for parking to alleviate the issue. The fact that this development is right next to the high school parking lot,
there is always the possibility of having increased drug traffic. He does not have any hard facts to give.
Mr. Bowerman said this development will not spring up overnight, and will probably closely coincide
with the improvements to Route 20. He was impressed that the developer worked so closely with the high
school in addressing difficult slope areas. He said the developer has kept within the intent and spirit of the
Comprehensive Plan, and he does not view the proposal negatively.
Ms. Humphris called attention to the four-school complex at Albemarle High School (Albemarle,
Greer, Jack Jouett and the Ivy Creek School). There is very high density residential all around these
schools. Georgetown Road is a narrow, winding, two-lane road (about 17,000+ vehicles per day) and
Hydraulic Road in front of the complex is a four-lane highway with high traffic volumes. This is just a high
density neighborhood and they dont have the topographical problems Mr. Dorrier has mentioned. That is
=
the reason she thinks this property has been dealt with sensitively.
Ms. Thomas said she is also sympathetic and concerned about safety. But, she is also concerned
about what this will look like in 20 years. She is concerned about the lack of usable open space, but had to
weigh that against everything else. There is the possibility of having public transportation, the possibility of
biking and having an easy way to a grocery store that is close by. She has made some suggestions about
making better connections to the sidewalks that exist in the area. Monticello High dealt with the issue and
made sure that the sidewalks do not come into the bus circle at the school. With the pedestrian ways
available, there is good access. This is a good use of a piece of property that is close enough to the urban
ring so that in the future there may be an alternative to everyone using single occupant vehicles. She was
concerned about the view from Monticello High School, and the developer has been sensitive to that
concern. The roof lines they propose completely hide the mechanical details inside of them. It is also good
that the parking spaces are underneath of the units. She thinks the residents will use the high school
grounds as their useable open space; generally having more people around the school grounds is a good
thing. She understands the concerns that have been discussed today, but she will be voting in favor of the
project.
With no further comments from the Board, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve ZMA-
99-10 subject to the proffers dated September 20, 2000. Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: September 20, 2000
ZMA # 99-010
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 91C
22.104 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
(1)Development of the property shall be in general conformity with the plan entitled
"Application Site Plan, The Creekside Apartments" consisting of Sheets 1-4 dated
11-15-99 and last revised 8-15-00, herein referred to in the Proffers as "the
Application Plan".
(2)The project shall consist of a maximum of 264 multi-family dwelling units located in
12 buildings as shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan. The project shall be
phased, with development of six buildings in the first phase and six buildings in the
second phase.
(3)The common open space, including but not limited to, the club house and
associated amenities, the tot lots, basketball court, walking trails, pond and woods,
as shown on Sheet 2 of the Application Plan shall be owned and maintained by the
developer/owner.
(4)Driveways shall be constructed with curb and gutter as shown on Sheet 2 of the
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Application Plan and shall be maintained by the developer/owner.
(5)All interior roadways shall be private roads and shall be maintained by the
developer/owner.
(6)That portion of the property situated within seventy-five feet (75') from the
centerline of existing Route 20 South shall be dedicated to the Virginia Department
of Transportation ("VDOT") for the intended purpose of VDOT widening Route 20
South. In the event that VDOT does not utilize all or a portion of this dedicated
property within ten (10) years of approval of this rezoning request, any portion of
the property not so used shall be reconveyed to the property owner at no cost to
owner.
(7)In addition to the mandatory 100' stream buffer for that portion of the Moore's
Creek tributary located to the north of the proposed entrance drive as shown on
Sheet 2 of the Application Plan, a voluntary 100' buffer zone shall be established
for the intermittent stream located to the south of the proposed entrance drive.
Said buffer shall be measured 100 feet from the centerline of the streambed and
no buildings or parking lot shall be constructed within said buffer zone. Trees will
be removed only as necessary for grading activities and improvements shown on
the approved site plan or as stipulated in the approved stormwater or mitigation
plan.
(8)The trees located along the tributary to Moore's Creek and outside of the grading
limits as shown on Sheet 3 of the Application Plan shall be preserved.
(9)Evergreen trees shall be planted beside Buildings 201, 202 and 204 and their
associated parking lots as well as along the upper half of the northern boundary of
the property in general accordance with the landscaping plan shown on Sheet 3 of
the Application Plan for the express purpose of screening the development from
the adjacent community, Willow Lake.
(10)Landscaping shall be in general accordance with Sheet 3 of the Application Plan
as well as with Sheets 1-21 of the "Slope Drawings for Creekside Apartments",
prepared by Albiston Associates, Landscape Architects, dated 8-9-2000. Where
conflict may exist between page I of each of the slope drawings (Slope Between
Upper Parking Area and High School; Slope Facing Route 20; Slope Along Mill
Creek Road) and the subsequent pages, page 1 is to be considered directive.
Any modification will occur as (i) required by the Architectural Review Board for
that portion of the property visible from Route 20 South and (ii) as may be
approved with staff approval where a better location, size or type of species may
be warranted to achieve slope stabilization, ease of maintenance or aesthetics.
(11)Grading shall be in general accordance with the Alternate Grading Plan dated
8-9-00 and last revised 8-15-00 and submitted herewith to the County.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Charles W. Hurt, President
HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY, Owner
Denise E. LaCour
President, Denico Development Co., Applicant
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-00-004. Fontaine Research Park (Signs #57 & #58). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to amend ZMA-92-03 to expand the 389,000 sq ft dvlpment limitation to 495,000 sq
ft, to modify the approved application plan & to amend proffers. Approx 53.52 acs znd CO & FH. TM 76,
Ps 17B, 17B1, 17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7 & 17BX. Loc on S sd of Fontaine Ave, E of & adj to Rt
29. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Office Service uses in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Real Estate Foundation (UREF) wishes to
increase the square footage for this park which was originally approved in 1992. The original approval was
for 389,000 square feet of gross building area and 19,450 square feet of commercial use. They are asking
for 495,000 square feet which is an increase of 106,000 square feet. He said a special use permit is
required so the special uses can be permitted in the additional 106,000 square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to the proffers and plan of development, all substantive elements from the
1992 plan have been retained in the 2000 plan and all proffers that continue to be applicable to the
property have been replaced in the 2000 proffers. These proffers have been received and are acceptable
to the County Attorney.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a provision that the landscape/buffer area screen the park from Fontaine
Avenue and the residential neighborhoods adjoining the research park. He said a resource protection area
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
has been identified and shown on the plan. However, it is somewhat different from that area originally
shown on the plan. Some disturbance has taken place in some of the areas shown on the original plan for
stormwater detention. The applicant does not wish to disturb any area not shown on the current plan.
Traffic issues arose with the Commission. One had to do with road improvements to the park. UREF will
improve the radius of the northbound off-ramp, for the northbound to eastbound right turning movement at
the intersection of the Route 29 Bypass and Fontaine Avenue. UREF will make a full frontage improvement
and relocate the path along the frontage to the entrance of the park along Fontaine Avenue. The applicant
has committed to adopting a transportation management plan for the park to help facilitate traffic reduction
measures and to promote educational programs. The applicant has proffered that they will provide a
second access into the park for pedestrians and bicyclists once a permanent path with pavement and
lighting is provided by the County in conjunction with bicycle/pedestrian improvements to Stribling Avenue.
Dedication of land for a greenway will be made when the County has a plan for development of such
greenway. The new plan of development shows pedestrian access throughout the park, and shows how
the sidewalks will connect the buildings and parking areas. Staff believes that all issues have been
adequately addressed with this rezoning, and recommended approval subject to the amended proffers.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 5, 2000, recommended approval with proffers by a
6:1 vote. He offered to answer questions.
With no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing UREF, said he appreciates the professionalism of County staff,
especially Ms. Elaine Echols, in meeting their aggressive schedule. Readdressing the 1992 plan was the
urgent need for lab and medical research space driven by the University Medical School. They need up to
50,000 square feet of pure lab space for research in metabolic diseases, including diabetes. They looked
at the 1992 plan and tried to balance preservation of the strict integrity and design of the development, at
the same time trying to provide no frills and efficient laboratory space. He also wished to acknowledge the
work of the people at the MPO and the Planning District Commission for their assistance in arriving at a
novel and innovative transportation management plan.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. Mr. Davis said this request will require two public
hearings, one on a zoning application, and one on a special use permit. Mr. Blaine said after submitting the
application, and prior to the Planning Commissions hearing, he got a zoning determination that there was
=
no need for the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said he had noticed only the rezoning request on the
agenda, but the staffs report mentioned both, so he did not want to lose something during this meeting. Mr.
=
Davis said he had not been made aware of that determination.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, a County resident, said she agrees with the comments of Mr. Rieley at the
Commissions public hearing as to why he voted against this request.
=
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said this contains some fine innovative approaches to issues that may not have existed
if this development were being built today. It is an older kind of plan. When looking at the plan, one gets
the feeling of how much asphalt there is on the site for parking. She hopes that in the future these types of
parks can be better planned. She does think the people involved have come up with good attempts to
mitigate traffic and they have agreed to tie into the greenway when it becomes a safe thing to do. She
thinks their traffic mitigation plans will become a model to use for other applications.
Mr. Perkins asked how many new jobs will be created from this additional square footage. Mr.
Blaine said it is hard to predict because faculty and researchers already working at the Medical Center will
move to this facility. It is estimated to generate 300 to 400 jobs, hopefully filled by people already in the
area.
Mr. Perkins said people come to this area because of jobs, which means growth. The University
fuels this growth, not because of its students, but because of its research, etc. Most people want to know
how to stop or slow down growth. As long as new jobs are being created, it will not be stopped, or even
slowed down. The majority of the employment in the community is at the University of Virginia. Where are
the people coming from who are taking these jobs? He believes that 99 percent of them will come from
outside of this area, and probably 75 percent of them will come from outside of the state.
Mr. Bowerman said that darn University has students who graduate and then stay here, and they
A
are engineers, and system engineers, etc., and they start up businesses, and it is just terrible. Mr.
@A@
Perkins said that is the whole point of growth. He wishes that the people complaining would either realize
that or get off of their soap boxes and realize what is really going on.
Mr. Bowerman said the growth that is going on is of a technical nature in many different fields. It is
invisible from an industrial point of view, but it is a basic employer of people, many of which are graduates
of CATEC and the surrounding counties, as well as products of the University, and the education system in
the City and the County. Many of the jobs being created in these types of situations absorb many of the
local residents. Although, there will be people coming from outside of the area.
Ms. Humphris said this is why she has been opposed to the County joining the Thomas Jefferson
Economic Development Partnership whose goal is to promote growth in the community, and to encourage
people to come to the area. The County has the greatest engine for producing growth and they do it for
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
free. She will always be opposed to using taxpayers dollars for promoting growth, when the University is
going to do it at no charge to the community. Mr. Perkins said that sometimes the County needs to be a
player at the table in order to know what is going on. If the County is going to allow the University to do
these things, then it must accept the growth that occurs. Ms. Humphris said the Board is a player at the
A
table as long as it is required to give approvals to these things.
@
Ms. Thomas said she has found this discussion rather refreshing. If there is any excuse for
approving this request, the reason is that this is a locational decision and where it will be placed, rather than
if it will be placed. This is a good location and with the proffers placed on traffic, it is a good locational
decision. She said Mr. Perkins is right in that every time a new enterprise comes to town, it is not possible to
get sixty percent of their employees locally.
Mr. Bowerman said when he moved to the County in 1977, it was mostly rural, and then there was
the City of Charlottesville. The County now is at least half urban around the core of the city; it has become
very urbanized. In order to serve this population, there are pressing needs in the ten-year capital plan. He
said additional apartments will not cause UREF to build this lab; it is the other way around.
Ms. Humphris asked if the proffer incorrectly states Morey Creek in three places instead of Moore's
Creek. Mr. Cilimberg said it is Morey Creek, a tributary of Moore's Creek.
At this point, Ms. Thomas moved approval of ZMA-2000-04 with the proffers dated September 20,
2000. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
ZMA-00-04
PROFFERS
FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
TAX MAP PARCELS 76-17B, 17B(1), 17B(2), 17B(3), 17B(5), 17B(6), and 17B(7)
53.52 Acres, Zoned Commercial Office (CO)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County, Virginia Code (the Code), and
A@
consistent with the Water Protection Ordinance, or Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Code)
A@
the owners, or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed
below which shall be applied to the property. The proffers contained herein supersede
all previous proffers pertaining to the above-referenced parcels. Any previous proffers
applicable to such parcels have either: I) been fully satisfied, ii) are no longer applicable,
or iii) have been incorporated in their entirety into these proffers. These conditions are
proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives
rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to
the rezoning requested.
1.The Applicant, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, successor to UREF
Research Park, Inc., ("UREF") will construct, or install at its expense, the following
road improvements on or before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
next building within the Fontaine Research Park:
A.UREF will improve the radius of the northbound off ramp, for the northbound to
eastbound right turning movement at the intersection of Route 29 Bypass and
Fontaine Avenue to the satisfaction of VDOT and the Albemarle County
Engineering Department.
B.UREF will install necessary improvements, including re-striping and signal
modifications, for dual, left-turn lanes (Northbound) at the intersection of Ray
C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue.
C.UREF will construct a continuous right turn lane from the existing acceleration
lane at the eastbound off ramp at the intersection of Route 29 Bypass/Fontaine
Avenue and the existing right turn lane onto Ray C. Hunt Drive. UREF will
rebuild the pedestrian path and make any necessary dedication of right-of-way
for such continuous right turn lane and related improvements.
2.Development shall substantially adhere to the Fontaine Research Park Master Plan,
prepared by Draper Aden Associates, last revised August 18, 2000, ("Master Plan")
submitted with these proffers. The Master Plan replaces in its entirety all previous
proffered plans, including the Zoning Application Plan, dated May 1992, and
prepared by McKee/Carson.
3.UREF will construct at its expense a pedestrian connection from Fontaine Avenue
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
into the Research Park in the general area depicted on the Master Plan. The
pedestrian path will be completed on or before the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the next building within the Fontaine Research Park. At a minimum,
the pedestrian connection shall be paved with asphalt, similar to the existing path on
Fontaine Avenue.
4.UREF will construct a pedestrian system within the Research Park, in general
conformance with the system shown on the Master Plan. Specific features for
conformity shall include pedestrian connection from buildings to other buildings and
parking areas.
5.UREF will limit total development on the site to 495,000 square feet of floor area.
Support commercial uses shall be limited in building area to 20,000 square feet of
gross floor area.
6.All buildings will be limited to four stories in height. UREF will maintain the existing
landscape buffer area to screen the project from Fontaine Avenue and residential
neighborhoods adjoining the Fontaine Research Park.
7.Strict architectural and landscape architectural guidelines and restrictions shall
continue to govern the design and construction of all buildings and parcel specific
site development. Such architectural guidelines and restrictions shall be applied
and enforced in accordance with the Declaration of Protective Covenants and
Restrictions for the Fontaine Research Park, dated January 20, 1993, and recorded
at the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed
Book 1286, page 604.
8.Best Management Practices will be implemented in all areas of earth disturbing
activity. Storm water management shall be accomplished through a combination of
new storm water management facilities and modification of existing storm water
and/or erosion control facilities, as modified and as shown on the Master Plan. The
Department of Engineering and Public Works shall approve the ultimate storm
water management plan relating to any future improvements, as required by the
Ordinance, to insure that no material degradation of Morey Creek and adjacent
stream valleys occurs. The Applicant will not create any land disturbance in the
area indicated as Resource Protection Area on the Master Plan, except for
pedestrian pathways and the storm water management facility, (as shown on the
Master Plan) without the approval of the Planning Commission. The Resource
Protection Area is intended to be delineated as all the area within 100 feet of the
boundaries of the 100 year flood plain elevations.
9.At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan of development for a
pedestrian/bicycle and greenway improvements for the Morey Creek/Stribling
Avenue area, UREF shall dedicate a strip of land, at least one hundred feet (100') in
width along Morey Creek up to the Southern Railway right-of-way, (as it exists on the
date of this proffer) then north, along the Southern Railway right-of -way to the
intersection of such right-of-way and Stribling Avenue (the "Greenway"). The
Greenway will be conveyed in fee simple or in the form of an easement, as the
Board of Supervisors' approval may require. Applicant may reserve in such
dedication necessary access across the Greenway to the Southern Railway
right-of-way in the event that such right-of-way is ever used for commuter rail
service. The Greenway may be established at any time as determined by the Board
of Supervisors. A pedestrian connection to the Greenway shall be made at such
time as improvements are made to establish the pedestrian and bicycle paths as
part of the Greenway, and improvements are made to Stribling Avenue to include
paving and street lights.
10.UREF shall adopt (no later than the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
next building constructed at the Fontaine Research Park) a Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for the Research Park, incorporating traffic
reduction amenities (such as pedestrian access, as depicted on the Master Plan),
facilitating employer traffic reduction measures and promoting educational
programs. The TDMP shall offer employee surveys to be conducted by, or with the
guidance of, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, or a similar
organization. Surveys will be available to develop specific programs for employers
within the Research Park tailored to commuter needs. The TDMP shall stress
increased awareness of available alternative transportation means in and around
the University community, including van service between the medical campuses,
University and City transit systems, employee benefits, and parking shuttle service.
The TDMP will establish or promote means for reducing single occupancy vehicle
use, including but not limited to providing educational programs on ridesharing,
striping high occupancy vehicle parking spaces and installing bicycle racks near
buildings. The TDMP shall be available to existing and future employers and
employees at the Research Park via appropriate and effective means.
Submitted as of the 20th day of September, 2000 by:
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIAUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH
ESTATE FOUNDATIONSERVICES FOUNDATION
(Signed)(Signed)
By: Tim R. Rose By: Marc Dettmann
Secretary Chief Executive Officer
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. FY 2000-01 Reappropriations, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, will start this discussion by reviewing with
the Board the Fund Balance, and the preliminary additional revenues and expenditure savings as of June
30, 2000. Then Ms. White will review the actual reappropriations, as well as some new items identified
during the budget work sessions as being funded if there were available revenues at the end of June 30.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 8:31 p.m.)
Mr. Breeden said Attachment A (forwarded to the Board members along with other papers for this
meeting) shows the County's Fund Balance as of June 30, 1999, at $16,729,161, less Board-approved
uses of the Fund Balance during FY 00 at $2,040,524, leaving a Fund Balance of $14,688,637 as of June
>
30, 2000. He said this is the result of growth, and a good economy this past year.
Additional funds generated by excess revenues during FY 00 were $5,083,985 over projections,
>
with expenditure savings of $1,549,611, so when added to the Fund Balance it leaves a total Fund Balance
as of June 30, 2000, of $21,322,233. The excess revenues represent a 4.7 percent increase over the
County's anticipated or budgeted revenues and an 11.2 percent increase over FY 99. Major contributors to
>
excess revenues include $1,214,297 of additional real estate taxes, $1,439,764 of additional personal
property taxes and $1,934,219 of additional sales tax and BPOL revenues, which are a result of greater
than anticipated new construction, more new vehicle sales and generally a robust economy. These
additional revenues do not include the $1.17 million in one-time real estate tax revenues that have already
been transferred to a separate fund.
Mr. Bowerman asked the amount of revenue from the Meals Tax. Mr. Breeden said the total is
approximately $3.4 million. Collections were about $260,000 over last years projection.
=
Mr. Breeden said significant factors contributing to the expenditure savings involve departmental
savings in Administration of $139,878, in Public Safety of $107,306, in Public Works of $236,467, in Human
Development of $205,625 and in Community Development of $851,927. However, 60 percent of the
savings are due to outstanding purchase orders or incomplete FY 00 projects which are being requested
>
for reappropriation, e.g., Community Development, $211,446 and E-911, $212,500. (Note: Mr. Martin
returned to the meeting at 8:35 p.m.) The County's cash flow requirement is $13,500,000. Therefore, the
net Fund Balance available as of June 30, 2000, was $7,822,233.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said the $7.8 million figure represents the funds
available for projects already approved by the Board to be funded from the Fund Balance total $1,405,656;
projects with outstanding purchase orders as of June 30, 2000, total $371,200; and reappropriation
requests for projects approved in FY 00, but not completed total $543,449. New projects supported during
>
the FY 01 budget work sessions (if carryover funds were available) amounted to $299,175. New projects
>
identified subsequent to the FY 01 budget process totaled $3,115,232.
>
Subtracting the new projects from the net Fund Balance available for projects yields an unused
Fund Balance of $2,087,521. Staff is recommending that $2.0 million of this unused Fund Balance be set
aside in the Capital Reserve Fund to be used to fund identified significant future capital needs. With this
Capital Reserve, the net available Fund Balance is $87,521. This is $87,521 in the Fund Balance over the
required $13.5 million for cash flow needs. When combined with the Board's budgeted Reserve Fund of
$123,630, the Board has $211,151 to fund any requests that may arise during the FY 01 fiscal year.
>
Mr. Bowerman said the projects listed as new projects are not new to the Board. These are
A@
projects which have been identified, but which could not be funded from anticipated revenues. These are
not projects which just popped up. He just wanted to make that clear.
A@
Ms. Thomas said the Development Areas Study is a project the Board had been told could be
funded out of the Fund Balance. She said the Board does not need to get into that discussion now, but it
just reinforces Mr. Bowermans point. Ms. White said some of the projects are considered as new. Some
=
were supported during budget work sessions, but since they have not previously been funded, they are
being termed "new". There are other new projects listed which have not been reviewed yet.
Ms. White said there is $500,000 listed as a transfer to the CIP for various projects. That is
additional money for the CIP. There was a request from the Engineering Department for a variety of
projects. Some were entrance corridor improvements, some were stormwater drainage improvements.
Staff recommended that money be put into the CIP and then those projects be prioritized along with other
projects the CIP Technical Committee will look at.
Ms. White said the Board has heard about the roof replacement for the Scottsville Recreation
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Center. There are a lot of projects listed for Planning and Community Development under contract
services. She brought the Boards attention to Attachment D of the paperwork for a complete listing of
=
recommended projects.
Ms. White said reappropriation requests recommended to be made from FY 00 to FY 01 total
>>
$543,449. Based on Code of Virginia 15.2-2507, in order to appropriate the additional funds required for
'
the reappropriations, the County must hold a public hearing to amend the current FY 01 budget since the
=
recommended amendment is over the minimum of $500,000. The proposed reappropriations must be
advertised and subsequently reviewed at a public hearing prior to approval.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is often accused of spending all additional moneys. He said it is not
as if the Board just comes up with things to spend money on because there are additional funds. Projects
have been identified in the Five-Year Capital Plan and other projects discussed during operational budget
review, and the Ten-Year Plan. Mr. Tucker said things do happen during the year which require funding.
One of those items is the Scottsville Community Center Roof Replacement. That project was discussed
last year but there were no revenues, or even an estimate for the project. It is a need, so it is listed as a
new project. He said the public may not be aware of these types of needs, but the Board knows about
them.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks staff has overlooked Animal Control. He understands from people in the
Police Department that staffing for animal control is stretched very thin in the County. Ms. Thomas said
there is an item listed which addresses that. Mr. Tucker said it can be addressed in next year's budget.
Mr. Bowerman said one-time non-recurring revenues are generally used for capital items, not
salaries. He knows Animal Control and the SPCA are two related issues. Ms. White said the only reason
the ACE Coordinator was funded here is because staff was told not to take the funds from the program.
Ms. Thomas asked if the consultants should give their opinion on the use of the $2.0 million. Ms.
White said she met with the consultants today and they will develop funding scenarios to be presented to
the Board on October 4, 2000. Mr. Tucker said staff is proposing that this public hearing be scheduled on
October 18, 2000.
Motion to set this matter for public hearing on October 18 was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded
by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 1, April 12, August 2, August 9 and August 16,
2000.
Mr. Dorrier had read March 1, 2000, pages 1 - 17 (ending at Item 10) and found them to be in
order. He had also read April 12, 2000, and found one incorrect word. On page 11 the word "aggressive"
should be regressive.
A@
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of August 2, 2000, Pages 1 - 16, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve the minutes which had been read. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said last month during Board meeting, the Board invited Mr. Don Askew from VDOT to
review the plans for the Route 29 North Corridor. He has agreed to come here on October 4, 2000.
VDOTs next public forum is not going to be held in December as was previously understood. Mr. Askew
=
has indicated that it will not happen until next year.
__________
Mr. Perkins said the Board had received a letter addressing growth problems and a letter
concerning a personnel issue (he provided no details). He asked if the Chairman will reply to these letters.
Mr. Martin said he will take care of the letter which addresses solutions to problems concerning growth, but
the other is a school matter.
__________
Mr. Dorrier referred to a letter from Ms. Linda Hunt regarding a bullet going through a friend's
house from the Rivanna Rifle Range. He said City police were involved in that particular incident. Mr.
Bowerman said he thinks this is being dealt with through the proper agencies. Mr. Martin said he has talked
with Chief Miller and believes the Board will be receiving some proposals in the near future. Mr. Tucker
said the Police will be meeting with the property owners involved, as well as the County and City police. It
may mean that the County will be looking at other alternatives for practice. Mr. Davis said Mr. Fred Payne,
spokesperson for the Rivanna Club, is planning an aggressive approach to the problem and he would be
September 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
happy to provide information to the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he is a member of the club. On the long
range, they put up at least a 12-foot earthen berm with an eight-foot high, four-inch thick oak
fence to stop the horizontal splatter. He said the club has been aggressive in preventing this type of
incident.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the TJ Planning District Commission is thinking about changing their name to TJ
Regional Planning Commission. If any Board members have a negative response to that change, let her or
Mr. Perkins know.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on January 4 all local legislators are invited to dinner with the State delegation.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Scottsville would like to become a member of the Planning District Commission
as an entity in and of itself. The PDC staff is looking into precedent and how other planning districts handle
this type of request.
__________
Ms. Thomas said JAUNT is celebrating 25 years of service, but neither she or Ms. Humphris can
attend their luncheon. She invited other Board members to attend the luncheon on September 26. She
said it is an agency the Board is proud of.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on October 16, 2000, the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation will be requesting the Boards thoughts on the Outdoors Plan. It includes transportation issues,
=
open space planning, and sometimes includes things like Purchase of Development Rights. She said
someone needs to attend that meeting for the County.
__________
Mr. Martin said he had received a letter written to him and Mr. Bill Finley. It sounds like something
to which Mr. Tucker should respond.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 11-1-2000
Initials EWC