Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-07-02
July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) O00iSZ (Page 2) The letter states than tund~n~l~ fzscal year 1997-98 is available for this project and will not affect the existing priority list. The Board was requested to support inclusion of this project into the Secondary Six-Year Plan by adopting a resolution of support. (Ms. Thomas said she represents the users of the road and they are delighted that the work can be done without delaying other projects in the area. For the County's purposes, she suggested that the Board might add to the resolution that the road serves, each day, from 600 to 700 cars that have no viable alternative. She thinks that would make it clearer as to why the Board supports the resolution. A few weeks ago, the residents of West Leigh, for two days, sat out in the sun to personally count and interview the driver of every car that went over the railroad tracks. (Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said the reference in the resolution to three families per mile is to ensure that the road meets public service requirements. A road that serves two or less families is considered by the Department to be private access. A resolution does not usually get into traffic volumes, although the Board may include that information. (Ms. Thomas said she has filed the required Conflict of Interest form to show that she is joined by a large number of people who are interested in this road. (Ms. Humphris asked if it is a problem for the County to guarantee a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as stated in the resolution. Ms. Tucker said that is a requirement before VDOT actually breaks ground. If for some reason that does not happen, VDOT will have to remove ~his project from the Six-Year Plan. (Mr. Davis said he understands that the homeowners plan to make contact with property owners of the land involved and insure that the necessary easements are donated. That will be handled without direct County involve- ment. Staff will assist them with the forms and procedures necessary. All of that needs to be done before VDOT actually goes to bid on the project. (Ms. Thomas commented that Mr. Grice Whiteley, from the West Leigh Homeowners' Association, is present to answer any questions. They have had a survey done and are quite clear as to the land that is required. (Mr. Whiteley said there are six property owners involved, and he personally has contacted each of them. They have stated they have no problem with donating the necessary right-of-way. (Mr. Perkins asked why is it necessary to take seven-tenths of a mile into the State System. Ms.~Tucker said the length came about because VD©T looked for an appropriate turnaround at the nearest intersection with another street. (Mr. Perkins asked if there are other places in West Leigh where VDOT could make a cul-de-sac to terminate the State road. His concern is with the money involved in improving that distance and he asked if the road will have to be upgraded to State standards to get to that turnaround. Ms. Tucker said that length includes what will be upgraded. She is not certain where the property boundaries lie. If bringing the road just beyond the tracks still includes a sufficient number of property owners, that would be a satisfactory location given that there is a turnaround there for large trucks. VDOT's thinking was that the tradeoff would be in recreating a turnaround for trucks at a location where one does exist versus using the existing intersection. (Ms. Thomas said she thought this was the minimum length that covered at least three families, so the road needs to come to Leigh Way in order to get the required number of families. Mr. Perkins asked if that is three resi- dences or three owners. Ms. Tucker responded that it is three separate owners. Mr. Perkins said there are more than three owners before going that far along the road. Mr. Davis said some of the first properties on West Leigh Drive also front on Route 250 so they were not counted because they had more than one access point. There also was an issue that if the cul-de-sac was placed short of Leigh Way a significant contribution of land would be needed from a property owner they did not think would be willing to donate. VDOT was the proponent of doing the seven-tenths of a mile. (Page 3) (MS. Thomas ~d she ;~uld 5e ~e~3. ghtea to have the road end shorter than where it is proposed to end as it zs currently in her front yard. She was told it had to be to three driveways. (Ms. Tucker said in regard to the increased cost estimate, there has to be pipe replacement between Route 250 and the railroad. There is an existing 78-inch pipe that is severely undersized. A triple line will be installed replacing the existing pipe and then two others installed along the side. VDOT needs to do very minimal work to the road itself: overlay the road with a layer of surface treatment, tar and gravel.) With no further discussion of this item, by the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: RE S OLUT I 0 in WHEREAS, the street delscribed~below was established in 1957, currently serves at'least three families per mile and serves from 600 to 700 cars per day from residences with no viable alternative; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does not exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Trans- portation to add the following street to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia: Name of Street: West Leigh Drive Length: 0.7 miles From: State Route 250 Ivy Road To: Leigh Way BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of TransportatiOn to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to § 33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation. Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution to take roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision (SUB 12.380) into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the BOard adopted the following resolution by the above recorded vote: R E S 0 L U T I 0 in WHEREAS, the streets in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision (SUB 12.380) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of 'Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Require- ments of the Virginia Department of Transportation. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day ~e~[~i '~'~" ..... ' O001S4 (Page 4) NOW, THEREFOR~;~""~" ~ BE I~ ~SOL~D~ that ~ 'thel Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Trans- portation to add the roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision as de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: Roslyn Ridge Road from Station 10+54.56, left edge of pavement of relocated State Route 743 to Station 37+82.35, rear of cul-de-sac, 2727.79 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 938, pages 49-58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 3/31/88 in Deed Book 985, pages 634-644; 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 334-5, 337-8, 340-2 and 344-5; 5/7/97 in Deed Book 1610, pages 314-5 and 320-1; and 6/2/97 in Deed Book 1616, pages 691-2, for a length of 0.52 mile. 2) Roslyn Ridge Court from Station 10+10, left edge of pave- ment of Roslyn Ridge Road, Station 12+55, rear of cul-de- sac, 245 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 938, pages 49-58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats re- corded 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 340-2; 5/7/97 in Deed Book 1610, pages 323-4 and 326-7; and 5/23/97 in Deed Book 1613, pages 553-4, for a length of 0.05 mile. 3) Roslyn Forest Lane from Station 9+39.65, left edge of pavement of Roslyn Ridge Road to Station 18+35, rear of cul-de-sac, 895.35 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 938, pages 49-58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 325-6, 328-9 and 331-2; 10/17/95 in Deed Book 1498, pages 441-3; and 5/7/97 in Deed Book 1610, pages 314-5 and 317-8 for a length of 0.17 mile. Total length - 0.74 mile. Item 5.3. Adopt Resolution to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivi- sion, Phase 2C (SUB 12.354A) into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and by the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: R E S 0 LUT I 0 in WHEREAS, the streets in Dunlora - Phase 2C (SUB 12.354A) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Require- ments of the Virginia Department of Transportation. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Mee[[h~) : 000185 (Page 5) NOW, Ta~t~O~:'+'~'~'~ ~g~f~,~h~t the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Trans- portation to add Dunlora Drive in Dunlora - Phase 2C as de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and B~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Dunlora Drive from Station 55+50, end of State Route 1177, 2413.64 lineal feet, to Station 79+63+64, left edge of pavement of Dunlora Drive, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet as shown on plat recorded 5/28/96 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1539, pages 539-47, with additional plats recorded on 6/11/97 in Deed Book 1618, pages 103-4 and pages 106-7, for a length of 0.46 mile. Total Mileage - 0.46 mile. Item 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Purchase of Power Agreement with Appalachian Power Company including Settlement Rates, and authorize County Executive to execute such agreements administratively in the future. It was noted in the staff's report that the agreement for the purchase of electricity from Appalachian Power Company (d/b/a/ American Electric Power) contains the negotiated new rates for Albemarle County. The agreement covers a 36-month period beginning July 1, 1996, and includes the terms of the negotiated settlement refund rate agreed upon by the negotiating committee (Virginia Municipal League [VML] and Virginia Association of Counties [VACO]). Staff recommended that the County Executive be authorized to sign the agree- ment, and also suggested that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute such agreements administratively in the future. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the CoUnty Executive to execute the Purchase of Power Agreement withAppalachian Power Company (d/b/a/ American Electric Power) including Settlement Rates, and authorized the County Executive to execute such agreements administratively in the future. Item 5.5. Request to set public a hearing for approval of Deed of Easement for proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High School. It was noted in the staff's report that §15.1-262 of the State Code requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property, including easements. The City of Charlottesville's Gas Division has requested an easement for the proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new connector road accessing Monticello High School. The County's Engineering and Public Works Department has reviewed the Deed of Easement provided by the .City and has approved the location, of the gas lines. By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing on this request for July 9, 1997. Item 5.5a. Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., advancing $175,000 to purchase new tanker truck. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meet~l~i (Page 7) 4. The Fire Department agrees ~hat the One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the tanker truck. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the tanker truck or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent. 000157 5. The Fire Department agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire department services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 2 to the County at no additional cost to'the County upon the County's request ~ 6. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated October 10, 1986, May 1, 1989, and May 10, 1994, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. Nothing contained herein shall be constructed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department. Item 5.5b. Proclamation in support of Peter T. Way for his service to Albemarle County and his outstanding achievements. Ms. Humphris said the town of Scottsville has invited this Board to join in their recognition of Delegate Peter T. Way on the Fourth of July. A proclamation has been prepared to be presented to Mr. Way at that time. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation: Proclamation for Peter T. Way WHEREAS, the Fourth of July is a holiday to recognize and honor patriotism and service to country on Federal, state and local levels; and WHEREAS, Peter T. Way has served the Albemarle County community faithfully and well during a long and varied political career encompassing service on the School Board, the Board of Supervisors and most recently as representative of the Fifty- Eighth District to the Virginia House of Delegates; and W~EREAS, Mr. Way has also contributed to the well-being of our area through his involvement in many community organizations and boards and as a private citizen performing valuable services for his fellow Albemarle County residents; and WHEREAS, our community is a stronger, safer and more vital place to live and work thanks to the many efforts of Mr. Way on its behalf; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby express the Board's gratitude and appreciation to PETER T. WAY for his outstanding achievements and wish him well as he retires from the Virginia House of Delegates. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated June 12, 1997, from Mr. Jimmy T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Mr. Arthur D. Petrini, Executive Director, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, re: Route 29 (Project 6029-002-F22,C-501) Bypass construction impact on the South Fork Rivanna River, was received as follows: July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) 00~)188 (Page 8) "I am writing to update you on our progress on addreSsing your concerns for possible impacts to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a result of the construction of the Route 29 Bypass Project. Your letter of December 16, 1996, requested us to consider several alternatives for providing additional water quality protection for the reservoir. After an extensive study of this matter, we make the following proposals and comments concerning specific areas along the project: From Woodburn Road to Rivanna River Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is naturally directed to the east, away from the reservoir. 2. From Hydraulic Road to Woodburn Road Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is naturally directed to the reservoir through several small streams. It is not feasible to direct this flow to a point downstream of the reservoir due to the large differential in elevations of the existing topography. To protect the reservoir during the construction phase of the project, VDOT will prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations and VDOT's annual erosion and sediment control standards and specifications as approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Additionally, we will provide off-site controls in the main drainage channels between the project and the reservoir. These controls will consist of appropriate sediment control devices along the length of the channels and turbidity curtains where the channels outlet into the reservoir. For protection of the reservoir after construction, VDOT will provide retention (wet) basins for both water quality and quantity control. These basins will not only capture and 'treat' the water from within the project right of way, but will also capture and 'treat' 10 acres of off- site area (between Rio Road and the project) which now flows to the reservoir 'untreated'. Each proposed basin will have a sediment forebay.' The design and capacity of these forebays will be such that they could be utilized to temporarily retain runoff from a hazardous spill (should one occur), thereby providing additional mobilization and response time for emergency and clean-up crews. 3. From Stillhouse Mountain Area to Hydraulic Road Stormwater runoff from' the project between these points is naturally directed to Ivy Creek which flows into the reservoir at Route 676. To protect the reservoir during the construction phase of the project, VDOT will prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations and VDOT's annual erosion and sediment control standards and specifications as approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. For protection of the reservoir after construction, VDOT will provide retention (wet) basins for both water quality and quantity control. Each proposed basin will have a sediment forebay. The design and capacity of these forebays will be such that they could be utilized to temporarily retain runoff from a hazardous spill (should one occur), thereby providing additional mobilization and response time for emergency and clean-up crews. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) (Page 9) 000:1.89 From Route 250 to StillhOuse Mountain Area Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is naturally directed to the east, away from the reservoir. 5. Water Quality Monitoring VDOT will provide a water quality monitoring program for those areas of the project which pose the greatest potential for impacts to the reservoir. This monitoring program will commence prior to the beginning of construction for the project in order to establish a base line. Monitoring will continue through the construction phase of the project and for two years following completion of the project. Ail stormwater management facilities constructed on this project will be maintained by VDOT. The Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations require that, at a minimum, the facilities be inspected on a semi-annual basis and after any storm event that exceeds the facilities' capacity. We have contracted with Dr. Shaw Yu, professor at the University of Virginia and member of the Transportation Research Council, to review the designs of our stormwater management facilities. He will make suggestions as to where the opportunity exists to provide enhancements to the designs in order to provide for additional pollutant removal efficiencies. It is hoped that the 'revised' stormwater management plan for this project satisfactorily addresses your concerns. Final designs of the basins are not yet complete. However, we would be glad to meet with you at this time, or when final details are complete, in order to discuss this matter further or address additional issues. Sincerely, (Signed) Jimmy T. Mills State Location and Design Engineer" Item 5.7. Letter dated June 25, 1997, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Ms. Millicent Holbert, Acting Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, providing notice that beginning Monday, July 7, 1997, Route 708, immediately west of Route 29, will be closed to through traffic for approximately five days, to allow bridge repairs, was received for information. Item 5.8. Staff's Analysis of VDOT's Noise Abatement Policy, was received. It was noted in the staff's report that the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a new Noise Abatement Policy on November 21, 1996. It replaced the previous policy that went into effect on January 1, 1989. The Board of Supervisors requested that staff provide an analysis of the policy. The purpose of the Noise Abatement Policy is to employ certain criteria and procedures in determining the need and feasibility of noise abatement measures on all highway projects in the Commonwealth. Staff identified the following changes from the previous policy to the current policy: ~The new policy lists Type I and Type II projects. These terms are not used in the previous policy. A Type I project involves the construction of a highway in a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through lanes and where noise abatement criteria is met and noise abatement measures are utilized. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) "A Type II or'yetr0f~C~=~j=~d~'~[~'[~"the construction of noise abatement measures along an existing highway when not done in conjunction with an improvement of that highway. VDOT does not participate in construction or funding of Type II or retrofit noise abatement. The new policy separates Type I and Type II projects. ~A noise abatement measure will be considered cost-effective if the cost of the measure per protected residential project does not exceed $30,000. This is the cost of the abatement measure divided by the number of impacted receptors receiving noise protection. Under the previous policy, a noise abatement measure would not be considered cost- effective if the cost of the measure per receptor protected exceeded $20,000. The cost-effectiveness determination for non-residential properties will be handled on a case-by-case basis. VDOT does not have a monetary threshold for cost-effectiveness for non-residential properties. ~The policy has a new section called Third Par~y Funding which can be used to fund noise abatement measures that exceed ceiling cost. The previous policy only allowed the 'local jurisdiction' to pay for these measures. Under the new policy, a 'third party' could be a neighborhood association that raises money to pay costs that exceed VDOT's ceiling. The third party must also satisfy other VDOT criteria other than cost as an option to be eligible. The criteria include, but are not limited to: 1) paying for preliminary engineering, construction and maintenance, and, 2) VDOT's construction material, design and construction specifications." Item 5.9. Copy of notice for Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0027065 to Cooper Industries, Inc., Earlysville, to discharge to State Waters and State Certification under the State Water Control, was received for information. Item 5.10. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) monthly bond and program report for the month of May, 1997, was received for information. Item 5.11. Copy of notice from the State Corporation Commission of an application of VYVX of Virginia, Inc., for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide interexchange telecommunications services and to have its rates determined competitively, was received for information. Item 5.12. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors for May 27, 1997, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: October 11, 1995, October 9, 1996, and June 11, 1997. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of October 11, 1995, pages 1 to 29 (Item #7) and found them to be in order to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 11, 1995, pages 29 (Item %7) to 43 (Item #10), and found them to be in order, noting one typographical error. Mr. Bowerman read the minutes of October 11, 1995, pages 43 (Item #10) to the end, and found them to be in order with one typographical error. Ms. Thomas read the minutes of October 9, 1996, pages 1 to 15 (Item #9) and found them to be in order with one typographical error. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Connector Road. Discussion: Powell Creek Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said Powell Creek Drive (Route 1521) is located in Forest Lakes South and Hollymead subdivisions. Forest Lakes South was originally approved as a planned unit development (PUD) on October 16, 1991, for up to 800 residential units. To date, approximately 300 homes have been built. Mr. Cilimberg said that a traffic study was required as part of the approval process. The road system approved included a connection to Hollymead and Forest Lakes South via existing Powell Creek Drive. The connection provides direct access between Forest Lakes South and Hollymead, particularly the Hollymead/Sutherland School complex, thereby reducing the amount of traffic using Route 29 North and Hollymead Drive. This type of connection is consistent with past and current Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Cilimberg said the portion of Powell Creek Drive in Hollymead was established with the development of Hollymead Subdivision. The portion in Forest Lakes South was opened in 1994. Homes front on both sections of Powell Creek Drive with driveways accessing directly to the road. The Forest Lakes South section has 17 homes on Powell Creek Drive. Since the connection, Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South has experienced increased traffic. As a result of this increase in traffic and concerns about the speed limit, residents circulated a petition requesting that the road be closed. Staff responded to these residents that the applicant (The Kessler Group) must initiate the road closing through a zoning map amendment. The Kessler Group met with these citizens and indicated they would consider taking the steps necessary to initiate the road closing if the Board of Supervisors would support their rezoning request. This response was presented to the Board at its May 21, 1997, meeting, by the petitioners. The connector road is in the process of being accepted into the VDOT system, probably within 60 days. Mr. Cilimberg said the residents have contacted the Planning Department on several occasions to complain about speeding and the volume of traffic. As a result, staff contacted the County Police Department and requested that they operate the ~Smart Sign" on Powell Creek Drive for a 24-hour period. The sign was placed on Powell Creek Drive between Poe's Lane and Pepperidge Road on April 10 and 11, 1997, with the speed indicator operational. The Smart Sign is able to record information such as the maximum and minimum vehicle speed during a 24-hour period, as well as the average speed and a breakdown of vehicle trips specific to hours. The Smart Sign data, did not indicate speeding on Powell Creek Drive; the posted speed is 25 miles per hour. The average speed was 22.8 mph. The 85th percentile average speed was 27 mph. During a 24-hour period, 1264 cars used the connection between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South. The road was designed to carry 1500 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Cilimberg said information from the Smart Sign indicates that Powell Creek Drive is experiencing more cut-through traffic than a speeding situation. Some through traffic was anticipated when the decision was made to connect the two communities. This traffic would otherwise be on Route 29 North and Hollymead Drive, which also has residences fronting it. Staff has been working with VDOT and the developer in an effort to identify some traffic control and calming techniques which would discourage cut-through traffic (and any speeding that may occur). VDOT has an established policy for addressing the issue of cut-through traffic, and has developed a draft policy for addressing traffic calming issues. Staff would like to pursue use of these techniques in Forest Lakes South and Hollymead. Mr. Cilimberg said staff contacted the School's Transportation Department, County Police, County Fire and Rescue, and VDOT for comments on the closing of this road. The School Department responded that closing this stretch of road would present an inconvenience, but would not present any real problem. The County Police Department has verbally commented that they do not support closing existing street connections. The Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company strongly opposes the closing of the connection. VDOT supports keeping the connection open between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South with consideration of traffic calming and traffic cut-through measures. Staff supports the VDOT recommendation based on the following: 000192 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 1. This type of connection is supported by the Land Use Plan. The connection keeps additional traffic off of Route 29 North and Hollymead Drive. If Powell Creek Drive is closed, traffic utilizing that connection would have to use these roads to circulate between the Hollymead/Sutherland school complex, and Forest Lakes South. 3. The connection is supported by public safety agencies. Mr. Cilimberg said staff understands that if this approach is used, residents along Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South and Hollymead (from Hollymead Drive to Poe's Lane) will continue to experience the impacts of the traffic from this road. Staff strongly supports investigating traffic management methods (cut-through traffic and traffic calming) to mitigate impacts from traffic. The planning and implementation of this method would be done in conjunction with the residents, developer and VDOT. One of the alternatives suggested by a resident was an alternative connection that would not have homes actually accessing the road which could be looked at as part of an overall effort. Ms. Thomas said she was usually in favor of traffic calming measures, but when she received the new VDOT regulations she was rather discouraged that it could be used in this situation. She asked if VDOT has indicated that this road would be one in which VDOT would participate in traffic calming. Mr. Cilimberg noted that, from their comments, traffic volumes for the connector road lend themselves to consideration of traffic calming and cut- through measures. The cut-through policy covers much of the same ground as the traffic calming policy; in both, there is some measure of local discretion for particular circumstances that the locality feels needs to be addressed. Ms. Thomas asked the definition of ~traffic cut-through measures." Ms. Tucker said that traffic cut-through measures usually use signs instead of physical barriers. Mr. Martin noted that there seemed to be a number of people present today regarding this issue, and he asked if the Board could hear from them for a few minutes. Ms. Humphris assented. Mr. Robert Walters, a resident of Hollymead, said he wanted the Powell Creek connector road to stay open. He lives on Ravens Place and agrees that many people use Powell Creek as a cut-through. He believes that most of the traffic using Powell Creek is traveling to the Sutherland and Hollymead Schools; if they did not have the cut-through, they would be using Hollymead Drive, which he considers unsafe. There is one spot on Hollymead Drive with less than 50 feet of visibility. When he drives down Powell Creek, he is careful to drive at 25 mph, but Hollymead Drive is much less straight than Powell Creek and its speed limit is 35 mph. He asked that Powell Creek remain open as it takes some of the pressure off of Hollymead Drive. Mr. Martin said he was contacted several months ago about this issue. He brought it to the Board's attention, and he feels that Mr. Cilimberg has done a good job addressing the issues. The County, in its attempts to have roads parallel to Route 29 has been disappointed many times because they're planned, but by the times they happen, they have homes along them. This is a case where the road was there first, and the Board just cannot go back on its policy to encourage roads that interconnect neighborhoods and offer alternatives to Route 29. Ms. Humphris asked whether the speed limit on Hollymead Drive could be looked at. Mr. Martin replied that VDOT had looked at it, and decided it could not be reduced. Mr. Tucker said it is important to look at traffic calming measures. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Ms. Angela Tucker said VDOT is looking at the speed on Hollymead Drive for a reduction to 25 mph. They recently installed a crosswalk at the pool area and that lends taking another look at a reduced speed in the area of a pedestrian crosswalk. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) 000193 (Page 13) Ms. Tucker said regarding the Route 29 North widening project, the barrels should be completely out of the road by the holiday weekend. They are awaiting the final touches to the signal at Schewel's crossover. Mr. Martin asked what was stopping the removal. Ms. Tucker replied that they hesitated to open that crossover without the signal functioning. The signal should be functioning and on flash by late this afternoon. Ms. Tucker noted that the Route 682 project is complete. The guardrail has been installed. Ms. Tucker said that, regarding the Route 29 widening from the South Fork Rivanna River north to the Airport Road, she recently received some information. The widening project is due for advertisement in August, 1999. Generally they go to construction two to three months after the ad date. They are looking to start construction in late 1999 or early 2000. Ms. Humphris asked if that was a delay. Ms. Tucker responded Uno", that has always been the advertisement date. Some internal dates to VDOT's process have been delayed. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff was asked to participate in a first meeting on that project and provide a follow-up comment. Mr. Martin asked Ms. Tucker to speak about closing of the bridge and bridge work. Ms. Tucker said that construction is due to start on the bridges over the South Fork Rivanna River. The ad date is July 9, 1998, with construction to start in the Fall of 1998. That project is currently on schedule. Tentatively, a detour of traffic will be made using the southbound bridge while the northbound is widened. They will notify the public as to the major detour while that bridge work occurs. Mr. Martin said he hopes the southbound lane will be large enough. Ms. Tucker said she does not think they have thoroughly concluded how the bridge is to be improved. Regardless, they will be detouring two lanes of traffic in each direction over those bridges. Ms. Humphris remarked that, when the northbound bridge was built, many people urged VDOT to build it wider to match the widening of the road. They refused to do so, and will now need to tear it down and build a wider one. Ms. Tucker said with respect to the potential connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway, right now, VDOT is trying to coordinate the bridge widenings, the corridor widenings, the 29 Western Bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway to intersect the corridor just north of these bridges. That is quite a bit of coordination to do between now and next year. Mr. Perkins mentioned that he had a citizen ask him about Rio Mills (Route 643) and he did not know if it is in the Six-Year Road Plan. It is a short cut that is being used by a lot of people. It is poorly maintained, wash-boarding and used as a trash dump. He thinks the road should be upgraded because he thinks it will be used more and more as a short cut. Ms. Tucker stated that the traffic policy regarding "children at play" signs (actually they are "watch for children" signs) is a policy which requires that interested citizens work through the Board to request this sign from VDOT. The Department will then make a review and respond within 30 days upon receiving a resolution of support. The resolution is requested so the Department is sure the request is made on behalf of a public need. She will forward the Board a copy of the policy. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the same policy as with traffic calming where one needs to get 75 percent of the adjacent property owners to sign a petition, which is then presented to the Board, and the Board makes a recommendation to VDOT. Mr. Tucker asked why there was a need for a middleman. Ms. Humphris said if there is criteria that needs to be met, why would the Board need to take the time to go through that process to get it back to VDOT. Mr. Tucker said it could be dealt with fairly expeditiously, but it seems like a rather inefficient process. Ms. Tucker replied that this was primarily to have a consistent process and make sure that everyone is informed of what is going on. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Ms. Humphris asked who established the criteria. did, and she would send the Board a copy of the policy. 000194 Ms. Tucker said VDOT Ms. Humphris said the policy seemed crazy, and asked the real underlying rationale. Mr. Bowerman asked how VDOT informed local authorities of decisions, such as putting up stop signs. Ms. Tucker replied that there was no formal process, they just issue a memorandum to the appropriate agencies. Mr. Bowerman said the Board's concerns were justified because County roads are becoming urban roads with the citizens along them not recognizing them as 35 mph streets, but as their local road. Ms. Thomas noted that, regarding the Watch for Children signs, Ms. Tucker's predecessor was very strong in saying that if you did not actually see children after you saw a Watch for Children sign, then the next time you went by you did not pay any attention to the sign. She had assumed that it was a VDOT policy not to liberally put up Watch for Children signs. She does not want this new policy to just ~set up the Board", with the Board adopting a resolution and then VDOT denying the request. Ms. Tucker said that prior to July 1, it was VDOT's policy not to use these signs, as they did not want to seem to be promoting children playing in or around roadways. Ms. Tucker said that VDOT does not, as of yet, have a policy for their Pave-in-Place Program. There is a policy that will soon come out and apply all over Virginia. The intent is to pave-in-place if the road is 12 feet wide and trees can be left standing. The Department is of the opinion that it still needs to look at paving a road no less that 18 feet wide, so there will still be some widening required. Mr. Perkins commented on the letter to Mr. Art Petrini about the impact of the Route 29 Western Bypass project on the reservoir. It appeared to him that all of these water quality corrections will do nothing for what drains to the east. He thinks there needs to be some clarification that VDOT will at least use their standard BMP practices to protect the water that runs east, outside of the County's watershed. Ms. Humphris noted that Mr. Petrini's letter was originally sent in November and he is just getting a response now, and that Mr. Tucker sent a letter in December, to which he has never received a response. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she is glad that Route 682 is completed. She believes there has been some agreement to have the road at a fairly low speed limit. Before a sign is put up, she hopes that VDOT will either contact the people who were involved in the process or look back through their papers to see what that speed limit will be. The design speed and the agreement as to the speed limit signs might be two different things. The Board chose the design so as to make the impression that this was not a speedway. Regarding the Bellair intersection, Ms. Thomas said that she had heard that there was a possibility of having a public hearing. Mr. Tucker showed Ms. Tucker a letter from Mr. Gerald Utz regarding a Notice of Willingness to hold a Combined Location and Design public hearing on the proposed improvement to Route 809 and the intersection to Route 250. The deadline for the request to hold a hearing is July 7, 1997. Ms. Thomas said that she did not want to slow down the project, but she did not want to cut the public out either. Ms. Humphris said it is not fair to the public to advertise that VDOT is willing to hold a public hearing on Route 809 when it is unlikely that the public will know where Route 809 is. They would recognize it if mentioned as the Bellair intersection. She has on file a rather angry letter from a Bellair homeowner about what he calls the destructive and expensive activity relative to Bellair. That is one family that would like to be heard. She also asked where the money was coming from to fund this project, because it is not in the County's Six-Year Plan. Ms. Tucker replied that it is on the Primary Six-Year Plan. Ms. Thomas asked how long the public hearing process would delay the project. Ms. Tucker replied that it would probably add a month or two. The current ad date for that project is October, 1998. She noted that most of the July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000igS (Page 15) people who would be affected would be Mr. Perkins' constituents, and she asked what he thought. Mr. Perkins said he was sure people would complain about it after it is completed, he also does not know that people would come out to discuss it beforehand. Mr. Tucker suggested that the road name be included in the advertisement along with the route number. Ms. Tucker said a public h~aring would be necessary to secure right-of-way; if VD©T were working in a public roadway, a public hearing would not be required. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be helpful to let people know they can see the plans and make comments to VDOT. She suggested that an advertisement with clearer wording as to the project be put in the newspaper. On the basis that the ad probably did not sufficiently tell People what was being proposed, because the Committee held internal meetings only, because external traffic outside of the immediate area will be impacted and a lot of people using Route 250 were not involved in the design, Ms. Thomas recommended that the Board request a public hearing. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution requesting a public hearing in this matter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. RESOLUTION W~EREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided notice of the proposed intersection improvements on Route 250 from 0.07 mile west of the intersection of Route 809 to 0.12 mile east of the intersection of Route 809 west of the City of Charlottesville in Albemarle County (Project ~0250-002- 112,C501); and W~EREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has posted notice of its willingness to hold a Combined Location and Design Public Hearing on the proposed improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Virginia Department of Transportation to hold a public hearing on such proposed improvements and forward a copy of the comments to the Board. ~ Mr. Bowerman noted that there is a mobile home park at the Rock Store on the west side of Rio Road that pre-existed zoning regulations. He knows improvements are planned to start next year to Rio Road. Currently there is no opaque fencing between the majority of that mobile home park and the roadway, and it is unsightly. Since it is pre-existing,'there is no action the County can take in the matter, but during the planned Rio Road improvements, are there plans to put a fence or barrier up since the road will be even closer to the mobile homes after the improvements. Ms. Tucker responded that there are no such plans. Mr. Bowerman asked that it be looked at to protect the residents in the mobile home park from the traffic and to protect the passing traffic from the unsightliness. Ms. Tucker asked if he was requesting a privacy fence or a fence for protection. Mr. Bowerman replied that he wanted a privacy fence, because he has received a lot of public input regarding this park. Ms. Humphris asked how close the road will be. Ms. Tucker said that some trailers will have to be relocated so the distance between the road and trailers should be about the same as at present. She said that if the Board wishes to spend its Secondary Road funds for such a fence she can provide the Board with an estimate, and if it is agreed that it is a worthwhile expenditure, it will be included in the contract. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Tucker if she had been contacted by the Georgetown Road Task Force concerning another meeting. Ms. Tucker replied that she had not. Ms. Humphris said the Task Force would like to have another 000196 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) meeting, preferably by the middle of July. Ms. Tucker said she would set up the meeting. Ms. Humphris said she had received a complaint about the Route 29/Rio Road intersection. If one is southbound at the stop light and is in the leftmost southbound lane, the lane has no light and has no striping so it feels like a uno man's land." Ms. Tucker said she is aware of the problem and VDOT is looking at another signal. The issue is that the mast arm was not designed to hold another signal head. VDOT has added a through arrow in that lane to assist traffic because this is not the first time they have heard this complaint. Ms. Tucker mentioned that VD©T intends to turn the signal at Barracks Road and the Route 250 Bypass onto flash by July 18. It will be on flash through the weekend and by July 21 be in full operation. It will be coordinated so that when making the turn off of the ramp in either direction, the next signal should be green. At 10:20 a.m., Ms. Humphris called a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:31 a.m. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) re: ARB-F-97-3, Pantops, and ARB-F-97-4, Berkmar. (Mr. Bowerman abstained from hearing this item. He left the room at 10:32 a.m.) Mr. Ben Blankinship, Development Review Manager, summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that two Jiffy Lube businesses, represented by Mr. David Frantzen, applied for certificates of appropriateness to install new signs. Both locations are in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applications requested internally-lighted signs with bright red backgrounds. The signs advertised Pennzoil products and contained other information not necessary to the identification of the building. The signs would also allow light from the bottom of the sign cabinet to shine down onto the building wall, an effect known as a ~wall-wash." Mr. Blankinship said that after two meetings and extensive discussion, the ARB approved the signs with three conditions: (1) s~gns that state the name of the business shall be masked with an opaque material so that the red background would not be illuminated, (2). signs bearing other content shall not be illuminated, and, (3) the cabinets shall be closed at the bottom to prevent the wall-wash. The applicant has appealed that decision. Mr. Blankinship said both of the buildings in question front on Route 29 North (Seminole Trail), and the signs would be clearly visible from that entrance corridor. There is no historical precedent for internally-lighted signs. The preferred solution is to light signs indirectly; that is, to shine a light on the sign. Since this solution does not fit every case, the ARB has allowed individual channel letters as a type of internally-lighted sign that has minimal impact on the visual clutter in the entrance corridor. As a last resort, they have allowed internally-lighted cabinet signs, but they have consistently required that the background of such signs be masked with an opaque material so when the sign is lighted the name of the business appears but the background does not. For that reason, the ARB required that the Jiffy Lube signs be masked with an opaque material so when they are lighted only the name of the business would be illuminated. Mr. Blankinship said the ARB guidelines discourage glare and unnecessary lighting. There is no historical precedent for building walls to be washed with light. The effect of wall-wash lighting would increase the visual clutter in the entrance corridor, increase glare, increase lighting levels in the night sky and distract passing motorists. For those reasons, the ARB required that the lighted sign cabinets be closed at the bottom to prevent light from washing down the walls. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board. At this point, Ms. Humphris asked if the applicant would like to address the Board. OO0 .9? July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. David Frantzen, representing the applicants, said he felt the staff recommendations and the ARB actions have no basis. Looking at Section 4.15.6 of the Sign Ordinance, which lays forth all of the prohibited signs, this application does not fall under any prohibition at all. Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires ARB review of an application in the entrance corridor for a certificate of appropriateness, gives specific directions. There should be no spillover of lighting to adjacent properties, lights should be shielded or mounted to eliminate glare, and there is the desire to achieve an incandescent effect in terms of lighting. The sign in question cannot be a prohibited sign, and must be consistent with the purpose of the building. Lighting must be shielded and the color must be harmonious with the purpose of the building. If the sign in question in this appeal is consistent with these guidelines, Mr. Frantzen said the decision of the ARB must be reversed. If the Board permits the ARB to go beyond these guidelines and make up their own rules, then the Board is providing no guidance at all and is being inconsistent with the law. Mr. Frantzen said he wanted to focus on the word "glare", which is not defined in the guidelines. It is clear that the Board desires to prevent glare so that people traveling along the road are not confronted with bright lights shining in their eyes. Glare is defined as "to shine with a harsh, uncomfortably brilliant light; to stand out offensively." The applicant is seeking to have an internally-illuminated sign, not a sign where one could see the source of light, but a sign that glows. In addition, the applicant is seeking the ability to wash-down the walls. That is all perfectly consistent with the Ordinance and design guidelines. This sign is consistent with other signs approved in entrance corridors since the ARB was established. (He provided the Board with a series of photographs of other signs along entrance corridors that he claimed to be comparable with the applicant's sign.) He said the ARB was attempting to require channel lettering where only the letters themselves are illuminated. Mr. Frantzen said the ARB rejected the wash-down effect out-of-hand. The staff report stated that there are no cases in which wash-down was explicitly disallowed, so there is no history on wash-down at all. The ARB is attempting to substitute its aesthetic preferences for that of the applicant. That is not permissible under the law of the Commonwealth, nor is it what he thinks the Board intended. He then gave the Board a brochure showing the type of sign that the applicant wished to erect. He argued that the ARB was set up to consider marginal cases that ran afoul of the design guidelines. Mr. Blankinship said he is not familiar with all of the other signs Mr. Frantzen mentioned, but the Mattress King and Taco Bell signs were replacements for ~grandfathered" signs. In their approval of the Grand Furniture sign, the ARB explicitly stated that the sign was not to be lighted. The Blockbuster Video sign may be a similar case; he has not reviewed the minutes for that sign. He knows the awning at Blockbuster was not allowed to be lighted. He quoted from the design guidelines that the ARB should only approve those proposals which reflect designs compatible with the historically significant architecture of Albemarle and Charlottesville. The charge of the ARB is to promote compatibility with historic architecture, rather than having the narrow charge of reducing glare. In the opinion of the ARB, lighted signs that wash-down walls are not compatible with the historic architecture of the County. Mr. Martin remarked that the applicant is saying the ARB should stay within the guidelines, while staff is saying that part of the ARB's charge is to maintain the historic character of the buildings. It seems to him that the Sign Ordinance and the historic character of the buildings are two different things. Mr. Davis said when the General Assembly adopted this legislation, it was the intent that signs would be compatible with the character of the corridor and not distract from the physical features of the buildings and historic features of the region. He thinks that the applicant's attorney takes a much too narrow view of the Ordinance. The County has consistently applied the Ordinance with greater flexibility than what Mr. Frantzen suggests. He agreed with Mr. Blankinship that one of the key charges of the ARB is to ensure that proposals are compatible with the corridor. On an appeal, the Board has the power to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the ARB. 000 . 8 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Ms. Humphris said she feels the ARB has been consistent in its decisions. This Board gave them flexibility and latitude, and she feels it is doing the job it is supposed to do. Mr. Martin felt the Board should allow staff time to investigate the other signs mentioned today. To him, it is very relevant if there other buildings that have been allowed to have the exact same type of lettering. Mr. Blankinship suggested that this appeal be deferred until August. That will give staff enough time to check the other signs mentioned. Mr. Marshall said he had some other concerns. If the sign is only allowed to have the letters lit, you might as well not have a sign at all. The background color is what sets the letters off. Ms. Thomas said from looking around last night, many businesses are going to channel lettering. She found it to be consistent and pleasing. Mr. Marshall said if every sign in Albemarle County had channel lettering,' he would agree, but most franchises have trademark signs to attract business. This puts smaller businesses in unfair competition, unless you require everyone to have the same style of sign. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff's investigation into these other signs would help to show which ones pre-existed current regulations, and how they compare with what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Martin said that consistency was very important to him, because the current Sign Ordinance was actually a compromise. If the ARB is adding things that were not a part of the Ordinance, that is violating that compromise. Mr. Perkins replied that you have to go beyond consistency, because if the ARB is consistently wrong, that makes it difficult for the applicant to tell what kinds of signs are allowed. Ms. Humphris suggested that the Board members review material concerning the ARB and its charge, then deal with the facts of this case in August. It was the consensus of the Board to defer this appeal until August 6, 1997, when there will be a staff report verifying whether the signs mentioned by the applicant are pre-ARB or post-ARB, and whether the signs are in violation of the Sign Ordinance. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:11 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to 2.7 ac parcel on TM62, P24B. Property located between Dorrier Dr & Rt 20, just S of Key West Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. (See minutes of June 4, 1997, for explanation of this request.) The applicant was present, but had nothing to add. At this time, Ms. Humphris 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 Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to a 2.7 ac parcel on Tax Map 62, Parcel 24B. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water & sewer service to Forest Lakes South, on TM46, Ps97A1 & 97B, & TM46BS, Pl. Property located E of Powell Creek, in of Rt 643 & W of Norfolk Southern Railroad & S of Hollymead Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1997.) 000 .99 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Bowerman abstained from hearing this item. He left the room at 11:13 a.m. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. (See the minutes of June 4, 1997, for explanation of this request.) The applicant was present, but chose not to comment. At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the public for comments. With no one from the public rising to speak, she closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve the request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to Forest Lakes SOuth, on Tax Map 46, Parcels 97A1 and 97B, and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for water service only to parcels in Key West Subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicants, K~y Commercial, Inc. and the Albemarle County Service Authority, are requesting service area designation for ~water only" for four lots located on Tax Map 62, Parcel 35A (2.5 acres), Parcel 37 (2.001 acres), Parcel 37A (5.956 acres), and Parcel 49K (2.092 acres). Ail the lots contain homes. These parcels are located adjacent to the Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions, but are served by the Key West community water system. The lots are located in the Rural Area (RA). The Board, at its meeting on May 7, 1997, approved amending the ACSA service area map to provide ~water only" to all lots located in the Key West and Cedar Hill subdivisions. This action was necessitated by the contamination of the primary wells serving the subdivisions. On June 6, 1997, a letter was received from Mr. Bill Brent, ACSA Executive Director, which indicated that the ACSA engineers had inspected the Key West water system with water company representatives and discovered that some properties outside of Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions are served by the community water system. As such, these parcels were not advertised as part of the Key West and Cedar Hills ACSA service area map amendment request. The Board is now requested to set a public hearing to consider a ~water only" designation to include the parcels that were inadvertently omitted from the original application. Motion was offered immediately by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set a public hearing for August 6, 1997, to consider a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to Tax Map 62, Parcels 35A, 37 and 49K and water only to existing structures on Tax Map 62, Parcel 37A in Key West Subdivision. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 11:18 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. Report: JAUNT's Proposal for Route 29 Commuter Route. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that JAUNT has $77,565 in FY 1995-96 carry-over funding July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~00 (Page 20) and is proposing that the funding be used for a commuter route along Route 29 North. This funding will cover the first year of operation. In recent years, there have been requests to extend public transit service further north on Route 29. The proposed route would basically run during morning and evening rush hour between the Greene County line and Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) stops in the urban part of Albemarle County. The routes would link up with CTS routes to avoid duplication of services. Staff has been working with JAUNT, CTS and RideShare to establish park and ride locations that would connect with proposed JAUNT stops. This proposed route will also provide a transportation resource to the Welfare Reform program, as well as aid in reducing commuter traffic congestion. JAUNT estimates that 56 riders will use the service. In the past, JAUNT has either returned carry-over funds to the County or requested the use of those funds to initiate other projects, such as the Crozet and Scottsville fixed routes. The JAUNT Board has fully endorsed the use of these funds to initiate this pilot project. If this route is continued, the County's projected on-going annual cost for this service is estimated to be approximately $23,000. The proposed cost is $1.00 each way. The pilot route is intended to run through June, 1998, and, if successful, will be included in the FY 1999 budget for on-going implementation. Staff recommends approval of JAUNT's proposed use of FY 1995-96 carry-over funds for the proposed pilot commuter route. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, stated that this is something that JAUNT has been working on for some time. It will help with welfare reform issues. Ms. Thomas commented that this is the kind of thing the Board has been urging. She was glad to see that much money for promotion. Mr. Martin remarked that it was excellent that this could be done for $23,000 compared to the $200,000 that it was going to cost to get the bus across the bridge at Pantops. He would support an increase in the promotion budget, since the word needs to get out about this. Mr. Perkins stated that JAUNT should try to operate the route at a profit if they can, rather than having it subsidized. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve JAUNT's proposed use of FY 1995-96 carry-over funds for the proposed pilot commuter route. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. '" Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Welfare Reform. MS. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services), said the 1995 Virginia General Assembly passed the Virginia Independence Program (VIP) and Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW). This program affected the population of Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), Certain components of VIP were implemented statewide in July, 1995. However VIEW is being phased in over a two-year period. Planning District Ten is scheduled to implement VIEW, the work component of the program, on July 1, 1997. The Department has been preparing for welfare reform since 1992, but intensified its efforts to accommodate VIEW over the past two years. In 1996, the social service departments in Planning District Ten formed a Regional Steering Committee staffed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), in order to receive $50,000 in planning money from the state. Members of that Steering Committee also included representatives from boards of supervisors and city council, as well as the non-profit community. Ms. Ralston said the Federal government passed its version of welfare reform in August, 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) requires additional changes beyond VIP/VIEW that impact not only AFDC customers, but also Food Stamps, Medicaid and SSI customers. Both State and Federal changes are numerous and complex. This issue is being brought to the Board now to provide an update on VIEW July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 00020 . implementation and the impact of VIEW and PRWORA on the department, its customers and the community. Ms. Ralston said both VIP/VIEW and PRWORA require time limited assistance and because PRWORA was passed to the State in a block grant form, AFDC (now known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF) is no longer an entitlement. Although education and training are allowed in limited ways, both laws are heavily focused on work requirements. Both also allow for child care and Medicaid for one year for those transitioning from welfare to work. In Albemarle, the population required to participate in a work program is currently at 100 families. However, the department approves approximately 35 new applications each month and anticipates roughly half of those being required to participate in the work program. ,That will bring an estimated 180 additional people into the system over the next year. Ms. Ralston said other challenges facing the community are providing wages that meet the local cost of living, evaluation of program results, education and training opportunities, the impact of dealing with families that are confronted with no job at the end of the time limit and finally prevention of dependence on welfare assistance. This report is provided for the Board's information and does not require any action. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Ralston to compare the wages of these jobs with the minimum cost of living. Ms. Ralston replied that the Federal poverty level for a family of three was $6.24/hour. The cost of living in Albemarle County is approximately $11.60/hour. The average wage right now of clients going into jobs is about $5.40/hour. Ms. Ralston than presented the Child Care Report from the CACY Child Care Subcommittee for Welfare Reform. The report focused on the affordability, accessibility and quality of local child care. The primary child care needs include non-traditional care, lack of providers in rural areas, assurance of quality care, funding, community and customer education and lack of private sector involvement. The Transportation report is still in draft format, but includes options ranging from working at home to using a private car. The job retention committee will hold its first meeting with the business community on June 27 to identify problems with employee turnover. (Note: Mr. Marshall left the room at 11:49 a.m.) Ms. Humphris noted that, while welfare reform just kicked in for this region yesterday, staff have been working for several years to prepare for it. Agenda Item No. 14. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting for July 16, 1997. · Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to cancel the Board of Supervisors' meeting scheduled for July 16, 1997, because there are no public hearings scheduled for this date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 11:51 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Report. Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner, said the intent of a Telecommunications Policy is to provide a framework for the review and analysis of individual requests to locate telecommunications facilities in the County, and is intended to aid in the selection of sites which would have minimal negative impact on the resources of the County. A Policy would enable the provision of adequate telecommunication services in the County consistent with the needs of the community. It should balance the desire of the County to minimize the number of separate tower sites with the need to provide adequate telecommunication services based on current and anticipated technology. The demand for telecommunication services is increasing and Federal law (1996 Telecommunications Act) insures that the provision of telecommunication July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) OOOZOZ (Page 22) services will not be unduly regulated and cannot be prohibited. The need for new facility sites continues to increase due to increased demand for services and a lack of existing sites that can provide the needed service. The components of the proposed telecommunication policy, which are intended to result in the telecommunication plan, are: 1) goals; 2) objectives, and 3) recommendations. The GOAL is to provide adequate sites for the provision of telecommunication services that have minimal negative impact on the resources of the County. The first OBJECTIVE is to determine areas of need for service-providers and identify existing facilities which provide, or are capable of providing, the necessary service. RECOMMENDATIONS for this objective are: Map areas where improved service is desired; Map existing structures which provide or are capable of providing the necessary service; Map areas identified in the Open Space Plan which may be inappropriate for the siting of facilities such as mountains and historic sites; Adopt a policy making County-owned land available for the siting of facilities; Provide prepared maps of potential facilities to all service-providers to encourage cooperating in the site selection process. Provide for mobile sites to service special events or disasters. Mr. Fritz said that in order to identify the areas where service is inadequate, the Task Force recommends that the County retain the services of a private engineering firm. Many localities are experiencing the same issues as Albemarle and there are independent engineering firms who specialize in working with localities. An independent study would identify areas of inadequate service, areas where facilities should not be located due to the presence of one or more resources significant to the County, review of existing structures for co-location opportunities and review of new towers/structures to allow them to be designed to accommodate other users. This study may identify either areas which may be appropriate for the location of new towers or may identify those areas of the County in which towers would be inappropriate. Industry representatives are concerned that if the study is too specific in locating sites for towers, the property cost would increase substantially and, if appropriate areas for towers is too limited, it would have the effect of prohibiting services. Mr. Fritz said the Open Space Plan in the Comprehensive Plan identifies various resources designated as warranting protection. It may be possible to utilize the existing Open Space Plan as the map which identifies those resources which would be most affected by wireless communication facilities. A policy making County-owned land available for the siting of facilities would provide service-providers with a list of available potential sites. (In some instances, service-providers have difficulty in obtaining sites due to unwilling landowners. The service-providers do not have the power of eminent domain.) Location of facilities on County-owned land could allow the County to insure the availability of structures for combined use. As a secondary benefit, location on County-owned land might have the effect of increasing the County's communication resources by locating County transmitters on new towers. Before the adoption of any policy to make County-owned land available, criteria for siting would have to be established. These siting criteria should provide for methods of locating facilities in such a way as to minimize impact on current and future use of the property. In addition, the siting criteria for the use of public land should be consistent with the criteria applied to private property. Mr. Fritz said that mobile sites involve the use of trailers equipped with a telescoping mast, appropriate electronics and a generator. The sites are set up several days prior to the event to allow for ~esting of the system and modification of the transmitters on existing sites to avoid interference. Following the event, mobile sites can quickly be removed. Currently, mobile 000 0 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) sites can be approved by the Zoning Administrator with a zoning clearance. However, the Zoning Administrator has no guidance regarding siting of these mobile units. Prohibition of mobile units in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District appears to be appropriate. Mr. Fritz said the second OBJECTIVE is to encourage the use of existing facilities for the provision of service. RECOMMENDATIONS for this objective are: Provide map of known facilities to service-providers; Allow by-right increase in height of existing structures (structures include, but are not limited to, buildings, towers, electrical transmission lines, flagpoles, light poles and signage) unless the increase in height causes the tower to be lit or results in a change in the lighting status. Mr. Fritz said the Task Force recommended that the applicant be required to submit evidence that suitable existing facilities are not available within proximity of any proposed new facility site. This might require the use of outside engineering resources to determine the accuracy Of the information submitted by the service-providers. Require that new facilities, including public facilities, be designed to accommodate additional users. This would make capacity for co-location available. However, requiring a facility owner to allow a competitor access to available capacity may not be enforceable. Mr. Fritz said the third OBJECTIVE is to minimize the impact of facilities on County resources. RECOMMENDATIONS for this objective are: Identify and map all resources in the County which could be adversely affected by the const.ruction of telecommunication facilities; Establish 40 feet or 25 percent above the treeline, whichever is greater, as a standard for the construction of new towers in the Rural Areas. Towers above this standard may only be permitted with adequate justification for the need for increased height; Permit the ~by-right" construction of towers in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts which are also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The height of ~by-right" towers would be limited to 150 feet. Towers of greater height will require a special use permit; Encourage the use of ~stealth sites" and camouflage technology. Mr. Fritz said the Open Space Plan may provide the necessary mapping of~ resources which may be adversely affected by the construction of new facilities. Providing a standard for facility siting in the Rural Areas District allows staff to improve the quality of review of special use permit applications and would insure that all applications were treated equally. While a standard would not insure approval of applications which meet the standard, it would provide for a target of design for the service-providers. By-right construction in certain districts will likely have the result of reducing requests in Residential or Rural Areas Districts. If a service-provider could locate by-right in a Commercial or Industrial District, it would be unlikely that the provider would choose to locate in an area which required a special use permit. It is staff's opinion that towers located in Commercial and Industrial Districts should be set back from Residential and Rural Areas property lines a distance equal to or greater than the height of the tower. Some members of the Task Force recommended that the setback for towers be the same as the primary structure in a Commercial or Industrial District. The use of stealth sites can serve to greatly reduce the visibility of wireless facilities. Stealth technology can allow a facility to be incorporated into a building design (such as a church steeple or the cupola of a building). Camouflage technology can also allow facilities to appear as flagpoles or light poles. ~Tree towers" have been used in some localities in an effort to disguise the tower. Stealth and camouflage technology can greatly increase the cost of a site. Mr. Fritz said the fourth OBJECTIVE is to insure County compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and provisions of the Zoning ordinance governing issuance of special use permits. RECOMMENDATIONS for this objective are: July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000204 Treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally equivalent service-providers; Act on all applications for new facilities within the adopted review schedule; Establish a standard review format for staff reports and Board of Supervisors' motions for action to insure that a written report is established for all actions; Determine the ~detriments" caused by telecommunication facilities and establish criteria to determine when these detriments are substantial; Establish a method for determining the existing ~character" of the district in which a facility is proposed and establish criteria to determine when the ~character" of the district will be changed.. Mr. Fritz said that currently, staff treats all two-way communication providers as functionally equivalent service-providers. Staff has a standard report format for the review of all special use permit applications. There may be a need to modify the special use permit report format to insure that all of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act are addressed in all reviews. Staff has considered recommending amendment of the review schedule for wireless communication facilities to establish once-a-year review of applications for towers. This would require all service-providers to submit information at the same time. This would also afford the County an opportunity to work with the various providers to maximize co-location. In addition, once-a-year submittal would allow staff to review the requests as a network as opposed to individual sites. At this time, staff is unable to determine if once-a-year review is permitted under existing State and Federal laws. Industry representatives do not support once-a-year review of applications. The time involved in identifying a site, obtaining the owner's permission, and then obtaining the necessary approval from the County would, in the opinion of the industry representatives, be an undue burden. The time from starting the search to construction of the tower could be 18 months. This would limit the service-providers in the build-out of their systems. Those service-providers with less-developed, or in the case of PCS, nonexistent systems, would be more severely impacted by this limited review opportunity. The service-providers have generally agreed to provide information once or twice a year. This information would identify general search areas being investigated for the construction of new facilities. This would also allow identification of sites which are operated by each service- provider and those facilities which have been established by-right. This submittal of information would allow the staff to work with the service- providers to identify co-location opportunities and to identify areas which may be inappropriate due to one or more resources identified by the County. Mr. Fritz invited questions. Ms. Humphris said the Board now has the report and a list of recommendations. It needs to discuss each recommendation and decide whether to implement it. There is insufficient time to do that today. Mr. Tucker said there was not enough time before the Board goes to lunch, but the Board can return to the report and hold that discussion later this afternoon. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel'and Legal Matters. At 12:10 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to Boards, Committees, Commissions and a staff position; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000 05 Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 2:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and MS. Thomas. ~ ~ None. Agenda Item No. 15~ 'Work Session: Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Report (Continued from the morning session.) Ms. Humphris said staff has commented that the County does not have either the technical or professional capability to make the necessary determinations and has suggested hiring a consultant. Mr. Fritz said staff does not have the resources to determine areas where improved service is desired or to determine which existing structures can provide the necessary service, but the Open Space Plan identifies inappropriate sites. He mentioned that another locality has adopted an ordinance requiring any tower owner to obtain a registration form from the Planning Department so the department knows what is in place in the locality. Ms. Humphris asked if that was something the County had the power to require. Mr. Davis replied that in the ordinances governing non-conforming uses, the Board can require registration of pre-existing towers. Mr. Fritz mentioned that there are a number of towers in the County which pre-date the Zoning Ordinance; staff feels there are many towers in the County which they do not know about. Ms. Thomas said she would like for the conversation to begin with what the Board is going to consider as ~adequate" service. The word "inadequate~ is used often in the report, and she does not know from whose point of view that is considered. Six years ago, adequate was something that allowed one to carry a very large telephone and get ~squawky" reception. Now, adequate has to be for something not bigger than a wristwatch in order to be stylish. Does the law say what ~inadequate service" is? Is that going to be a policy decision? Mr. Davis said the Legislature dodged the issue by not defining the term. It has been litigated in a few courts, but there is not a clear consensus on what it means. There has been no decision in'the Fourth Circuit, the Federal Court which controls Virginia. It is a developing area of law, and there is no clear answer yet. Ms. Thomas asked if there is not a clear answer, is it in the Board's province to determine in Albemarle what will be regarded as adequate? Mr. Davis responded that it would get into reasonableness considering the technology and the service expectations. He thinks there is some discretion, but the Board would need a reason and a basis for justifying the level of service that is available. The Board can't prohibit or deny service in any area, whatever standards are imposed. Ms. Thomas said when people live in rural areas they should realize they are not going to have the same level of service as if they lived in the urban area. In the County it has been assumed that the services the County has the power to deliver are not provided uniformly throughout the County. Does this Board have the legislative ability to say that same policy is going to apply to cell phones? Mr. Davis said that may be a good analogy. That may be sufficient under the law. There has not been a clear decision to test that. Hopefully, there will be a distinct answer before the Board has to make a final decision. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board can define a service level, or not. Mr. Davis said he believes it can be defined~ just as long as there is service. Mr. Fritz said if the concept is to do a minimal signal strength, staff does not have the resources to make that determination in-house; that would require a consultant. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000206 Ms. Thomas said that after reading the report, she has changed her mind and now considers retaining a consultant as something that would be useful. Mr. Fritz said a consultant will not be able to provide a policy on using County-owned lands, and providing prepared maps. Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board should try to reach a consensus on the recommendations. There are a lot of issues, and many rely on information the Board does not have the ability to gain in-house. She noted that mapping is referred to in several of the recommendations. She asked if the Board wanted to deal with that issue or move on to discuss other issues, such as considering a policy to make County-owned land available for the siting of facilities. She thinks there are pros and cons and exceptions to such a policy which will require a lot.of discussion. Mr. Fritz said some localities have such a policy, and staff can provide criteria for the Board to use in making a determination. Since staff did not know if the Board would even be interested in discussing the idea, that criteria has not yet been developed. Ms. Humphris said in the first set of recommendations, all except the recommendation for a policy to use County-owned land could be dealt with in the engineering study. Mr. Fritz said for the third recommendation, a consultant would need substantial guidance as to features on the Open Space Plan which should be protected. Ms. Humphris said that is something that would be included in a ~charge" to the consultant and is not something the Board can deal with today. Mr. Fritz said as to the last of those recommendations, staff, working with the Zoning Administrator, could identify these sites. Mr. Perkins said he does not think cellular telephone providers will build towers where towers are not needed. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the problem has to do with competing companies and desires multiple towers on multiple sites, and how the applications are dealt with one-by-one. Mr. Bowerman said he is interested in knowing the position of the service-providers in regard to making available, for a fee, access to their existing sites and any sites they may get in the future. If the Board is going to make public lands available, he would like to know if the private sector is willing to share their sites. Mr. Fritz replied that it depends on the company. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board is ~going down this road~ to hire a consultant, and the Board thinks it will get something that it actually will never get. He said it will cost a lot of money, money which the providers should be spending, and not the County. Mr. Davis said what needs to be kept in mind is that the Board cannot prohibit what is being called ~adequate" service. Some technology is needed to say how adequate service can be provided in an area, and still allow the County to prohibit a tower in the defined, prohibited zone. Mr. Marshall asked how long it is going to be before technology is updated, and satellites are used. Ms. Thomas replied that the Board keeps being told that will never happen because satellites are only good over long distances, when there are few calls. Mr. Fritz stated that satellite phones cannot handle the volume that cellular phones do. Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Perkins' comment was accurate, that the Board should not duplicate by an expensive consultant what the cellular providers have done but are not willing to share. Mr. Fritz said there are currently five providers licensed to Albemarle County; two of them are operational, and the third will become operational soon. The two that are not operational do not have a plan yet. The different companies have different levels of ability or willingness to give information. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board may want to keep a consultant on retainer to use him just when the need arises. Mr. Fritz mentioned that he has a copy of an ordinance that requires a $10,000 fee per application with the fee being placed in escrow to cover the cost of review by an outside consultant. Other ordinances he has seen simply say the applicant will pay the consultant's fee. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was Mr. Fritz's experience that the information from a provider would be adequate for a consultant to determine whether the request was reasonable or not. Mr. Fritz responded that, not being an July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~07 (Page 27) engineer, there may be further information that would be helpful but he would not have the ability to use that information, even if provided. Mr. Cilimberg said even if there is a consultant, there must be some criteria for the consultant to use in his evaluation. Mr. Fritz said he believes the Board could make locational criteria, such as prohibiting towers in the Mountain Resource Areas unless denial would prohibit service to those areas. Mr. Bowerman asked if there could be a lower standard in terms of height over the treeline in critical areas. Mr. Fritz said that 40 feet is just a number; the numbers may vary from case-to-case. Mr. Martin said it seems to be just a ~moving target." If one thinks about it, anything the Board puts down as a requirement or a limit might later turn out to be the best place to put a stealth site. The Board does not know enough at this point to talk about restrictions. There are some things in the report the Board can look at, but, for the most part, he. thinks the Board is going to have to continue to look at these applications case-by-case. Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Board could go along with the second objective. If the Board went through all of the recommendations, there are probably quite a few criteria which could be made the basis for applications. Mr. Martin said having some kind of registration, or some way to map all existing sites, needs to be done. There could be towers existing that no one knows about that would be ideal sites. Ms. Thomas said it intrigues her that there could be towers in the County that no one knows about. Mr. Marshall said the Board is just ~spinning its wheels." Mr. Fritz said in terms of locating towers, the FCC or FAA are of limited help in identifying sites since they only track towers which are above 200 feet, and the vast majority of towers are shorter than that. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is in the best interest of this Board and the-service-providers that all possible information be obtained. The service-providers are more likely to have their applications approved if the Board has the knowledge to make clear-cut decisions. Does the Board need a consultant or not? She has said for a long time that a consultant is needed, although a lot of the information provided to the consultant would be available to and provided by County staff. There is other engineering information which the County does not have, and cannot get, except through a private engineering firm. The Board has a mixture of recommendations from the Task Force about mapping and policy things, etc., but those things will require additional thought by this Board because the Board has not really discussed those issues in detail. The recommendation for by-right towers in Commercial or Industrial districts is a serious issue.,~ . She does not think the Board can deal with these issues today. Mr. Martin said if the Board members think about how this Board does business, he does not believe the Board would ever allow a tower by-right, so why waste money coming up with criteria for that recommendation? He said the Board needs to focus on the things it can do, the things it can't do, and realize that it must be in the mode of approving these requests one at a time, just as it has been doing. Mr. Marshall said he has heard that a digital company is applying soon for at least six sites at one time. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this is only six sites from among a number they are establishing, because they do not need a special use permit for all. They are utilizing some existing facilities. Mr. Fritz said the Board will only see such a request when a new service- provider comes in to establish service. Mr. Martin began reading from the recommendations. Providing maps to service-providers seems like something that can be done; but, allowing by- right increases in height of existing structures is something he does not think the Board would do. As far as identifying all resources in the County that could be adversely affected by the construction of telecommunication facilities, he asked what information that would really give the Board. Establishing 40 feet or 25 percent above the treeline, whichever is greater, as a standard for the construction of new towers in the Rural Areas, is moot if the Board is not going to allow towers by-right. There is no need to ~go down that road." He does think the Board would permit the "by-right" construction of towers in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts which are 000205 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the Board would encourage the use of stealth sites and camouflage technology. He said the Board has to treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally equivalent service-providers by law. He said if he went through the recommendations like that, he would still have to ask himself, ~if we get all this information, are we going to allow everything by right, or are we still going to examine each application separately? Mr. Bowerman said he would like to have for review some criteria saying the site will have the minimum impact possible, and that. it is independently reviewed by somebody. There might be other things the Board would want independent verification on. Ms. Humphris said requiring staff to scramble to get information on an individual site when that information could be available in a major report would be quite a burden. Mr. Bowerman asked about CFW's request for six towers and asked what percentage that is of the number of towers they will be initially installing. Mr. Fritz said it is about a third of their sites. The map they furnished the County shows all of their sites, some in the City and some in the County in the Urban Area. They sought many for co-location opportunities. Mr. Marshall mentioned that this was because many of the towers are for digital service, not cellular service, so they need towers in locations where there are none located at this time. Ms. Humphris said the Board is talking about two different issues. On the one-hand, there is information already available, and on the other hand, there is the criteria this Board would apply to the information given by an applicant. Mr. Fritz responded that there were two different realms, the technical review and the planning review. Staff can give some good answers to help the Board establish criteria on resources that it d6es not want impacted, such as mountain areas, etc. Staff can say what the visual impact Would be, but it cannot tell the Board what alternatives exist for a site, which a consultant would be able to do. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it would be helpful to have staff separate the recommendations into technical issues and planning issues. She said Mr. Martin had already dealt with many of them today. Then, there would be a specific list to deal with, and then the main issue is that of ~adequate" service. There would probably be other questions to put in the categories. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that adequate service will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, using the Board's best judgment, based on the Comprehensive Plan and the information the Board has. What happens after that will just happen. The Board will listen to the applicant, and try to make the decision that is right. Mr. Perkins asked how the County would get the providers to pay for the technical information that will be needed from a consultant. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will draft a structured application fee that requires the applicant to pay those costs. Mr. Davis said staff could average what an application typically costs, and charge that fee. Over time, that is how a fee structure for a zoning application works. Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant could be requested to provide the information. Mr. Davis said the applicant can be requested to provide information that is relevant to the Board's determination. The problem that arises is whether people have confidence in the information provided. If they choose tQ use their own engineers and consultant, there may be no confidence in the information. Mr. Bowerman said that is something that happens all the time. The applicant is going to make a case for what they need. The Board will have to listen to that and weigh those elements and come to a reasonable decision. He does not believe the Board can get away from making that determination on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Thomas asked if it would help the providers if they knew the Board was going to follow the definition of ~provision of services" as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. It says that in the rural areas, one cannot expect to receive the same level of services as one gets in the urban areas. The Board July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meetihg) 000209 (Page 29) can either set that as the definition, or strive for the.best possible services if those services would not impact on the character, and not have an impact, on neighboring properties. Those are two separate policies which she feels would be helpful to the service-providers, if they knew which one the Board was going to use. Mr. Davis replied that Federal law simply says that one cannot prohibit ~adequate" service. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Fritz said the applicants are asking for service along 1-64, Route 29, and in the Urban Area. Riding along 1-81 today, it is different than it was two years ago. The hills that used to have one tower now have two towers. From New Market to Natural Bridge, on every high spot, there are one or two towers that have been placed there during the last two to five years. Mr. Fritz said the initial target of the service-providers is to target the primary highways, but that is not their ultimate goal. Their ultimate goal will be to penetrate into the residential market as well. Mr. Marshall said they want to go after the land line business. Mr. Fritz said that is what the FCC envisions. There will come a time when people will build houses without telephone lines coming into their house. Ms. Thomas said that will cut down on visual clutter. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to confirm a few things he believes have been settled today. Regarding the recommendation to ~provide for mobile sites to service special events or disasters", he asked if the Board members agreed that staff would continue doing this as they have) in cooperation with the Zoning Administrator. The Board members agreed. Mr. Cilimberg then asked if all of the recommendations for doing anything by-right be put aside. The Board members agreed. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the recommendation for using stealth sites and camouflage technology was acceptable. The Board members agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not sure how a policy making County-owned land available for sites would be adopted. Maybe the Board would like to discuss that recommendation further. Mr. Martin said mapping existing structures which provide for, or are capable of providing, the necessary service is also needed. Mr. Fritz said he would provide copies of ordinances from other counties regarding the issue of using county-owned land, and try to tailor that to some of the specifics of Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendation which states ~treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally equivalent service- providers" is legally required. The next recommendation regarding ~acting on all applications for new facilities within the adopted review schedule" will be done, although there may be need to change the review schedule for this type of application. At this time, he does not know how. that would be done. Mr. Davis said service-providers cannot be discriminated against in the review schedule, although if there is a need to treat them differently that is reasonable, staff may be able to articulate that and change the schedule. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the recommendation reading: ~Establish a standard review format for staff reports and Board of Supervisors' motions for action to insure that a written report is established for all actions" will need to be done. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board will adopt a policy saying whether it only wants to hear such requests once a year, or more often. Mr. Davis said the Board can't just hear these requests once a year just because that is what it wants to do; there would have to be developed a reason why it would be necessary to only hear requests once a year, otherwise, it would not be allowed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff tries to have a standard format for reports now so that recommendation should not be hard to implement. Ms. Thomas asked if it is legally required that the Board define "detriment" and define "character" if its rulings are to stand up in court. Mr. Fritz said one of the provisions now for special use permits is whether or not the proposed use is a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. It would be beneficial to staff if the Board could define what a ~detriment" is. Mr. Davis said staff struggles now to do that in its staff reports. He does not know if a ~hard and fast" definition is needed, but, more particularly, the factors that are detriments would assist staff in writing reports. At this time~ Ms. Humphris asked if any representatives of the providers had any comments on the Board's discussion today. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 0002 .0 Mr. David Klumb, Director of Operations for United States Cellular (USC), said USC is currently resident on two County-owned facilities (Bucks Elbow Mountain and a water tank near Rio Road). Those negotiations and lease- signings went cleanly through the process and did not have any negative impact on the County. He encouraged the Board to consider allowing co-location on some County property, not all of it. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Klumb if anything the Board had discussed today was totally ~off-the-wall" in terms of the provider's perspective. Mr. Klumb replied that the issue of where to provide service and what adequate service is, are things that are difficult things for even USC to determine. USC has the advantage of three-watt phones. Their competitors do not have that option. All they have is the equivalent of USC's 0.6 watt, If the Board requires USC to provide three-watt coverage, it would be denying their competitors to provide service. If the Board held USC to three-watts, that would not work because that is not what their customers want to buy. Few people buy the three-watt phone, and even fewer buy the boosters. Ms. Thomas asked if there are some companies that don't have anything above the 0.6 watt. Mr. Klumb said that is correct. None of the PCS carriers have any high-powered phones available. Mr. Bowerman said that technology means there will be more sites with lower wattage, to which Mr. Klumb agreed. He said they also have the disadvantage that their signal only carries about one-third as far as that of USC. Mr. Tucker asked if this means those companies can place their antenna on any structure that has any height, such as telephone lines. Mr. Klumb said the County will be getting an application from USC in the near future for a 100- to 120-foot tower, which is just slightly above the tree line. Mr. Fritz said staff has been observing that as the systems mature, the heights of the towers get shorter. They are serving the same area already served by an existing tower, and they have been able to locate on existing structures. Ms. Heidi Parker, an associate at Tremblay & Smith, representing 360© Communications, agreed with the Board's realization that it is very difficult to come up with a long-term plan. Many companies are reticent to disclose their plans, because they have more to lose than the newer companies. Most providers are interested in working together. With regard to the Board's reaction to the by-right recommendation, it does not surprise her that the Board does not wish to do that. However, she feels it is a mistake not to permit existing structures or existing towers to be raised in height, either by-right or through an administrative review. The visual impact of raising an existing tower is minimal compared to putting up a second tower. She thinks the Board should reconsider that recommendation, because she believes a lot can be done with existing towers; also, tower farms. Ms. Parker said the providers want some'fixed guidelines. No one likes looking at towers, but they want the services they provide. The Board needs to have something in writing so they do not waiver when there is opposition to towers. She is finding that in every county, the elected officials have nothing to rely on because their ordinances are ~wishy-washy." It is a tough balance to have flexibility, but also not to restrict itself. Ms. Thomas asked 360o's feelings about co-location and said she would like the Board to be able to enforce co-location. Ms. Parker said 360° has a one-for-one policy. The problem arises when the entrenched company is told it has to allow the newcomers to attach to its towers which have cost them millions of dollars to erect. She thinks the company is doing a disservice to its shareholders by doing that. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board had given staff adequate directions. Ms. Thomas said she had a list of things which she feels the Board needs an answer to, where towers are, where and what the level of'service is, where critical resources are that should not be impacted. She agrees with Mr. Martin that there may come a time when hiding a tower inside the dome of the Rotunda is a great idea, but she thinks the providers would like to know that until the time comes when it can be hidden, they are not to put up a tower next to Monticello. Mr. Fritz said at the first meeting of the Task Force, statements were made by the people present that they had certain wishes, but mostly what they want is what the Board has said, to have an established set of criteria they 000211 July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) could use to know whether they had a good chance of getting approval, or no chance of getting approval. Mr. Martin said that sounds like they want rules and guidelines so they know that if they ~jump through certain hoops", they will get approved. That sounds like being something which is close to a by-right use. He does not think this Board will ever give up that authority; the Board is going to always want to hold a public hearing. Mr. Tucker agreed, but he thinks guidelines would be helpful so they would know they have some chance of getting an approval. That approval would not be guaranteed. Mr. Cilimberg said there are some special permits uses now where the applicant knows there is a fair certainty of getting approval based on recommendations from the County engineer's office; uses such as stream crossings. It is not unheard of that there could be something along those lines. Mr. Martin replied that he can point to applications for different sites where chances of approval would be okay, and other sites which would probably not be approved because there is going to be a huge amount of opposition. What distinguishes those two places is the number of people who come to the public hearing to voice opposition. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to add to that statement that it is the reasonableness of the arguments the Board hears which is important, not just how many people show up. Mr. Martin said it does play a role. Mr. Marshall said he just read minutes from last October and the Board Room was packed (tower request in Ivy). Ms. Thomas said she had a couple of more things on her list of questions. She thinks the Board wants to map where the County land or structures are if it is going to consider any kind of policy. Also, the Board would like to know in which direction new technology is going. The Board needs to decide if it is going to have a height policy on adding to an existing structure and if there is some limit above which they should not go and below which they would be considered. She needs to see what 40 feet above the treeline looks like. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff has been discussing that and it also does not know the answer Ms. Thomas asked if the Board is going to have any kind of a policy about what level of service is adequate in different parts of the County. With no further discussion of this item at this time, Ms. Humphris asked that staff provide information back to the Board. Mr. Tucker suggested an update be provided on August 6, 1997. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman, Chief John Miller and himself have been meeting concerning the amount of traffic and the many traffic violations along Route 29 North. On Tuesday, July 8, 1997, the Police will saturate Route 29 North with traffic enforcement, looking at traffic light violations, speeding, etc. On Friday, July 11, they will probably repeat that from time to time during the day. Mr. Bowerman said it is a safety issue that should be taken care of before someone gets killed. Ms. Thomas said when the Board approved the loan to GE Fanuc, GE agreed to provide the Board with a report. She would like to receive a copy. Ms. Thomas asked about the Acme Visible reports which the Board is no longer receiving. Mr. Tucker said he would check on this request. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could receive an updqte on the Environmental Technology Leadership Challenge at Monticello High School. Ms. Thomas asked about the status of the rewriting of the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Davis replied that it is still in draft stage. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) 000z z Ms. Thomas said she was at the North Garden Fire Department Saturday during the last large item pickup. The project was a success. She said part of the reason the program was possible was because the D~partment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has a policy for tire amnesty programs. They reimbursed the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for tires and have now decided to change their policy and no longer do that. She asked Mr. Tucker to ask RSWA whether it would be worth the Board adopting a resolution urging DEQ to continue that policy. Mr. Bowerman said as far as he is concerned, any individual who has large items that need to be disposed of, should be able to do so free of charge so they do not dump them down a ravine. He thinks these large parcel pickups are great. It is less expensive to do it that way.. Ms. Thomas said she talked to the County Engineer and asked if this was a new idea, and it was his understanding that it was a direction from the Board of Supervisors. If the Board wants it to continue to be free, they need to get a cost figure from Rivanna and put it in the budget. Mr. Tucker said staff knows the expense and the program could continue on a quarterly basis through the Recycling Fund. They need to work out all of the details and make sure there are no problems with the pickup locations. Ms. Humphris mentioned that registration information has been received for the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC) scheduled for August 10 to August 12, 1997, at the Omni Hotel. She also mentioned that information has been received for the Annual Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) conference to be held at the Homestead from November 7 to November 12, 1997. Mr. Marshall said he would like to offer a motion that this Board donate the fees for a special use permit to have a piece of property known as the Hudson property in Esmont rezoned for use as a recreational facility so the community can play baseball there providing that they can qualify as a nonprofit organization (see the minutes of June 18, 1997, for the origination of this request). The property is presently being used as a ballfield at this time. He said this is the property the County has been trying to purchase so it can be used as a playground for the community, but all of the heirs have not been located at this time. Mr. Davis explained the Board's procedure for donating such fees, and said the applicants will have to obtain non-profit status first. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas asked if this is the property the neighbors were upset about. Mr. Marshall said one neighbor was upset, but the problem was solved by removing the porta-potties and the concession stand to the other side of the field. That satisfied him. Ms. Humphris said Mr. McCauley told her he will oppose the special use permit, so he does not seem to be that satisfied with the situation. Mr. Bowerman said as long as this action does not prejudice the Board's action on the special permit, he has no problem supporting the motion. Ms. Humphris said that is a good point The Board will have to decide the case on its merits when it is presented, and the Board does not have the facts at this time. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Not Docketed: Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 4:06 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Approved by the Board of County Supervisors July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 0002 1. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. At 5:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Mr. Martin recommended the appointment of Ms. Leslie M. Durr to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Board of Directors to replace Mr. Robert Hodge who had resigned. There is no term limit on this appointment. Mr. Marshall recommended the appointment of Mr. Peter L. Sheras to the Community Services Board to replace Mr. Lloyd E. Barrett, with said term to expire on June 30, 2000. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. July 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 2, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Warren Van Dell, a resident of 737-C Mountainw~od Road, asked the Board's opinion of the City of Charlottesville reverting to a town. He asked the Board's position on a special assessment district that would require people within the current boundaries of the City to pay for their current debts. He thinks the County has the right to ask them to do that. If this is discussed during Executive Session, he asked that the Board then discuss it in open on the public record. Ms. Humphris said the Board's position on reversion has been stated publicly long and in length. There will not be any new statements until all of the legal issues have been resolved. Mr. Van Dell then asked where he might find a copy of those public statements. Ms. Humphris informed him that the Clerk could provide him with a copy of the statements. Mr. Martin said the Board has been up-front with its position all along and that position has not changed. Ms. Humphris said it has been clearly stated in writing in public. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris asked that Item 5.5b, a resolution in recognition of Delegate Peter T. Way be added to the Consent Agenda. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5b on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items'as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. None. Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution for the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to include the upgrade of the CSX Railroad crossing. It was noted in the staff's report that a letter dated June 23, 1997, had been received from the Virginia Department of Transportation stating that they had completed a construction cost estimate for the addition of West Leigh Drive to the Secondary System using Rural Addition Funds including the upgrade of the CSX Railroad crossing. The estimate of $361,000 includes only con- struction and engineering costs. Costs for providing a clear, unencumbered right-of-way, relocation of utilities, mail boxes, etc.,.are not eligible expenses covered by the Rural Addition Funds administered by the Department. Ineligible costs must be borne by others and assured by the County. At this time, there appears to be no impact to utilities.