1996-06-190001.94
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 19, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas (arriving at 7:01 P.M.).
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Planning, Ronald W. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Certificates were presented to the following people: Mr. Robert Parrott
served on the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation from August
10, 1983, to May 28, 1996. Mr. Ronald Hancock served on the Housing Committee
from March 2, 1994, to December 31, 1996.
Certificates were also available for Mr. Tim Michel who served on the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority from December 13, 1992, to December
12, 1995, and, Mr. Richard Spurzem who served on the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Citizens Advisory Committee from July 1, 1993, to August 31, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Present to bring a matter before the Board was Mr. Lou Bloomfield, who
lives in Squirrel Ridge Subdivision. Along with Mr. Bloomfield were 15 to 20
other residents of the subdivision. He said he is one of 50 people who still
own homes in Squirrel Ridge. They have lived in the shadow of the Route 29
Western Bypass for the past ten years. Recognizing the pending "disaster",
the residents of Squirrel Ridge unanimously decided several months ago to ask
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to purchase all of their
homes, and to use their land to ease destruction on the adjacent areas. VDOT
responded with a plan that would allow them to purchase all of the homes,
"free these people from a living hell" and also reduce the impact of the
bypass on the adjacent subdivisions. The plan would require only one action
by the County. The County would have to allow VDOT to include drawings of an
interchange at Hydraulic Road (Route 743) in the right-of-way acquisition
portion of their documents. The County could, and must, remain steadfastly
opposed to construction of such an interchange for all times. Toward that
end, the County has already prevented VDOT from including interchanges in the
construction portions of their documents. That situation would not be changed
by allowing the State to buy Squirrel Ridge.
Since the right-of-way acquisition program has no impact on future
construction, the County would not be compromising its future by allowing the
state of Virginia to purchase the homes in Squirrel Ridge. Ten years from
now, the only difference such a decision would make would be in who owns the
properties in Squirrel Ridge. Their battle against construction of an
interchange at Hydraulic Road will commence the day after the bypass is
complete no matter who owns Squirrel Ridge. The residents have been told that
they are being used by VDOT to get what it wants. If that is true, they get
little for their efforts. Only a drawing of an interchange on their right-of-
way acquisition map. At best, this step will have a tiny psychological impact
on the surrounding neighborhoods. However, allowing VDOT to buy their homes
will have an overwhelming impact on 50 of the Board's most loyal supporters in
'the battle against construction in the Rivanna watershed. They do not want to
be used in that battle, nor be pawns or statistics to be placed in front of
VDOT's bulldozers to slow them down for a minute. These are 50 people who
have borne this hell for ten years, and who have attended every meeting at
which they could voice their opposition to construction of the Western Bypass.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) 000195
(Page 2)
They have written letters to every person and every paper they thought would
listen. They beg the Board to not let this opportunity pass without a
thorough investigation of the possibilities. If VDOT can be allowed to
purchase the homes in Squirrel Ridge without compromising the County's stand
against the interchange, they implore the Board members to help make that
purchase possible.
Mrs. Humphris said she has discussed this request with the County
Attorney since meeting with Mr. Bloomfield this morning. This Board will have
further discussions, and she thanked everyone who came to bring this to the
attention of the Board members.
Mr. Marry Betts said he also is a resident of Squirrel Ridge. He said
to emphasize the plight of the residents, he would say that no house has sold
in Squirrel Ridge in the last eight years, and he does not image that any
houses remaining after the bypass as currently planned is constructed would be
saleable.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Betts if he also understands that VDOT indicated
to the residents on Monday that if VDOT is allowed to include the interchange
in its right-of-way purchase documents, but not in the construction documents,
that would suffice for VDOT. Mr. Betts said that is what the residents were
told. The residents were told that VDOT does not intend to build the inter-
changes along with construction of the Bypass, and even if they acquired the
property, VDOT would not be able to build those interchanges without approval
of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman asked how many residents were in
attendance at that meeting. Mr. Betts said all of the members of the Homeown-
ers' Association except for two or three homes. Mr. Bowerman said that would
be 40+ people. Mr. Betts agreed.
Mrs. Thomas apologized for being late arriving at this meeting. She
said it had been quite an adventure getting into town because of the storm.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 and 6.2 on the consent agenda,
and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item 6.1. Appropriation: Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant,
$11,202.00 (Form #95077).
It was noted in the staff's report, that the Library of Virginia has
approved a grant in the amount of $11,202.00 to repair and preserve books and
records in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. This project and grant will be
administered by Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, during the period from June 1,
1996, to November 30, 1996.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95077
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS
PRESERVATION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
115542106033100 REPAIRS & MAINT
TOTAL
MOUNT
$11,202.00
$11,202.00
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2155424000240500 GRANT REVENUE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$11,202.00
$11,202.00
Item 6.2. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail, and Clerk, Circuit Court, for
the month of May, 1996, were approved as presented by the recorded vote set
out above.
Item 6.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 14 and June 4,
1996, were received for information.
Item 6.4. Letter dated June 10, 1996, from Mr. Warren C. Smith,
Department of Housing and Community Development, to Mrs. Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Chairman, providing notice that Albemarle County did not receive a
grant offer for its Community Development Block Grant proposal in the 1996
competition, was received for information.
Item 6.5. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board
of Directors for March 25 and April 22, 1996, was received for information.
Mrs. Thomas asked for a copy of the Work Plan which is referred to often in
these minutes.
Item 6.6. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's proposed
Five- Year Capital Improvement Program, was received for information.
Item 6.7. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expendi-
tures for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1995, as prepared by the Auditor of
Public Accounts, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public
Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12.
Property in NW corner of inters of Rt 250/I-64. Area recommended for office
regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM78, P20B, P20C, P20K,
P20M, P31, P32, P71, P71A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from June 12, 1996.)
At the applicant's request, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mr. Martin to defer this public hearing until July 10, 1996. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-04. Encore Investments Ltd Ptrn. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 11 ac from CO & R-10 to PD-MC located on
N sd of Rio Rd E of Putt-Putt Lane. This area is recommended for office
service in Neighborhood 2 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM61, P's 124A, 124B,
124C. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1996.)
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Keeler would describe the request, but the Board
then needs to discuss the fact that there are some "last minute" proffers
involved, and also there are no minutes from the Planning Commission's
meeting.
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's 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 this request was heard by the Planning Commission last night, and
since that meeting the applicant has made changes to the proffers. This is a
proposal to rezone about 11 acres located between Nations Bank/Putt-Putt and
the Bailey Realty office building from CO, Commercial Office, and R-10
Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. This area is
recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 2 in the Comprehensive Plan.
At the Planning Commission's meeting, the impact of this proposal on the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) 000197
(Page 4)
Raintree Subdivision (which shares a common border with this property), was
discussed. The closest house is about 75 feet from the p~roperty line, and
adding to that the distance from the property line to traverse the stormwater
detention facility, and the sewer line and sewer easement, the closest
building would be about 170 feet from the property line and 240 feet from the
closest dwelling in Raintree. Traffic generation from this project was also
discussed. While traffic patterns would be different during peak hours, the
total volume would be approximately the same under the proposed zoning as
under the existing zoning.
Mr. Keeler said the most recent letter from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) was handed to the Board members tonight (letter dated
June 17, 1996, re: Rio Road East, signed by H. W. Mills, Assistant Resident
Engineer), and is attached to the applicant's revised proffers. This is a
planned development and normally a plan approximating a preliminary site plan,
noting building locations, sidewalks, and other features, is included. In
this case, stormwater detention facilities are shown, lay-out of water and
sewer lines, and the alignment of the internal road. No buildings are shown
on this plan at this time because the applicant has not yet determined the
size and number of buildings or uses which are to be on the property. The
applicant has submitted a site plan for an office building on one section of
the property. Last night, two Commissioners indicated they would have
preferred to have more information including more details on the Application
Plan. The applicant requested that action be taken last night so the Commis-
sion, by a vote of 4:2, recommended disapproval of the rezoning.
Mr. Keeler said the intent of the revised proffers is to allow by right
only those uses which are allowed by right in the Commercial Office district.
Ail other uses, uses permitted by special use permit in the Commercial Office
district, as well as uses permitted by right, and by special use permit in the
C-1 and the HC, Highway Commercial districts, would be allowed only by special
use permit. Any use, other than a by-right use in the Commercial Office
district, would require special use permit approval by the Commission and the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the proffers just reiterate the Subdivision
Ordinance. Mr. Keeler said "no". Under the by-right section of the Planned
Development-Mixed Commercial district, there are all of the by-right uses in
the HC, Highway Commercial, C-1 Commercial, and the CO, Commercial Office
districts. Then, by special use permit there are all of the special use
permit uses. This proffer seeks to allow only those uses which are permitted
by right in a CO, Commercial Office, district and allow them by right in this
case. Any other use would require a special use permit. The prior proffers
had some additional uses proposed by right and those have been removed from
this latest version of the proffers.
Mrs. Thomas asks how this last proffer affects the staff's recommenda-
tion. Mr. Keeler said staff had recommended favorably on the request when the
proffers were more liberal as to uses. They did not think the additional uses
were inappropriate to the area. He said the staff's written report recommends
denial of the petition, but the applicant brought back revised proffers which
satisfied staff's concerns so the staff then verbally recommended approval to
the Planning Commission last night.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any retail uses by right in Commercial
Office. Mr. Keeler said he would have to check the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis if he had had an opportunity to review the
revised proffers. Mr. Davis said a copy was faxed to his office this after-
noon, and it does contain a mistake. He has not yet seen the original signed
proffers.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is starting this public hearing with a
situation in which the Board has written information recommending denial of
the request. The Planning Commission recommends denial, and now staff is
saying the staff changed its mind and recommended approval at last night's
meeting. There are new proffers which she has not had time to look at and
which the County Attorney has not had time to review. When she hears from Mr.
Keeler she will open the public hearing. Mr. Keeler said Mr. Bowerman asked
about the uses by right in the CO District. He then read those aloud, and
said there is also a list of accessory uses which are limited to 20 percent of
the floor area. He said they are basically service uses, although some are of
a retail nature.
(Page 5)
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board has enough information to open the
public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to hold the public
hearing, but does not need to take action tonight. At 7:21 p.m., the public
hearing was opened.
First to speak was Mr. Don Wagner, representing Great Eastern Manage-
ment. He said he had a prepared statement to present but before doing that he
wanted to address some of the concerns that have been expressed tonight.
Encore filed this application on February 22, 1996, and lots of uses were
included. They were uncertain as to expected users and thought people would
be more receptive to deleting uses than adding uses. They worked with County
staff and talked with the neighbors. Over a period of time they eliminated a
number of uses, and thought they had eliminated all of the uses staff had a
concern with. When the staff report came out, they found that staff was not
happy with the proffer because of one use which had been left in. Me came to
the Planning Commission meeting last night with a proffer for the by-right CO
uses for barber and beauty shops which they thought was a nice accessory use,
and for a health spa. One accessory use is for ~office equipment service or
supply sales and equipment repair~, but it does not say anything about selling
the equipment. They asked for a change in the proffer for clarification
purposes. They feel these uses are appropriate for the zoning classification
and the spirit of CO zoning. Other people did not think they were appropri-
ate, so they were dropped. The new proffer eliminated some uses which were
questioned last night. What they are requesting is in complete conformity
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Wagner said he has been talking with the officers of the Raintree
Neighborhood Association since 1989, and following a meeting of this Board in
January, 1996 he told the current president and vice-president that the
request would be submitted to the County on February 22, 1996. Consequently,
on February 29, 1996, they furnished the Association with a copy of the
request and offered to meet with them to discuss any concerns. As Encore's
real estate agent came to them with a list of prospective tenants, he informed
the Association of the possibilities and solicited their reaction. With the
exception of a concern that there not be excessive retail use and that
proposed uses might generate more traffic than current by-right uses, there
was no adverse reaction to any of the uses they discussed until a telephone
call he received last Sunday night. The concern related to uses Encore was
not requesting. After the meeting he had on Sunday night, he was surprised
that the Raintree residents spoke strongly against the request last night. He
was encouraged by a statement made after the meeting by an officer of the
Association that they would not be in opposition to CO zoning. As a result of
that statement, Encore has dropped from the proffers the two proffers de-
scribed by Mr. Keeler that allowed the three uses that are not allowed by CO
zoning. The request before the Board tonight does not allow any land use by
right except the land uses that are allowed in CO zoning. He talked to people
in Raintree about an hour ago but does not know how that will turn out because
the person he spoke with needed to talk with some others.
Mr. Wagner said he would like to return to the substance of the request.
Since at least 1988, the Comprehensive Plan has called for Office Service Use
on this property. In the Zoning Ordinance, Commercial Office is an appropri-
ate zoning classification for areas designated for Office Service Use. After
discussing with County staff their suggestion that Encore request PD-MC with
proffers limiting uses to the CO uses, this suggestion was accepted. The
request for planned development is a response to a longstanding County policy
to encourage planning development as opposed to spot zoning. Planned district
first zoning requires a plan which shows in general terms the intent, i.e.,
how roads will be laid out, where utilities will go, etc. but does not require
full details of building locations, parking lots, landscaping, and so forth.
Mr. Wagner noted that a copy of their basic master plan for Rio East infra-
structure is posted on the wall. That includes a subregional stormwater
detention facility. The section of the ordinance on general requirements for
planned districts also mentions traffic calculations and circulation. County
staff agreed with Encore that since there is a central road and it is the
intent that this road have entrances going into individual parking lots for
individual businesses, there was no point in having them draw on that plan
exactly where the buildings would be or how large they would be since that
would depend on the eventual users. The plan does include the total building
square footage for the area. The proffer includes a request including the
possible future use of a special use permit for uses not contemplated at this
time.
000 99
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wagner to confirm that the traffic to be gener-
ated by his proposal will be the same as What it would be under the CO and R-
iO zoning. Mr. Wagner said "yes". The weekday traffic with the current mixed
zoning would be 961 vehicles a day, and 913 with his proposal, a difference of
48. It turns out that that is also the difference of the A.M. peak and the
evening peak. According to the traffic study, 75 percent of that traffic goes
to Route 29, with only 25 percent going in the other direction. As far as the
neighborhoods are concerned, during that peak hour, 25 percent of 48, or 12
cars will traverse Rio Road between the Vo-Tech Center and where this property
is located. With the zoning they have requested, which is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, as compared to the zoning in existence now, there
would be one additional car every five minutes going past Old Brook Road.
Mr. Bowerman asked the traffic generation from the currently zoned CO,
eliminating the R-10. Mr. Wagner said there would be 342.6. The numbers are
based on the plan they have set forth. There are about seven acres of usable
land, after taking care of the slopes, road, etc. Currently there are 3.0+
acres at the front of the property zoned CO. All of this acreage has by-right
entrances on the street with curb cuts already in place. There could be three
driveways coming into three office buildings. They plan on having 80,000
square feet on the back of the property, and 30,000 square feet on the front.
Looking at the whole project they will get 80,000 square feet on seven acres
which is a denser development.
Mr. Bowerman said if the property were developed by right today, Encore
could develop the three parcels in the front and do a commercial office
development which could generate about 350 cars, and then anything in addition
to that would need a rezoning. Mr. Wagner said that was incorrect. He said
they could put 994 residential units on the back without a rezoning. Those
residential units would generate 1619 vehicles per day. He said a traffic
study was done by Mr. John Greene and has been approved by the Highway
Department. The letter from VDOT says the development will not have any
affect on traffic.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wagner if he could do a conceptualized layout of
his development showing most of the setbacks, the detention area, the ameni-
ties, which would allow flexibility in terms of moving the building locations
and sites around. Mr. Wagner said he could do it in about three minutes, and
then explained their proposal. He said they have gone through the preliminary
site plan process with a plan for the 360 Communications building which will
be a 10,000 square foot office building on about one acre. It has an entrance
off of the road and is a building with parking on three sides. Encore been
contacted by someone who is interest in having a nursing home on one of the
sites. That use would generate little traffic, although it would require
another approval by this Board. It would not generate light and noise, and
might be a use that the neighbors would like. If that use came to pass, it
would require less parking. The basic concept is very simple. There is a
single street with entrances off of that street.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board does not have the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting yet, but two of the Commissioners had expressed concerns.
Mr. Wagner said one the Commissioners wanted more information on traffic, but
he does not know what additional information could be generated.
With no further questions for Mr. Wagner at this time, Mrs. Humphris
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald Lyon, President of the Raintree Homeowners' Association,
spoke first. He said he spoke with Mr. Wagner by telephone earlier this
evening, and at that time he mentioned to Mr. Lyon that he was willing to
proffer out all of the retail aspects of the project. Mr. Lyon said he asked
Mr. Wagner why the PD-MC designation is needed, and Mr. Wagner said it makes
it easier for the developer to proceed with the project. Mr. Lyon asked Mr.
Wagner why he did not waive the HC and C-1 rights and Mr. Wagner said he could
not because if all of the businesses failed, he would like to have the
opportunity to bring in another business.
Mr. Lyon then read from prepared remarks: ~Encore Limited Partnership
proposes that the County rezone approximately 11 acres located near the
intersection of Rio Road and U.S. 29. The plan is for the County to approve a
rezoning of 7.8 acres from R-10 to PD-MC and 3.2 acres to be rezoned from CO
to PD-MC. We stand unilaterally opposed to any rezoning that would exasperate
the problems of an area which is already over built, overcrowded and not
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) 000~00
(Page 7)
prepared to accept yet more construction for the benefit of no one other than
a speculator who proposes it. Initially, Raintree had no major objections to
the petitioner's request to rezone the residential property to commercial
office service. Now they request an even more dynamic change. This is an
important point because it is this never ending tinkering with the zoning map
which leads to the frustration of some, and the outright distrust which many
residents feel with the entire process. Some minimal stability has to be the
keystone of planning for this County's development. People make major
decisions, including buying a home, based on the expectation that there is
some consistency in the development process. Unfortunately, for many today,
the only consistency seen in our County's land use is its inconsistency.
aEncore interprets the Comprehensive Plan in such a way as to justify
their request and that is to be expected, yet Encore goes further and relies
on their views of past practices including the type of zoning creep discussed
earlier. Encore, in discussing the proposal with Raintree, emphasized that
the neighborhood's interest would be protected by limited development with a
designated restricted area. Yet this area is a ravine and is unsuitable for
development anyway. Additionally, the Rivanna Water Authority owns a perpet-
ual easement over the area. Thus, the restricted area was not the result of
any action by Encore, but nothing more than a recognition of the practical and
legal problems involved in building there. Surprisingly, Encore has now
withdrawn its assurances regarding this area in order to keep open the option
to further develop therein. Here again we see the instability in the process.
Even a perpetual easement on gully dirt land is not seen as a significant
barrier to a committed developer.
"In the last four months there have been no less than five variations on
the type, quantity, and quality of the facilities which might be placed on
this parcel of land. The latest includes retail stores, a service center,
barber shop, beauty salon and fitness center. Albemarle County does not
currently lack any of these facilities. The retail establishment turn-over at
nearby Albemarle Square and Fashion Square should be sufficient evidence that
the profit potential of the end user is limited and risky. But, of course,
land speculators are more concerned with the immediate profit made on a
development of the land than with the problems the ultimate user might face.
The impact of this is that no matter what assurances Encore gives us to the
type of business that might go into the development initially, market condi-
tions will determine their staying power. What is a shoe store today may be a
fast food outlet tomorrow, a strip joint the next day, and a vacant storefront
in the end.
~We recognize that some might see our opposition as nothing more than
~not in my back yard" syndrome, but there really is more at stake here. The
area is very near one of the most crowded and dangerous intersections in the
County. The County's Zoning Ordinance requires that before establishing a CO
District, a review of transportation impacts shall be a major consideration.
There is no way that this project can have other than a major impact on the
transportation system at that intersection, in fact, the only reason for
putting retail shops there is because of the land's proximity to a heavily
traveled traffic artery. The land sits midway between two traffic lights and
adjacent to an outlet road. Another traffic light would be required to make
an entrance into the facility safe and that would mean three traffic lights
within one-half mile of Rio Road, an area where the road network has already
collapsed because of the overbuilding and bungled planning and another light
is the last thing needed there.
wit is important that we keep in mind what is asked for here is rezoning
for a more intensive and a more objectionable use. Without doubt, this change
in zoning will mean more traffic, more noise, more pollution, less safety, and
overall diminution of the quality of life, not only for those who live near
the site, but for those who must use the roads near it. That makes this area
in everybody's back yard. If the rezoning is denied, does that mean the land
cannot be developed? No! It simply means it cannot be developed as the
petitioner wants. It must be in a way that meets its current zoning and
provides for gradual transition to the residential properties."
Next to speak was Mr. John McDonald, Vice-President of the Raintree
Homeowner's Association. He mentioned the transportation report and said it
agrees that there will be a reduction in the total number of trips in that
area. However, the peak hour traffic between the two zonings is different,
and this is the information on which he believes additional analysis is
required. The review by VDOT is incomplete at this time as the applicant has
000201
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
not submitted the requested information. In particular, VDOT ~equires
additional information to determine if a traffic signal will be required due
to the rezoning. VDOT does not want a traffic signal to be located at the
entrance to this site, as a signal will be installed at the Putt-Putt inter-
section located 500 feet to the west. Mr. McDonald said there have been
numerous traffic accidents in that area. The one mile in front of the area
that is going to be rezoned has had a total of 2.2 percent of all the acci-
dents in the last year. Ten percent of all traffic citations that are given
out in the County are given out in that one mile stretch. This is due to a
failure to obey lights, high speeds, crossing over yellow lines and general
impatience. The other thing that will be a problem is the lack of traffic
signals and especially if this new road is Created with no traffic signal to
regulate that traffic, and VDOT does not want it. ' There is a similar situa-
tion at Old Brook Road which does not have a traffic light. There is a
traffic light at Northfield Road and that one intersection had 15 accidents in
the last year.
Mr. McDonald said the proposal before the Board anticipates that the
road in the development will have unrestricted left- and right-hand turns onto
Rio Road. That will be exasperated by Aldersgate Church which is only 150
feet away, plus Putt-Putt which is nearby. Another problem is that a right-
turn on red is no longer allowed at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29.
The Association has been talking to Encore and there have been numerous
proffers put forth. The proffers seem to be an attempt to cover whatever they
could put on the property. Mr. Wagner mentioned to him earlier tonight that
he did not want to go through the administrative headache of having to rezone
all of those things CO and develop them. He only wants to get an office
building and CO uses. That Association counters by saying, if he only wants
CO to reduce the administrative burden for the applicant and the County, why
not waive the right to put C-1 and HC on the property during the time of this
rezoning? Mr. Wagner replied that he did not want to waive the right because
if this proposal does not work he wants the right to do other things.
Mr. McDonald said it is easier to get a special use permit approved on
property that is already zoned for a use as opposed to having the property
rezoned. The Association said it had no objections to CO because they
realized that CO is the standard and normal transitional zoning into a
residential area. This is an ll-acre area that does not need to be Planned
Development for convenience, it just gives the developer a lot of extra
options for additional uses.
One thing zoning requirements do address is that large-scale development
may substantially reduce the functional integrity and safety of public roads.
That is a major concern of the Association. A couple of weeks ago there were
four accidents in a six-day period in the general area, one of which was a
Raintree resident who had to go to the hospital. There is a problem and this
plan does not object to turning movements other than cars driving by. He is
not concerned about cars driving by, only about cars stopping in the highway
to turn left and right, and cars leaving this road to get into traffic left
and right, especially during rush hours. Another thing, in Section 25A4.1, it
says that vehicular access points shall be designed to encourage smooth
traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicu-
lar and pedestrian traffic. He does not see any controlled turning movement
where this road exits on Rio Road. Section 21-1 says a review of transporta-
tion impacts shall be a major consideration in the establishment and develop-
ment of a commercial district. So far, he has not seen a major study espe-
cially when VDOT says it is incomplete. Basically, the Association initially
opposed any retail operations, and it still opposes retail operations. If the
petitioner only wants to do this as a means to expedite the process, then why
does he not just waive his right to request a special permit to get a C-1
facility, or an HC facility?
Mr. Lyon said the Board has many responsibilities. It is hard to
remember that the County is composed of people and not things, buildings, and
profit potentials. The primary responsibility of the Board is the safety and
well-being of the citizens. If that safety is put at risk in the name of
development and profit, then the Board needs to look at why it is here in the
first place.
Mr. Charles Trachta, Vice-President of the Woodbrook Community Associa-
tion, spoke next. He said the Woodbrook community is in full support of the
Raintree community and their opposition to this request. Woodbrook is also
against this proposal because it will make an already unsafe roadway, Rio
000202
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Road, .into a greater safety hazard. For those who were not present last
night, the developer of this project admitted that the rear of the development
would face Raintree, including its garbage dumpsters and other unsightly
decor. Normally, one would think that required buffers would take care of
this, but then they found out that the buffers between the development and
Raintree will be a runoff pond. Now, there are three health and safety
questions. 1) The additional traffic on Rio Road, and the addition of another
intersection on this busy and accident-prone street, 2) the garbage dumpsters
with their attraction to rats and other pests aimed right at the Raintree
community, and, 3) the buffer which is supposed to protect the community is
itself a health hazard. What will be breeding in this pond, who will be
responsible to make sure children cannot get into it, and how will they
accomplish that? Is the life of even one child worth the profit this devel-
oper will make if this request is approved? The developer wants to be
trusted, but what has that gotten the County in the past. In Woodbrook, a
developer promised he would clean up the trash between Woodbrook and their
developments. They have not done it. They said they would put up trees to
make a buffer between Woodbrook and the development, but so far have only put
up half of the trees promised. They also promised to keep the lights,
especially the high intensity kind, dimmed after one or two o'clock. They
fail to do this every night. Also, this developer (Encore) is trying to make
this Board believe there won't be any increase in traffic, but without the
increase in traffic, how will the businesses he wishes to put in this develop-
ment, survive? For reasons of health, safety and the lack of trust, the
Woodbrook community asks the Board to follow the lead of the Planning Commis-
sion and deny this applicant's request.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Trachta if he had said he was appearing on behalf
of the Woodbrook Homeowners' Association. Mr. Trachta said it is the
Woodbrook Community Association.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Association had met concerning this proposal.
Mr. Trachta said they have been discussing this proposal for some time.
Mr. Marshall asked if he had met with members of his Association, and if
he had petitions from these people. Mr. Trachta said he did not have a
petition.
Mr. Marshall asked when there was a meeting of his Association when this
request was discussed. Mr. Trachta said they have telephone conversations
among themselves. Their next meeting will probably be in the Fall.
Mr. Marshall said to Mr. Trachta that he had come before this Board
several times and attacked personally members of this Board and made state-
ments that he represents certain people, and he (Mr. Marshall) would like to
make sure that Mr. Trachta actually represents those people. Mr. Trachta said
to Mr. Marshall that he is the elected vice-president of the Woodbrook
Community Association. If this is going to be between himself and Mr.
Marshall and their differences of opinion, it should be taken up at a differ-
ent time.
Mr. Marshall said he is an elected official of Albemarle County and he
has a right to ask questions of anyone who comes before him as to whether the
information is correct or not. He just wants to know if Mr. Trachta is being
truthful with him and if the Woodbrook Association is opposed to this request.
He has no opinion at this point as to whether he will vote for the request or
not. He understands the people from Raintree, but he does not understand
Woodbrook which is far removed from this area coming before the Board. Mr.
Trachta said Woodbrook is not that far removed from the area in question.
This proposal will affect them. They come out of Woodbrook and turn onto
Route 29 and then onto Rio Road. This will definitely affect them. They are
also having working relations with the Raintree community along with the other
Rio communities. They are trying to get the communities within the whole
County to work together. They are not trying to be ~nimby's" anyTaore. They
are trying to take control of the County. They are trying to get involved and
decide what is going to happen with tax dollars.
Mr. Marshall asked if they want to control the County. Mr. Trachta said
they want to have their tax dollars work for the citizens.
Mr. Marshall suggested to Mr. Trachta that if he is going to come and
represent a group of people before this Board that there be a meeting of those
people and that he bring before the Board evidence of that meeting so the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) 000202
( Page 10 ) ..... 1%~ f ~ $ ~ J~ ~ ~
Board knows it actually took place. At least, for himself, that is what he
would like.
Mr. Wayne Elliott said he live in Northfield on Carrsbrook Drive. He
did not intend to speak, and to allay any misunderstandings, he does not claim
to represent anybody except himself. He lives about two miles from that site,
and like a lot of other people in Albemarle County, he uses the intersection
at Route 29 and Rio Road. He thinks it is a dangerous intersection and does
not understand why the Board would allow more development there. Mr. Wagner
mentioned in his remarks that since 1988 the Comprehensive Plan has antici-
pated something going there. But, this isn't 1988. What has happened in the
last five years is that there has been too much growth in the area. That
doesn't mean that cannot be developed at'some point, but it should mean that
it cannot be developed now. The Board just needs to slow down development in
that five square mile area and let the road network catch up with development.
He listened to the traffic statistics given by the applicant and did not
understand exactly how those numbers were derived. It seems to him that this
is a time to let things slow down a little bit and let the road network catch
up with the development that is already in place in the area. As has been
pointed out, this will be just one more little strip shopping center, even
though the retail may have been proffered out, and he does not see how people
will benefit from that, particularly if the only way to get to it is to put
one more light there. The lights in that area at this time are merely a
suggestion because a lot of people don't even slow down for lights anymore.
There's not much the police can do about that when the road network is
collapsing from the traffic. If cars go into that shopping center, they have
to come back out on Rio Road, and where will you put them? There is just no
place there. Based on the discussion, he does not think the Board has enough
facts for approving this request. He urges the Board to disapprove the
request. He does not believe it is the proper time to put anything on this
property.
Mr. Wagner said the people from Raintree gave basically the same
presentation they gave at the Planning Commission meeting last night. They
still object to uses which Encore gave up long ago, and some which Encore gave
up after hearing their presentation last night. They said if Encore would
limit the uses to CO uses they would approve, Encore did and they are here
tonight still objecting. Their telephone conversation was mentioned where Mr.
Wagner was requested to give up the last proffer which would allow them to
request a apply for a special use permit for one of the uses listed under CO,
C-1 or HC. Mr. Wagner said if he receives CO zoning tonight, he still has
every right to file a request tomorrow for rezoning all or any part of this
property for some use. As a practical matter, that would happen only if
someone wanted a particular use which was felt to be appropriate on the
property, and they would file with a proffer limiting it to just that use. He
is suggesting that he be allowed to do the same thing through the special use'
permit process.
Mr. Wagner mention was made of the restricted area. When Encore turned
in this proposal, a number of uses were included, but they have kept the
Raintree Homeowners' Association informed as they reduced that number of uses.
Initially there was an area that did not just include the stormwater detention
basin (that basically went almost to the road), but it was a 200-foot wide
strip in which they would not put some of the intensive'uses they asked for on
the other part of the property. As they downgraded uses and asked for less
intensive uses, Mr. Bill Fritz suggested they drop that because it would be
confusing. The uses they were asking for were uses that would be allowed in
the restricted area anyway. Therefore, there is no reason to have the
restricted area anymore. They are not asking for more intensive uses up on
the far side of the property.
As to traffic, Mr. Wagner said he did not say the development would not
put more traffic on Rio Road. He said this rezoning does allow uses which
would generate more traffic on Rio Road than would be generated by the uses by
right. One gentleman read the first letter from VDOT, the letter that asked
Encore to do more studies. That is the thing that led to the delay with VDOT.
Initially VDOT asked what impact this development would have in terms of the
amount of traffic it generated. VDOT then asked for more information on
turning movements and interaction with existing traffic on the road and
Encore~s consultant said he could give that information, but he first needed
to know what traffic was on the road now. It took a while to get that
information back from VDOT. The letter from VDOT that the Board has tonight
says VDOT does not have any problem with this development.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000204
Mr. Wagner said he has a site plan ready to turn in for the 360
Communications building. All of the storm sewer lines for that building go to
the diagonal corner of the property where the stormwater detention basin is
and where they can connect to the existing sewer line. Under CO zoning, if
the property were all zoned CO, there is no convenient mechanism for getting
approval to extend that sewer line down and do the grading that is necessary.
The thing that people do (and staff will confirm this) is turn to what is
called apaper site plans". This is a site plan that everybody knows nobody
intends to build, but it is a site plan that is turned in with all the detail.
There are 60 some items on the preliminary site plan checklist and 40 some
items on the final site plan checklist, all of those things are done by the
applicant and reviewed by staff. It goes through the entire process to get
approval of that site plan just so the applicant can get a grading permit and
start grading in advance of having the final information anticipated on
exactly what he wants there. If this land were zoned CO, there is one other
option. He could expand the site plan for 360 to cover the entire 11 acres
for this one 10,000 square foot office building and go ahead because it would
be an approved site plan. He would have an approved site plan for a building
of 10,000 square feet on 11 acres and have to come back with a site plan to
vacate six of those acres. Encore can't be put in that position. With the PD
concept, when and if the Board approves what is before it tonight, he will
then be able to go back to staff, deliver the final plans for all of the
various infrastructure things, get approval and start doing the things needed
to serve that building by December, which is when 360 wants to use it.
Mr. Wagner asked that the Board verify with staff that he understands
the process. There was a question raised about the safety of the detention
pond. He feels positive that based on the time that Raintree was built, it
might have a detention pond. Whether they do or not, the County's ordinance
will require him to have a recorded maintenance agreement for this stormwater
detention basin. It has to meet all kinds of County standards. It is not
just something that happens. There was an allegation he did not understand
about doing something nefarious with L. F. Wood. Mr. Wood wants to put a U-
Store It facility right up to Encore's western property line. He went to the
Board of Zoning Appeals and asked for a waiver of the setback requirements
because that property was then, and is now, zoned residential. His property
is zoned commercial and there is a setback requirement from the residential
property line. The BZA granted that waiver. He wrote a letter to the BZA
saying they would support the waiver provided this facility is built in a
certain way, provided they had some control over the masonry color. They
wanted some pilasters to break up the long masonry wall, and if the roof is a
peak roof and visible, it should be of appropriate materials. They asked for
a number of things, and got something that they probably were not entitled to.
Mr. Wagner said what encore is asking for is entirely in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, whether it is called PD-MC with proffers, or whether
it is called CO. The land uses that they can put on the property are exactly
the same. He hopes the Board agrees with him. One gentlemen said tonight
that property owners have rights, and his company is a property owner. They
have the right to believe that if this is in the Comprehensive Plan, they can
use the property in that manner.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board members had a copy of the traffic report
which has been mentioned. Mrs. Humphris said they do not.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said that seven and one-half years ago when he first ran
for office, the developers brought to his attention that they were looking at
this property (which they had owned for some years prior to that), for
development. He talked to the Raintree Homeowners' Association and the
developer, and it seems that both could mutually agree on a non-objectionable
use for that property which did not impact the Raintree area, especially the
houses most immediately adjacent. For the last seven-plus years that is the
way it has been. Numerous things have been proposed and there has been a
fairly high level of cooperation and sharing of information between the two.
A couple of weeks ago, he learned that there was difficulty with what the
applicant was proposing. What is before the Board tonight is in compliance
with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan, however, he sees no
overwhelming need or desire by the community to have this particular use as
proposed in this place at this time. Personally, he favors a planned develop-
(Page 12)
ment approach over by-right commercial, or by-right R-10 which does not allow
as much flexibility on the Board's part, or allow adjacent property owners as
much flexibility as to what they can through this Board require of that
developer. He thinks the property does enjoy reasonable use at this time in
terms of its three acres of CO zoning and its seven, more or less, acres of R-
IO zoning. He thinks the people who spoke here tonight representing Raintree
and Woodbrook are duly elected representatives of those homeowner's associa-
tions. It is their desire that this not take place at this time. He thinks
it is incumbent upon himself to continue to represent their interests unless
there is some overwhelming need and the general public requires him to go
against their wishes and recommend that it be approved. So, he believes the
site currently enjoys reasonable use and can be developed in that fashion
without the planned development-mixed commercial that is before the Board. He
will not support the application that is before the Board.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this property could be accessed through Putt-Putt
Lane. Mr. Bowerman said there is no existing right-of-way. Mr. L. F. Wood
owns the property that is between this property and the Putt-Putt. Some years
ago there were some thoughts about the applicant and Mr. Wood doing a joint
project in that area. That was before the Comprehensive Plan was changed.
That venture would have been more commercial and it contemplated only one
entrance for the whole area. That was more like the Rio Road shopping center.
What is before the Board tonight is much less intense and more reflective of
what is in the Comprehensive Plan. Going back 15 years to when he was on the
Planning Commission, they tried to keep any additional retail from going
further than the Putt-Putt site, and the City line at the railroad tracks. To
a complete extent, that has been done for the past 15 years. The commercial
office designation is the correct one. It does recognize that this is an in-
fill area and there is a considerable amount of R-10 high density land in that
community which could be developed. It would have a significant impact in the
urban area in terms of infrastructure and schools.
Mrs. Thomas said there is a legitimate concern about having one more
entrance on Rio Road and what that does to traffic. Mr. Bowerman said that
with a couple of more lights on Rio Road, the speeding problems will be
eliminated, but there would be more congestion. It would be safer because
traffic would not be able to go as fast, and side traffic could get out onto
the road. Right now, VDOT is studying the intersection at Old Brook Road for
signal warrants.
Mr. Martin asked about a statement that there are by-right three
entrances along that section of property. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant
owns three parcels, all zoned CO, which front on Rio Road. If they were
developed one at a time, each would be entitled to its own driveway. If the
applicant were to develop all three at one time, the Planning Commission could
require that there be only one entrance. He believes it will depend on how
development proceeds.
Mrs. Thomas said the residential property would still need an entrance
onto Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman said ~yes', but this request would preclude the
use of the residential behind that property. There is a lot more residential
zoning behind this property that is not a part of this request tonight. The
access to that property would probably be through Putt-Putt Drive with
signalization. That was always the intent for the land that Mr. Wood owns.
Mr. Martin said it was mentioned that the homeowners' associations
talked about the problems they have with the proposal. The applicant basi-
cally is saying those are not things that exist. He did not necessarily hear
the two disagreeing. In terms of the problems being presented by the one, and
the solutions being presented by the other, it seems they are not that far
apart. He believes the Board should defer the vote on this request, and get
the additional traffic study Mr. Wagner mentioned, as well as look at the
proffer that was made between last night's meeting and tonight's meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the proffer is clear, and he does not
think anything will change the 900+ vehicles. He thinks all parties want to
move forward with the vote. He said the Homeowners' Association has looked at
the changed proffer, and they feel that regardless they would be opposed to it
because it is too much at this time. In their case, the perception is the
reality. He thinks that is a valid observation.
Mr. Perkins asked the difference in the traffic count from this proposal
and a by-right development. Mr. Bowerman said it is 45 cars, 960 versus 915.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) 000206
(Page 13)
Mr. Martin said that is 45 cars in a period of 24 hours. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
The hour would generate 7.5 trips per each household, so 600 cars would be
generated by the residential development, with 300+ being generated by the by-
right commercial development that could be in the front of the property.
Mr. Martin said if he had to make a move at this point, he would move
for deferral because it seems to him that the perception and reality could
come closer together. He does not hear that big of a difference. Mr.
Bowerman said he thinks it is a big one. Mr. Martin said he hears the
perception, but it seems to him that the reality really matches up with what
the people really want.
Mr. Perkins said he believes that what the people want to happen is
nothing. That will not happen; something is going to happen because its
valuable property and the taxes are high. Whoever owns it has to do something
with it to get some return on their investment. Something is going to happen
one way or the other. Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Homeowners' Associa-
tion recognizes that.
Mr. Martin asked what the other Board members think. Mr. Marshall said
if he has to vote on it tonight, he will vote against it primarily because of
what he heard Mr. McDonald say. Besides that, he does not have the minutes
from last night's Planning Commission meeting which he would like to look at.
He does not have a highway report and he does not think he can make a good
decision without those two things. To be fair to everyone concerned, he would
like to see that land developed in harmony with those people in Raintree if it
can possibly be done. He agrees with Mr. Perkins that there is a lot of money
involved in that piece of property and something will happen to it. He just
hopes it will be the right thing.
Mrs. Thomas said she can see actual benefits to having a situation where
it is up to special use permits, and it is a planned development. Having just
gone through the long frustration on UREF, the Board recognizes that proffers
are something you have to wait for and it is a strange and difficult situa-
tion. A special permit is what the neighbors would find it easier to deal
with. She feels that is one area of agreement. Traffic is a major concern
and rightly so. If denying this request means it develops by-right, she is
not sure the people will be happier than they would be if it develops as
proposed with the one entrance.
Mr. Marshall agreed, and said he believes the request should be deferred
tonight. Mrs. Thomas said she feels there is a substantive area of agreement
and she heard about a month ago from Raintree that they were working and hoped
to come up with something that everyone could agree on. She was enthusiastic
about them maybe working with the long-range planning of the County. Mr.
Bowerman said one of the things he is hearing is that the process is never
ending. The Board makes an approval, and then there is a parade of special
permits or variations on what was originally approved, and What is approved is
not in certainty what the County ends up with. The law and the zoning
ordinance allow the applicant to do that, but he senses a frustration with the
process also.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes there is also the fear of the unknown.
One thing she has a problem with is accepting VDOT's over simplistic traffic
report dated June 17, 1996. There has to be more for them to say that what is
in this letter.
Mr. Marshall asked how the Board would feel to make a motion to defer
this and hope the Raintree Association and the developer can get together on
something. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Bowerman has said that he does not believe
that will happen. Mr. Bowerman said he could not speak for the Homeowners'
but he thinks that unless they say otherwise, they don't want to look at it
any more.
Mr. Martin said Mrs. Thomas said it better than he can, but he believes
that what the Homeowners' are asking for is what the applicant is proposing.
The only difference is that if the Board approves this request, development
may occur quicker than the by-right that already exists, but in actuality, the
Homeowners' will probably have much more say over what the developer does if
the Board approves this than the Homeowners' would have over the developer if
the developer does it by right. If the Board votes on this tonight, he
prefers a deferral.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 14) . ~...
000207
Mr. Bowerman said he would follow through on his initial comments, and
offer motion to deny ZMA-96-04 and follow the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation. Mr. Marshall said he would second the motion since he always supports
the supervisor whose district it is in. Mrs. Thomas said she would prefer
deferral, but she still thinks that people of good will could get together,
and that will be the basis of her not agreeing to denial. Mr. Marshall said
he wishes it could be that way, but he did not want Mr. Bowerman's motion to
die for lack of a second. Mr. Martin said he thinks the best solution is
deferral because he continually hear the developer proposing what the people
are asking for and the only difference is whether or not that takes place in
the next two years as opposed to the next ten years. The Homeowners' have a
lot more control over this proposal than they do over the by-right proposal
and he has to use common sense as opposed to an emotional kind of sense and to
him it just makes sense.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the recorded vote which
follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins,
to defer ZMA-96-04 to July 17, 1996; the Board wants the minutes of the June
18, 1996, Planning Commission meeting and an explanation of the letter dated
June 17, 1996, from Mr. H. W. Mills to Mr. Bill Fritz.
Mr. Lyon asked that the public hearing be continued if this request is
deferred. Mrs. Humphris said this was the public hearing tonight and it was
closed. Mr. Martin said he would not object to hearing more comments. Mrs.
Humphris said that is up to the Board, but it does not need to be decided
tonight. Mr. Martin said the Board heard from only three people tonight, and
he would like to hear from more people.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Mrs. Thomas asked when the Board would have to advertise if the public
hearing will be continued. Mr. Davis said the Board has already had the legal
public hearing so it can be whatever notice the Board wants to give, or no
notice at all except for being noted on the agenda. Mrs. Thomas said she
thinks the public would prefer to know if they will have a chance to speak.
Mr. Bowerman said if he is at that meeting, he will recommend that the public
hearing be opened. The Board usually does that when there is new information.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-96-08. Albemarle Board of County Supervisors:
Monticello High School & Associated Public Facilities. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone approx 101 ac from R-1 to R-15. Property just S of PVCC
btwn Avon St Ext & Rt 20 S of I~64. Property, currently designated for low
density residential in Neighborhood 4 is proposed for institutional use in the
update of the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. TMgl, P2. Scottsville
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 3 and June 10, 1996.)
Mr. Keeler said this resolution of intent by the Board of Supervisors to
rezone the property from R-1 to R-15 is to make available the height limita-
tion provisions of the R-15 District. R-1 has a 35-foot height limit. The
building, as designed, exceeds that with a height of about 50 feet. The R-15
District has a height limitation of 65 feet. Staff reviewed this request for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. When the County amended the Compre-
hensive Plan, it showed the land adjacent to the lake as Office Service for
the Virginia Department of Forestry a number of years ago. The County also
changed the designation on the remainder of the Hillcrest property to a high
density residential designation. If the property were not to be acquired for
the high school, the staff was prepared during review of the Comprehensive
Plan to recommend it for the urban high density designation that is in the
current land use plan. Staff did recommend approval of the proposed rezoning.
There is one piece of the property that staff recommends remain as R-1. That
is on the south side of the connector road. It is a heart shaped piece of
property that is adjacent to the Tandem School and is to be transferred to the
00020S
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 15) . ~
Tandem School which is zoned R-1. Staff believes that retaining the R-1 on
that piece of property of about one and one-half acres would be appropriate.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 14, 1996,
unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-08 as proposed but noting that they
excluded that part of the property between the proposed connector road and the
Tandem School property (Tax Map 91, Parcels 2a and 2b) .
At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. With no one from
the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to approve ZMA-96-08 excluding that portion of the property between the
proposed connector road and the Tandem School property (Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A
and 2B.)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(Note: At 8:49 p.m., Mrs. Humphris called for a recess. The Board
reconvened at 9:59 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal: SDP-96-024, Monticello High School
Preliminary Site Plan. Proposal to construct public high school with core
facilities for approx 1500 students with teaching space for 1000 students,
with approx 180,000 sq ft & associated athletic facilities & parking on site
of approx 67 acs. Same description as ZMA-96-08.
Mr. Keeler said staff focused on several waiver requests that accompa-
nied the site plan and offered no conditions of approval on the preliminary
site plan because it was in process and was to be approved administratively.
The Planning Commission approved this site plan subject to six conditions, and
the School Board subsequently appealed those conditions.
Mr. Keeler then went to the Board and pointing to the site plan which
was posted on the wall noted that Condition No. 1 states: "Preservation of a
minimum 100-foot tree buffer, together with a fence at least eight feet in
height, along the border of the townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivi-
sion." He said that the fence shown on the original site plan runs the
entire length of the property boundary and ties into the fence at Piedmont
College. He believes the length the condition is speaking to is in regard to
the tree buffer.
Mr. Marshall said he understands this proposal comes within 100 feet
from the property line of the subdivision, and the fence will be built on the
100-foot line. In other words, the trees will be outside of the fence as far
as the school is concerned. Mr. Keeler said that is correct, the trees will
be on the Willow Lake side of the fence under Condition No. 1. Mr. Marshall
said that in a portion of that area none of the trees will be cut down; trees
will be cut in only a 25-foot section because at the widest point there is
only 125 feet of trees. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. He had asked the
Commission to confirm whether or not where the depth of the trees was less
than 100 feet they wanted supplemental planting, and they confirmed that they
do.
Mr. Keeler said that Conditions 2, 3, and 5, speak to creation of
wetlands and he wanted the Board to know that once wetlands are created they
then come under Federal regulation. There is only one development in the
County where wetlands were involved and that was a trade-off for stormwater
detention in Branchlands, and it was done on an experimental basis with the
Watershed Management Official at that time and the University of Virginia, to
study the effects of wetlands. The developer constructed the wetlands in lieu
of other stormwater management provisions and now those manmade wetlands are
under Federal regulations. If some of this land is devoted to wetlands, it is
subject to Federal regulations, and may not be usable for other purposes in
the future. Mr. Keeler said it is not clear to him whether Conditions 2, 3
and 5, speaking to the wetlands, are to be in addition to other stormwater
management practices that would normally be required, or in lieu of other
stormwater management provisions. He said the existing lake is intended as a
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 16) ~
000209
stormwater management pond and generally pollution measures are not required
to protect a stormwater management facility. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Keeler
was saying that Conditions 2, 3 and 5 are not necessary. Mr. Keeler said he
is not sure if they are necessary or not. If this were a normal developer
with a normal site plan before the County, he believes staff would have
recommended to the Commission that the language in the ordinance basically
require the Commission to have an opinion from the County Engineer before
imposing conditions related to stormwater management. Wetlands are one of a
number of items called Best Management Practices.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Planning Commission knew that the wetlands
require Federal regulations. Mr. Keeler said he does not believe it was
mentioned by anyone. ': ~
Mr. Perkins asked if there are any wetlands being destroyed on site. A
wet area can be filled in if it is replaced with another wet area. Once that
is done it comes under the same protection as any natural wetlands. Mr.
Keeler said Ms. Higgins is more familiar with the Federal permit processing on
wetlands, and he believes there is a threshold, and once beyond that, replace-
ment is required. Mr. Davis said no Federal permit is required to create
wetlands, only approval for any alteration once they exist. Mr. Keeler said
in the case of Lickinghole Creek Basin in Crozet, the Federal government did
require the creation of some wetlands there. Up until that time, there had
· been discussion about making that available to the public. The cost of
creating the wetlands was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Based on
that, the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority was reluctant to have the public
trampling through the wetland areas and destroying plants they were required
by the Federal government to install.
Mrs. Humphris asked Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, to speak
next. Ms. Higg±ns said she is speaking on behalf of the applicant (Albemarle
County School Board) for two reasons. They think the concerns raised by the
Willow Lake Homeowner's Association should be taken in%o account. The School
Board is ready to offer a compromise because the project needs to keep moving
forward. Instead of asking for repeal of Condition No. 1 concerning the 100-
foot buffer, they offer a compromise. She will also point out a few differ-
ences in the site plan they propose. She wants to discuss Condition No. 4
which states: "Reduce the number of soccer fields by one." Under the
proposal, they are talking about reducing the number of competition-sized
fields by one. In essence they have reduced Field No. 5 from a competition
size to a practice size. In the corner where the buffer area was identified
along the townhouse section of Willow Lake, they have swapped a practice field
and the competition field. In other words, the competition-sized field was in
the corner and because of its size they could not allow for the buffer in that
area. They moved that competition-sized field down the hill and put the
practice field in the corner. What is now shown is a 50-foot preserved
buffer. With that buffer, it is 125 feet from the edge of the playfield to
the property line. That shows 125 feet horizontally from the property line
to the edge of the playfield. From the edge of the playfield to the fence
would be 75 feet and that would be graded between the playfield and the fence.
The fence will be on the inside of the trees in essence fencing out 0.44 acre
of land on the Willow Lake side. With a 100-foot buffer, it fences out 0.88
acre of land. The difference in height between the playfield and the top of
the eight-foot fence which is on top of the berm will be 25 feet. They feel
it is reasonable to believe that no one would be sending a soccer ball up 75
feet, 25 feet up and into 50 feet of woods, and create a problem for the
Willow Lake homeowners.
Ms. Higgins said staff sympathizes with the people in Willow Lake
because they have lived with the situation at Piedmont Community College
(PVCC) for years. The lights are obtrusive, the balls go into the parking
lots, they dent cars, etc. With the eleven different site plans staff has
looked at between June and December of 1995, two of the plans had the football
field in the corner being discussed, Four of them had the building in this
corner. Two of them had a baseball field in the corner. One had the parking
with the building below it in this corner. Each time they looked at one of
these plans, they said to put the most passive fields in the corner near the
residential area and move the lighted fields toward the center of the site.
They did not believe they could meet the complete expectation of the residents
of Willow Lake, but they were considered during this whole approval process.
Ms. Higgins said the request to the Board tonight is that the number of
fields not be reduced by one, but that the total number of six fields be
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting) O00~iO
(Page 17)
retained. She referred the Board to letters from Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director
of Parks & Recreation, and from Mr. Jamie Brown, Athletic Director at Western
Albemarle High School, concerning the need for athletic fields. She said that
without the sixth field, kids would be bussed the first year the school opens.
In that section, they are talking about preserving 50 feet of the natural
buffer, leaving it undisturbed, and grading. As to the height difference, the
playfietd is only one foot above the parking lot, so they felt that an earthen
berm is better than trees. Leaves fall off of trees. Acoustically, dirt is
better than trees, and there would be less impact, both visually and noise
wise.
Ms. Higgins mentioned Conditions 2, 3 and 5. She said a condition talks
about "benching" along the existing pond. This addresses an area where there
are wetlands along the edge of the pond. The plan is to look at areas along a
side to see if it can be benched (to tier the edges of the pond) in order to
promote the growth of constructed wetlands. They have had the Corps of
Engineers look at the area. Also, the County's Water Resources Manager
delineated the wetlands area. Mr. Keeler is correct in that the County is
subject to permit requirements and will have to mitigate the impact or
replace, depending on requirements. It is not felt that the requirements are
significant enough to require a one and one-half replacement requirement. The
plan was to bench where it was possible to create more wetlands.
Sustainability and runoff from the impervious areas has been discussed. The
majority of the impervious area for the school is the roof and the parking
lots. The one best management practice (BMP) that could be done less expen-
sively is to capture what comes off of the roads in this area and the parking
lots. There is another site where the road leading to the little house
basically ponds water. The pipe was not installed correctly. At a fairly
reasonable cost, a BMP could be provided to treat the runoff before it goes
into the pond.
Ms. Higgins said the other issue discussed was location of the stadium
with respect to the stormwater channel in this area. That is where they got
into the forebay requirement which would be a significant expense, and that is
the reason this appeal is before the Board tonight. This expenses was not
programmed into the funding for the project. An additional $100,000 is needed
to do additional water quality measures on this site. If the Board of
Supervisors supports the Planning Commission conditions, money will be needed
to build those conditions, so it would be a dual approval.
Ms. Higgins said a lot of issues with respect to the road and runoff
were discussed. This is a stormwater management facility, and as far as the
community is concerned, a regional basin. The watershed for this basin is
160+ acres, 67 acres of that is the school. The facility is under an agree-
ment, and was an improvement to the site. The value of the land was partially
based on the utilities that were available, the improvements thereupon, and
this is an improvement. The County would have had to construct this for
stormwater detention anyway. These requirements are related to treating the
quality of the runoff before it goes into a stormwater detention basin. Below
the dam there are other wetlands areas and a small island on the PVCC lot.
This facility serves to capture that runoff and it does protect some of the
downstream properties. The cost of this was the reason for this appeal.
Ms. Higgins said she went to the directors meeting last night of the
Willow Lake Homeowners' Association. She showed them the appeal. They also
want choice on the color of the fencing. It has been agreed that fencing
eight feet in height will be installed. It can be either brown or green. She
thinks the Homeowners' prefer brown because it would not look so artificial in
the wintertime because of the trees and debris in that area. The school is
just as interested in preventing inappropriate access through Willow Lake as
Willow Lake is from that access from the school. There is an element of
concern about people parking on the cul-de-sac and coming through to the
school. That kind of thing is an issue at all of the schools. School
administration will have to work with the Homeowners' Association to monitor
that. There will be peopl;e in Willow lake who will want to make use of the
school since there will be surfaced running track around the stadium. The
cross country track will be resituated on the site. She mentioned that the
tennis courts are not shown on the site plan being reviewed tonight. The
tennis courts to be built on the PVCC site in proximity to the existing tennis
courts will be lighted. An agreement still has to worked out with PVCC as to
how this will be done.
Mr. Marshall asked where the fence starts, and where it stops. Ms.
Higgins said it will tie into the corner at the PVCC lot. The property line
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
for Willow Lake is not at the top of the slope as had been assumed. When the
developer graded for Willow Lake, he graded onto the Hillcrest site. The
property line is about half way down the slope. If the fence is installed
right on the boundary line, some really beautiful landscaping that Willow Lake
put in would have to be removed. Putting the fence on this side is a compro-
mise because they don't want any kids to have access into the woods. Also,
clearing the area would diminish the buffer effect of the trees. The fence
will go along the heavily wooded steep area. It will not come all the way out
to the road because there will be a sidewalk on the edge of the road. It will
come fairly close to the road.
Mr. Marshall asked what would prevent someone from parking in Willow
Lake and going around the end of that fence. Ms~. Higgins said the fence will
be tied to the PVCC chain link fence. The closest opening in the fence is
another 600 or 700 feet away where the tennis court is. There are two parking
spots there and one can walk through on two steps which have been provided for
access into PVCC. The Willow Lake residents use that to get to the PVCC
fields.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any lighting on the six fields. Ms.
Higgins said "no". The lighted fields and the tennis courts were moved away
from the residential area.
Mrs. Thomas asked about Ms. Higgins comment about changing one field
from a competition field to a practice field. Ms. Higgins said that on the
site plan before the Board tonight, there are two competition fields and four
practice fields. The original plan had two competition fields in one area,
and a competition field in another area. The fields were swapped around. The
competition field cannot be fit on the site and allow even a 50-foot buffer.
The 50-foot buffer 'is one-half of the condition recommended by the Planning
Commission. This one-half still puts the edge of the field 125 feet from the
property line. The commercial setback for a building from the property line
is only 100 feet.
Mr. Marshall asked if Ms. Higgins was asking for a change to 50 feet.
Ms. Higgins said byes." Mr. Marshall said he will not support that request.
Mr. Martin said the 50 feet is a compromise and it still leaves 125 feet
to the edge of the property. If a building were put there, it would only have
to be set back 100 feet. Ms. Higgins said that is correct. It is 75 feet
from the fence to the field and it is 25 feet to the top of the berm and
fence. It is 125 feet from the property line to the edge of the field.
Because of topography, no kids will be seen playing on the field. They will
probably be heard to some extent, but the earthen berm is a much better sound
barrier than just trees.
Mr. Marshall said if there is only the 50 foot buffer, 125 feet of trees
will be knocked out up on the other end. Ms. Higgins noted the section in
question and said that is where the common area starts. In one section the
tree line would be cut in half. Fifty percent of the trees would be pre-
served, and then it would be graded, but it is still 125 feet from the
property boundary.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any possibility of planting on the
Willow Lake side of the fence with some type of vegetation that prevents
people from going through. Ms. Higgins said that if the fence is installed,
that area has to be cleared. Now, there are a lot of little paths through
there. It was thought that if the school puts a fence on this side, it will
not be interested in maintaining the other side, and over a period of time the
other side will revegetate. The only place that landscaping is being done on
the other side of the fence is in the vicinity of the last house. There is
only one house where the backyard actually touches the school site. That is
the Griffin's. Ms. Higgins said she has talked with Mr. Griffin, and once the
fence is installed, he has asked if the school can install some bushy type
vegetation, something to visually buffer them. There is no room down in this
area to put it behind their house. From their lot on, there is an increasing
common area section that is heavily wooded, plus the houses are down hill from
the school site. There would be a natural berm between them. Who would
maintain landscaping on the other side? With the eight-foot fence, it would
probably be a disincentive for people to cross in those areas.
Mr. Perkins asked if there will be any gates in the fence. Ms. Higgins
said there will be no gates. They also propose to install the fencing soon as
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
possible as opposed to waiting until the school is fully constructed. Due to
the disturbance that will be going on over the next 24 months, they talked
about doing it this summer to help minimize the impact.
Mr. Martin said that in actuality the person living at the top would be
receiving 50 feet they could basically treat as their own, but it would
actually belong to the County. Ms. Higgins said it is one-half an acre. She
asked what would happen if a tree fell down. She said that on the original
plan they situated the fields to protect the trees around the periphery of the
stormwater facility. When they went out with the District Forester, they
looked at a lot of trees, and there are a lot of scrub cedars. There is a
substantial group of trees in one area. There will be no grading to take any
of those trees out; instead, they are giving up trees in another area.
Originally, there would have been a 20-foot strip of trees, then the berm,
then the fence, and then the earth graded down on the school side. Among the
natural trees is a lot of undergrowth and fallen dead trees. When any
substantial tree falls, someone will have to be responsible for its removal.
Mr. Perkins said that is why he asked about the gates. Access may be needed
to get in there and get a tree off of the fence. Ms. Higgins said if a gate
needs to go in for that reason, it will have to stay locked.
Mr. Marshall asked for a synopsis of this discussion so he understands
what the Board is being requested to do. It seems to him that the request is
to redo Condition No. 1 from that recommended by the Planning Commission
reducing it from 100 feet to 50 feet. Ms. Higgins said that is correct. Mr.
Marshall said that on Condition No. 4, it is suggested that the conditions be
deleted but keep the soccer field. Ms. Higgins said that is correct. Mr.
Marshall said he is not sure he understands the recommendation for Condition
Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Ms. Higgins said they are asking that those conditions
either be deleted or the Board approve funding in excess of $100,000 to
construct the facilities. If it were put on the sustainability side, it is
something that would minimize the impact from the development on the storm-
water facility. It is simply a funding issue. Mr. Marshall said that
basically Ms. Higgins is asking that the Board do away with SDP-96-024. Mr.
Bowerman said that is correct, except for Condition No. 6 and part of Condi-
tion No. 1. Mr. Marshall said the Planning Commission's approval of the final
plan is a foregone conclusion anyway. Mr. Bowerman said that is correct. Mr.
Marshall said he wants to hear what the public will say.
Mrs. Humphris said that with no further comments or questions from the
Board, the Board will take comments from the public although this is not a
public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he believes all the Board members were
furnished a video tape and have seen it. Mrs. Humphris said all the Board
members have read a lot about this project, some have visited the site, and
watched the tape, so she would request that the public limit their comments
and try not to be repetitive.
First to speak was Mr. Jonathan Linder, a resident of Willow Lakes for
three years. He is speaking to introduce the concerns of the other residents
who will be speaking tonight. The Board will hear from some residents near
PVCC who are affected by the current lighted fields and the evening games.
They will attest to the type of problems they have to deal with, as well as
damage from errant fly balls. They know the current plans don't call for
lights on the practice fields, but they would like assurances that this remain
true for the near future. They are concerned about keeping the 100-foot tree
buffer for both noise pollution and light pollution reasons. This buffer of
trees forms a very good buffer due to its depth and not due to the density of
trees in that area. The area is mostly scrub. The trees are not very dense
but form a good barrier due to the depth. The residents are concerned about
soil erosion which affects the single-family homes. There is not that much
affect on the townhouses. They are concerned with trespassing and crime along
with loss of privacy. They are happy to hear that the fence is being consid-
ered to be placed on the other side of the trees. They would still prefer the
100-foot buffer. Lastly, they are concerned about the loss of beauty that is
provided by the foliage and the natural wildlife.
Mr. Linder said he moved to this area from Dallas, Texas, and fell in
love with it. He regrets losing some of the woods but would like as little of
an impact as possible. At this time, he showed to the Board a few slides of
erosive damage occurring in the backyards of some homes. He said that in
response to this, a stormwater collection drainage ditch has been placed in
back of these houses. This has had a minimal impact when there are heavy
rains. He said those are some of the issues that will be addressed by other
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000213
speakers tonight. After the Board hears all of the citizen's concerns, he
hopes the Board looks at the site plan, takes a look at the nine fields that
are listed on the plan, and considers that this was to be a sustainable
design, an environmentally-friendly design, and when you look at nine competi-
tion and practice fields, you need to ask yourself if that is really so.
Ms. Sandra Gruben said she lives at 1282 Mapteview Drive which is one of
the townhouses that will be near the soccer field. At the Planning Commission
meeting it was noted by one speaker that if the fields are not built at the
new high school they will not be built anywhere because of community resis-
tance to having such a field close to them. She said the residents of Willow
Lake have demonstrated that they are more responsive to the needs of the
community than other developments since they have not protested or objected to
the inclusion of these fields in general. This has not been a question of
~not in my back yard." They simply want their backyards protected. They ask
that a compromise be sought that will protect the property and the quality of
life in their community.
Ms. Gruben said creating a significant buffer between the high school
and Willow Lake should be of concern to the high school itself, both to
prevent access of unwanted visitors to the high school and easy access for the
students wanting to exit from the high school. It seems there is now an
agreement on construction of an eight-foot high, green or brown, vinyl-covered
fence covering the entire boundary between Willow Lake and the high school.
At the Commission meeting they got caught up in discussing protection for the
townhouses. The cut-off point that was mentioned was not meant to be the cut-
off point, but the entire boundary does seem to be part of the plan, or is she
confused about this point? Are there plans for a fence that covers the entire
boundary of the high school as it abuts Willow Lake? Ms. Higgins said that is
correct. Ms. Gruben said the residents would like to have the fence con-
structed so it is not only eight feet high, but one cannot easily crawl under
it. They understand that this would add to the expense of the fence, but that
is probably the most expensive part of the fence, and not the height. They
want maintenance of the existing wooded area between their property and the
high school and want it specified that there will not be lighting in the area
of the soccer fields.
Ms. Gruben said she appreciates the attempt to come up with a compro-
mise, but she would like to offer two different proposals for a compromise.
Retention of the woods is the contentious issue. Either the soccer fields
have to be moved westward, or one field has to be moved in and of itself. As
Ms. Higgins said, they were told that moving the fields westward would require
moving some of the other trees that are more environmentally desirable. In
the video tape that was sent to the Board members, one can see that these may
be very nice trees, but the trees will be taken down. She finds it incredu-
lous and offensive that of all the attention given to environmental concerns,
this is an environmental concern that has a direct and immediate impact on
people who live there, and somehow, removing the trees by Willow Lake is less
important than removing some trees that are farther away. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested that one of the fields be moved to another area closer to the lake.
The problem seems to be that the people involved in the soccer program at the
high school do not want the field moved because it will be harder to monitor
the students. It is easier to monitor this field if it is moved than it is to
monitor students as they transport them to other fields around the area which
they are doing now. More importantly, these fields are intended to have a lot
more County use, and not just use by the high school. Willow Lake residents
will be subjected to a lot of non-monitored use of these fields and that is
why they are concerned.
Ms. Gruben said she wished to stress that Willow Lake has shown greater
cooperation than any other community in the County. This is despite the fact
that they were not consulted in the planning of the high school and were given
late notification of those plans and how they would affect the residents.
Willow Lake is constantly faced with the problems from Piedmont Community
College and the baseball fields. While they may have moved to Willow Lake
with full knowledge that those fields existed, they never expected to get a
double whammy from the County by having other fields put by them. It puts a
greater burden on their community which is being subjected to more than most
other communities in the County. Ail they want is the preservation of the
complete woods.
Ms. Gruben said she would like to make a personal comment on something
she learned from Mrs. Humphris last week. She does not have children so it
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
( Page 21) .
0002 4
does not affect her directly. On Monday she learned that the County was
constructing all of the recreational facilities and the School Board is
supportive of all the athletic stuff. She learned that there are no plans for
an auditorium at the new high school, and it was the educators in the commu-
nity that did not want such a facility. She exercises at least four times a
week and she is an avid college football and basketball fan so she definitely
supports the athletic development of the young people. She is an educator, a
professor at the University of Virginia, a former high school teacher, and she
is disappointed at the lack of interest in having a facility to provide for
the proper cultural and intellectual development of the students. She thinks
there has been a serious mistake in the focus on the plans for this high
school with too much emphasis on athletics and not enough on its educational
mission. She believes this is a mistake in the way children are being
prepared for the 21st Century. She hopes the Board will preserve the peace of
Willow Lake and perhaps do more for the educational development of the
community.
Mr. Bob Colley said that eight months ago he came before this Board to
ask that a study be made of the need for more athletic fields. He said his
children are being told that there are not enough athletic fields for them to
practice their sport on. Especially his daughters who play soccer. He gave
the Board some information which showed how athletics help youn~ girls stay
out of trouble. Organized athletics are a positive influence for all County
youth. There is still that need. He was told this week that youn~ adults
have been put off playing their leagues through the summer because of a lack
of fields. His main concern is that a study was requested, and the Board
a~reed to do it through the Parks and Recreation Department. He asked that no
fields be eliminated until the study is completed and the actual needs are
known.
Ms. Barbara Strand, President of the Board of Directors of SOCCA, the
community-based youth soccer organization, spoke next. She said this is not
just a local community issue between the Willow Lake residents and the high
school, it is more of a County-wide issue. Monticello High School was
designed with all of the facilities necessary so that all students attendin~
that school would have access to everything they needed in one place. The
Planning Commission's decision on May 14, 1996, would actually eliminate two
fields from the site, and this would have a domino effect throughout the
County. There are not enough fields now, so busing of students around the
County after school would continue. All of the fields would be used right
after school until about 6:00 p.m., with heavy use from February 20 until
about the middle of May. The County-wide situation is that parents may not
know where their high school students are at any given time after school
because they may have to be bussed. Children will be displaced from their
community fields and not have a place to play. There will still be the same
problem of not having enough fields for everyone to use. The Board has an
opportunity to build a high school with all of the necessary facilities for
students in one place, and she asked that the Board take that opportunity.
Ms. Eileen Brand said she lives at 1296 Mapleview Drive in the Willow
Lake Subdivision. She said the residents at Willow Lake ask for two things.
Preservation of the entire existing buffer strip of trees ranging from 100 to
150 feet in depth between the Willow Lake property and the school property.
Also, an eight-foot high fence be constructed to prevent trespassers from the
school side from abusing, parking on, invading, or destroying their property.
She said if she left her front door open all day and all night, she would be
inviting disaster. If proper barrier fencing is not provided, disaster would
be provided to both the residents and students. She asked that the Board make
sure fencing is set so there cannot be intrusion on Willow Lake property. The
County Engineer has said a fence will cost a lot, but she feels that this is
the place to invest ample money to do the job right. Get a trespass-resis-
tant, aesthetically-appealin~ barrier, one that will insure that students
cannot get into the community of Willow Lake and will not drown in the lake at
Willow Lake. Where would the money come from? Eliminate a soccer field or
two. The cost of a soccer field has been estimated at between $25,000 and
$100,000. That does not count the upkeep of the fields. What about the cost
to the environment of cuttin~ down an existing buffer of trees and the
protection they offer from air pollution. What ~ood will it do to have the
six multi-use playing fields if the air gets so foul the students can't play
in it? She would like for Albemarle County to be a leader in sustainability
all the way, inside the school building, and all over the site plan.
0002&5
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Brand said suppose playing fields outweigh ecological prudence and
it becomes unacceptable to do without a playing field or two. This would mean
that there would be two competition fields and four practice fields. The
woods would still not need to be destroyed. The field could be narrowed and
the trees saved. According to the World Book Encyclopedia, 1996 Edition,
Volume 18, Page 544, on soccer, the field is rectangular and may vary in size.
In international competition, it measures from 50 to t00 yards wide. That
means that if three soccer fields were lined up side-by-side, 150 yards or 450
feet would be required. According to the County Engineer's office, the width
of each of the proposed playing fields is: 165 feet, 180 feet, and 225 feet.
This would be a total of 570 feet. Subtracting the minimal width requirement
of 450 feet for three soccer fields, there is 120 feet left over. Just the
amount needed to add to the buffer strip.~ All the residents of Willow Lake
ask is for a maximum of 50 to 100 feet of buffer woods. As a last resort,
trimming the width of soccer fields could save the trees and keep the invalu-
able buffer. One of her neighbors has said it would not be good to make
~skinny" fields for professional hockey, so it might be that they would need
to stay wider, but there are other ways to go at this problem. There have
been other options suggested by other people. Among us, can't we find a way
to save the trees?
Ms. Cricket Jabour of 1430 Willow Lake Drive said her house was one of
those shown in the slides of the flooded area. She said sustainable develop-
ment means integrating new structures into an existing community. Destroying
all but 50 feet of an existing 140 foot buffer of trees defeats the purpose.
She requested that a way be found to keep the trees and to build an eight-foot
fence along the entire east border of the Monticello High School property with
a minimum of tree loss.
Mr. Dave Wilson said he is a member of the SOCCA Board and his interest
is in fields for youth. There is no commitment on the part of the County to
provide any of these fields to the SOCCA organization. He is not sure that
they will be able to use the fields even if approved. He has two children in
high schools and knows there are not sufficient fields at the high schools in
either the City of the County. At all schools they are bussing the kids,
except at Western Albemarle they have to go across Route 250 in order to
,practice. Kids should not be put in that situation if at all possible. The
Monticello High School site will sustain all of the fields being mentioned.
It is not a soccer issue because there will only be two soccer teams. It is a
lacrosse, a field hockey, a football, all the different sports that play in
that field that would need to use them. Several speakers have said there
should be some way to agree on it. What he has read and heard about this
issue points to the fact that Ms. Higgins has given everybody the opportunity
to come up with an option that would meet the needs of the students at that
school, and meet the needs of the residents to have a buffer of a significant
depth between them and the school. A fence is part of the plan now, there is
no debate on that. It is a matter of 50 or 100 feet of trees being left, the
matter of a 125-foot buffer which will be there anyway. Mr. Wilson said it
seems that Ms. Higgins has given the Board an opportunity to compromise and
meet the needs of both the residents and the students. He hopes the Board
looks at it that way and gives her some support for her effort by approving
the compromise.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there was any other member of the public who
wished to speak. There was no reply.
Mrs. Thomas asked if it would be out of order to ask the member of the
Planning Commission who actually made the motion to speak about Conditions 2,
3 and 5 which seem to be rather technical. Mrs. Humphris said this is merely
a public discussion and not a public hearing. She asked Mr. Dave Tice if he
would care to speak.
Mr. Dave Tice said he is a member of the Planning Commission and a
consultant in the County on general issues of forestry and environmental
planning, including a number of projects dealing with sustainable design
around the east coast and the Midwest. In regard to 2, 3 and 5 concerning the
wetlands issue, the condition relating to benching along the lake was one that
Ms. Higgins had already considered doing. The other issue of using con-
structed wetlands for filtering of stormwater runoff and No. 5 relating to the
football field, both primarily relate to the whole issue of sustainability of
the site. While recognizing that the lake is a stormwater facility, the
Commission also feels it is an important amenity not only to the high school
but also to the apartment dwellers in Lakeside Apartments who want to use the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
lake for all types of recreation including swimming. The Commission felt that
if the high school is to be made a model of sustainability for the country (he
has had people from all over the country call to ask about this project which
is being designed to be a world class facility), then it must be recognized
that this lake is more than a stormwater facility. Normally, for a stormwater
facility, additional BMP's would not be considered to filter the runoff, but
the Commission looked at this as being more than just a stormwater facility.
For that reason, they felt justified to make the additional requirements. One
of the biggest compromises the Commission made was on the issue of the
football field. A number of the members had trouble with the idea that a
drainage area would be completely filled in. It is not a major stream, but it
is a drainage area that manages the stormwater from a considerable watershed.
The idea that it would be completely filled in almost up to the same level as
the area where the baseball fields will be constructed ran contrary to all
notions of sustainable design. Natural contours of the site should be
respected. Condition No. 5 requiring the forebay and the constructed wetlands
was seen as a compromise that restored the natural functioning of the drainage
systems. He felt that was a critical component.
Mr. Perkins asked the definition of a "forebay". Mr. Tice said it is
the area the water enters before entering the main part of the lake where
sediment will drop out before going into the lake. If it is done with
wetlands, then there is filtering and removal of the nutrients. Because there
will probably be lots of fertilizer applied to the football field, it would
help remove those nutrients before the water goes into the lake.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this has been used in other parts of the country
with success. Mr. Tice said it has been and has become a very common practice
in the eastern half of Virginia and in Maryland. Mr. Bowerman asked if that
is because of Chesapeake Bay requirements. Mr. Tice said those requirements
are a major impetus.
Mr. Marshall said he understands that athletics are important to the
children in the community, but these fields will be used by everyone in
Albemarle County. He asked Mr. Pat Mullaney if there was not additional land
across the road from the high school for a field. Mr. Mullaney said he did
not know if that idea had been looked at. He understands there are other uses
contemplated for that land. Ms. Higgins said the whole site was 107 acres.
They looked at the Community Facilities Plan, which is a part of the Compre-
hensive Plan, and it recommends putting the fields with the school. They
looked at a way to arrange the fields so they could function as play fields,
monitored practice fields during the daytime, and also serve a function for
community use. The parking area at the rear of the building is for handi-
capped accessibility and parking for Parks & Recreation use outside of school
hours. The six fields were located together in order for them to serve the
school. If the fields are moved across the street there is an access issue.
Right now, at Western Albemarle, the kids have to either walk or be bussed
across a significant road. It is not preferable to split the fields so the
children would have to cross a road. At an alternate location, restroom
facilities and parking would have to be provided if it were to be used for
community use.
Mr. Marshall said the road has not been built yet, so there could be an
underground tunnel built from the school to the other side of the road. Ms.
Higgins said it would be very expensive to tunnel under the road, and it still
would not meet the need for community use. Mr. Mullaney said the recreational
use has clouded the main issue, and that is that the six fields are all needed
for the high school in the springtime. This facility is being built for a
fifty-year life span, but in the first year, kids will have to be bussed off
site for athletics. He thinks the high school use should be accommodated on
this site, and maybe just forget about its use for community recreation. He
has looked at the buffer, Ms. Higgins' compromise, and the elevation differ-
ence. The irritation factor from the soccer fields compared to the irritation
factor from the softball fields is much smaller. He suggested that all
efforts be put into improving the situation at the softball fields by improv-
ing the lights, and do something to the fencing to cut down on the foul balls.
He believes the situation can be improved at Willow Lake by taking that
approach. He said the six fields are needed for the high school program.
Mr. Marshall asked if there are this many fields at Western and
Albemarle High Schools. Mr. Mullaney said they are bussing at both of those
schools. Ms. Higgins said the lights at PVCC have not been discussed. Those
lights are on poles that are too short and the lights are not directed down,
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
0002i7
but out. Those lights were put up as a joint City/County effort. They are
old lights and they could be put on taller poles, down lighted, and the
problem corrected. That is also an Entrance Corridor issue since those lights
can be seen on 1-64, Route 20 and Avon Street at night. The other issue about
balls is that the foul balls go out accidentally, but on the soccer fields,
the object of the game is to keep the ball on the field. She said the
irritation from the soccer balls will be less than what it is now with the
PVCC fields.
Mr. Marshall asked if a private developer were doing this to a commu-
nity, would the Board treat the request differently than it is doing now
because it is a County project? Mrs. Thomas said she had actually asked what
the County could require of a developer. Mr. Davis said that after examina-
tion of the Zoning Ordinance, there is no requirement for any setback from an
athletic field to any residential property line, there is no requirement for
any buffer between two residential properties in this type of use, there is no
yard requirement between an athletic field and a property line. If this were
a private developer, what the Planning Commission recommended could not be
required, nor what the County Engineer has recommended.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a 30-foot setback from the property line
for a residential house. Mr. Davis said a rear property line is a 25-foot
setback. It is a different situation where it is a public facility, but if it
were a private developer, the County would have had a more difficult situation
reaching this point.
Ms. Higgins said the more that can be graded in the direction of the
property line, the more stormwater will be sent toward the lake. At this
time, there is a portion of the school site that drains toward Willow Lake.
In the area behind the single-family residence, Bobby Shaw had the developer
put in a significant channel to handle the water, but the grading to be done
on the high school site will cut that water off and send it in the direction
of the lake. This will improve the directed runoff that goes into Willow Lake
Subdivision.
Mr. Marshall said he has a problem with the Planning Commission's
recommendation as opposed to what staff is recommending to the Board. The
Commission's recommendation came to the Board by a unanimous vote. He can
understand why Conditions 2, 3 and 5 might be done away with, although Mr.
Tice stated a pretty good recommendation for leaving them in, but he finds it
hard to go against that many people on the recommendations.
Mrs. Thomas said this Board is in an unusual situation deciding between
the School Board and the Planning Commission. She would like to reply to
something that was said earlier about an auditorium. There is a fine facility
in the high school which is not called an auditorium, but is called a forum.
To the educator's view, it will be more useful and allow for the performances
and the visiting lectures. She believes everyone will be pleased with that
structure. The large auditorium is the least used room of the high schools,
and there is a good situation of being able to utilize the new auditorium
which will be built at Piedmont College, thus not duplicating a little used
facility. She thinks the people who have done the planning of this facility
should be applauded. She believes it is a matter of semantics. Mrs. Humphris
said she is a proponent of an auditorium, but she was a group of one on the
planning team. She had no support. She still thinks that the idea of using
the one at Piedmont will not work, but that is totally an aside.
Mrs. Humphris said she needs to understand why one of the fields can't
be moved closer to the pond. Ms. Higgins said it is not just the width of the
fields, but they are terraced down the slope, and the difference between the
fields has to be allowed. The elevations are set by access to the building,
handicapped accessibility, where the building is located with respect to the
geo-technical investigation, elevations of rock on the site, etc. The fields
have been placed as tight as possible. They started with three competition
fields and three practice fields. Now there are only two competition fields
and four practice fields and they have been pushed toward the lake. To push
them more toward the lake will require that the trees in that area be removed,
and it is a matter of not wanting to grade into the pond itself.
Mr. Marshall asked about a green line on the site plan. Ms. Higgins
said the green line on the map shows existing foliage, but the area being
discussed is from the corner along the townhouses to where the common area
begins on the Willow Lake side. At the beginning of the common area is a
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
0002:18
significant wooded area. The green line shown across the top of the competi-
tion field is the area of trees being discussed tonight.
Mrs. Humphris said she had a question about the fencing. How will a
fence be constructed which will keep people from getting under the fence? Ms.
Higgins said it is the intention to make the fence inaccessible for people to
either go under or over. It would have to be tightly drawn. They propose a
PVC vinyl coated, chain link fence, brown in color. That is the preference
the Willow Lake Directors indicated yesterday. Along the area where the fence
is on the inside of the treed area, it would be a new line, and where the
common area begins, the fence would go back to the property boundary. There
is an old fence line there, and if care is taken, that old line can be
followed. Care will be taken not to take'~ut significant trees, but the fence
has to be as straight as possible, because if it sags or is loose, then
someone might be able to get under it.
Mrs. Thomas thanked those present for the video which had been furnished
to the Board members. She indicated that she had visited the site also.
Mr. Marshall said if there were no more discussion, he was prepared to
make a motion.
Mr. Martin said he would like to say a few things first. As a former
School Board member he is inclined to support the school on this, but he has
read all of the letters and listened to the comments tonight, and believes
that if things had been left as proposed at the Planning Commission stage, he
might have followed the Commission's lead and voted against this. What the
Board has been presented is a very reasonable compromise. It is not just the
fact that if this were another entity than this Board and the School Board, it
is conceivable there would be only a 25-foot buffer, or a buffer built only 25
feet from the property line. It seems to him that staff has gone to great
lengths to provide not just a 50-foot buffer at the end of which is an eight-
foot fence, but also left the trees to help with the buffer, and actually put
the fence inside of the buffer as opposed to the outside. It also seems that
there is a great deal of compromise by the School System on this latest
proposal.
Mr. Martin said he knows how badly the fields are needed. The lady who
mentioned the ripple effect is correct. This does not just affect the
surrounding community, but it affects all of Albemarle County. If the teams
at Monticello High School have to go off site, probably to Darden Towe Park,
and that park is extensively used also, so the people who normally would be on
that field would have to go elsewhere. There comes a point when someone is
told there is no field to use. It does affect the entire community, and he
thinks this is a reasonable compromise. Mr. Martin said people are always
accusing him of being Mr. Marshall's puppet, so this will be a night where
they ~butt heads" on two occasions.
Mrs. Thomas said she has been involved with this project for a long time
and has been excited about the sustainability aspect. She would not give up
Conditions 2, 3, and 5 as Mr. Marshall suggested even if that cost much more.
She believes the Board is either in this for some sustainability, or it is
not. She has worried about the location of the football field. This is a
real compromise by the people who worry that the football field have something
that can be used to mitigate its effect (the No. 5 condition) . If she lived
in Willow Lake, she would not trust anybody to leave a single tree standing.
She has seen the little trees somebody put up apparently saying they would
buffer the subdivision from the playing field, and they do not buffer it at
all. She thinks the people in Willow Lake have made a strong case, but she
actually thinks this proposal will not be a half way compromise, but a very
good situation. She has been to the site and visualized the situation. To
have the fence at the top of the berm and have the trees be totally inaccessi-
ble to the students strikes her as creating a doable, effective and attractive
buffer. Mr. Marshall asked if Mrs. Thomas was talking about the 50-foot
buffer. Mrs. Thomas replied ~yes". She believes a lot more is being required
here than could be required of another developer. She said the high school is
going to be there a long time, and the County needs to start out as good
neighbors.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Planning Commission, in its recommen-
dation to this Board, and the way it was reiterated by David Tice tonight, is
the compromise. He asked if Mrs. Thomas was saying she accepted what the
Commission recommended except for the loss of one field and the proposal
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000219
before the Board tonight. Mrs. Thomas said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman
said he heard that the compromise is what the Board has from the Commission.
Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman believes the five conditions are already a
compromise. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Commission gave those a lot of
thought. The issue of sustainability on the site is a very important one. To
back off further from what he thinks the Commission did to address some major
concerns, not the least of which was the football stadium itself, is a
significant settlement of the issue as far as the Commission was concerned.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bowerman if he is saying that is Ms. Higgins'
compromise tonight, along with Conditions 2, 3 and 5, but also reducing the
fields to five. Mr. Bowerman said his recommendation would be that the Board
let the Planning Commission's actions stand. He said that action has been
appealed to this Board, and he is suggesting that this Board take no action on
that appeal.
Mr. Martin said when he first became a School Board member the addition
to Broadus Wood Elementary School had just come on line and the school needed
a trailer. He will never forget the flack he caught from the community (and
he was not even a part of the decision-making) that there was need for a
trailer. To him, this is the same thing. The Board will never hear the end
of the fact that this school is coming on line with the need to bus kids to
play fields. He thinks that when you build a brand new school, it should be
fully equipped. If the Board was talking about Parks and Recreation wanting
to add a field for the surrounding community, that would be different. The
Schools and Parks and Recreation are both saying that the school needs these
fields. If they don't have them, they will be bussing kids to another
playground the first day of class. Given that, this is a reasonable compro-
mise.
Mr. Perkins said he also believes it is a reasonable compromise. He has
been disappointed about the way some other schools were designed and fitted to
the site. He blamed that on the architects and the engineers. After hearing
the comments on television, and the articles in the newspapers, he felt the
same thing had been done again. He will not know until they start moving the
dirt if it could have been done better, but he is not an engineer. He said
what has been presented needs to be looked at as a compromise. What is
proposed does protect the Willow Lake community much more than what would be
required if houses were placed on that site. He thinks the playing fields are
needed and there will never be enough fields or enough parking until some
regulation is passed as to who can drive to school.
Mr. Marshall asked how much of a compromise it would be to put the field
on the other side of the road. Mr. Perkins said he agrees with Ms. Higgins
about access to the school, and the danger which is created when students have
to cross that road, or the expense of a tunnel. Mr. Marshall said the Board
had discussed putting a tunnel at Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Perkins
said the cost of doing that was prohibitive. Mr. Marshall said this one would
not cost as much since the road had not yet been built.
Mrs. Thomas said some people have asked if there is any land left on the
Piedmont College site. She knows Piedmont will be requesting money from the
General Assembly next year for more enhancements on their land. Ms. Higgins
said PVCC was asked some of these things, and a letter from Mr. Brent Cool was
received in reply asking the County to build fields on the County side because
Piedmont did not have enough to support the community. With the joint use of
Piedmont, the County asked if they could use the PVCC fields, and the problem
is not just use of the fields, but to keep the fields in a usable state. With
high usage, the fields end up being dirt. PVCC has such high usage that they
requested that the County build more fields on the County side. PVCC does
have an overall master plan with a humanities building, a wellness center, and
some other supporting facilities. The County will be putting some tennis
courts on the PVCC side.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the PVCC master plan shows that there is room where
a soccer field could be located. Ms. Higgins said she does not believe so.
Their land is about used up. Mr. A1 Reaser said PVCC has all of their land
planned out. He did not ask about land across their road toward Avon Street.
He talked about using the existing PVCC fields. (Note: At 10:38 p.m., Mr.
Bowerman left the room.)
Mrs. Humphris said she has been out to Willow Lake and was really
impressed with what a beautiful community it is. She understands, from the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 27) . .~ ·
OO0220
experiences at Albemarle High School, the needs these people feel to be
protected from people both coming and going from the high school site. She is
going to surprise Mr. Martin by supporting his suggestion. She thinks the 50-
foot undisturbed buffer from the property line, to the berm with the eight-
foot high fence on top of it, and 125 feet from the edge of the practice field
to the property line, is a fair compromise. What has bothered her is that in
the name of sustainability, the County would move a field to somewhere else
and that uses property where trees would have to come down. (Note: Mr.
Bowerman returned at 10:39 p.m.) To her it makes sense to use this piece of
property as efficiently as it can be used. The question that is left in her
mind is about the wetlands and where the money comes from to pay for them.
The downside is to understand what happens with the Federal regulations once
they are in place. '~
Ms. Higgins said the Corps of Engineers regulates newly created
wetlands. It is through a permitting process. What Mr. Keeler was referring
to is that once the wetlands are created on site, a change cannot be made and
a structure be put on the site and the hole be filled in. The County would be
subject to the replacement requirements under the Corps of Engineers permit-
ting. She did not think that would happen on this site. Once these wetlands
were created and stabilized, she believes they would stay there. If the Board
approves the money to do this, it is the intent to make a model situation. It
is not something which would be done under ordinance requirements, but in the
name of sustainability.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it is important to do. There has been a lot
of talk about sustainability, and she is still in agony over whether what has
been proposed for this site totally destroys the concept of sustainability.
There have been many people who said the number of soccer fields have to be
reduced by one if there is going to be any sense of carrying through on
anything except the name. The proposal in front of the Board tonight has
essentially made several of the playing fields smaller than they were. Mr.
Reaser said they do not oppose doing Conditions 2, 3 and 5. They were only
trying to show the cost of those items.
Mr. Perkins asked what the costs cover. Mr. Reaser said it would be for
the construction of the forebay, tree planting, etc. Ms. Higgins said they do
not object to the condition. It was appealed based on the Board approving the
money for construction.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker where the money would come from if this
were done. Mr. Tucker said additional funds would need to be borrowed. Mr.
Perkins said the Board has not approved funds for the sustainability design
yet. Mr. Tucker said the Board has not appropriated all of that money yet.
Ms. Higgins and Mr. Reaser are just saying ~don't be surprised if that bottom
line figure we have been telling you we are gonna try to stay within doesn't
increase."
Mr. Marshall said he was going to make a motion, but it is obvious that
he does not want to make a motion at this time. Mr. Martin said he would
offer a motion to approve SDP-96-024 using the compromise presented by Ms.
Higgins concerning the tree buffer and that the Board also accept the condi-
tions as recommended by the Commission in Conditions 2, 3 and 5.
Mrs. Humphris said she wanted to mention one more thing. She thinks it
is important that the Board include a condition that there won't be any
lighted fields. The lighted fields bring major problems to any neighborhood.
She is talking about other than the football field.
Mr. Martin said he would amend the motion to include "no use of lighting
on the six practice and competition fields." The motion was seconded by
Perkins.
Mrs. Thomas said she had asked if Mr. Tice could speak to the Board, and
he did not speak about Condition No. 1 and the compromise because it was not
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin said he would want to send the
whole thing back to the Commission rather than getting just one person's
response. Mrs. Thomas said she would find his comments useful.
Mr. Bowerman said he will not support the motion, and it is not because
of what it includes. He agrees with the conditions in it. It is not losing
the one field that he will oppose the motion on. He asked Mrs. Thomas if she
understood what he just said. All six fields are being kept and that is the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
O00Z2 .
only reason he will oppose the motion. Mr. Marshall said he will vote against
it for the same reason. Mr. Perkins suggested the fields be smaller. Mr.
Bowerman said that smaller fields, keeping the six, and still having the 100-
foot buffer was not mentioned as an acceptable alternative. Mr. Martin said
that was the compromise. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bowerman is only supporting it
if there is the 100-foot buffer. Mr. Bowerman said the compromise does not
include the 100 feet. As he understands it, the only way to get that is to
reduce by one field.
Mrs. Humphris said if there are only five fields, how will the athletic
program be carried out? Mr. Bowerman said it is a principle he will not
violate. Mrs. Humphris said she would not want her child crossing the road.
Mr. Bowerman said you would think that on 67 acres, the needs could be met.
Normally, 50 acres are required for a high school.
Mr. Perkins said it is more than just another field across the road.
There would need to be restroom facilities, parking facilities, and all those
things. Mr. Bowerman said there will be five more fields in the County. Mr.
Martin said that is one way of looking at it, but at this school there will be
a certain number of teams. There won't be a reduction in the number of teams
at the other high schools. When you open this school, there won't be anymore
students that day than there was the day before, but there will be an addi-
tional number of teams.
Mrs. Thomas said this is the hardest vote she has made all month, and
there have been some tough ones. She finds it impossible to choose between
the athletic program and trying to make a site that the County will be proud
of for a long time and one that will work. There have been a lot of people
who have said too many fields are being put on the site. She asked Mr.
Bowerman if he still believes there are too many fields even if they are
smaller.
Mr. Bowerman said he has a lot of respect for David Tice and Mr. Tice
has agonized over this site plan. He even made up a scale model of the entire
site which shows the contours and everything and how it all fits together. As
much time as he has spent on it, and as much concern as he has had, for him to
participate in this particular decision by the Planning Commission is one that
he will not violate.
Mr. Marshall said the Planning Commission's recommendation was made on
an unanimous vote of the Commission members. If it had been a split vote,
that would be a different matter.
Mr. Martin said he has one more thing to say. If you look at the makeup
of the Planning Commission now, there are no veterans from the school system
on the Commission. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Bill Finley is a member of the
Commission. Mr. Martin agreed. He said that he supported the whole issue of
sustainability. He will probably continue to support that, but, to him,
before the money is spent on all the other stuff, the basics are needed. The
basics are the playing fields and the school itself. He still says that the
athletic fields are very important components. As a probation officer, very
rarely does he see a kid on his case load who is involved in sports. What he
sees are the kids who are not involved. He believes education is very
important, but every kid he sees on the practice fields lessens the chances
that they will be kids on his case load. He also knows what it is like to
open a school where something is lacking, and what you catch from the parents.
Mr. Bowerman said he cannot disagree with what Mr. Martin said.
Mr. Marshall said he does not either. That is the reason he supported
the batlfield in Southern Albemarle, but that ballfield was in a rural area
and did not back up to anyone's home.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the homes in Willow Lake are protected with
the buffer and the bank.
Mr. Tucker said he believes Mrs. Powell would like to say a few words.
Mrs. Karen Powell suggested the Board allow the Planning Commission to
look at the compromise because they have not seen it. She said some changes
have been made that are beneficial to the community, and to the School
Division. They worked hard on trying to have it work, but the Commission has
not addressed the compromise.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
000222
Mrs. Thomas asked if that is a possibility. Mr. Marshall said if the
motion is defeated, what option would the School Board have. Mr. Davis said
if the motion is defeated, there would need to be a motion to affirm or modify
in another way what the Planning Commission did. Once this is appealed to the
Board of Supervisors, the Board has to either affirm, modify, or reverse the
Planning Commission's decision. There would need to be a vote to do one of
those things.
Mr. Bowerman said what the Board is about to vote on is to modify the
Planning Commission's decision. Mrs. Thomas said if the motion does not pass,
what happens. Mr. Davis said the matter is still before the Board. If the
applicant is willing to allow the Board to refer it back to the Planning
Commission, that could happen procedurally with consent. Mr. Tucker said the
Commission does not meet next week. Their next meeting is on July 2.
Mr. Reaser said that filing this appeal has staff in a time crisis now
in order to complete plans and get them to bid in August. Ms. Higgins said
this is only preliminary plan approval. Staff still have the final plan to
get approved, and that has to go back to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Humphris restated the motion to say it was for the compromise with
Conditions 2, 3, 5 and an additional condition of no lighting on the six
multi-purpose fields. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall
Mrs. Humphris said the motion failed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anyway to reduce the field size further.
He said Mrs. Brand had talked about the definition and variance in sizes of
the fields. Ms. Higgins said the widths Mrs. Brand was considering did not
allow for the terracing in between the fields, and there are only two competi-
tion fields and four practice fields. Staff has tried to balance the site
with respect to dirt. The dirt is needed in the cut area to meet the demand.
The building sits on rock. The engineers went to the greatest extent possible
to try and meet the compromise and still retain that last field. She does not
believe they could change the arrangement of the fields any differently and
still squeeze the field into that corner. She said it was difficult to do.
Mr. Bowerman said the practice fields are smaller than the competition
fields. Ms. Higgins said ~yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if the practice fields
could be any smaller. Mr. Reaser said the smaller they are the less use they
are. They are about 180 feet. The other thing is to reduce the competition
fields. Ms. Higgins said there are two fields at 165 feet, two fields at 180
feet, and the two competition fields are 225 feet wide. Two fields have
already been made as small as they can be made. The two which are 180 feet
wide are that width so they can be used for football practice.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are any fields in this community the leagues
play on which are less than 225 feet wide. Mr. Reaser said "yes". Mr.
Mullaney said one of the problems is that there are eight teams already
practicing on six fields. These are big kids. Mr. Bowerman asked if there
are any competition fields in Albemarle County for soccer which are less than
225 feet wide. Mr. Reaser said the fields at the other two high schools are
not that wide. Mr. Bowerman asked the magic of having these fields be
absolute maximum competition size when the rest are not. Mr. Reaser said
heavy community use is being anticipated so the goals can be moved and the
field kept in good condition. Adults will be using this, and that is the
width for a soccer field. Mr. Bowerman said this is the "Cadillac" plan for
the fields. Ms. Higgins said the two fields which are competition fields are
standard soccer field size to meet competition requirements. It is also
important to be able to move the goals around or otherwise the grass can't be
maintained.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that Condition No. 6 requires that the site plan
go back for final approval to the Planning Commission. She asked what that
entails° Ms. Higgins said staff had wanted administrative approval of the
final plan, but the Commission placed Condition No. 6 on approval of the
preliminary plan. The final plan will have to go back to the Commission to
get tentative approval before it can be signed. Typically that should be done
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
000223
before putting the plan out to bid because of something that might affect the
bid price. In the past, changes have been made to contract documents based on
changes to the site plan. All of the facilities approvals (stormwater,
stormwater piping, Albemarle County Service Authority) affect the alignment of
the piping and the whole design and it affects the cost of the contract.
Also, the balancing of dirt on the site is part of the whole equation since
there will be mass grading on site.
Mrs. Thomas said that just shows how absolutely every inch of the site
is being used. Ms. Higgins said the area that has been most protected is the
area below the school which is heavily treed, has a deep ravine and a spring.
She said the site is being used without retaining walls that would be a
maintenance cost in the future. The only way to make the tiers.higher would
be to put in retaining walls but they are expensive to do, they are a long-
term maintenance headache, and then there are issues with balls going off so
fences have to be put between the fields. This was a site that staff felt
could be maintained with normal grass cutting procedures, etc. Also, if the
kids play on the soccer field, they cannot be seen because of the berm.
Mrs. Humphris said "here we are." Mr. Martin said it is quickly getting
beyond the point where he can think straight. He asked if this discussion can
be deferred for another week, or take a vote, or something? Past 11:00 p.m.,
he does not function very well.
Mr. Tucker asked Mrs. Thomas if she had in mind a distance that would be
more acceptable, i.e., what width could one of the competition fields be
reduced to, the one on the northern side, that would expand the buffer area
somewhat? He said the 100-foot buffer of trees can be provided, but is there
an amount over what the compromise staff offered which she would find adequate
from her perspective if it could be increased somehow without eliminating the
field? It would mean that one of the competition fields would have to be
reduced further. That is the only way he sees to maintain the six fields, but
to increase the buffer, and that is to reduce the northern competition field
by some amount. Ms. Higgins said the buffer right now is 125 feet, it's just
that 75 feet of that has been graded. The buffer is still 125 feet from the
property line.
Mr. Perkins said he believes part of that is necessary to have the
needed balance between the cut and the fill. That is as much a part of
sustainability as anything else. It is sustainable to have to eliminate dirt
or haul dirt in. The best solution would be to have a perfectly level site
and there are not many of those in Albemarle County. Having that cut and fill
balance is as much a part of the sustainability as any part of this project.
Mr. Martin said he had worked with Ms. Higgins for a long time and all
can see how Ms. Higgins and the rest of the staff have looked at this situa-
tion from every angle. The bottom line is that the Board needs to make a
decision whether there should be the field or not because he does not think
the Board will be able to squeeze out a compromise. Mr. Martin said he trusts
Ms. Higgins to have done the very best that can be done. Between Ms. Higgins
and Mr. Reaser, he cannot think of two people he would trust a project like
this to. Ms. Higgins said staff did not ~play any games" and they could have
taken the field off of that area and graded there and this would not have been
an issue for any one. Specifically, if this were any other developer they
could have graded right up to the property line and then put replacement
landscaping along the edge of it about 20 feet wide.
Mrs. Thomas said if this were a typical development she would not be
sitting here in agony tonight, but it's because this is not a typical develop-
ment and the County will not be building another high school while she is on
the Board. Ms. Higgins said if the State Forestry Department had gone in the
corner of the site they were going to put a building and a parking lot in that
corner. While staff was looking at this site, they figured that the field was
of a much lesser impact than anything else that could be done. The Forestry
Department would have been under State jurisdiction and the County had no
authority over their development on the site. That is also how Piedmont
College occurred. Staff thought they took as many concerns as possible into
account.
Mrs. Thomas asked Mr. Bowerman for his opinion. Mr. Bowerman said the
issue of PVCC is not a question of area being available, it is a question of
politics° There is a site for a field on the PVCC property, but it is not a
site that they wish to use for that purpose. It is immediately across the
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
000224
lawn. The County tried to call in all its minuscule credits it had with
anybody for the potential of having the sixth field just over the line on PVCC
property One of the reasons this site was chosen was its proximity to PVCC
and the potential for sharing facilities
Mrs. Humphris recognized Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent.
Dr. Castner said he trusts staff and they have done a good job of telling the
Board of Supervisors what they want to do with the six fields. He respects
the difficulty the Board has, and he knows the Planning Commission looks at
these issues. At the other two high schools, there are middle schools right
next to them that can be used. That will not be the situation at Monticello
High School. There will be no place for a spin-off. It seems to him that it
is also in a central area where the community can use the facility. For
whatever reason, he would hate to lose that opportunity if there is any way
for some other compromise to be reached. He is also concerned about the issue
of time mentioned by Mr. Reaser. Because of the sustainability part of the
project, the project has been "pushed to the wire". In the interest of making
a good decision, if there is a stalemate here, what can be done to get this to
a ~win-win~ situation? He does not think just five fields is a win-win
situation. The kids will be affected, and the first time a kid gets hurt
because they have to be bussed, that will be regretted and he is concerned
about it. He thinks there must be an answer. He asked Mr. Reaser if he had
another option. He said eleven o'clock at night is not the best time to make
major decisions.
Mr. Tucker said the width of the fields which Mr. Bowerman mentioned is
the only thing left. In order to save the six fields on the site, the width
of one field must be reduced. Mrs. Thomas said if one of the soccer fields is
deleted, more than just the 100-foot tree buffer is obtained, so the site is
not impacted as badly. Ms. Higgins said if the competition field is reduced
to practice field size, 100 feet is not picked up from that change. Mr.
Martin said Mrs. Thomas is talking about dropping back to five fields. Mrs.
Thomas agreed. Mr. Martin suggested that the question be deferred for a week
in order to come up with something. Mr. Marshall said the Board does not have
a meeting next week. Mrs. Humphris said it can't be deferred because Mr.
Martin won't be in town next week. Mr. Martin said that is correct, he will
be away for two weeks.
Mrs. Humphris asked the County Attorney to explain the situation for the
Board members. Mr. Davis said the Board needs to affirm, reverse or modify
the Planning Commission's recommendation. If the Board is deadlocked three-
three as it appears, the only motion that would make a final decision would be
a motion to reverse and if it failed on a three-three vote, then the Planning
Commission's decision would stand. Other than that, unless someone changes
their position, he sees no way to make a final decision'tonight.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board will ever make a final decision, what
will change? Mr. Martin said it sounds like the motion to reverse the
Planning Commission's decision will do it. Mr. Bowerman asked what is
reversed by a motion to reverse. Mr. Davis said the motion would be to
reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Martin said that is the only
motion which makes action out of a three-three vote. Mr. Marshall said if it
fails on a tie vote, then that is the end of the issue unless someone comes up
with something else.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. Tucker asked if he could ask one more question of Ms. Higgins before
the Board voted on the motion. He asked if the Commission could reconsider
this in two weeks on July 2 what it would do to the timetable. Ms. Higgins
said that there is the opportunity for the School Board to have to come back
to this Board after that Commission meeting. Mr. Davis suggested that if that
is the motivation, that the question simply be deferred and the Planning
Commission be requested to give an additional recommendation so this Board can
make a final decision rather than have the Commission make another decision
which then gets appealed to this Board and requires additional delay. Mr.
Tucker said he was hoping the Commission would make the decision. Mr. Davis
said that could be appealed to the Board by anyone who is aggrieved. Mrs.
Thomas said getting advise from the Commission is a lot quicker. Mr. Tucker
said the Commission meets on July 2 and the Board meets on July 3. Mr. Martin
said he will not be present on July 3.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
000225
Mr. Reaser said they will live with a 175-foot wide field to give the
100-foot buffer back in order to get this thing off center if that solves the
issue.
Ms. Gruben asked if she could comment. Mrs. Humphris said the discus-
sion is limited to just staff members, or a dialogue will be started and there
will be ending. Mr. Martin said he is not opposed to her speaking because
there have been 45 minutes of staff comments and a lot of it has been volun-
teered. He asked for two minutes for the lady to speak.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Martin is willing to open the floor to
comments again. Mr. Martin said to open the floor for at least two minutes.
Mrs. Gruben said there is one compromise that has not been considered.
The Board asked the question, but Ms. Higgins did not reply. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested the one field be moved, not across the road, but down by the lake.
There is an area of trees which Ms. Higgins said is not dense and not a good
area of trees, add at the Planning Commission meeting Ms. Higgins said the
only reason they don't want to do it is because they don't want to monitor the
one field separately. Ms. Gruben said this is a compromise to preserve the
size of the field, all six fields, but it is closer to the lake.
Ms. Higgins said there are 67 acres in the school site and the County
was to retain two parcels for other uses such as a swimming pool, a fire
station, etc. The topography in that area is heavily treed and will have to
be cleared at some point in the future. Access to get kids in the gymnasium,
change their clothes, go to that field to practice and get back to the school
was one of the functional things they thought would not work. There would
have to be a pathway made to get there, but it is quite a distance away. Mr.
Bowerman asked if that arrangement would be better than off site. Mr. Reaser
said it is very much better than off site.
Mr. Martin suggested that that be a competition field instead of a
practice field. Ms. Higgins said she did not think the competition field
could be fit on that site. Mr. Reaser said it could not be put in that
location and the slopes obtained. Ms. Higgins said it a long, skinny parcel
now and they would have to take out trees and grade, but that is something for
the future also. They are on 67 acres now, and the requirement is for 45
usable acres. They have protected areas because of sustainability issues, and
tried to protect trees in certain areas. They have tried to protect the trees
along the periphery. When the school project is completed, the idea is to
draw a line and part of the property will be deeded to the School Board, with
the remainder kept by the County.
Mr. Bowerman said the land for the sixth field has to be found some-
where, so the Board would be giving up land anyway. Ms. Higgins said the land
was thought of for a fire/rescue facility and the road would be a barrier.
Mrs. Thomas said she did not like the idea of the kids going across the road.
Ms. Higgins said in order to build a field in that corner, dirt is needed from
somewhere. Mrs. Thomas said that seems to be a real possibility. Mr.
Marshall agreed.
Mr. Wilson said there is a need for 70 yards minimum width for a game.
There is not that width at either Albemarle or Western Albemarle. If the one
field is eliminated, or its size is reduced so it can't be used for competi-
tion, there is only one competition field for varsity and junior varsity, for
both boys and girls games, and it will be worn out two weeks into the season.
Ms. Higgins said she had a suggestion. She suggested having three
competition fields and two practice fields in one place, and put a practice
field at the other location. That would give back the competition-sized field
that was given up. The 100-foot buffer would be met. Mrs. Humphris asked if
that can be done and it still work. Ms. Higgins said they will have to look
at where the field will be located. Mr. Reaser said he does not know why it
would not work because they are giving up one field. Mr. Tucker said the
Board members do not care about how many competition fields there are as long
as it works. They are looking for the buffer.
Mr. Martin asked where the sixth field will go. Ms. Higgins said the
sixth field will go on the other side of football stadium, that would be
additional land going to the school site. Mrs. Thomas said there will not
then be too many fields in the area where people have been saying there were
too many fields~ Ms. Higgins agreed°
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
O00 G
Mr. Martin said it will use part of the site which was planned for other
things. Mr. Marshall agreed and said he will support that idea.
Mr. Martin said he will withdraw his second to the motion. Mr. Bowerman
said he will withdraw the motion.
Mr. Davis asked if the land being added for the extra field was a part
of the original plan. Ms. Higgins said staff identified the acreage as 66.7
or 67 acres, so it would be adding more acreage to the plan but it is still on
the same parcel because a parcel line has never been drawn. Mr. Davis said
that seems to be acceptable.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas to modify SDP-96-04 but retain
the six conditions of the Planning Commission with Conditions #1, #2, #3, #5
and #6 being kept as stated, Condition #4 being changed to read: ~Retain the
six fields relocating one field to the area near the lake" and Condition #7
added to read: ~There shall be no lighted fields in the corner."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
APPROVAL was subject to the following conditions:
1. Preservation of a minimum 100-foot tree buffer, together with a
fence at least eight feet in height along the border of the
townhouse portion of the Willow Lake Subdivision;
2. Installation of Best Management Practices to include constructed
wetlands to filter the runoff from paved surfaces;
3. Create wetlands in the margin of the lake to mitigate the filling
of the wetlands;
Retain the six fields relocating one field to the area near the
lake;
5. Relocate the football fields to preserve the natural drainage,
unless mitigation is conducted by installation of a forebay and
wetlands in the end of the lake to filter the runoff;
6. Planning Commission approval of the final plan; and
7. There shall be no lighted fields in the corner.
(Note: Mr. Marshall left the room at 11:24 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-96-01. Public Hearing on a Resolution of
Intent by the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 4.15.3, definition of public sign; Amend Section 31.2.4.2,
review period for special use permit application; Add Section 31.2.4.2.1,
limitation on filing new special use permit application after original denial;
Add Section 31.2.4.2.2, withdrawal of special use permit application; Amend
Section 33.7, withdrawal of petition for zoning map amendment; Amend Section
33.8, posting notice of hearing on zoning map amendment or special use permit
on property by zoning administrator; Amend Section 33.8.1, posting notice of
planning commission hearing on property by zoning administrator; Repeal
Section 33.8.2, posting notice of board of supervisors hearing on property;
Add Section 33.8.2, validation of prior notice requirements; Amend Section
33.8.3, maintenance and removal of signs. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on June 3 and June 20, 1996.)
Mr. Davis said the Code of Virginia contains no requirements that
properties subject to rezoning or special use permit petitions be posted with
public notice signs. Under the County's ordinance, the applicant is responsi-
ble for posting and maintaining notice signs. These disposable cardboard
signs were deemed inadequate and the County has purchased durable, reusable
signs similar to real estate signs. Posting by County staff will provide for
a more uniform method, reduce paperwork, and relieve the applicant of this
000227
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 34) .....
responsibility. He said that under existing case law, if a sign is not posted
properly, then a decision by the Board of Supervisors could be voided, and
challengeable at anytime in the future. That is a possibility he thinks
should be corrected immediately.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 11:26 p.m. and Mr. Marshall
returned to the room at 11:26 p.m.)
Mr. Davis said this ordinance amendment also addresses a couple of other
issues. Under Section 31.2.4.2.1, if a special use permit is denied by the
Board of Supervisors, it does not allow substantially the same permit to be
filed within 12 months of the date of denial. This is the same requirement
that is in the ordinance at this time for zoning applications. The Code
allows the County to have the same regulation for special use permits. State
law was changed several years a~o to require that if someone withdraws an
application, it ceases to have any further consideration by the Board. This
change sets out a process for withdrawal of an application.
Mr. Davis said that on the posting procedure, Mrs. Thomas raised a
question at the last meeting about whether or not the Board would have the
authority to defer an action if the sign had not been properly posted. The
Board does have that authority ~enerally and it does not need to be specified
in the ordinance, but at Mrs. Thomas' suggestion he prepared a modification to
Section 33.8.1 which would specifically address that concern.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board was concerned that the public would be
disadvantaged if the Board proceeded even though there had been a failure to
post the notice correctly. The language in modified Section 33.8.1 which Mr.
Davis just handed out reads: ~Upon a finding by the board of supervisors that
failure to comply with the posting requirements of this section has denied the
public reasonable notice of the public hearing, the board may defer action on
the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given."
This language gives the Board discretion; it is a judgment call based on the
finding. Mr. Davis said that under the new law which goes into effect on July
1, 1996, if for some reason the notice provision is not properly given, if the
Board had a proper public hearing, the action of this Board is not challenge-
able forever. Under State law, if advertisin~ requirements of the State Code
are not met, someone must challenge that within 30 days. Currently, under the
law, someone could challenge it at any time in the future if it were improp-
erly advertised.
With no further questions for Mr. Davis, the public hearing was opened.
There was no one present who wished to speak.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board does have a statement from someone who stayed
with her daughter until eleven o'clock, but then had to leave. Mrs. Humphris
said she is goin9 to try and 9o through it. The statement is from Karen
Strickland. She then read:
~The evening has gone too lon9 for my daughter, but I hate leaving
with no public input on this issue. It is too significant to not
have public discussion, no article in the newspaper, one night
after the other vote, no time to spread word. At a time when
people want more public input and more opportunity to be involved,
this ordinance 9oes in the wrong direction.
People need signs. The legal notice in the newspaper is too small
and only useful if you are aware of tax map and parcel number.
Staff is already burdened. Can we really afford time and money to
send staff out on every type of change? It seems too easy to slip
into not notifyin9 people.
If signs disappear, consider a mechanism to take pictures of the
sign in place. Ask citizens to check on signs and sign an affida-
vit saying it is in place. Maybe an adjacent property owner can
attest to placement It should be the responsibility to put up
signs (33.8.1).
No notice for the Board of Supervisors at all is wrong. The final
decision is made at the Board of Supervisorss level. If people
miss the Planning Commission notice, then there is no more, that
shouldn't be (33.8.2).
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
000228
Failure to comply gives no penalty, and that is wrong. There is
no reason to do it if it doesn't have consequences (33.8).
When challenged by a Board member to get involved three years ago,
Eric Haussmann and I did this petition (petition attached to
statement). It was easy to get 151 signatures in just a few days.
I never did anything with it because the time didn't seem right,
but the time is right now. People want opportunities to know what
is going to happen around them. We shouldn't change the law in
the dead of the night without people ever realizing what is
happening.
I recommend that the law not be changed now without at least study
and better notification to people that the law is being changed."
Mr. Tucker said what Mrs. Strickland is suggesting is what this ordi-
nance revision will do. Mrs. Humphris said Ms. Strickland had asked that her
statement be read into the record. Mr. Davis said for purposes of clarifica-
tion, the signs that will be put up are required to be put up by staff 15 days
in advance of the Planning Commission meeting and will remain in place until
after the Board takes its action. These signs are larger and much more
visible than the signs currently required by the ordinance. They will provide
much greater public awareness of the zoning action than currently is required.
Mr. Bowerman said the new signs are already being used, and they are quite
visible. Mrs. Humphris said she has received many comments from people saying
how wonderful the signs are, they can be seen, and people will know what is
going on. It seems to her that this is also a response to the problems in the
past when the applicant did not post signs.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it is a good idea for staff to post the
signs because it means that a staff member has actually gone out and seen the
property. Mr. Tucker said the person posting the sign will not be the person
who is doing the staff report. Mr. Keeler said that sometimes it is helpful
to the person doing the report. Zoning Department staff will contact the
applicant and post the signs. He has had occasion to go out in the field to
look at a site and has not been able to find it because where the applicant
posted the sign was not a good location.
Mr. Perkins said Ms. Srickland called him this afternoon and they
discussed this ordinance amendment. He does have some concern about staff
being responsible for posting these signs, but it is probably a good move. He
does think there has to be a cost reflected for that in some way. One concern
he has is vandalism of the signs. Mr. Davis said the ordinance tries to
address that by putting the responsibility of maintenance of the sign on the
property owner. That is currently done when they post their own signs.
Hopefully, vandalism will not be a problem. Other jurisdictions which do this
have not experienced that as a major problem. Mr. Perkins said Ms. Strickland
was looking at this as how to make people aware of what the Board is doing.
It is almost impossible to make everyone aware of what is going on.
Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing at this time and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mrs. Thomas said the addition Mr. Davis added is an improvement.
Apparently it restates something that is understood, but it would not be
understood by some people.
Mr. Perkins asked how the additional cost of these signs will be
addressed. Mr. Davis said the next time the Board analyzes the fee schedule
of the ordinance, this would be a factor to put in the equation.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 20, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, and, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, including the new language in Section 33.8.1
recommended by the County Attorney tonight.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT~ Mr. Martin.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
000229
ORDINANCE NO. 96-20 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II,
Basic Regulations, and, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended
and reordained by: ~
Amending:
Section 4.15.3
Section 31.2.4.2
Section 33.7
Section 33.8
Section 33.8.1
Section 33.8.2
Definitions
Special Use Permits -- Application
Withdrawal of Petitions
Posting of Property
Posting of Property -- Planning Commission
Hearing
Maintenance and Removal of Signs
Adding:
Section 31.2.4.2.1
Section 31.2.4.2.2
Section 33.8.2
Limitation on Filing New Application After
Original Denial
Withdrawal of Application
Validation of Prior Notice Requirements
Repealing:
Section 33.8.2
Posting of Property -- Board of Supervi-
sors Hearing
4.0
GENERAL REGULATIONS
4.15.3
DEFINITIONS
Public Sign: Any temporary or permanent sign erected
and maintained by a town, city, County, state or
federal government or an authority thereof.
31.0
ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION
31.2.4.2 APPLICATION
Application for a special use permit shall be made by
the filing thereof by the owner or contract purchaser
of the subject property with the zoning administrator,
together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0 of
this ordinance. No such permit shall be issued unless
the board of supervisors shall have referred the
application therefor to the commission for its recom-
mendations. Failure of the commission to report its
recommendations to the board of supervisors within
ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the com-
mission after the application has been referred to the
commission shall be deemed a recommendation of ap-
proval. Provided, however, any day between the date
an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or
continuance of the consideration of the application by
the commission until the date of the deferred or
continued hearing by the commission shall not be
counted in computing the ninety (90) day review pe-
riod. The board of supervisors may extend the review
period upon a request by the commission.
The board of supervisors shall act upon such applica-
tion and render a decision within a reasonable time
period.
No such permit shall be issued except after notice and
hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code
and section 33.8 POSTING OF PROPERTY.
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
0002;30
31.2.4.2.1 LIMITATION OF FILING NEW APPLICATION AFTER ORIGINAL
DENIAL
Upon denial by the board of supervisors of any appli-
cation filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2 above,
substantially the same petition shall not be reconsid-
ered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial.
31.2.4.2.2 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION
Any application filed pursuant to section 31.2.4.2
above may be withdrawn upon written request by the
applicant. The written request must be received by
the body considering the application prior to it
beginning consideration of the matter on the meeting
agenda. Upon receipt of the reqUest for withdrawal,
processing of the application shall cease without
further action by the commission or the board. Sub-
stantially the same application shall not be reconsid-
ered within twelve (12) months of the date of the
withdrawal unless the body considering the application
at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time
limitation shall not apply.
33.0
AMENDMENTS
33.7
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS
Any petition filed pursuant to section 33.2.1 above,
may be withdrawn upon written request by the appli-
cant. The written request must be received by the
body considering the application prior to it beginning
its consideration of the matter on the meeting agenda.
Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing
of the petition shall cease without further action by
the commission or the board. Substantially the same
petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12)
months of the date of withdrawal unless the body
considering the application at the time of withdrawal
specifies that the time limitation shall not apply.
33.8
POSTING OF PROPERTY
Additional notice regarding zoning map amendments
initiated pursuant to section 33.2,1 above or special
use permit applications initiated pursuant to section
31.2.4.2 shall be provided by posting signs on the
subject property in the manner prescribed in section
33.8.1 and section 33.8.3. However, failure to comply
with the posting requirements of this section shall
not invalidate any action by the commission or the
board of supervisors.
33,8.1
POSTING OF PROPERTY - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
At least fifteen (15) days preceding the commission's
public hearing, the zoning administrator or designee
shall erect on the property specified in section 33.8
above, a sign or signs indicating the property is to
be subject to public hearing and referencing how to
obtain additional information regarding such hearing.
The sign shall be erected within ten (10) feet of
whatever boundary line of such land abuts a public
road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible
from the road. If more than one such road abuts the
property, then a sign shall be erected in the same
manner as above for each such abutting road. If no
public road abuts thereon, then signs shall be erected
in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries
of the property abutting land not owned by the appli-
cant. The filing of the petition or application shall
be deemed to grant consent to the zoning administrator
or designee to enter upon the property and to erect
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
the signs. Upon a finding by the board of supervisors
that failure to comply with the posting requirements
of this section has denied the public reasonable
notice of the public hearing, the board may defer
action on the petition or application until reasonable
notice by posting is given.
33.8.2
VALIDATION OF PRIOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
The adoption or amendment of any zoning map amendment
or the approval of any special use permit shall not be
declared invalid by reason of a failure to post notice
as may have been required under prior provisions of
section 31.2.4.2 and section 33.8, provided a public
hearing was conducted by the board of supervisors
prior to such adoption, amendment, or approval.
33.8.3
MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF SIGNS
The applicant shall exercise due diligence to protect
the sign or signs erected pursuant to section 33.8
from vandalism and theft; maintain the sign or signs
in the location or locations in an erect position as
placed by the zoning administrator or designee; and
ensure that such sign or signs remain legible. Fail-
ure to comply with these responsibilities may be
grounds for the commission or the board of supervisors
to defer action on the petition or application until
there is reasonable compliance.
Any sign erected pursuant to section 33.8 shall remain
the property of the board of supervisors. It shall be
unlawful for any person, except the applicant perform-
lng maintenance required by this section or the zoning
administrator or an authorized agent of either, to
remove or tamper with any sign erected pursuant to
section 33.8. All such signs shall be removed by the
zoning administrator or designee within fifteen (15)
days following the board of supervisors' final action
on the petition or application or the applicant's
withdrawal of the petition or application.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 1995.
Mr. Bowerman had read April 5, 1995, Page 12 at Item #12 to Page 28 at
Item #16, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read April 5, 1995, Page 28 at Item #16 to the end, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
At 11:43 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-
344A.7 to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters relating to reversion and to discuss probable litigation regarding an
insurance agreement.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Approved by
Board of
County Su-
pervisors
Date ~f~/~
Initials
June 19, 1996 (Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
0002,32
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
At 12:07 a.m., the Board reconvened into open session, and motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, 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.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Mar-
shall, to authorize the County Attorney to retain counsel and initiate
litigation to recover hospital discounts improperly retained by Trigon.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:09 a.m.
~rman ~