Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-17000294 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 17, 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. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Ms. Betty Newell came forward to say that a couple of months ago she had an opportunity to spend part of a day at the County Office Building where people who served on County boards and commissions were recognized. She had done this for many years, and this is the first time she had been so honored. She said it is a privilege to represent the County on these various boards. This day was a very nice occasion. Mrs. Humphris said the Board members also enjoyed the displays, etc. There were a lot of people who worked on the program, and she thanks them. She said it was a wonderful day. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Item 5.1. Set public hearing to amend ordinance relating to bingo games and raffles. It was noted in the staff's report that effective July 1, 1996, the regulation of bingo games and raffles became the responsibility of the Charitable Gaming Commission. State law only provides local governments limited authority to regulate such operations. The County Code currently incorporates the State law applicable to bingo games and raffles which was repealed effective July 1. It is necessary for the County Code to be amended to conform it to State law and to readopt the County regulations which the County can implement under the new State law. Staff recommends that the Board advertise a public hearing for August 7, 1996, to consider this ordinance amendment. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board set the public hearing for August 7, 1996. Item 5.2. Set a public hearing to grant utility easements to Virginia Power and Sprint Centel to serve Monticello High School. It was noted in the staff's report that electricity, telephone, gas and other utilities are needed to serve the new high school. Easements are required by the utility companies prior to relocating and/or installing service. The power and telephone service will be located in a concurrent easement parallel to the connector road that is 30 feet wide for Virginia Power and 20 feet wide for Central Telephone Company. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on August 7, 1996, to dedicate utility ease- July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000295 merits to Virginia Power and Central Telephone Company. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board set the public hearing for August 7, 1996. Item 5.3. Appropriation: Greer School Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program, $32,000 (Form #96004). It was noted in the staff's report that staff had previously presented information to the Board regarding a second Bright Stars program to open at Greer Elementary School in the Fall. Because enrollment figures were not known at that time, it was not known if an additional classroom would be needed, thus requiring additional funds. Now the need for an additional classroom for has been identified based on enrollments to date, as well as the need for Greer to set up an additional special education class. The total cost estimate for the trailer, site work, set up and furniture is $36,000. Of that total, $4,000 was designated in the FY 1996-97 State grant for furniture, and, a minimum of $12,000 should be available in carry= over funds from the FY 1995-96 Stone Robinson Bright Stars program. New revenues in the amount of $20,000 are needed for the additional classroom building. This appropriation request for $32,000 includes $20,000 from the Board's Contingency Reserve Fund and $12,000 in FY 1995-96 unspent funds from the Stone Robinson Bright Stars program. Expenses: Trailer $23,000 Installation 8,000 Furniture 5,000 Total $36,000 Less: FY 95-96 carry-over funds Grant funding Total Requested new funding: $12,000 4,000 $16,000 $20. 000 Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form ~96004 in the amount of $32,000 to purchase and set up a trailer for the Four-Year Old Bright Stars Program at Greet Elementary. They would also like the Board to know that Ms. Pat Lloyd, Assistant Principal at Greer, will be taking on the position of Program Coordinator for the program. Ms. Janice Eiden, a first grade teacher at Greer, will be the new teacher for the program. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96004 FUND: BRIGHT STARS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1155361122301210 CONTRACTED SERVICES 1155361122800200 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1155361122800550 MOBILE CLASSROOM UNIT 1100053013930208 TRANSFER TO BRIGHT STARS 1100095000999990 AMOUNT $8,000.00 1,000.00 23,000.00 20,000.00 CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS (20,000.00) TOTAL $32,000.00 REVENUE 2155351000510100 2155351000512004 DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FI/ND TOTAL AMOUNT $12,000.00 20,000.00 $32,000.00 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 000296 Item 5.4. Appropriation: Police Record System Improvements, $75,000 (Form ~96005) . It was noted in the staff's report that the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and University of Virginia Police Departments have been trying to develop a common or shared data base of crime incidents. The Board and Council have approved appropriations to purchase new computer systems for the County and City Police Departments. The University Police Department has a current and usable system already in place. The Emergency Operations Center is rebuilding its entire computer system with Egll surcharge funds. The requested grant (96-A9068) funding will be used to purchase software and training to connect the three police departments and the Emergency Operations Center. This appropriation request is for approval of a $75,000 Department of Criminal Justice Services grant which requires a local match of $75,000. The local match will consist of $140,000 previously approved by the Board, and $140,000 previously approved by Council to purchase PC-based LAN's for their police departments. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has allowed the use of the same $280,000 as local match for both grants (96-A9065 and 96- A9068). Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #96005 in the amount of $75,00O. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96005 FUND: DCJS GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029407800711 RECORD SYSTEM SOFTWARE TOTAL AMOUNT $75,000.00 $75,000.00 REVENUE 2152033000330408 DESCRIPTION DCJS-RECORD SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Item 5.5. Appropriation: Police Record Systems Improvements, $54,416 (Form #96006) . It was noted in the staff's report that the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and University of Virginia Police Departments have been trying to develop a common or shared data base of crime incidents. The Board and Council have approved appropriations to purchase new computer systems in the County and City Police Departments. The University Police Department has a current and usable system already in place. The Emergency Operations Center is rebuilding its entire computer system with E911 surcharge funds. The requested grant funding will be used to purchase equipment and lease fiber lines connecting the three police departments and the Emergency Operations Center. This appropriation request is for approval of a $54,416 Department of Criminal Justice Services grant which requires a local match of $280,000. The local match will consist of $140,000 previously approved by the Board and $140,000 previously approved by Council to purchase PC-based LAN's for their police departments. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #96006 in the amount of $54,4~16. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96006 FUND: DCJS GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS GRANT 000297 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029407800700 RECORD SYSTEM SOFTWARE TOTAL $54,416.00 $54,416.00 REVENUE 2152033000330408 DESCRIPTION DCJS-RECORD SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT $54,416.00 $54,416.00 Item 5.6. Copy of memorandum dated July 1, 1996, to J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, from David Benish, Chief of Community Development, re: § 15.1-456 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for Installation of a Sanitary Sewer Collection Line to Serve the Developed Portion of Deerwood Estates, was received for information. Staff determined that this proposed sewer collection line meets the criteria for administrative review and the project is in compliance with the Comprehen- sive Plan. Item 5.7. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 18 and July 2, 1996, was received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of Final 1996-97 Allocations for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including the updated Six-Year Improvement Program through 2001-02, was received for information. Item 5.9. Copy of letter to Mr. and Mrs. Caldwell, from Elizabeth Hoge Lipford, Register Program Manager, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, providing notice that Longwood Farm, Albemarle County, has been placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register, was received as information. Item 5.10. Copy of letter from Elizabeth Hoge Lipford, Register Program Manager, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, providing notice that Boyd Tavern, Albemarle County, appears to meet the criteria for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places, was received for information. Item 5.11. Letter dated July 9, 1996, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from R. H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice that there will be a Citizens Information Meeting on July 30, 1996, at the Sheraton Inn Charlottesville, to review and discuss the design alignment developed for the Route 29 (Western) Bypass, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-96-04. Encore Investments Ltd Ptrn. 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. TM61, P's 124A, 124B,124C. Rio Dist. (Deferred from June 19, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg said this petition was deferred on June 19 to allow time for the Board to review the Planning Commission's minutes as well as to receive some additional information regarding traffic, accident occurrences along Rio Road, and some of the land use requests as they relate to the nearby residential areas. Staff provided to the Board several days ago the recent proffers from Encore which resulted from meetings held between the developer and residents of the area. These proffers differ from those the Board saw last month in that the proffers eliminates those uses allowed by special use permit. Uses contained in the C-1 and HC Districts would not be allowed without amendment of the proffers. It creates a restricted area near the adjacent residential area which has fewer permitted uses, and allows for barber shops and business machine sales and services outside of the restricted area as accessory commercial uses. Staff feels it is an acceptable proffer. The elimination of C-1 and HC uses permitted by special use permit also addresses concerns of area residents. July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 00029S Mr. Cilimberg said that just yesterday staff received accident informa- tion and further information from VDOT regarding the traffic aspects of the proposal. That information has been placed on the table before the Board members tonight. He said VDOT, in their letter of July 16, 1996, says "The rezoning itself does not appear to cause any more adverse impact to the site than by right development." They did comment that they will need to carefully review the technical components of any entrance during site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said this has been discussed with the County Attorney who is of the opinion that VDOT's concerns can be addressed at the time of site plan and road plan review. Mrs. Humphris asked if any Board member had a question for Mr. Cilimberg. There was no response. She asked Mr..Wagner if the applicant had something new to add. Mr. Don Wagner said ~yes". Last month he agreed that what Encore was offering and what the neighbors wanted were very close together. He thanked the Board for deferring the vote so this could be worked out. The proffers last month included a proffer whereby the special use permit process, as opposed to a rezoning process, would be used if Encore or any successor desired a C-1 or HC use. As a result of a meeting with the officers of the Raintree Neighborhood Association (the Association), Encore learned that their basic objection to the rezoning request was their understanding that using the special use permit process would give Encore or a future applicant an unfair advantage. Based on the advise of counsel, they understood that if this proffer were accepted, and at some time in the future, an applicant mounted a court challenge to a denial of a request for a special use permit, the court might rule that the County had to either approve the special use permit or find that the requested land use was not appropriate. On the other hand, they were told that if a similar challenge was made as a result of the rejection of a rezoning request, the burden of proof that the requested land use was unreasonable would be borne by the applicant. Mr. Wagner said that originally, the applicant suggested the special use permit procedure to allow the County to impose conditions of approval in return for a savings in time. Because of the counsel the Association re- ceived, Encore withdrew the objectionable proffer. If the rezoning request, as now structured, is approved, and if Encore or its successors ever want C-1 or HC use in Rio East (other than the two in the most recent proffers), the request for that use would be made as a request for modification of the proffers. On the subject of possible future rezoning requests, he would like to be clear with respect to the restricted area adjacent to Raintree where they proffered that only C-1 uses are to be allowed. There is always the possibility a situation may arise in the future whereby a non-CO use would be a good neighbor to Raintree. Encore would like to go on record saying that unless they get the prior support of the Association they will not at any future time make any request for any uses other than CO uses in the restricted area. They are sorry they did not understand the basic concerns sooner. Mr. Wagner said he has one further point to do with traffic. When the request was before the Board last month, Encore's consultant had provided VDOT all the information it had requested. But, requests from VDOT, delivery of required data by VDOT, reports by the consultant, VDOT response to those reports, had come in two or more stages and that led to confusion at last month's meeting. Consequently, Encore had its traffic consultant combine all of the information that had passed back and forth between the consultant and VDOT into one document and to add a narrative describing the results. The report is dated June 30, 1996. VDOT was furnished a copy of that report and, in part, their letter of June 17 is in response to that report. He assured the Board that the technical date in the June 30 report is exactly the same data that VDOT had reviewed prior to writing their June 17 letter. Mr. Wagner said he would like to address the VDOT comment that at some future time there may be a need for improvements at the entrance to Rio East. He handed to the Board members a drawing showing comparisons of traffic at the intersection of Hydraulic Road/Brandywine Drive. This shows actual traffic counts at that intersection in May, 1994 along with calculated traffic for Hearthwood Apartments. Also shown were VDOT projected traffic figures for the year 2011 for Rio Road along with calculated figures for the Rio East develop- ment. Mr. Wagner said he is not aware of any problems at either the Hydraulic Road/Brandywine Drive or the Hydraulic Road/Hearthwood Apartments intersec- tions. Based on that, he does not believe there will be a traffic problem at Rio East. He said the Brandywine/Hydraulic intersection includes separate July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000299 left- and right-turn lanes from Brandywine onto Hydraulic and there are raised medians on Hydraulic which provide channeling and protection for left-turn traffic. Mr. Wagner said he will go on record as being willing to flare the end of the Rio East road to provide separate right-turn and left-turn exit lanes similar to those shown on Brandywine, and to participate in the con- struction of raised medians similar to those in the road at Hydraulic and Brandywine. He agrees with staff that the details can best be worked out during site plan and highway entrance permit processes. Given that the Rio East traffic will not be enough to meet VDOT warrants for a traffic signal, he does not think either the present or future property owners in Rio East should be required to operate under the cloud of some possible future requirement to participate in the installation of such a signal. V/DOT has already put in place an agreement regarding a possible future traffic signal a little over 300 feet to the west at the intersection of Rio Road and Putt-Putt Place. They have said they do not want two signals so close together. Mr. Wagner said he would like to bring the Board member's attention to one astounding fact. There is a note in the traffic report which states that the computer program used for the highway capacity analysis (used to determine the levels of service) does not take into consideration the continuous left- turn lane down the middle of Rio Road. He was surprised at that statement. He checked and was told it was common practice to ignore such lanes when making traffic studies. The fact that the turn-lane on Rio Road was not considered is one more reason he finds it difficult to believe traffic will be a real problem at Rio East. Mr. Wagner offered to answer questions. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board is to deal with VDOT's letter which says they would like to have a proffer or agreement by the developer stating that should this intersection become a safety or operational problem, they may have to require a signal light, which is one thing Mr. Wagner said he did not want to do. Mr. Wagner said he is positive there is already an agreement in place for a traffic light at Putt-Putt Place. VDOT has said they do not like to have traffic lights that close together, and the amount of traffic into Rio East will not meet the warrants required for a traffic light. He is at a loss to know why that statement is in the letter. Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe the letter is saying the applicant should be responsible for participating in these things, it says "VDOT may have to do one or more of the following .... " Mr. Wagner said he had a problem with the language and could read it both ways. Rio East will be putting a very small percentage of the traffic on Rio Road and the amount of traffic at the intersection does not warrant a light, so Encore feels it is unfair that they might be required to pay for a traffic light. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Line or Mr. McDowell would like to speak for the Raintree Homeowners. Mr. Donald Lyon, President of the Raintree Homeowners' Association, said he spoke to board members in the surrounding neighborhoods and explained the proffers proposed. They all seem to be in agreement. A fairly reasonable compromise has been worked out and they support this endeavor. It seems to be the least offensive use of the land considering what could be there under the PD-MC designation. With the HC and C-1 proffers removed, it is reasonable to go along with the CO uses. Mrs. Thomas asked the County Attorney to comment on the wording in VDOT's letter which she finds puzzling. Mr. Davis said his interpretation is that they are suggesting a proffer to address the situation, and he believes Mr. Cilimberg concurs that at the site plan stage, if the determination by VDOT and the Planning staff is that there is not safe access onto Rio Road, a traffic signal, turn lane, or other entrance improvements can be required on the site plan. Even though Mr. Wagner does not think it is necessary now, that is something the County can require at the time of development. At that time, they will take into account whether there is going to be another traffic light just 300 feet away. Mr. Bowerman said he had never seen a statement from VDOT like this one. He knows that if an ultimate development is to generate a traffic flow such that a light may be needed, that is normally required at the beginning. When the ultimate development of the site is such that it does not warrant any- thing, he has never seen this comment made. He does not know why this was done. One of the things this Board has to look at in cooperation with V]DOT is the fact that there have been 160 accidents along Rio Road in a relatively July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000309 short distance, including almost 100 between Old Brook Road and Route 29, which is less than one mile. He said there is probably not another location in the County of that length which has had that amount of accidents on a yearly basis. The problem is not only the side friction from all of the entrances, but because of the center lane. Mr. Wagner made the comment that more control may be needed than just the center lane, something such as a raised median which allows a left-turning movement. That is something to discuss with VDOT. The applicant has expressed a willingness to consider something like that at their entrance. At the request of the Raintree Association, Mr. Bowerman said he sent a letter to Angela Tucker at VDOT requesting a warrant study at Old Brook Road. There are over 3000 cars a day using Old Brook and that is three times the usage expected at the entrance to Rio East. He said the Board must be fair in the way it looks at this. He is satisfied that Raintree acted in a responsible manner with their concerns and he thinks the developer did also. They reached a meeting of the minds which is acceptable to both parties. He thinks this was a situation where it had a limited effect on a subdivision, and that subdivision had concerns. The developer was more than willing to meet the people half way. He will support what the developer proposed here tonight and move that the Board approve ZMA- 96-04 as proffered. The motion was seconded Mrs. Thomas. There were no further comments from Board members. The roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (The proffer is set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 7/10/96 ZMA~ 96-04 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 61-124A, 124B, 124C 7.84 Acres to be rezoned from R-10 to PD-MC 3.24 Acres to be rezoned from CO to PD-MC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. Use of the property designated as the Restricted Area on Enclosure 1 hereto hereinafter the "Restricted Area") shall include only: Ail uses permitted under Section 23.2.1 of the Albe- marle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. bo Uses permitted under Section 23.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached, shall be permitted only by special use permit. 2 o Use of the property outside the Restricted Area shall in- clude only: so Ail uses permitted under Section 23.2.1 of the Albe- marle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. Barber and beauty shops as permitted under Section 22.2.1.b2 and o[~ice and business machine sales and service as permitted under Section 24.2.1.29 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as those sections exist on July 10, 1996, copies of which are attached, provided such uses, when combined with those permitted July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) under Section 23.2.1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached, do not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the floor area of buildings on the site. Uses permitted under Section 23.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached, shall be permitted only by special use permit. Signatures of Ail Owners Encore Investors Ltd. Partnership By: Great Eastern Management Co., General Partner Donald J. Wagner, President Signed 7/11/96 Agenda Item No. 7. ZPUt-96-10. Ivy Motors Commons II (Zoning Sign #27). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-88-14 to allow vacation of right-of-way. Property located behind Jefferson National Bank, on N sd of Rt 250 W, approx 500 ft W of Rt 678. TM58, P84E. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg 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 the request is to delete the proffer accepted with ZMA- 88-14 regarding dedication of a portion of Parcel 84A (now part of Parcel 84E) on Tax Map 58 for the relocation of Route 678. The proffer amendment is simply a "housekeeping" matter to allow the Board of Supervisors to vacate the right-of-way for the formerly anticipated relocation of Route 678. The current proffers make reference to an area of 0.447 acre ("Area C' on the plat), to be donated to Albemarle County, which was done with the recording of the plat. The application indicates there are no current plans for the use of the parcel which would have this area of 0.447 acre added to it, but the parcel would be easier to make use of with such an addition. The existing parcel is a 1.687 acres portion of Parcel 84E. With this addition, it would become a 2.134 acres portion of Parcel 84E. This addition would not provide potential for redivision or create an additional lot since the minimum lot size for the Village Residential District (60,000 square feet) would allow for only one lot. Mr. Cilimberg said the application noted that the once-anticipated relocation of Route 678 has been deemed infeasible, and the Board of Supervi- sors deleted the project from its list of highway projects, so there is no public purpose to be served by keeping this 0.447 acre portion reserved for such relocation. If the proffer is deleted, the Board of Supervisors will be able to vacate this right-of-way and have the property combined with the 1.687 acre portion of Parcel 84E by separate action. Staff sees no adverse impacts to the deletion of the proffer regarding the decision of this 0.447 acre portion. The reference in the first proffer regarding direct access to a public road from Parcel 84A being limited to the realigned Route 678 should also be amended for clarity and consistency since the realignment of Route 678 is no longer expected. Also, the proffers should clearly reference the specific plat being referred to. Lastly, since the proffers reference an earlier letter with proffers, it is recommended that, for simplicity, all proffers be stated in one place. The applicant has indicated that he is agreeable to revised proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said this request went to the Planning Commission last month, but because of some of the parcel allocations that had occurred, there was some confusion as to tax map location of the parcel subject to the rezoning, and there was an adjacent owner who had not been notified of the hearing. To correct that mistake, the Planning Commission reheard this request last night. At the first hearing, there were no public comments offered. Last night, there were no public comments. Discussion was limited and the Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-96-10 subject to the revised proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said included in the Board's packet is a letter from the adjacent owner (Mayo) who was not notified. He raised concerns relating to July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000;302 the potential for development of a road accessing Route 250 that would create runoff onto his property. Planning and Engineering staff visited the site and then advised Mr. Mayo that any development of the subject parcel can and would need to provide adequate measures to insure that there would be no ponding on the adjoining property. Mr. Cilimberg said the final, updated proffers were received today. They simply modernize the proffers furnished to the Board and drop the one proffer that relates to dedication of the right-of-way area. With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak first. Mr. James W. Newman, Jr. said he had no comments. He said Mr. Cilimberg explained the application very well. Mr. Mayo said he was not at the Planning Commission's meeting last night. He wonders why the application was not for the balance of the little panhandle between his property and the bank. Mr. Cilimberg said that was not part of the zoning action that originally created the commercial property. It is part of the request before the Board tonight. Mr. Mayo said that land has no access to a road. Mr. Cilimberg said the piece was dedicated for public use, so any property could have access to that right-of-way. Mr. Davis said Parcel C which they are requesting be changed would become a part of the larger parcel when that is vacated. Mr. Mayo asked if the right-of-way is a part of the parcel now. Mr. Cilimberg said staff understands that it is not. Mr. Mayo said he understands that it is. Mr. Newman said it exists as its own driveway. Mr. Mayo said he was at the Board meeting when the road was turned down by VDOT. When VDOT addressed 678 through there, it required about two acres of his property to do it. He is not going to give anybody two acres, so he wonders how they will develop that property. Mr. Martin said that property becomes a part of the whole parcel. It is no longer separate. Mrs. Humphris said she believes Mr. Mayo is asking how anyone will access that parcel, period. Mr. Cilimberg said if the proffer is removed tonight by a zoning action, then the applicant can request that the piece be abandoned and become a part of parcel B to create one parcel. It will have frontage on the 50-foot right-of-way that goes to Route 250, which is a dedicated public right-of-way. There could be a request for abandonment of that also, but that is not part of the request before the Board tonight. Mrs. Thomas said just because the sliver of property is dedicated does not mean V/DOT would allow a commercial entrance on Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said it does not guarantee anybody a commercial entrance. Mr. Bowerman asked about the original access to the original Parcel B after the part was cut off. Mr. Cilimberg said access was over the same right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any access through the front parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not sure, but he does not believe the Bank's site plan showed any access. Mr. Davis said one issue staff may look at when this is vacated is whether or not there is appropriate access for Parcel B if that right-of-way is vacated. That analysis has to take place in a subsequent action. Mrs. Humphris said that is not part of the Board's consideration tonight. Mr. Davis said that is correct. The proffer just says the applicant will reserve this property for dedication to the County since it has already been dedicated to the County as a right-of-way. Before it is appropriate to consider vacation of that right-of-way, the proffer needs to be removed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is not making a recommendation as to the abandonment, but speaking only to whether the proffer serves any public purpose. The original intent of the proffer does not exist. Mr. Mayo asked if it has a drainfield if someone could build a house on that parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said there has been no request to build a house on the parcel itself. He does not know if building site requirements can be met on that parcel. It does exist as a parcel and has a right to development as VR zoning which would be one dwelling unit. Mr. Mayo said he has no objec- tions, only fears. Mrs. Humphris said she did briefly read through his letter and understands what his fears are. She does not believe they will be realized by any action this Board takes on this request tonight. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000303 Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA-96-10 as proffered. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (Note: The proffer is set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 7/17/96 ZMA # 96-10 Tax Map Parcel(s)#58-84A, 58-84E +/- 2 Acres to be rezoned from C-1 w/proffers to C-1 w/amended proffers Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. Direct access to a public road to be limited to the area shown on the attached plat by Roudabush, Gale and Associ- ates, dated August 19, 1988, as "dedicated for relocation of State Route 678," with such access to be no closer than 125 feet from the intersection of Route 250 West and the area "dedicated for relocation of State Route 678," provided an entrance can be achieved at that location. Uses permitted as a matter of right on Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A shall include only those uses allowed in Section 22.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on July 17, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto, except the following: g. h. m. n. o. p. q. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops (22.2.1.a.2) Department store (22.2.1.a.3) Furniture and home appliances (sales and service) (22.2.1.a.7) Musical instruments (22.2.1.a.9) Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops (22.2.1.a.10) Photographic goods (22.2.1.a.12) Visual and audio appliances (22.2.1.a.13) Sporting goods (22.2.1.a.14) Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (22.2.1.b.4) Fire and rescue squad stations (22.2.1.b.6) Funeral homes (22.2.1.b.7) Health spas (22.2.1.b.8) Indoor theaters (22.2.1.b.9) Laundromat (22.2.1.b.11) Libraries, museums (22.2.1.b.12) Tailor, seamstress (22.2.1.b.15) Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop (22.2.1.b.22) 3 o Uses permitted by special use permit on Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A shall include only those uses allowed in Section 22.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on July 17, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto, except the following: so Commercial recreation establishments (22.2.2.1) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone ex- change centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission 000304 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Co and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (22.2.2.2) Hospitals (22.2.2.3) Fast food restaurant (22.2.2.4) Individual commercial uses shall not exceed 3000 square feet of floor space. Signatures of Ail Owners JAMES W. NEWMAN, JR., 7/17/96 Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-12. Forest Lakes Associates (Zoning Signs #51, 52, 53, 54). Public Hearing on a request to add approx 120.6 ac of land currently zoned RA to Forest Lakes South PUD. Property adjacent to existing Forest Lakes South. Site recommended for Low Density Residential (1-4 du/ac) in Community bf Hollymead by the Comprehensive Plan. TM46, P97A1 & TM46B5, Pl. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1996. (Note: Mr. Bowerman said he would excuse himself from voting on this petition as he has on all petitions for Forest Lakes in the past. He does not believe he has a technical conflict of interest at this time because he has not done a substantial amount of business with Forest Lakes this calendar year, but he did last year, so he will excuse himself. He left the room at 7:45 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg 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 the request is to add approximately 120.6 acres of land on the east side of Powell Creek to the Forest Lakes development. Delineated on the map is a possible Meadow Creek Parkway alignment which does conform to action this Board took and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) took to adopt the Meadow Creek Parkway in a new corridor location in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS). With this addition, total acreage for Forest Lakes South will be about 350 acres, and in addition, general conditions of development would apply to the new area as well as residential tracts 1 and 2 of the original PUD. The original petition included all of this acreage. In 1991, staff was prepared to make a recommendation to approve the entire acreage, but because issues regarding the alignment of the Parkway remained unresolved, the 120 acres subject to the request tonight was removed. Mr. Cilimberg said this area is now designated as neighborhood residen- tial density in the Comprehensive Plan (3-6 du/ac). The limitation would be to 100 acres so the actual gross density at full build-out would be about 2.2 du/ac. There is now an approval for 800 dwelling units with the possibility of exceeding that number for the zoned area. The 800 dwelling units will be allocated over the old and new areas as part of this zoning action. He said the recent action on CATS designated a new location for the Parkway. That effectively removed the Parkway from any intrusion on Forest Lakes South. The applicants did, however, show a reservation for North and South for a poten- tial connection to the Parkway and to allow access to the north should that be desired. There is no actual indication in any adopted plan of a connecting road from the Parkway northward. In the original Parkway study there was the possibility of one of the T-connectors going north from the Parkway, but in the Board's action, that was not included as part of what went into CATS. Effectively, the applicants are allowing for a road that does not currently exist in any plan. They have requested that some action be taken by this Board by December 31, 1996. Mr. Cilimberg said staff suggested that if there is to be the possibil- ity of a connection, there could be an indication of a potential future alignment, or connections north and south, as part of a deed reference for future lot buyers in this section of Forest Lakes South. That presents a problem for the applicant who has legal concerns about making deed references to a road that has absolute location or where no commitment has been made by the County. What needs to be done tonight is to address whether the Board feels this is a necessary provision, one that may not be definitively ad- dressed by the end of this year. Also, if there is to be a connection north and south and the allowance of the 120-foot right-of-way the applicant proposes, whether the Board wants to have a reference to that made in deeds or 000305 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) otherwise so the public and potential lot purchasers are aware of that dedication. The applicant is willing to cooperate, but has not proffered the deed references in and of themselves because of concerns they have legally to doing so. Mr. Cilimberg said in terms of open space area, the preservation of areas meets or exceeds those areas recommended for reservation in the open space plan. There also is, under the ownership of the applicant, an area referred to as ~Kernwood" and it is a farmhouse that has been identified as potentially eligible for National Register designation. The applicant does not intend to demolish the building; sale of the building is pending. It would need to become part of the overall PUD and the applicant is aware of that. There is an adjacent parcel that is not under the control of the applicant so is not part of this application, but there are easement arrange- ments for access to the parcel from Route 643 and that would need to be addressed between the applicant and that landowner as part of the development of that part of Forest Lakes. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a request for some flexibility in develop- ment and the general conditions which have been placed on the development. The Planning Commission specifically addressed Conditions 5 and 6. No. 5 would identify critical slope areas deemed as incidental and not subject to general regulation under Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. What that refers to is the fact that the applicant has identified critical slopes that they feel are part of the more significant system of 25 percent or greater slopes in the area that is subject to the provisions. Others would be considered incidental as lots develop. In general Condition No. 6 circum- stances under which the Director of Planning & Community Development could provide relief from secondary access requirements have been identified, that is, a second access to over 50 lots. Also identified are areas where the County could allow public road design under VDOT standards rather than those standards which exist in the subdivision ordinance. New VDOT standards for subdivision street design are somewhat more liberal than some referenced in the County's ordinance. Finally, there was a request to allow the Director of Planning & Community Development to authorize usage of private roads. Generally, that authority is reserved to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 1996 recommended approval of the rezoning, acceptance of the proffers, and also, recommended approval of the special use permit with four conditions which allow for the stream crossing of Powell Creek and acceptance of the general conditions with the exception of reserving for their approval the authorization of private roads. The other conditions they felt were appropri- ate and should be applicable, including those mentioned tonight. Mrs. Thomas asked why the southern and northern access questions are tied together as if the only way to think about this is to have a T-connector that goes all the way through. It seems that reserving the right-of-way with the possibility of connecting to the Parkway ro the southern end (not as a through road that goes outside the development) is one of the possibilities. One long-range planning idea is not to have every car get on Route 29 for every trip. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a possibility. In fact, staff talked to the developer about having reservation only to the south, and not to the north. The southern right-of-way is more easily identified, and the applicant has said that area is more easily reserved than to the north. Mr. Martin said if December, 1996 is being set as a deadline, he does not think this Board can change anything between now and December. That seems to make the whole question moot. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT did not mention a northern connection in their comments. Mrs. Thomas said she believes that when the Parkway is built and people find that they are within a stone's throw of it, but have to go on Route 29 before they can get to it, they may wonder why no one had the foresight to make that allowance. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant may wish to address this as a separate issue. He does not know if they are willing to drop the December requirement. Staff was looking at it in the bigger picture of both possibilities. Mrs. Thomas said she thought one of the reasons the steep requirements were being liberalized was part of the County's desire to get a denser development. She is puzzled by the fact that this rezoning will actually reduce the number of dwelling units proposed for the area. Mr. Cilimberg said it spreads the number over a larger area. The applicant could have put 800 dwelling units to the west of Powell Creek, now they are saying they will do July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Me'ting) (Page 13) 000306 800 over the entire area. Even with the possibility of waiving some require- ments, the terrain may prohibit them from achieving more than 800. At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Runkle, representing the applicant, spoke first. He wished to speak about the road connection issues, of which there are two. He said they are more than happy to provide right-of-way to connect Ashwood Boulevard southward to the Parkway. As to the reason for the date, they anticipate submitting the first subdivision plans early next year. In the event there was no interest in connecting, they would request that the right-of-way for Ashwood Boulevard from Powell Creek to where it terminates, be 50 feet as opposed to 120 feet. They would gain four acres for development from such a change. The right-of-way for Ashwood Boulevard from Route 29 to Powell Creek is 120 feet in order to provide any flexibility required depending on actual density, and on what requirements may be imposed relative to connection to the Parkway and/or the connector road. That consumes about eight acres. The second issue that location be specifically indicated so it can be located on a plat and referenced in deeds for lot sales needs to be done in a way that does not generate title problems relative to sale of lots. Their legal advice is that for all lots on the east side of Powell Creek they simply say there may be potential connections north and south. If that is said and the location is not specified, there would be major issues from title companies. Basically, they just want this Board to say specifically where the location is to be. He understands the issue from the County in wanting to tell the public and he does not mind putting it in a deed as long as it can be referenced on a specific plat. Mr. Runkle said concerns about a northern connection are far more significant. That connection would go through a designated residential area. The right-of-way needs to be ~pinned down" specifically if it is to be referenced in deeds. He said they offered two separate proffers because they felt that at some future date Ashwood Boulevard may be extended and connected to the Parkway. That would provide access to Forest Lakes South and Hollymead, but not to Forest Lakes North. If it can be specifically indicated where that access is to be, they will create a plat and dedicate the right-of- way to public use and hopefully the County will accept it. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Runkle is saying that if the Board wants the right-of-way dedicated, the applicant can dedicate it by December, 1996. Mr. Runkle said if the Board wants the right-of-way, he would probably know what the right-of-way width needs to be. Mr. Marshall asked what happens if the Board says it does not want the right-of-way and then in the future the road needs to go in. Mr. Runkle said if there is a chance Ashwood Boulevard should be connected to the Parkway, then 120 feet of right-of-way should be reserved along the entire length of that road. The applicants are prepared to do that and provide the right-of-way to extend it to the Parkway through their property. Mr. Marshall said that at this time the Board does not know if it wants the right-of-way. There is no reason to believe the road will be built just because the land is being taken, it is just a precautionary measure it seems the Board has to take. Mr. Runkle said he wants the Board to know the kind of problems the applicant addresses when the Board says it wants the land. The next step is for someone to say where the right-of-way to be located. He would not know where to delineate a corridor going north because he does not know what it would connect to. He does not know of any advantageous way to decide. To the south, the right-of-way could flare out and become wider and wider toward the southern boundary. It would not have an affect on their development. It still needs to be specific if it is to be referenced in a deed. To the north there is potentially a greater impact on development in terms of what it causes in lost number of lots, etc. He would prefer not to provide right-of-way to the north if the chances are slim that the road will go in that direction, but it does make sense to preserve the right-of-way to connect it to the Parkway. Mr. Martin asked what the Board needs to do. Mr. Davis said existing Proffer No. 10 addresses connection to the Parkway while Proffer No. 11 addresses going north, and they both carry the December 31, 1996, date by which the County makes the request for dedication. July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 00030? Mrs. Thomas asked if the County could make the request today. Mr. Davis said after the new proffers are accepted, it can be done at anytime between now and December 31. The County must say which property is wanted. Mr. Runkle then proceeded to show the different options to the Board on a map on the wall. Mrs. Thomas said she can see why the applicant would want the Board to decide before they proceed with their development. Mr. Martin suggested the Board stay with the southern connection. To the north, it is a whole different question. Mr. Runkle said he would like to mention the density issue. Originally, they had wanted 1200 dwelling units, but got 800 and agreed to make a cash contribution above 800 units. At that time, they said the only way to obtain 1200 units would be if 75 percent of the property were developed as apart- ments. They expected that Forest Lakes South would develop at about the same density as Forest Lakes North. That is what has happened. That is driven by the fact that in the County the preference is for detached housing. Because the zoning action said 1200 units, they were to be required at Route 29 to build a fly over, i.e., a ramp that exited Route 29 southbound and crossed over Route 29 northbound and connected to the entrance to Forest Lakes to meet VDOT requirements for the 1200 units. That was being required because of the level of service on Route 29. They knew the likelihood of ever reaching 1200 units or even 800 units was remote. They would have had to design and bond that kind of facility because the zoning said 1200 units. In lieu of that, they came back to the Board and asked for 800 because at that number the design was no longer required. The reason they asked for relief was an attempt to increase density to the extent it could be increased. Steep slopes, potentially private roads, and second points of access, all relate to the ability to achieve density. Mr. Runkle said their property surrounds one property of another person who is present tonight. That owner accesses his property off of the Polo Grounds Road. A gravel road connects to that and serves these two properties. This other person is concerned that access be maintained for him. It would be a requirement of the County that there be some kind of emergency access off of that road, and the applicant intends to maintain that as emergency access. They have indicated to this other owner that he can continue to use the access, and would also have access through Ashwood Boulevard to Route 29. Mr. Runkle said he thinks the County would not want that access available to the public so it would need to be secured in some way. The other property owner has said he can work with that. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Davis said the one issue that needs to be resolved before any action can be taken by the Board is whether Proffer No. 10 is going to change in some fashion to address the radius of a possible connection to the Parkway. Mrs. Humphris asked what language would be used. Mr. Davis said it depends on how the applicant wants to do it. Proffer No. 10 could simply say: ~The owner shall reserve until December 31, 1996, right-of-way for dedication upon demand of the County" and that would leave it wide open to be worked out. Mr. Runkle said that suggestion is fine. Mr. Martin asked when the County would make the request. Mr. Runkle said he is willing to not make it 120 feet, but to leave it undefined. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Runkle wants it by December 31. Mr. Runkle said it needs to be specified by the end of this year so they can delineate it on a plat. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Runkle is saying the applicant will record the entire spreading radius on a plat. Mr. Runkle said they will create a plat where it starts at a width of 120 feet and go as wide as the Board wants to make it. Mr. Martin asked why Proffer No. 10 is not worded to say: ~The owner agrees to reserve a right-of-way." and leave out the December 31, 1996. Mr. Marshall suggested a compromise of 120 feet and flare it to 300 feet at the base of the triangle. Mr. Cilimberg said he was going to suggest that a letter be sent immediately to the applicant saying the County wants the acreage and have it taken care of all at one time. Mr. Runkle said if the Board wants to reserve something, he is more than happy to work toward reserving something. Mr. Martin said the record should clearly state that in reserving this, the Board is not taking any action to use it. The decision is simply being made tonight to have the owner reserve it if he is agreeable. July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000508 (Page 15) This Board or any future board can taken advantage of that. Mr. Davis said there may be some advantage to what Mr. Cilimberg suggested, so they can delineate the area. If the applicant will proffer that he will reserve right- of-way, then the Planning staff could look at it with the applicant's engi- neers to determine exactly the area to be reserved. Then there could just be a letter at the direction of the Board tonight to go ahead and act. Mrs. Thomas asked if their letter would then have a map attached so it would be more precise for everybody. Mr. Davis said that might be better than trying to decide today exactly where that right-of-way needs to be. Mr. Martin said he thought Mr. Runkle could decide that by December when he comes back with his plat. Mr. Marshall said if that is the case, then the last sentence in No. 10 needs to be dropped. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr. Cilimberg asked if this is something that has to be done and acted on by the Board. Mr. Davis said the modifications should be made and Mr. Runkle initial those modifica- tions before the Board takes any action. Mr. Runkle said that instead of dropping the last sentence, he presumes the County also wants 120 feet of right-of-way along Ashwood Boulevard, so he presumes the Board wants the proffer to say that the applicant agrees to provide 120 feet of right-of-way along the alignment of Ashwood Boulevard and that it be extended to their southern property line in the manner that has been agreed to. Mr. Davis asked if there is a need for the Board to act on this at this meeting. Mr. Runkle asked the next alternative. Mr. Davis said the next meeting date is August 7. It could be worked out now, but it would be easier if staff and the applicant could get together and discuss the appropriate language to be used. Mr. Runkle said any delay just holds them up. Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible that Mr. Davis and Mr. Runkle could go in the next room, the Board delay action on this petition, and the Board go on to the next two items on the agenda. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said before the Board moves away from this request, staff had raised the question about an awareness for people who will be buying in Forest Lakes South. If this becomes specific, it may be something the applicant can put in a deed, but this is not proffered. Maybe a proffer is not something the Board feels is necessary, but it is something that needs to be addressed in one way or another. Mr. Martin felt it is something that should definitely be a proffer or a condition so that everybody who buys there will be notified. Mr. Runkle said when the area going south is identified, he has no problem putting it in the deed. Once a plat is created, he is willing to proffer that the area be referenced in the deed. Mrs. Thomas said that would make her feel better. Mr. Marshall said that takes care of Proffer No. 10. What about Proffer No. 117 Mr. Martin said he does not see the Board moving in that direction. Before the Board moved to No. 11 there would need to be a public hearing because it is a major change. Mr. Marshall asked why the Board did not just drop Proffer No. 11. Mr. Cilimberg said it is included so that when the Board takes action on this request, it does not accept that proffer. Mr. Martin said he has been reviewing the latest proposal which dropped that option. Mrs. Humphris said before they leave the room to do some more work, are there any other questions or comments on the proffers, the conditions, anything the Board needs to understand. Mrs. Thomas said there was mention of there being access to the Hollymead PUD. Mr. Runkle said there is now a connection between the existing part of Forest Lakes South and Hollymead. Mr. Cilimberg said there is currently utilization of what is an extension of Powell Creek Drive as it comes into Forest Lakes South. Mrs. Thomas said Proffer No. 5 means that none of the properties on the back of the property will be connected to Hollymead. She thinks there should be connections whenever possible, and that is why she asked the question. She can see that it means that in the new areas there is not a connection to Hollymead. Mr. Cilimberg said that was to reference that there would be no residential areas actually accessing directly to Hollymead Road. There is one connection. There really are no other opportunities to connect to the Hollymead road system. Mr. Martin said all of the people in Forest Lakes South, as well as the new addition, will be able to access Hollymead School and Sutherland Middle School without going out onto Route 29. Mr. Perkins said he believes the Board needs to look at Proffer No. 11 because of the possibility of going through to Proffit Road without going through any neighborhoods. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant was providing some access that could go north, which conceivably could go to Route 649 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000309 ultimately. It is not in any plan of the County's to do that. Mr. Perkins said that access sort of parallels the railroad track. Mr. Cilimberg said because that part of Route 649 is designated Rural Areas and is not a part of the Growth Areas, there have been no proposals that would make any connection to Proffit Road from the Hollymead development, or any of the Hollymead Growth Area. The northern connection could serve that purpose if the County decided it wanted to do that, or it could serve the purpose of an extension that would go further north. Mr. Perkins said the people in Hollymead and Forest Lakes North have made it very clear that they do not want any connector roads, but here is the possibility of running something to Route 649 that would serve as a connector road that would keep a large amount of traffic off of Route 29. Mr. Martin said the road would be coming into Proffit at a point where a lot of traffic would have to go a long distance on a very winding road which is already sort of an eastern bypass for people from the north trying to get to State Farm on Route 250, and people from Fluvanna and the eastern part of Charlottesville trying to get to General Electric on Route 29 North. There would have to be drastic improvements to Route 649 at which point it would take about 50 percent of the homes lining that road. They are all built right on the side of the road. There is also the historic area along Proffit that would need to be dealt with. Mrs. Humphris asked if there were more comments from Board members. Mrs. Thomas said she agrees with the principle, but in this case, she thinks it would be too far away from Route 649. Mr. Perkins said it is not that far away, maybe 1200 feet. Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Tinsley and his wife own two of those properties, 57 and 57A. There is also the rebuilt historic property. He thinks that even if something like this were to be considered, the people on Proffit Road should have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Perkins agreed, but he thinks that if the Board does not take advantage of the proffer now, it is lost forever. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board members would be interested in accept- ing that proffer and spend the time between now and December 31 looking at it, so the possibilities are not overlooked. Mr. Martin said he would be ada- mantly opposed and he thinks it would just stir up controversy so it would be difficult to even bring up the southern connection. Mr. Davis said he would like to clarify something. The developer needs to have some indication from the Board whether or not it wants Proffer No. 11 to remain. The Board can't pick and choose the proffers it wants. They come as a package, so he needs some direction as to whether to consider deleting No. 11. Mr. Martin said he thought Mr. Runkle made it clear that he looked at those as clearly two separate proffers and he saw more merit in Proffer No. 10 than in No. 11. Mr. Runkle said that is true, and he would be willing to delete No. 11. The reason they are in there is the historical perspective. When the Growth Area addition was considered, there was discussion of the potential to provide access. He would prefer not to provide access to the north. Mr. Martin said to him coming into Route 649 to the north would be no different than if the Board did the same kind of thing at Monticello or Scottsville. That is a real historical neighborhood in Proffit. He can't believe this Board (especially in the same week when it just received the Historic Preservation Committee report) would even consider doing something to a community like that. Mr. Marshall said he believes Mr. Martin has a strong argument about not putting that much traffic on that narrow road. He will go along with deleting Proffer No. 11. Mr. Davis asked if that is the direction of the Board on No. 11. Mrs. Humphris asked if there were a consensus on that one. She agrees that is the direction the Board should go. Mrs. Thomas agreed. Mr. Davis asked if the Board wants to have a deed reference to this right-of-way if it is dedicated in No. 10. Mrs. Humphris said yes; that was agreed to. With no further questions for Mr. Davis or Mr. Runkle at this time, Mrs. Humphris called for a recess (8:38 p.m.) The Board reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at this time. 0003 0 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-18. Richard Allan (Zoning Signs #15, ~16) . Public Hearing on a request for Home Occupation-Class B on 11.5 ac zoned RA at end of Rt 707. TM55, P26. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg 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 is for a home occupation in an accessory to Mr. Allah's residence. The on-site occupation will be storage of figurines, packing of figurines for shipping, and catalog phone sales and shipment. There will be one employee who is not a family member living on site. Access to the property is on a private road which extends from the end of State maintenance. The road forks immediately after crossing a rail line and the fork which this site is on serves one other dwelling. Mr. Cilimberg said the primary impact is the delivery of figurines by truck and distribution by UPS which happens once or twice a week. Deliveries occur about four times a year. The proposed usage should not be a major impact on Route 707, however, it is currently a stabilized road. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 9, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of SP-96-18 subject to two conditions. With no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Humphris invited the applicant to speak first. Mr. Allan was present, but did not care to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-96-18 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below. No outdoor storage; and Not more than one employee who is not a family member living on site shall be permitted. Agenda Item No. 10. Charlottesville Free Clinic, presentation by Betty Newell, Executive Director. Ms. Newell said she is pleased to come before the Board to ask for permission to proceed with the building project that was proposed last Fall. This is a private/public partnership between the Charlottesville Free Clinic, the City and County, and the Thomas Jefferson Health District. The City and County own the building on Rose Hill Drive which houses the Health Department. The Free Clinic started dental services using the Health Department dental suite last Spring through an innovative agreement which used Health Department space and Free Clinic dental equipment. Ms. Newell said they now have an opportunity to expand the sharing of community resources. The Free Clinic proposes to build a second level to some new construction planned at the Health Department. The second level will be approximately 1500 square feet and house the Clinic's administrative offices which are needed during the daytime, and their State-licensed pharmacy. During the evening, the Clinic's office space would open directly into the newly remodeled patient waiting areas and medical exam space at the Health Department. Since the Free Clinic needs the medical exam space only in the evening and the Health Department uses it only in the daytime, this seems to be an efficient use of community resources. By building the Clinic's offices at the Health Department, should the time come when the Free Clinic is no longer needed, dollars for capital will not be wasted because the office will be available for other uses by the community° 0008 July 17, 1996 (Regular Night MeetinD) (Page 18) Ms. Newell said that last Fall the Board of Supervisors approved the concept of what she has described and asked that she return to the Board when the money for the project had been raised. The Board approved $2500 in County funds toward the project, and they needed to raise approximately $100,000. They have commitments from the Perry Foundation, the Virginia Health Care Foundation, Martha Jefferson Hospital, the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, and the C-Foundation, as well as other small community contributions. They are working on matching the last $8500 challenge grant and are confident the community will collaborate with them on this. They recently launched their bricks and medicine campaign, not bricks and mortar. They also have a pharmacy grant from the Gwatney Foundation for medications. Ms. Newell said they are working closely with the City and County Attorneys and with the Health Department to secure the requested assurances to the donors that their dollars will be used to guarantee the Free Clinic space in years to come. The Perry Foundation and the Virginia Health Care Founda- tion have some questions, but she feels they can be worked out. The bids for the project came in last week and Mr. Bill Letteri at the City's contract office is working with the prospective contractor. Ms. Newell said she is requesting the Board's official blessing to proceed with the project. They believe the project is a win-win situation. This is an innovative public/private partnership which they hope will set an example for other community organizations to work together to share expensive resources. The Free Clinic is committed to putting itself out of business as soon as possible. It is reassuring to know that when their services are no longer needed, the office space they are building will continue to be used for the public good. Mr. Marshall said Ms. Newell is certainly a dedicated person. She really works hard for this clinic. Mrs. Humphris said Ms. Newell is only asking for the Board's blessing. Ms. Newell said when she approached the Board last Fall, the only concern her board had when they talked about the shared dental use was how it would appear to donors if they gave them grants, and then they gave it to the Health Department. She talked with one of the UVA vice presidents in development who also serves on the United Way Board and he said this is exactly the kind of thing the United Way has been trying to get community organizations to do for years. It is a nice building, and they hope that at some time in the future health reform will make them superfluous. Ms. Newell said that at this time there is only an agreement designed to be in place between the State and the City and County for the building. The Free Clinic would also have an operating agreement with the Health Department. The foundations want some kind of agreement between the City and County and the Free Clinic which basically says that in the unforeseen event that the Health Department does not remain in that space, the Free Clinic could keep using the space, and if the building were needed for some purpose that was not conducive for sharing with the Free Clinic, the County and City would make reasonable efforts to find them space elsewhere. Mrs. Humphris asked for a motion. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded Mrs. Thomas, to grant permission to the Free Clinic to move forward on the construction of the Health Department's second story addition which will provide a permanent home for the Free Clinic's administrative offices. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. At this time the Board returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-12. Forest Lakes Associates. (Note: Mr. Bowerman excused himself again and left the room at 9:01 p.m.) Mr. Davis said that because of issues which Mr. Runkle's attorney may need to look at dealing with the deed reference, and the engineering issue of trying to define where the right-of-way would be, he, Mr. Runkle and Mr. July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 0003 2 Cilimberg decided this petition should be deferred until August 7. It is difficult to construct a tightly worded agreement now. Some other people are needed to help with the final language. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant understands there will be 10 proffers, and No. 11 will be dropped. An additional proffer will need to be developed as regards the deed reference. Mr. Martin asked if it is 10 proffers, or seven proffers plus the old Proffer No. 10. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned the staff's memo of July 15 and said that attached is the proffer form dated July 12, 1996, which Mr. Runkle sent which lists 11 proffers. The llth proffer is to be dropped. Mrs. Humphris asked for a motion to defer action on ZMA-96-12 until August 7, 1996. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin and seconded Mr. Marshall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 9:05 p.m. Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at this time.) Mrs. Thomas said She attended the birthday party for the Charlottesville downtown mall. Mr. Marshall said he also attended. Mr. Marshall said Dr. Justino Campa has talked to him several times recently about a Sister City project which would be a joint project between Albemarle, Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. There is a town in Argentina, Mendosa and its province, that has a situation similar with its university as this area does. Mr. Marshall said he and Mr. Martin met with Mr. David Toscano this morning to discuss this matter. He would like for this Board to join with the City and the University for a project which will cost only a total of $600 for all three entities. In exchange for this, there is a cultural exchange of students, ideas and everything that goes with Sister City projects. He thinks it is a worthwhile pursuit, and he would like for the County to join in. Dr. Campa has all of the paperwork and if the Board agrees he would like to have the staff investigate the possibility. Mrs. Thomas said she is not speaking against the request, but she reminded the Board that Albemarle actually has a Sister City arrangement with two cities in Italy. The Italians approached the City and County in 1976 during the country's bicentennial and reminded them that they had a connection through Phillipe Matsi who came here and Thomas Jefferson got him to work on vineyards. He went back to Italy and became a patriot and is much revered in that area. Mr. Marshall said that is the same situation in Argentina which is great wine country. They hope to even get private money involved. Mrs. Thomas said there was a very active student exchange program that went on for a couple of years. Prior to that some members of the Board of Supervisors and City Council visited Italy. In return, the Italians came here, and then there was a student exchange program for two years. Out of that, her family went to Italy. That relationship still exists, and a letter was received just last year. That was a very worthwhile experience, and she is not speaking about this new proposal. She asked if the Board would just take this particular city, or would it decide which city to take. She asked why the Board should accept this proposal. Mr. Marshall said primarily because Dr. Campa and Mr. Toscano asked him. The areas have a lot in common. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the room at 9:06 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris said it sounds delightful, but she wonders what the two areas have in common. She remembers one of the factors that put a chill on July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000;3 3 the other Sister City connection. It was the amount of money it was costing to maintaiD the connection. Mr. Marshall said he understands it will only be the $600. This will put the area in contact with the agency that actually works on these programs. The things in common are the medical school there, which is why Dr. Campa is involved, the wine country, and the City of Char- lottesville has other reasons to be connected to it. Mrs. Humphris said usually this is the kind of thing that should be turned over to staff. Mr. Marshall said that is all he is asking. Mrs. Thomas said the Board should know how much hosting they would be expected to do. When members of this Board went to Italy, they were treated like royalty. It was embarrassing. When the Italians came here, it became fairly expensive. Mr. Martin said he sees it as something the Board Would have tO pay for. He thinks that any kind of banquet would be done by the private sector. He thinks that if there is a Sister City relationship now, he would like to see more involvement on both parts. Italy is an area he would like to visit and he would expect to pay for the visit himself. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to get some information together on this request. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Lloyd Wood has prevailed upon him to ask the Board's indulgence again. First this Board approved the self-storage facility behind the Putt-Putt and then there was an expedited hearing to remove a proffer on an eight-foot strip that was on the Putt-Putt site but which was required on the site behind for the storage facility. The Board thought that was the last request. Now, the parking requirement is such that there needs to be more parking spaces and they don't exist on that site. The parking can be on the site in front of it (the Putt-Putt site), but there is still a proffer on that site other than the one concerning the eight-feet that proffers out warehousing as a use. Mr. Wood has a number of proffers on the site, but one of them is that one, and he is asking that it be removed. He has filed an application to do that, and he is asking for an expedited hearing on that application. Mr. Bowerman told Mr. Wood he would bring it to the Board's attention and ask that the Planning Commission and the Board hear the request as soon as they can. None of it is new information. Mr. Martin asked if the request is basically to add three parking spaces. Mr. Bowerman said that is the request this time. Mr. Wood said that if at some time in the future they wanted to expand the use of the storage facility, if that particular proffer is removed on the whole site, it would give the flexibility to move lines around or to expand that use further into the Putt-Putt site. Mr. Bowerman said the Board can hear it and consider less than the whole site; it could consider only the three parking spaces. Mr. Davis said it is possible it can't be done unless he amends the proffer. Mr. Martin said he is willing to look at it. Mr. Marshall said he is willing to look at it also, but needs the staff recommendation first. Mr. Bowerman said the request tonight is just for a quick hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg for his recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has a lot of research to do. They know the issue, and what they will do is analyze the potential for warehousing over the entire site and give the Board a recommendation with the staff's report. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded Mr. Marshall, to expedite the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 9:19 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsec- tion (1) to consider a personnel matter concerning a personnel agreement and related salaries of specific employees and a personnel matter concerning appointments to boards and commissions, and under subsection (7) to discussion pending litigation relating to a tax collection matter. Approved by the Board of County Super- visors Date ~/~ Initials July 17, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000314 The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:14 p.m. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. (Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to reappoint Mr. Jerry Jones to the Library Board of Directors for a term which will expire on June 30, 2000. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 10:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn this meeting until 11:45 a.m. on July 29, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None.