Loading...
1984-02-01February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 1, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Assistant County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-82-73. Ralph & Ruby Taylor. Applicant requests extension of mobile home permit. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., was present and summarized the history of this petition; specifically, the mobile home was for interim housing until the permanent dwelling was constructed. In September, 1983, the applicants requested an extension of the permit and same was approved until January 1, 1984 with a progress report to be made at that time. A letter dated December 28, 1983 was received from the applicants requesting postponement of the report until February. Mr. Tucker said the letter also requests that a further extension be granted. An inspection of the construction of the house has been made by the Inspections Department and Mr. Andy Evans, DeputY Zoning Administrator, is present to comment on the progress. An inspection report and photographs of the interior and exterior of the home have been submitted by the department (Copies are on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Evans said he visited the site today and the house cannot be occupied at this time. There are no front steps, wiring is incomplete, the half bath is incomplete and the hardwood flooring has not been laid. Mrs. Taylor informed him that Mr. Taylor plans to do most of the work on weekends. With that working schedule, Mr. Evans felt completion will take several more months. He then referred to the photographs of the interior and exterior of the house and noted that since the pictures were taken, the kitchen cabinets have been set. Mr. Evans said the only way to get into the house at this time is through the garage which does not yet have a permanent floor. Mr. Evans said progress is being made, but at a slow pace since Mr. Taylor is doing the majority of the work on a limited schedule. Mr. Fisher recognized the applicant, Mr. Taylor and asked how much more time will be involved in constructing the house. Mr. Taylor said when he appeared before the Board in September, he had requested a nine month extension of the mobile home permit; until June, 1984. He feels that he can complete the work by that time. Mr~. Taylor also noted that he is proceeding in good faith. Mr. Fisher asked when he anticipated moving into the dwelling. Mr. Taylor said hopefully in six months. Mr. Fisher said that would be August. Mr. Taylor felt the' construction should be completed and the home ready to be occupied by July. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of asking for a specific date is because the mobile home permit was initially approved for two years and is now going into its third year. Even though he is aware of the background regarding this matter, the neighbors were upset when the mobile home permit was originally approved and he would like to have a specific completion date. Mr. Taylor said, if at all possible, he hoped to have the construction completed by July 31, 1984. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the petition and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the extension of .SP-83-73 to July 31, 1984. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-83-18. HCMF Development Corporation. Request to amend Branchlands PUD conditions to allow density of 130 units on 8.626 acres, Area A, average density of 15 units per acre. Located on east side of Route 29 North on a proposed public road through Branchlands PUD. County Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-1 (part of). Charlottesville District. (Deferred from December 21, 1983). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "R_~qu~s~: Amend SP-80-63, Dr. Charles W. Hurt, (Branchlands PUD), by increasing dwellings in Area A from 82 to 130 units. Acreage: 8.6 acres Location: Property described as Tax Map 61Z-03-1 (part), is located between the Holy Comforter Church and Squire Hills Apartments. 556 February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) BaRk. ground: Branchlands PUD was originally proposed some ten ~ears ago. Since that time, this property has come before the Commission and Board on several occasions. This petition constitutes the seventh series of public hearings (excluding site plans/subdivision plats). Counting HCMF Development Corporation, there are currently four property owners within the PUD (HCMF, Holy Comforter Church, Dr. Charles W. Hurt, Ron Langman). A portion of the PUD has been designated as part of Fashion Square Mall. The PUD is currently approved for 484 dwellings and 19.7 acres of commercial service uses. Heri. t.~_ge Acres V Preliminary Site Plan: The preliminary plan submitted with this petition by HCMF Development Corporation proposed 130 apartment units housed in ten buildings. This includes seven handicapped units; 32 units would be HUD rent subsidized. A community building, playground and picnic area would also be provided. As with most property within Branchlands PUD, development of this ~area will require particular attention: 1. The proposed Branchlands collector road which would connect Rio Road to Greenbrier Drive would cross areas of steep terrain on this site. 2. Three buildings would encroach on twenty-five percent slopes, requiring a retaining wall. The applicant would be required to satisfy the County Engineer and Planning Commission under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. As proposed parking for some units would be located across the collector road, which in staff opinion is not satisfactory. Resolution of this design problem may result in loss of at least one building. 4. This property is in an area of particular storm drainage concern. Cooperation with other property owners in the area in designing stormwater facilities is encouraged. The applicant should work closely with the County Engineer. 5. Prior to any additional site planning the boundaries of the property should be verified. ~op_qsed PUD amendment: 1) In review of the most recent amendments (SP-80-63, Dr. Charles W. Hurt; ZMA-80-26, Dr. Jan Langman), staff recommended favorably on a mix of land uses with projected traffic generation comparable to the previously approved plan. In that report was the comment that 'the planning staff has not recommended favorably in recent years on any rezoning requests along Route 29 North between Hydraulic Road and the South Fork Rivanna River which would increase traffic in that area until improvements recommended in the Highway Department's Route 29 North Corridor Study are realized.' Staff would recommend a similar approach in consideration of this amendment. 2) Initially, staff thought that this petition could proceed without issue involving other property owners within the PUD. However, problems exist with the proposed Branchlands collector road: - Alignment of the collector road within Squire Hill to the Branchlands boundary has been rejected by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The proposed horizontal curvature is not consistent with the thirty-five mile per hour design speed. Realignment of the roadway could significantly alter development proposals for Area A. It is recommended that the developers of Squire Hill Apartments and Branchlands Area A work together in resolution of this problem. - Other property owners within the PUD may wish to seek amendment regarding roadway layout, including alignment and function of the Branchlands collector road. This issue has-been discussed for several months; however, no amendment has been filed. - The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that a meaningful review of the rezoning petition cannot be made until a transportation analysis plan for the entire Branchlands road network has been developed. After discussion of this issue with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, staff recognizes that further amendment of Branchlands PUD would likely complicate transportation matters and may result in roads of inadequate design. HCMF Development Corporation, Dr. Hurt and Mr. Langman have expressed interest in pursuing amendment of the PUD. Piecemeal amendment may result in unnecessary costs to all parties involved. Staff opinion is that the most appropriate approach would be a unified amendment petition which would permit more efficient review. February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) However, should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends amendment of Condition A.10 of SP-80-63 and ZMA-80-26, as follows: 10. Designation of Areas: AREA USE A B C D E F $2 130 dwelling, units (HCMF) church 312 dwelling units, elderly (Langman) ~G 42 dwelling units (Hurt) 11.0 acres commercial service acreage (Hurt) 8.7 acres commercial service acreage (Hurt)" Mr. Tucker said with the above recommended designation there will not be a net increase in the dwelling units in the overall PUD but rather shifting some dwelling units to Area A. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at'its meeting on December 6, 1983, by a vote of 4/1 recommended denial because the applicant desired a decision that evening. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission denied the petition because of issues involving things such as an agreement with the other PUD property owners not being resolved. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation in the staff report does not indicate if the other property owners involved have agreed to the transfer of dwelling units. Mr. Tucker said that is correct and as he understands, one of the issues was for the applicant to pursue some agreement with the Holy Comforter Church. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Carol Mason, agent for the HCMF Development Corporation, was present. Mr. Mason said a suggestion was made to the Planning Commission to defer this petition rather than to deny same in order that the Corporation could meet with church representatives to resolve some of their concerns. The Corporation had understood that the Church objected to the visibility of the units and another plan was drawn with the assistance of a land planner, Mr. Bob McKee. The Church objected to that plan as well. Mr. Mason said the Corporation has submitted a revised site plan which is on the agenda of the site development plan review committee tomorrow. That plan will address some of.the objections to the initial site plan. However, if this petition is approved this evening, that site plan will be withdrawn. Mr. Mason said objections to this petition were not anticipated since the overall density of the PUD is not to be changed. However, the Church did object. The Corporation wants to be a good neighbor and is amenable to screening. He further noted that a forty-foot berm is proposed in order to address visibility concerns. Mr. Mason said screening can be accomplished and the Corporation is willing to enter into a contract per the reassignment of the units regarding that concern. Mr. Mason said this larger project will afford the Corporation an opportunity to have a iI~ll~ime, on-site maintenance and management staff. Also, with thirty-two of the units in the project subsidized, the market for more middle-income units can be met. Mr. Mason said the Corporation respectfully requests that this petition be favorably considered in order that the Corporation can proceed and hopefully have the project started by summer. Mr. Lindstrom asked for. an explanation of the transfer of units. Mr. Mason said the request is for the transfer of units from Area D to Area A which in effect will be a decrease of units in Area~from 90 to 42. He said he would prefer this petition be known as a transfer rather than a rezoning. Mr~ Fisher expressed concern that the units being moved are not on property owned by the Corporation. Mr. Mason said the Corporation is acquiring the property from Dr. Charles Hurt, owner of the land, and Dr. Hurt is the one who submitted the application. Next to speak was Mr, James Murray, representing the Holy. Comforter Church. Mr. Murray said the Church is opposed to this petition because of the feeling that the integrity of the PUD is being destroyed. Mr. Murray said several years ago the Church decided to sell its property retaining only twelve acres for church use. A consultant was hired to develop a PUD plan. This was done so the surroundings would be compatible and congenial with the activities of the Church. Mr. Murray said the property was sold to Dr. Charles Hurt and in the contract of sale, various plats were included and on those plats were statements that this property would be developed in conformance with the previously approved PUD plan. Therefore, anyone buying within the PUD would be subject to the restrictions of the approved plan and no changes would be permitted in the PUD by the County. Mr. Murray said the density is felt to be the heart of the plan which is the reason the consultant was requested to keep the density lower adjacent to the church property. As has been mentioned by Mr. Mason, there is a concern about the visual impact that increasing the density next to the Church will create. Further, if the Church had desired higher density, the plan would have indicated same and more money could have been required for the purchase of the property. Mr. Murray said it is felt that al~ parties originally involved with the PUD plan should concur in the granting of this petition; the Church has not. Again, Mr. Murray emphasized that the plan of HCMF Corporation destroys the goal of the original plan. If such a plan can be overturned when the property is sold, he questioned why there should have been a PUD plan in the first place. Mr. Murray said in reviewing the County Zoning Ordinance, the section regarding planned unit developments is very protective. In conclusion, Mr. Murray urged the Board to deny the petition not only because of visibility concerns, but he feels that the integrity of the PUD is being destroyed. He agreed that the overall density of the PUD is not involved, but the goal of the PUD designation is affected. Dr. Jan Langman representing the Branchlands Corporation was next to speak. Dr. Langman said Branchlands Corporation is building the Branchtands Retirement Village and is also concerned with any change in the PUD plan. He agreed that all parties of the PUD should have been involved in any modifications to the overall plan. The Branchlands Corporation is particularly concerned about transportation. Density is of concern as well, especially regarding what would prevent another request to transfer units from one area to another. He understands the purpose of transferring units from Area D is because Area D is in the flood plain and the proposed ninety units will not be achievable unless closely clustered. Dr. Langman said his Corporation feels the collector road needs to be 5,58 February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) studied further. The road was to originally run from Hydraul±c to Rio Road. However, with the development of Seminole Square and the Pepsi Cola Plant in the City, there can~no longer be a collector road from Hydraulic Road. Further, the Branchlands collector road is no longer included as a collector road in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Langman felt the road is very necessary and valuable to the Branchlands Retirement village in order that the residents will not have to travel Route 29 regularly. Dr. Langman concluded by stating his desire for all of the owners in the PUD to meet and agree on changes, and also to begin formulating a plan that will encompass all changes necessary for the PUD. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, and asked if he had any additional comments since the letter dated November 1, 1983 from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation of the Department is that a traffic analysis of Branchlands be made in order to determine the effect on the road systems, and a road layout and traffic generation plan to properly size the major roadways involved in the entire undeveloped area was requested. Mr. Roosevelt said he had no further comments. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said a PUD is an unusual type of plan and in his opinion deserves more consideration than other rezoning requests, because of adjacent property owners. Although he would not encourage changes in a plan already approved by the Board, he was not adverse to changing the PUD plan when the changes have been agreed to by all property owners within the PUD and provided the transportation concerns are met. Mr. Lindstrom said, in this case, he cannot support the petition which is an unilateral change and is opposed by two of the property owners in the PUD. Mr. Bowie said the staff report contains many negative aspects and none are resolved. He is particularly concerned that the Branchlands collector road might become a feeder road, the traffic involved, and the fact that some of the units may be constructed where the road is planned as stated in the staff report. In conclusion, Mr. Bowie said he cannot support the petition. Mrs. Cooke said her son is employed by Caleb Stowe Associates which Dr. Langman represents and therefore, will abstain to avoid any possible conflict of interest. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to deny ZMA-83-18. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he concurs with the concerns expressed by the other Board members and felt if the Church had gone to the trouble of having a PUD plan prepared then the Church should certainly have the right to agree or disagree with any changes within the PUD. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 6. January 18, 1984). SP-83-87. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Deferred from Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "R~quest: To construct the Crozet Interceptor Part III within the floodway of an unnamed tributary to Lickinghole Creek in Crozet, Lickinghole Creek, Mechums River and Powells Creek (Section 30.3.5.2.1.2), and to locate a sewer lift station adjacent to Route 250 West at Lickinghote Creek near the Mechums River (Section 30.3.5.2.1.4). P~oJect Description: Part III, the final phase of construction of the Crozet Interceptor would be located largely within the Crozet community of the Comprehensive Plan. The main interceptor would parallel Lickinghole Creek. The branch interceptors would provide connection to the Brownsville, Windham and Del Monte wastewater treatment plants. A total of about 31,700 feet or six miles of sewer line is proposed. Summary and Recommendations: A cooperative effort by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the County Engineer, the Watershed Management Official, and the Planning staff has been made to address matters of public concern. the extensive flood plain location, sensitivity in construction is necessary as a reservoir protective measure. Staff recommends approval subject to seven conditions. Due to History: In December, 1982 after legal notice and public hearing, the Planning~ Commission approved the general locations and alignment of the Crozet Interceptor and related sewage pump stations as required under 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia (i.e., review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan). The purpose of this current special use permit review is to address aspects of Part III of this project in relation to flood plain considerations. zonin_g Ordinance Requirements: The Flood Hazard Overlay District requires that new sewer facilities be located and designed to 'minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into such systems and in the case of sewer facilities discharge of effluent into flood waters; minimize damage or impairment caused by flooding' (Section 30.3.3.1). The Flood Hazard Overlay District also requires construction to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement as a result of flooding; maintenance of stream channel carrying capacity; protection from erosion by vegetative cover, riprap, gabions or other approved method; and use of construction materials that will not pollute surface water or ground- water. Review and approval by the County Engineer is required by zoning regulations which reflect requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Me~t~ng) 5 5'9 In regard to the sewage pump station, Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 'public utility buildings and structures in any residential zone shall wherever practical, have exterior appearance of residential buildinEs and shall have landscaping, screen planting, and/or fencing, whenever these are deemed necessary by the Commission.' Regulatory Agencies: In addition to local zoning requirements, the project ~st Ibe" submitted to a permitting process involving the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. In turn, these agencies in clearinghouse fashion seek comment from numerous other State and Federal agencies, including the Virginia State Water Control Board, Virginia State Department of Health, Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, United States Forestry Service and the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. Staff Comment: In review of this petition, staff has worked with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the County Engineer and the Watershed Management Official in an attempt to address matters of public concern. More specifically, issues addressed are as follows: - Possible Conflict with Proposed Lickin~hole Creek Impoundment: An impoundment to ~'educe-pollutants to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir is currently under study by the County Engineer for location along Lickinghole Creek. While matters related to~£inancing have not been resolved at this time, an alternate route for the interceptor acceptable to the County Engineer and Rivanna Water and Sewer Autho~ity~has been developed. - Number af Stream Crossings: Seventeen major stream crossings are proposed in this phase of the Crozet Interceptor project. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has stated 'due to existing rock formations, steep bank slopes and meandering of Lickinghole Creek, all of the designed crossings were necessary.' The Watershed Management Official has requested special review 'to insure that every effort is being taken to minimize disruption of normal stream flow and ~_ that earth-disturbing~activities in the areas of streams conform-to established soil erosion protection criteria and Best Management Practices Handbook developed for the'se activities.' - Proposed Sewer Lift Station: A pumping station i~ proposed in the Lickinghole Cr~'~k f'lood plain, in a swale near Route 250 West. To protect the station from flood waters, a levee is proposed. The levee would tie into existing contours of the swale and have a maximum height of eighteen feet above existing grade. While this development would not be visible from scenic Route 250 West, it may be visible from two dwellings in the area. Due to the peculiar nature of this proposal, staff would propose to address matters such as landscaping after construction of the facility. This would be a cooperative effort involving the affected property owners and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. - Archaeolo$ical/Historic Sites: As outlined in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's letter of January 23, 1984, State and Federal regulatory agencies will address possible conflicts between this project and any archaeological/ historic sites in the area. - Vented Manholes: As proposed, six manholes in the flood plain would be vented. Realignment of the interceptor and construction of the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation impoundment could reduce this number. Maximum height of vents would be three to four feet. - Reservoir Watershed: In prior review of this project for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, staff stated that: 'As with any other construction in a reservoir watershed, review and participation by the Watershed Management Official would be appropriate. Because of the scale of the project and extensive flood plain location, careful construction practices, guided by watershed Best Management Practices, is of critical importance. Contractor bonding should provide for immediate correction of any problem areas as well as restoration measures. Staff Recommendation: The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has been responsive and cooperative in addressing issues and concerns outlined by the County Engineer, the Watershed Management Official and planning staff. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer review and approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance including pump station levee; 2. Staff approval of site plan for pump station to include a landscape plan if deemed necessary following construction; 3. Watershed Management~0fficiaI review-of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board, 4. Approval of appropriate local, state and federal agencies; 5. Compliance with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority letters dated January 17, 1984 and January 23, 1984; 0!' February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 6. Approval is for alternate route around proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation pond; 7. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning the acquis±tion of any right-of-way or other interest in property for this project or the compensation to be paid therefor, nor to preclude subsequent minor variations or changes in alignment of the sewer line and related facilities occasioned by negotiations between the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and individual property owners." The following two letters are those noted in condition 5 above: "JanUary 17, 1984 Mr. Ron Keeler County of ~Albemarle Department of Planning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Mr. Keeler: During our'January 6., 1984 meeting with the County engineer, several items were questioned concerning the design of the Crozet Interceptor, Part III. As per your request, I have reviewed the stream crossings on this project to see if all were necessary. Due to existing rock formations, steep bank slopes and meandering of Lickinghole Creek, all of the designed crossings were necessary. As to the location of the interceptor with respect to the proposed County silt pond, I have met with Mr. Elrod and proposed an alternate route for the sewer. This alternate route will not effect any additional property owners with respect to the proposed special use permit and will only constitute a minor rerOuting along Lickinghole Creek. A decision has not been made, as yet, to construct this alternate route, but all conflicts shall be answered to the mutual satisfaction of the County engineer and myself prior to construction. Sincerely, (SI NED BY) Paul A. Shoop Engineer" "January 23, 1984 Mr. Ron Keeler Albemarle County Planning Commission County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ron: In response to your concerns over historical significance of property along the route of the Crozet Interceptor and proposed sewer ventilation at select manholes, I submit the following: 1) One of the required permits to construct within a flood plain is that of a joint permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission to construct stream crossings. During the review process, property owners, adjoining property owners, and interested public or private organizations are invited for public comment. It has been our experience, that historical societies review possible significant areas during this permit process. This was the case on the Rivanna Interceptor project where the Rivanna Authority undertook both a Phase I and Phase II Archeological survey looking for an Indian Burial Ground. We have not to date been contacted by any historical society concerning any phase of the Crozet Interceptor. If any contact is made during Phase III of this project it shall be handled appropriately. 2) As concerned the ventilation of manholes along the Crozet Interceptor, the following will be watertight and vented: Manholes - 77, 81, 84, 86, 89 and 145 as shown on the plans'. Any manhole located greater than four feet below the 100 year flood elevation has a snorkle arrangement with a 'float' check valve installed with a total height above the ground of three feet. Each vented manhole has been located so as to minimize its visibility, ie., near bridges, steep slopes, railroad embankments, etc. If you have any additional questions regarding this, please feel free to call. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Paul A. Shoop, Engineer" February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 24, 1984 recommended approval of SP-83-87 by a 6/1 vote with the above conditions but amending condition #6 to read "Approval is for the original route or the alternate route around proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation pond". The approval was subject to four reservations which were addressed at the January 31, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. One reservation concerned the pumping station. Mr. Tucker said the Commission is now basically satisfied with the levee proposed to protect the pump station. The second reservation was the route around the proposed Lickinghole Creek impoundment. Mr. Tucker said if the impoundment is not built, the Authority will obviously construct along the original route (blue line) and if the impoundment is built, the alternate route will be followed. Mr. Tucker said if no decision has been made by the Board as to whether or not the impoundment will be built when it is time to bid the construction of the interceptor, then he feels the RWSA will build along the alternate route. Mr. Tucker said there was also a concern expressed about a manhole being located on Mr. Clayton's property. To his understanding, that ma~te~ahas been resolved by redesigning the line and eliminating that manhole. The last reservation was about the many stream crossings proposed. He feels that the Rivanna has satisfied that concern by showing that the topography of the area requires the stream crossings. The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, was present. She said the purpose of the Crozet Interceptor is to enhance the water quality in the South Rivanna Reservoir. This will be accomplished by removing certain point source discharges in the drainage basin and eliminating malfunctioning septic tanks in the Crozet area which are currently a health hazard. Mrs. Cromwell said construction of the interceptor was divided into three parts in order to accommodate the availability of Federal grant funding. Funds were made available for the Federal share of Part III and accepted by the Rivanna Board on January 23. Therefore, the project is financially ready to proceed. With an estimated eighteen-month construction period, the project should be completed in early 1986. Mrs. Cromwell said it is felt that the pumping station will provide protection for the one hundred year flood. In conclusion, Mrs. Cromwell said the Authority feels it is an excellent time to bid and move forward with the project. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked the reason that the vented pipes along the Crozet Interceptor are shorter than those along the Rivanna River. Mr. Paul Shoop, Engineer for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present and said due to the narrow constriction of the culvert, the vented pipe which is to extend above the one hundred year flood plain will have to be twenty-six feet high. As an alternative to this, a check valve is used. Mr. Fisher asked why that cannot be done in other places. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present and said there is a pumping station at the Rivanna River which has to be operated regardless and therefore, has to be vented. Mr. Fisher said seventeen stream crossings are a substantial amount. Mr. Shoop said the topography in the Lickinghole Creek area dictates the crossings. He said there are six places along one stretch of the line where the stream is actually nonpassable by sewer between the vertical bluff and the edge of the stream. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the line will be exposed at each island of the stream crossing. Mr. Shoop said the line will be buried. Mr. Fisher said the question of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek still remains to be answered. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present. Mr. Elrod said a status report on the basin was presented to the Board last fall. One of the items missing at that time was data from an Environmental Protection Agency study in northern Virginia and Maryland of such facilities. That data has been received, but he is somewhat disappointed in its findings. Mr. Elrod said since the Bivanna Authority accelerated its study, he plans to present a report by the end of February on various options and deficiencies of the various options in terms of phosphorous removal and the cost involved. Mr. Elrod then referred to a map showing dam sites that the engineering department is studying and noted that neither of the sites is included in the construction of the Crozet Interceptor project. Mr. Fisher said he is pleased that the report on various options will be received soon; also that the Rivanna Authority plans to build around the basin. He hopes the County can proceed with some type of retention basin in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom asked which route is planned; the alternate or the original. Mr. Williams said if the sedimentation basin is not constructed, then the original route will be used because it is easier to construct and cheaper. However, if the sedimentation basin is built, the alternate route will be followed. Mr. Bowie asked when a decision is needed concerning the sedimentation basin. Mr. Williams said the Rivanna Authority needs to know something by the middle of February in order that a contract for the interceptor can be awarded within two months. Mr. Williams said the Environmental Protection~^gency has expressed an interest in the sedimentation basin and perhaps the Board should communicate with that agency to see if there is any financial assistance available. Mr. Lindstrom said for clarification purposes, he would suggest condition #6 be reworded as follows: "Approval is for the alternate route around proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation pond, unless definite determination is made by the Board of Supervisors prior to the actual construction to eliminate such sedimentation pond". Mr. Williams had no problem with that clarification. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve SP-83-87 with the following seven conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission but with Condition #6 amended to read as set out above. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. 562 February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) (The conditions as approved are set out below:) 1. County Engineer review and approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance, including pump station levee; 2. Staff approval of site plan for pump station, to include a landscaping plan if deemed necessary following construction; 3. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board; 4. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies; 5. Compliance with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority letters dated January 17, 1984 and January 23, 1984; (Note: Set out in full in these minutes.) 6. Approval is for the alternate route around proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation pond, unless definite determination is made by the Board of Supervisors prior to the actual construction to eliminate such sedimentation pond; 7. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for this project or the compensation to be paid therefor, nor to preclude subsequent minor variations or changes in alignment of the sewer line and related facilities occasioned by negotiations between the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and individual property owners." Mr. St. John said the record should show that this special use permit approval is based on the finding that the sewer line is a public facility and in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-456 regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said perhaps that should be added to the motion, and that the map as presented today be specifically referred to as the locations for the alternate and original routes. Mr. St. John said that would be fine. Mr. Fisher asked if this was the intent of the motion. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley both accepted the above to be incorporated into the motion. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-83-19. Hollymead Land Trust/Albemarle Bank and Trust Company. Request to rezone 296 acres from R-1 to R-4 with proffer to limit density to 1.7 dwellings per acre; rezone 23 acres from R-1 to R-15; rezone 45 acres from R-1 to Highway Commerical. Located east side of Route 29 North between Hollymead Lake and Route 649. County Tax Map 46, Parcel 29, and County Tax Map 32, Parcels 42 and 36. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 1984.) Before beginning the staff's report, Mr. Tucker said the proffer for this petition is written on the site plan and specifically states: "Proposed zoning~4 with 1.7 units per acre". Mr. Fisher asked if under State Code provisions that note on the site plan constitutes a proffer. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred any action on the commercial area rezoning request (45 acres requested for HC) for further study. Mr. Tucker then gave a brief history of the Hollymead PUD plan. The original proposal for the development was received in the early 1970's. Most of the land south of the land under consideration tonight was ultimately approved as Phase I of Hollymead. Phase II, as submitted in the early 1970's, also included the area being considered tonight, but that phase was not approved at that time. The request tonight is to rezone that portion of the property. Mr. Fisher said as he thought this area had received preliminary approval but the actual zoning density was not assigned. Mr. Tucker said this area was never recognized in the zoning for the PUD. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Location: The area requested for low density zoning is located north of and adjacent to the Hollymead Lake and extends northward within 900 feet of Route 649. Eight acres requested for commercial zoning lie between the proposed low density area and Route 649 and is bisected by Powell Creek Drive. Thirty-seven acres of requested commercial land front about 1,550 feet on Route 29 North beginning at a point about 400 feet south of Route 649. The twenty-three acres proposed for high density residential are located between the proposed thirty-seven acre commercial area and the low density residential area. H!st.q~_Y_: On August 23, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary subdivision plat for a portion of the area subject of this rezoning petition. Among concerns raised by the staff was that the subdivision was proposed at a lower density than that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and that continued development in like fashion could jeopardize the Comprehensive Plan growth objective for the Hollymead community. Also emphasized in the staff report were transportation concerns: '563 - The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was reviewing a traffic study submitted by the developer, but review was complicated bY the fact that the Comprehensive Plan recommended higher densities in the area than did existing zoning. - Determination of traffic count was also complicated by expected through traffic on Powell Creek Drive and plans for extension of Meadow Creek Parkway through this area. - The preliminary plat showed a proposed street connecting to Route 29 North, the sizing and location of which required the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval. - Finally staff recommended that approval of the plat also be subject to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance of Powell Creek Drive over the Hollymead Lake dam. On September 12, 1983, representatives of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the Planning Department met with the developer to discuss development of the Holtymead area and, in particular, an approach to resolve the issue of roadway development. The most reasonable approach appeared to be rezoning of the entire 300 (estimated) acres. Such a comprehensive approach should also address features outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, such as active and passive recreation areas, pedestrian system, parks, schools and the like. A concern expressed by the developer in the September meeting was construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway to its ultimate cross section as required by Highway Department policy. After evaluation, the planning staff brought this issue before the Commission and Board with recommendation that the County request flexibility in the exercise of this Highway Department policy. On December 6, 1983, ZMA-83-19 was presented to the Planning Commission as a request to rezone ninety acres out of 300 acres and controlled by the applicant. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation stated that road planning for the area remained a problem, recommending that a traffic generation plan for the entire area appeared necessary and that such a plan should be based 'upon the zoning (density) shown in the Comprehensive Plan and not upon the existing zoning for this area.' After discussion, ZMA-83-19 was deferred in order to modify the petition to include a more comprehensive rezoning '~i~ended to address outstanding issues. Com~.r~hensive Plan: As stated earlier in August of 1983, staff expressed concern that extensive development under existing R-1 zoning could jeopardize the Comprehensive Plan growth objective for the Hollymead community. This current rezoning request would increase development potential by about 530 - 650 dwelling units and would be more in keeping with Comprehensive Plan recommendations. (At requested densities, the area would be 'underdeveloped' by about 200 units; however, this is not viewed as substantial and could likely be accommodated elsewhere within the community without wholesale plan revision.) Staff Comment: In addition to review under requirements of 1.4 Purpose and Intent, 1.5 Relation to Environment, and 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan of the Zoning Ordinance, staff has reviewed this rezoning request with particular emphasis on Chapter 10 Comprehensive Plan Standards and on textual recommendations for the Hollymead Community as found in the Comprehensive Plan. - Rezoning 296 acres to R-4 Residential with a maximum residential density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre: While the Comprehensive Plan recommends an average density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre for areas of low density development, this request is viewed as substantially consistent with the Plan. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation study recommends that McIntire Road Extended (Meadow Creek Parkway) be extended through this area approximately along the alignment of Powell Creek Drive. This roadway would ultimately connect Hollymead with the City's downtown area, providing an alternative, parallel route for traffic on Route ~29 North. This roadway is recommended as a four-lane facility with partially-controlled access. A new elementary school and mini-park are recommended in the vicinity of Jefferson Village Subdivision. The elementary school, one of two recommended, would serve the growing Hollymead community as well as outlying areas. While the Comprehensive Plan is not specific in this regard, the mini-park could be incorporated as a multi-use facility into the school site. The mini-park would serve a one-half mile radius including Terrybrook, Jefferson Village and the low density residential area subject of this rezoning. The Plan also recommends a system of stream valley parks which may be either privately or publicly oriented. Pedestrian systems should provide internal access to all major facilities in the community (i.e., schools, shopping, recreation). Staff offers the following comments: 1. The developer should work with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in determining the ultimate alignment of McIntire Road Extended through this area. Such plan should include provisions for points of access and reservation of ultimate rights-of-way. The developer should be responsible for construction of the roadway to a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation category occasioned by projected traffic generation based on this rezoning petition (including areas to be rezoned R-15 and Highway Commercial). -::564 2. The developer should provide the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standard.sidewalk or other acceptable pedestrian way along Powell Creek Drive and the Powell Creek Drive/Route 29 North connector road. Consideration should be given to other pedestrian linkages as development occurs. Provision should be made for maintenance of natural drainage ways as stream valley parks, designed to provide access to and complement existing and proposed lakes. 3. The Department of Planning and Community Development should work with the Education and Parks Departments on refinement of Comprehensive Plan recommendations regarding an elementary school site and mini-park. Such study should include specific site location and acreage, method and timing of acquisition and projected timing of construction. Developer participation should be limited to site dedication only, based on pro-rata share of generated demand for such facilities. No development should be approved in this general area until such study has been completed and the study should not exceed six months to complete. 4. In regard to foregoing recommendations regarding sidewalks and recreational facilities, staff would emphasize that Zoning Ordinance regulations for requirement of such facilities are based on higher densities than proposed for these 296 acres. 5. Areas adjacent to Jefferson Village should be developed in a fashion simliar to that subdivision. - Rezoning 23 acres to R-15 Residential: The location and acreage of this requested zoning appear in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Sidewalks and recreational facilities are required at this density of development. (Approximately one-half acre of developed active recreational area would be required.) Buffering from and pedestrian access to commercial areas should be provided. (Mr. Tucker noted that all of this can be handled during site plan and subdivision plat review.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 10, 1984, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-83-19 for the rezoning of 296 acres from R-1 Residential to R-4 Residential with the proffer of a maximum residential density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, and the requested rezoning of 23 acres from R-1 Residential to R-15 Residential. However, the motion also included a recommendation for deferral of the requested rezoning of the 37 acres on Route 29 North, and the eight acres on Proffit Road from R-1 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial, with the understanding that the applicant would meet with staff to address issues raised at the meeting. Mr. Tucker said a meeting was held this afternoon with the staff, applicant and a highway department representative to discuss issues regarding the commercial area. He understands that some resolution was reached regarding traffic circulation patterns and access to the commercial area, and the matter should be brought back to the Planning Commission soon for final action. Mr. Fisher said one of the goals of any PUD plan is to internalize commercial development so as not to strip highways with commercial activity. The request for commercial zoning appears to be in conflict with that goal. Mr. Tucker said that was one of the issues discussed at the meeting today. He understands the applicant has agreed to provide internal access to the connector road in order to serve the properties internally, and also is considering a connection at Proffit Road rather than having all access from Route 29 North. Mr. Lindstrom said the proposed alignment of the internal connector road (Meadow Creek Parkway) appears to generally follow the recommendation in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study. He referred to a resolution adopted by the Board on November 9, 1983 requesting a waiver of Section 5C of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements for new roads. The resolution was adopted asking that new roads in areas where a four-lane road is planned according to the CATS study will not have to be built to that design unless development so dictates. (See the minutes of November 9, 1983 for a further explanation of this resolution.) Mr. Lindstrom said this developer will only be required to build a road of a two-lane design. Mr. Tucker said the staff will work with the applicant to secure the reservation of right-of-way necessary for a four-lane road, but the developer cannot be required to dedicate more right-of-way than what his development requires. In this case, the proposed amount of development will only generate enough traffic to require a two-lane road. Mr. Lindstrom said if it is determined to build a parkway in this area, he wonders if the developer can be required to provide sufficient right-of-way for that type of road. Mr. Tucker said that the design of the parkway would have to be made first. Mr. Lindstrom said although he understands that the matter of the Parkway cannot be resolved this evening, he would like for the County to have a maximum amount of flexibility regarding such right-of-way. He does not feel it is reasonable to require a developer to provide right-of-way for a four-lane roadway when the Board has not even made a firm decision on what type of roadway is involved. However, he would be concerned about disrupting an already developed neighborhood if the County decided on a roadway of that nature. Mr. Tucker said the applicant's plan shows very limited access, the road is not stripped with curb cuts and houses, and there are internal streets. Therefore the applicant shows an intent to follow the parkway concept. Mr. Bowie said the end result of this discussion appears to be that there is no way to preserve sufficient right-of-way for a parkway at this time. Mr. Tucker said the only way that could be done would be for the applicant to proffer that in this rezoning, but the County cannot require such a reservati February 1, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) After a brief discussion, Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was asked when the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be submitted to the Board. Mr. Roosevelt said the approved CATS study contains a typical cross section of 120 feet of right-of-way for this roadway and this proposed alignment generally follows that .study. He noted that this roadway is not planned to go across the existing Hollymead dam, but rather east of that dam site. He said the Board has the power to at least reserve the right-of-way for the roadway plan that exists in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the reservation can be handled during subdivision plat approval. Mr. Lindstrom said the gist of this discussion appears to be that without a decision on whether or not to have a parkway through the subject area nothing can be resolved. Mr. Lindstrom said he-is very concerned about future problems that might arise about this roadway, and would like to see same addressed as soon as possible in order to get an idea of what resources are available and whether or not the Comprehensive ~lan needs to be amended. Mr. Tucker felt the proposed alignment and right- of-way is adequate according to the design shown in the CATS study. Mr. Fisher said when Phase I of Hollymead was approved in 1972, it was clear that the area involved this evening would not be developed until a north-south roadway was approved, and the dam approved with the road either accepted or ready to be accepted into the system. He understands the dam has never been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Tucker said that is the only approval the Highway Department is lacking before accepting the road into the state system. Mr. Roosevelt said before the Highway Department will accept Powell Creek Drive across the dam into the Secondary System, there must be alternate access for Hollymea~. Once there is a second access to the area, then there are three other consideratior before the dam will be accepted. The dam is hydraulically designed to take care of a one hundred year flood and that has been approved. Second, it has been agreed that the dam is structurally sound. Mr. Roosevelt said that has been agreed upon and is pending approval by the Corps of Engineers. The third consideration is the size of the road over the dam. Mr. Roosevelt said this question has not been resolved due to a lack of traffic generation figures for vehicles using Powell Creek Drive over the dam. He personally does not feel this will be a problem. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Roosevelt based his assumption on the Meadow Creek Parkway traffic not going across the dam. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct because the dam is not wide enough to carry that much traffic. Again, he noted that the alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan and in the CATS study is for the roadway to go east of or below the dam. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, was present. He said the applicant is trying to comply with the County's wishes and if the Board does not desire to approve the rezoning, then the applicant will stay with the R-1 zoning. Next to speak was Mr. Roosewelt. He felt there is a real dilemma involved. The existing zoning and the zoning recommended in the Comprehensive Plan are different. Mr. Roosevelt said if roads are ever to be sized, there must be a clear understanding of what amount of traffic is to be generated. With existing zoning, the traffic generation will be very low. If the figures in the Comprehensive Plan are used, then the Board's ability to act on future rezoning requests will be compromised. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not desire to use the current zoning for traffic generation because in the future certain parts of the area may be rezoned a higher density and when that happens the road is not going to be properly sized to carry that amount of traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said he would have to support this rezoning request so the traffic generation figures can be resolved. If the request is not approved~ then the Board must recognize that the area will be tied to the current zoning for years and the traffic generation problem will be unresolved. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said this is the largest single rezoning request without a detailed plan that the Board has had for a long time. The only known fact is that an area of 296 acres is involved and the average of the entire area will be 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Theoretically, there is no perceived notion of which areas are better for what density. Mr. Tucker said due to certain topographical factors, there will be times that the density may be higher and lower than 1.7 units per acre, but the average will be 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom said presumably the allocation of units will be handled in the subdivision plat process. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have a problem with that but does have a problem that no decision has been made on the design of the road to serve this area. He suggested that the Meadow Creek Parkway be discussed at the March 14 meeting. Basically, Mr. Lindstrom said he supported the rezoning request because of same being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowie said he sees this request as a reduction of what was programmed in the Comprehensive Plan and he supports the petition. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve ZMA-83-19 to rezone 296 acres from R-1 Residential to R-4 Residential with the proffer of a maximum residential density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre (proffer is shown on the Zoning Map of HOLLYMEAD, prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, dated December 8, 1983, and on file in the Clerk's Office), and the rezoning of 23 acres from R-1 Residential to R-15 Residential (County Tax Map 46, Parcel 29), excluding the commercial area of 37 acres on Route 29 North and~eight acres on Proffit Road as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. At 9:32 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:44 P.M. (Mr. Henley left for the evening at this time.) Agenda Item No. 9. Legislative Matters. Mr. Fisher said Mayor Frank~Buck informed him this afternoon that the City is going to request Mr. Van Yahres to withdraw House Bill 594 regarding the County paying the City $500,000 for school basic aid. Mr. Fisher said with the assistance of Miss Neher, he has prepared a memorandum dated February l, 1984 regarding bills under consideration in the General Assembly which may be of interest to the Board (Copy of this is on file in the Clerk's 'Office). Mr. Lindstrom said since the Board has just received this information, he preferred that discussion of same be deferred to February 8, 1984. Mr. Fisher said that is suitable and if the Board desires copies of any of the bills, same can be obtained from the Clerk by specifying the bill number. Mr. Lindstrom acknowledged appreciation for this summary. Mr. Fisher said he would like to note for the Board's information, Senate Bill 178, regarding the local tax on utility consumers. This proposed amendment expands powers of towns to impose utility consumer taxes to the exclusion of the County in which the town is located. Specifically, this would be a privilege for a town which does not provide water and sewer service on its own, but which service is provided by a service authority of the County. Scottsville could be involved in this area. The legislation has been introduced by Senator Michie at the request of Scottsville in order to protect its taxing powers. Mr. Fisher said he is not certain how much money is involved in this proposed bill and would like for the staff to determine same by February 8. Mr. Fisher also noted that funds are going to be deleted from prisons and Aid to Dependent Children. By cutting both of these areas, the amount will be $10,000,000 of which $8,000,000 will go into the School basic aid formula. Mr. Fisher said a packet of information has also been submitted for the Board's information regarding proposed legislation (Senate Joint Resolution 20) for the Joint Legislative Review and Audit Commission. This will also be discussed on February 8, 1984. Agenda Item No. 9a. Right-of-way for VEPCO: County Property (Lane League Field). Mr. Agnor said the athletic field at the north end of the County Office Building property on McIntire Road is being equipped with lights. This requires an electric service line to be installed from McIntire Road to a pole on the western side of the field. The service line requires a right-of-way be granted by the County to VEPCO in order that the service can be installed and maintained thereafter. Mr. Agnor said he is requesting authorization to execute the right-of-way agreement and noted that this involves no costs to the County. Mr. Fisher questioned the width of the right-of-way and asked if it is normal that the width is not stated. Mr. St. John said yes and this type of right-of-way is normally by a simple sketch (Sketch of the right-of-way involved is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize Mr. Agnor to execute the right-of-way agreement with VEPCO regarding County property; specifically, the Lane League field. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion with the understanding that no costs are involved for the County. Mrs. Cooke accepted that to her motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Henley. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of December, 1983, between the County of Albemarle, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter called "Owner," and Virginia Electric and Power Company, a Virginia corporation hereinafter called "Company." WITNESSETH : That for the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, Owner grants unto Company, its successors and assigns, the right, privilege, and easement of right of way to construct, operate and maintain a pole line for transmitting and distributing electric power, including all wires, poles, attachments, ground connections, equipment, accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection therewith (hereinafter referred to as "facilities"), and including all telephone wires and attachments of any other company, over, upon and across the lands of Owner, situated in City of Charlottesville, Virginia, as shown on Plat No. 01-81-78-83, hereto attached and made a part of this agreement; the location of said right of way being shown in broken lines on said plat. The facilities erected hereunder shall remain the property of Company. Company shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the right of way above described, and make such changes, alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as Company may from time to time deem advisable, including the right to increase or decrease the number of wires. Company shall at all times have the right to trim, cut and keep clear all trees, limbs, undergrowth and other obstructions along said pole line or adjacent thereto that may endanger the safe and proper operation of its facilities. All trees and limbs cut by Company at any time shall remain the property of Owner. Trees cut by Company with merchantable trunks six inches or more in diameter will be cut into lengths of not less than four feet when requested by Owner and will be placed in piles separate from other trees, limbs and undergrowth cut by Company. February 1, 1984 (Regular Night. Meeting) 5'67 For the purpose of constructing, inspecting, maintaining or operating its facilities, Company shall have the right of ingress to and egress from the right of way over the lands of Owner adjacent to the right of way and lying between public or private roads and the right of way in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Owner. Company shall repair damage to roads, fences or other improvements and shall pay Owner for other damage done in the process of the construction, inspection, or maintenance of Company's facilities, or in the exercise of its right of ingress an~ egress; provided Owner gives written notice thereof to Company within thirty days after such damage occurs. The Owner covenants that it is seized of and has the right to convey the sai~ easement of right of way, rights and pr'ivileges; ~that Company shall have quiet and peaceable possession, use and enjoyment of the aforesaid easement o£ right of way, rights and privileges, and that Owner shall execute such further assurances thereof as may be required. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: August 10, October 5 (Night) and October 19, 1983. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of August 10, 1983 and reported no errors. The remainin~~ minutes had not been read and were deferred. Motion waS offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of August 10, 1983 as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor brought to the Board's attention, notices regarding the budget work session of the School Board for February 4, I984 at 8:30 A.M. at Jack Jouett School. This is to be an all day session and the Board is invited. Mrs. Cooke said she felt the Board needs to consider in the very near future, plans or thoughts of inviting the Italians from Prato and Poggio a Caiano to be guests of the County. Mr. Fisher suggested this be placed on the February 8~ 1984 ~genda and Mrs. Cooke communicate with members of City Council for their~reaction to a joint invitation. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board is agreeable, he would like to request Mr. Tucker to develop some suggestions or a proPosaI"on~how the Board might study the entire length of the Meadow Creek Parkway as a parkway. He 'i's not asking for a proposal for the parkway itself, but rather how the Board should go about studYing this matter; whether such a study should be conducted in-house or with an outside person. Mr. Lindstrom said if possible, he would like for the staff to study the section of the parkway that will be involved with the Hollymead area. His interest in this is specifically regarding the earlier discussion of the rezoning request for Hollymead and he feels some decision needs to be made as soon as possible. Mr. St. John said his office has researched how the Board might go about reserving right-of-way for such a road, and he will examine his files for this information. Mrs. Cooke said the appointment of a person for the Beautification Committee is still pen~ing and since a great deal of work is involved for the representative on that committee, she would request that the appointment be placed on the February 8, 1984 agenda for action. Mr. Bowie said he has met with Mr. Agnor and Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, regarding the Executive Summary of the 'County Executive's monthly financial report and how same can be decreased in detail for the Board's information. The summary can be reduced and he will further explain same at a later date. Mr. Bowie said recently he has been involved at the Planning District Commission in the Solid Waste Recovery program and would like to meet with the staff regarding this program and perhaps make a recommendation to the Board on the County's involvement in same. He felt that the County has missed out on'this for years and with the problem still existing, the County should be involved. He will 'share information he has on this matter at the February 8, 1984 meeting. Agenda Item No. 12. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M.