1999-02-10February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 10, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Kevin Cox spoke regarding the Charlottesville Transit System. He noted that recently a friend
told him there was a petition circulating at Pantops Shopping Center supporting a bus route to Pantops,
and he was asked to sign the petition. He circulated the petition independent of the property owners at
Pantops, and he quickly got 300 signatures. He stated that while he was circulating the petition, he was
bombarded with complaints about the service because it is not good, and it could use a lot of improve-
ment. Regardless of the survey by CTS, he Said the riders in the street are not happy. He then started
thinking about the funding of this service, and he got some information from the City. The City has a total
budget for the current fiscal year of around $1,700,000, and of this amount, $538,000 is funded directly by
the City. The federal government funds $371,000, the State contributes $386,000 and the County' s
funding is $48,000. The City has made an administrative decision to bill the County for the entire cost of
the Pantops route, although it has not yet been brought to the attention of the councilors. He is not
comfortable with this decision, and even though it will serve a large portion of the County, most of the
people using the service will be City residents. He pointed out, though, that they will be taking tax revenue
into the County and leaving it there. He feels mass transit is important because if higher density urban
development and preserving the rural areas are encouraged, a good mass transit system can be a big
component. Some people actually move into town because they don' t want to drive long distances, and
they want to walk, take a bus or ride bikes wherever they go. He said complaints about CTS are massive,
and the system needs to be improved. Therefore, he believes the County should fund more than just
$50,000 of this service. A healthy City will help the County, and a healthy CTS will help people get to their
jobs. He thinks everyone should work together on this matter. He then requested the County to fund the
entire route this year, although he doesn't like this method. He also asked that something be done about
the way CTS is managed,' and he couldn't find out anything about the funding formula. He next
requested County officials to develop a concrete funding formUla, as well as a better program, so there will
be joint decision making involved with the funding, and the City and County officials can work together.
He has heard in the past that a Transit Authority was discussed. This is fine, because there has to be a
better way to run the bus company than the way it is presently being handled. He emphasized that the
Pantops route is badly needed. He was surprised when he was circulating the petition as far as the
number of people who mentioned that they wanted to get a job at Pantops, but they couldn't get back and
forth to work. He knew this was an argument, but to hear it in the streets from so many people surprised
him. The merchants want this service because they want the business, and if it is in the County, the
County will get the tax revenues. He urged the Supervisors again to consider it this year, but at the same
time, to develop a way to have joint control over a good efficient transit system that attracts people to the
urban area and keeps them out of the rural area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the issue involving the Pantops route will be brought up during the budget
sessions. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a change in one of the bus routes involving Commonwealth Drive. He
said the route was supposed to go all the way to WalMart, but it went to Lowe's instead. The route was
not changed the way he thought it was going to be changed, and he would like for this route to also be
examined during budget work sessions. Mr. Martin stated that having a route to Pantops was considered
a couple of years ago, but it was not approved. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the City vetoed the Pantops
route. Mr. Tucker explained that the County' s share of the route was funded in the budget last year, but
the City did not fund its share, so it did not happen.
Ms. Humphris said people don' t understand that the County funded its share of the route to
Pantops at $60,000 in last year' s budget, but the City would not do its share. She stated that it has to go
both ways, and the merchants might even have to participate. She said private sector help may also be
needed to provide certain things to the public such as bus tickets, etc.
Mr. Tucker suggested that JAUNT might be able to provide this service just as well as CTS, so
the JAUNT service will also be examined.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Humphris said it is important for the public to know that County officials are very aware of the
situation.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2
on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. North Garden Volunteer Fire Company Service Agreement.
The North Garden Volunteer Fire Company wishes to obtain $200,000 from the County's Fire
Fund to use for the addition and expansion of its fire station. A Service Agreement to provide the terms
for the use of the Fire Fund has been executed by North Garden.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Service
Agreement on behalf of the County.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Service Agreement on behalf the County:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of February , 1999, by and between the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the NORTH GARDEN
VOLUNTEER FIRECOMPANY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the "Fire Department").
WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in
Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the
Emergency Operations Center "Service A[ea"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) for the addition and expansion of the fire department building in said Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County and Fire
Department agree, as follows:
The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000) to be used for the addition and expansion of the fire department building in
Albemarle County. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund "Fund") and
shall be made available upon execution of this agreement.
The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Thirteen Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($13,333.33) from the County's
annual appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget beginning July 1, 1999,
and ending after a final withholding in the amount of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred
Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($13,333.38) in July 2013. Thus at the end of
fifteen (15) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $200,000 shall be with-
held. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as
the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding shall be in addition to
the withholding pursuant to the preexisting December 1995 Service Agreement.
The Fire Department agrees that the Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) contri-
bution shall be used only for the addition and expansion of the fire department building
located at 4907 Plank Road, North Garden, Virginia 22959, in the Service Area in
Albemarle County. The Fire Department further agrees that said land and improvements
shall not be sold, encumbered, or otherwise transferred prior to July 1, 2013 without the
express written consent of the County. In addition, the Fire Department agrees that any
insurance proceeds received from a claim related to the property shall be used entirely for
the immediate repair and improvement of the property or the improvements thereon
unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such proceeds.
The Fire Department agrees that at any time it no longer provides voluntary fire protection
services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it
shall convey all of its interest in the property described in paragraph 3, including all
appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no additional cost to
the County upon the County's request.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agree-
ments dated May 7, 1987, September 14, 1988, March 22, 1993, and December 6, 1995,
to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and
effect.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to
the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or
augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department.
Item No. 5.2. SP-98-61. Triton Communications (deferred from February 3, 1999) (defer to
February 17, 1999).
By the above shown vote, the Board deferred SP-98-61 until February 17, 1999.
Item No. 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service
Authority meeting for December 17, 1998, was received for information.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority meeting for December 14, 1998, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-66. University Montessori (Sign #65). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow expansion of existing daycare on 1.775 acs from 37 children to 44 in accord w/
§18-15.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for day care, child care or nursery facility w/a
special use permit. Loc at 1034 Reservoir Rd (Rt 702) approx 1,800' from inter of Rts 702 & 29. Znd
R-4. TM76,P15A. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and
February 1, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk' s office and a permanent
part of the record, involving a proposal to increase enrollment at the University Montessori School from 37
to 44. This school is located on the north side of Route 702, three-tenths of a mile west of the U.S. Route
29 Bypass. The seven additional children will generate an increase in traffic of 14 vehicle trips per day on
Route 702, but staff does not believe the traffic increase will create a substantial detriment. The number
of teachers and the hours of operation will remain the same. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on
January 5, 1999, and the staff have both recommended approval of this request with eight conditions.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Ms. Michele Mattioli, Director of the University Montessori School, stated that she would be happy
to answer questions about the application.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the
public hearing.
Ms. Thomas announced that this school is in her district, and she has visited the site. She agrees
with the staff report as well as the Planning Commission' s conditions. She then moved approval of
SP-98-66, University Montessori School, subject to the eight conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
2.
3.
4.
Enrollment shall be limited to forty-four (44) children;
Approval from the Health Department of septic system adequate to serve this expanded use;
Not fewer than two (2) employees shall be present at all times during operation of day care center;
Fire Office approval to include compliance with all requirements and recommendations listed in
the December 22, 1989 letter to Michele Mattioli from Jay Schlothauer (Attachment E);
Compliance with Virginia Department of Transportation comments of February 20, 1990
(Attachment F) and VDOT's comments dated December 16, 1998 (Attachment D);
Staff approval and recordation of plat showing required sight easements within ninety (90) days
from approval from the Board of Supervisors. Removal of existing vegetation to the west to
improve sight line;
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which states:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as
a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the
Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance of
this ordinance;
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County Fire Official at
his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be
deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
b. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to
- preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or federal
agency.
8. The A-frame is limited to single-family, residential use.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-67. Charlottesville Catholic School (Sign #64). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow a shifting of improvements from the original SP plan in accord w/{}18-15.2.2.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for private schools in R-4 zones. Property containing 17 acs is loc at 655
Rio Road E (Rt 631) approx 0.10 mis from inter of Rio Road & Penn Park Lane (Rt 768). TM61A, P29.
Znd R-4. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and February 1, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk' s office and a permanent
part of the record. He noted that during the development of the site plan for the school, the applicant
ascertained that less grading would be required and optimum orientation for sun exposure would be
achieved if the playing fields and the building location were moved. The two plans are shown on the
board behind the Clerk, and the current proposed plan is in the middle of the board. The proposal
involves moving the playing fields to the front of the property toward Rio Road, and moving the building
toward the back of the property. The building works with the grade of the land to lower elevation as it
relates to adjacent properties, and it will also provide for access on both sides of the school parcel. The
applicant will provide additional buffer areas between the immediate residential properties and the
building, and there will be vegetative screening between the residences and the driveways. He said staff
has recommended approval with the conditions as previously approved by this Board with the exception of
the changed conceptual plan and clarification of the proposed screening. At its meeting on January 26,
1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request with the five
conditions.
Mr. Bowerman said the new plan indicates that there is extensive planting between the residences
and the playing fields. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this is correct. He said on the Pen Park Road side,
there are plantings along the entire length of the property adjacent to the residential properties, and there
would also be additional screening provided on the south side of the property next to the parking area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any fencing is'included. Mr. Cilimberg answered that no fencing has been
identified. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if the plantings have been identified. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
plantings will be in accordance with the ordinance, although the planting materials have not yet been
specifically identified. However, location, staggered rows and separation of plantings have been identified.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that four or five foot tall vegetation, as well as non-deciduous trees, might
make a nice combination for screening.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to make a comment.
Mr. Tom Keogh, with Train and Spencer Architects, stated that he is representing the
Charlottesville Catholic School. He would answer questions and explain the new plan, if Board members
would like for him to do so.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Keogh would speak to the elevation portion of the proposal. She asked
if the proposed site is actually lower than the first site. Mr. Keogh answered that technically he cannot
answer this question. He went on to say the first site was developed in May and June by the school
officials in order to determine if a building with the proper square footage and pupil count could be
constructed on the property. It was done independent of a specific program and specific grading, so the
special use permit does not have a finished floor plan yet defined. The full two story scheme, though, is
noticeably different. He commented that as he has examined the site, and looked at the building, he has
tried to take advantage of the fact that the site drops off rather sharply toward the south and east. The
portion closest to Pen Park Road is the proposed elementary school which is the Phase One construction,
and the second phase to the south is the proposed high school. He noted that the high school has a
higher requirement of square footage and classroom space, but because of the site dropping off, the
building can be filled in underneath. He stated that instead of going two stories up, the second story can
begin at a lower level. In terms of the impact of the site, the building will have a lower profile toward Rio
Road, Pen Park Road and to the adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, since there were no further questions for Mr. Keogh. There
was no one present who wished to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin stated that this proposed school is located in his district, and he feels it is an
improvement. He would be more than happy to entertain a motion for approval of this request.
At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve sP-98-67,
Charlottesville Catholic School, subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
o
The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated January 13, 1999,
submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas to property boundaries, buildings
to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road and from Rio Road
into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be provided from parking lots to the
school buildings;
Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students;
Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. A full site
development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units or
permanent construction;
A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the County is
able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Pen Park Road. If such connections
cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway improvements to be constructed
by the school when the County is able to fund the adjoining connections. If those improvements
have not been constructed by completion of the second entrance to the school, the bond will be
released and the pathway not installed; and
Screening meeting Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided where driveways
and parking areas shown on the site are adjacent to residences.
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia:
a)
§3-210, Carter' s Bridge Agricultural and Forestal Dist, to add 42.0 acs. Loc off Rt 708
near Blenheim. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan & Land Use Plans, and is zoned
RA. TM114,P68. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and
February 1, 1999.)
b)
§3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, to add 39.71 acs. Loc at inter of Rts
627 & 795. Property is designated RA in Comp Plan & Land Use Plan. Znd RA. TM103,
Pcls43L&43L1. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and
February 1, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that an addition of almost 40 acres in two parcels has been proposed for
the Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District. He noted that this district is located near Carter' s Mountain,
Overton, and along Route 627. The proposed addition is forestal land located at the intersection of
Routes 627 and 795, and there is one dwelling on the parcel. The Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District
currently contains 5,633.522 acres in 36 parcels. The district is considered to be of environmental benefit,
since it is in the Rivanna River watershed, and conservation of land will benefit ground and surface water
as well as natural and environmental resources. The staff and Planning Commission have recommended
approval of this addition.
Next, Mr. Cilimberg discussed a 42 acre addition to the Carter' s Bridge Agricultural and Forestal
District located to the east of Route 20 South and on State Routes 618, 627, 708, 727, 761 and 795 in the
vicinity of Carter' s Bridge, Blenheim and Woodbridge. The Carter' s Bridge Agricultural and Forestal
District currently contains 9004.16 acres in 50 parcels. He remarked that the land in the proposed
addition is being used for forestry now, and there are no dwellings on the property. This district is
considered to be a benefit in the Hardware River watershed, and the staff and Planning Commission have
recommended approval of the addition. He explained that both additions would go into their respective
districts for the time period remaining which is ten years from April 20, 1998.
Ms. Thomas wondered if anything is being done to encourage more people to join these districts.
She mentioned a new brochure relating to this matter and asked if it was available. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that the brochure is not yet ready, but the staff is always promoting agricultural and forestal
districts. Information is provided relative to agricultural and forestal districts and participation is
encouraged. He stated that it becomes difficult beyond his office' s promotional activities, although some
citizens' groups give assistance.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that a good time to circulate more information would be when the policy
on towers is in place. She said protection from towers might be an important aspect of being in an
agricultural and forestal district.
Ms. Humphris remarked that standard information is available, and it is very thorough. Mr.
Cilimberg agreed. The staff developed the information on agricultural and forestal districts several years
ago, and it is always provided to people who make such inquiries.
: 000
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing on the agricultural and forestal districts amendment for
Carter' s Bridge and Lanark. No one came forward to speak.
Mr. Marshall then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reordain Article 2, Districts
of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-210, Carter' s Bridge
Agricultural and Forestal District and Section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District. Ms.
Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 99-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE 2, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article 2, Districts
of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-210, Carter' s Bridge
Agricultural and Forestal District and Section 3-221, Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows:
Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D,
18, 19, 19A, 19C, 20B; tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20, 21, 33A, 37D;
tax map 113, parcels 1, lA, 6A, 11, 11A; tax map 114, parcels 25A, 30, 51, 55, 56, 68, 69, 70; tax map
115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 124, parcel 11.
This district, created on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on September 9,
1998, shall next be reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(j); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99)
Sec. 3-221 Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 90B, parcel A-11; tax map 91, parcels 21, 21A, 21B, 31; tax map 92,
parcels 84, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103, parcels 1, lA, lB, 1C, 1D,
1E, 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, 1L, 1M, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 43, 43L, 43L1. This district, created
on April 20, 1988 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 9, 1998, shall next be
reviewed prior to April 20, 2008.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(k); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-3(1), 9-9-98; Ord. 99-3(2), 2-10-99)
(The Board took the next three agenda items together.)
Agenda Item No. ZMA-98-12. Forest Lakes South - Minor Amendment (Signs #4,5,19&92).
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to modify the area shown on the original application plan as a pedestrian
trail to permit construction of public or private road. Property is comprised of the residue of TM47-97A1 &
portion of TM46B5,P1. Loc at end of Powell Creek Drive on E side of Hollymead Lake dam. Znd Forest
Lakes South PUD. In the Hollymead Community, it is recom for neighborhood density of 3-6 du/ac.
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and February 1, 1999.)
Agenda Item No. SP-98-46. Springridge Stream Crossing (Sign #96). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow stream crossing over Powell Creek to serve proposed Springridge PRD. Loc
immediately downstream (E) of Hollymead Dam. Znd. R-1. TM46,P35. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in theb
Daily Progress on January 25 and February 1, 1999.)
Agenda Item No. ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14). PUBLIC HEARING on. a
request to rezone 75 acs from R-I& RA to PRD. TMP46,P35. The PRD is a planned residential
community w/a proposed density of 135 homes, which may be a mix of single-family detached, single-
family attached, and townhouses. Should Springridge be developed as all single family detached, the
max # of houses will not exceed 100, of which 50 will be small (< or = 70' wide) lots. Loc adjacent
to the neighborhoods along Copper Knoll Drive, Echo Ridge, & Ridgefield in the Forest Lakes North
development. Access would be provided from Timberwood Parkway. Existing use of property is
vacant, & the Comp Plan shows this property to be of a neighborhood density (3-6 du/ac) & RA (1
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
du/ac). Proposed density is 1.8 du/ac. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25 and
February 1, 1999.)
Mr. Bowerman said he has had a slight business relationship through his company with Mr.
Kessler and the Kessler Group. He has equipped the Forest Lakes Club House, and to a certain degree,
the Club House at Glenmore. He is not technically in violation of any conflict of interest statute, and he
feels he can be impartial on this issue.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that all three of these applications relate to a project that would develop
this property into the Springridge development, and he pointed out the relative location to Forest Lakes,
Hollymead and Forest Lakes South. He said a more specific plan was presented to the Planning
Commission and proffers have been provided and signed. This plan shows areas with different types of
residential development as well as.some mixing of non-residential uses. He stated that it is an urban type
of concept, and the issues are primarily about impacts to the adjacent areas. All of the developed area will
be concentrated within the development of Hollymead and in the original proposal, access would be
provided via Powell Creek Drive and by opening the road over the dam between Hollymead and Forest
Lakes. He stated that an alternative has been suggested whereby the road over the dam would not be
built, and a second access would be provided to Forest Lakes north of the dam. This is referred to as the
"V" connection alternative and it would mean that the dam would be left as it is, which is a pedestrian and
bicycling path access between the two developments.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposal with proffers as presented
with the access from Powell Creek Drive and the connection between Hollymead and Forest Lakes, but
they strongly encouraged the applicant to consider the possibility of a second access to Timberwood
Parkway in lieu of crossing the dam. This has been part of an effort the applicant has undertaken with the
Forest Lakes Community Association since the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Executive Summary indicated that the Community Association
members were opposed to the" V" connection alternative and asked the developer to consider modifying
the proposal to allow for access from Forest Lakes only. This would be a different approach from the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to this Board. This alternative would drop the Powell Creek
Drive connection, as well as the connection between Forest Lakes and Hollymead over the dam. In
response to this request, the applicant has submitted an alternate set of proffers to allow for access to the
property from Timberwood Parkway only and would be dependent upon the Forest Lakes Community
Association voting to approve sale of this land for that purpose. As a companion to that, the Forest Lakes
Board has given permission to the applicant to apply for a special use permit for the stream crossing that
would be needed from Timberwood Parkway into the site. The stream crossing request at this location is
being reviewed by the staff at present, and a Planning Commission date for public hearing will be set
soon, but it will be several weeks before it will be heard. He noted that the alternate set of proffers was
received a week ago this past Friday, but the staff has not had a chance to complete a review of all
subsequent aspects. However, Alternate Two will allow the applicant to choose to build the road over the
dam or to provide access solely from Timberwood Parkway. With access solely from Timberwood
Parkway, traffic to the development would avoid Powell Creek Drive and Hollymead and reduce the
potential number of trips in front of the school complex by approximately 1,700 vehicle trips a day. He
went on to say it would add approximately 700 more trips to Timberwood Parkway than with the road open
over the dam. The issue of provision of a second point of access has not been resolved at this time
although the applicant has suggested that it might be provided over the dam for emergency access only.
He emphasized that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the three existing
applications before this Board tonight, and the corrected proffers for the original proposals.
If the Board would like to consider the alternative which has been developed since the Planning
Commission hearing in lieu of the original proposal recommended by staff and the Commission, a deferral
of action may be in order. Such a deferral would allow staff and the Planning Commission to complete
review of the proposal and proffers and allow the special use permit to come to the Board. He noted that
another option might be to defer this matter back to the Planning Commission, along with the special use
permit, so commissioners can see the whole picture of the alternative. Regarding the original application
and proffers, Mr. Davis has mentioned that there is still some work to be done on the proffers. Mr.
Cilimberg said if the Board is inclined to agree with the Planning Commission' s recommendation, then
Mr. Davis will recommend that the Supervisors defer that action to allow these proffers to be made into
final form. He pointed out that Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, has spent a lot of time on this matter, and
she is present to answer technical questions
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to discuss all the alternatives. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
the Planning Commission' s recommendation is for the connection to Powell Creek Drive as well as the
connection of Powell Creek Drive to Timberwood Parkway over the dam. The Commissioners allowed for,
through proffer acceptance, the" V" connector option which would be an access directly to Powell Creek
Drive and Timberwood Parkway with no connection over the dam.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the" V" connector option. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that the proffer allows this as an alternative if the applicant and the Homeowners Association can come to
an agreement.
OO 317
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Martin explained that when the possibility of a" ¥" connector was introduced, the members of
the Homeowners Association indicated they would prefer a single access from Timberwood ParHway
which is what the Commission is considering now. He went on to say approximately a year and a half
ago, the Kessler Group originally offered such an alternative, but at that time the Forest kakes
Neighborhood Association would not sell them the land to allow for this entrance.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the" V" alternative would effectively be the connection between
communities. Mr. Martin answered that the" V" alternative would connect the communities, but it would
be made in such a way to tend to discourage through traffic. Ms. Humphris agreed that this alternative
would make it possible for through traffic to use, but it would not be welcoming.
Ms. Thomas wondered if it would be a path for school bUses. Mr. Cilimberg answered
affirmatively. He said at the same time, this alternative would preserve the dam as it is currently used. He
also mentioned that there is a land swap involved which would allow the developer to have necessary
access to the Timberwood Parkway and, in exchange, the land over the dam would go to the
Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association will be considering this arrangement when they
vote in early March.
Mr. Martin then asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Stephen N. Runkle, President of The Kessler Group, announced that he did not bring a slide
presentation, but he handed out a booklet with some visual representation of the project. He said Kessler
Group representatives have worked over three years to try to develop a plan that meets the Compreheno
sive Plan goals, and would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as to meet the
desires of the existing residents. They knew access to this property was going to be sensitive, and in
July, 1996 a proposal was made to the Community Association that the Kessler Group buy land from the
Association to access Springridge from Timberwood Boulevard through Forest Lakes North. As part of
that proposal, an agreement was reached not to build, or propose building a road, across the dam to make
the connection between Forest Lakes and Hollymead because people were opposed to it. The agreement
indicated that this land would be deeded to the Association as a common area, but the agreement was
rejected at that time. He commented that the Association was also told then that if this was not accept-
able, then the Kessler Group would proceed with the second alternative which was to access the property
from Powell Creek Drive south of the Hollymead Lake dam as shown on the plan on the board. As part of
that proposal there would most likely be a proffer to build a road across the dam should it be approved by
the County. He stated that approval by the County requires not only approval of the plan but agreement to
accept the responsibility for the maintenance of the dam such that the road would be accepted into the
state system. All of this was explained at that time. Since then, there have been numerous public
meetings as well as numerous traffic studies, and representatives of The Kessler Group have met with
members of both communities. After community representatives disputed the numbers generated by the
consultant, both parties finally agreed on the numbers, although they did not agree on impacts. He stated
that following this agreement, Wilbur Smith Associates re-evaluated potential impacts, and based on this
analysis and the numbers mutually agreed upon, has indicated that there is no capacity problem or level
of service problems at intersections. He said, though, roundabouts were recommended at the Powell
Creek Drive and Hollymead Drive intersection and at the intersection of the access road at Springridge
and Powell Creek, as well as raised pedestrian crosswalks in front of the school. This is the reason for the
$100,000 proffer for off site road improvements.
He referred to the plan posted on the board, and said it was unanimously approved by the
Planning Commission, although Commissioners recommended strongly that a" V" connection be
developed. The proffer made relative to the" V" connection at the Planning Commission meeting was
conditioned on the cost of the" V" connection being no greater than the cost of the plan that was
approved. At that time, he felt as though there was going to be about $200,000 difference in cost, and he
continues to feel it will be a significantly greater cost. Following the Commission meeting, he contacted
the Association officials, and they indicated they wanted to work out an agreement and requested that he
defer the meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for November until February. This was done.
The Association' s desire was to work out an access arrangement equivalent to the proposal in 1996
which was to extend Timberwood Boulevard through the common area. He stated also that the
Association wanted The Kessler Group to agree not to connect a road either across the dam nor through
Springridge into Forest Lakes South should The Kessler Group ever acquire property that would connect
the two in a way that would inter-connect with a road either at Forest Lakes North and Hollymead or
Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South.
The agreement provided to the Supervisors by staff, to be voted on March 4 by the Association,
basically indicates that the Association will provide the land for the single road from the north. This
agreement also indicates that The Kessler Group agrees to give the Association the area of the dam
which is still retained as common area, as well as the 50 foot strip running from the end of the dam to
English Oaks as common area and agrees further never to build any connecting roads between those
communities. There are some other agreements in this document, as well, but these are the most
pertinent. He has stated many times that he is happy to proceed either way because the proposal for the
emergency access is exactly the same both ways. The argument for the connection across the dam can
be made, since this connection was proposed because it was more consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He mentioned that an argument could be made for the single point of access from the north,
because the road system in Forest Lakes North is easily capable of handling any traffic generation from
0'008:1.8
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Springridge. He said certainlY traffic in front of the school in the future will be less without a connection
than with a connection. He mentioned that the stream crossing required for access from the north is
probably less significant than the stream crossing for which approval by the Planning Commission has
already been received, if it is accessed from Powell Creek to the south.
Mr. Runkle then mentioned a survey done by the University of Virginia which addressed many
issues, and relative to the connection, it indicated that about two-thirds of the residents of Forest Lakes
and Hollymead combined were against it. In order for the common areas exchange to be made, it has to
be approved by the Forest Lakes Community Association by a 75 percent of affirmative votes. This
includes both Forest Lakes North and South, so if it is approved, it is a strong indication that most of the
people voting are in favor of no connection. These are arguments for the access from Forest Lakes North
without a conneCtion, but The Kessler Group is happy to approach it either way. He noted that it is
desirable to have a decision made as soon as possible, and he hopes a decision can be made tonight to
allow the plan approved by the Planning Commission to occur, or if the alternative is voted on
affirmatively, then the proposal would be limited to that particular access if this is the Board' s desire. The
Board of Supervisors may feel deferment is needed, but he is not sure he understands from his
perspective why this would be necessary. However, he will leave this to the Supervisors' judgment.
Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification that the issue before the residents is not the" V"
connection. His understanding is that the residents like the connection to Timberwood, but they would like
to
abandon the" V" connection as well as the road across the dam. Mr. Martin concurred that this is true,
and he mentioned that the vote is March 4, 1999.
Mr. Marshall inquired if it seems as though the vote will be approved. Mr. Martin answered that
the indications he has received lead him to believe the plan will be adopted by the Association.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Runkle to explain about the emergency access. She referred to a letter in
the staff report from Mr. Runkle to Mr. MacDonald, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association,
which mentions providing emergency access across the dam as a possible requirement of the rezoning.
Mr. Runkle responded that at one of his meetings with staff, a comment was made that if the road
connection across the dam is not made, it may be desirable to have an emergency access there. This
would not necessarily be to serve Springridge, but it would serve Forest Lakes North and Hollymead as an
alternative means of access to those communities. He explained that the second point emergency access
proposed for Springridge involves a path system near the basketball courts, which is above Area Two on
the map. The proposal is to pave and extend this path 10 or 12 feet wide into Springridge as both a
walking path and an emergency access.
Ms. Thomas asked if the path would come to an end inside Area Two. Mr. Runkle said it would
probably go between Areas Two and Three and connect to the loop road.
There were no further questions for Mr. Runkle, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearings on
ZMA-98-12, SP-98-46 and ZMA-98-13.
Mr. John MacDonald, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association, stated that there are
presently 900 residences at Forest Lakes. He referred to the rebuttal time that will be allotted to the
applicant, and he doesn't have a rebuttal, but he may be able to clarify an issue for some of the
Supervisors. He inquired if it would be possible to allow him to speak to this particular issue, without
counting it into the three minute time limit. Mr. Martin responded affirmatively.
Mr. MacDonald remarked that people are probably wondering why the northern connection will be
approved now when it was rejected two years ago. The reason is because the traffic numbers are
different today. He stated that Association members spent two months with the developer getting these
numbers together, which clearly show that having an access over the dam doubles the traffic in front of
the school. This was not known two years ago, so it was an emotional reaction at that time. The question
then was why should Forest Lakes sell the developer prime wooded forest, which is primarily why it was
rejected. However, today the Association feels confident this plan will pass on March 4, 1999 with a 75
percent vote. He then apologized for the delay, since it was hoped the vote would be taken before
tonight' s meeting. He said circumstances came into play, and more advance time was needed for the
residents, which is the reason the vote will not occur until March 4th. He mentioned that in the Forest
Lakes traffic pattern there are two locations that are protected from any sizeable increase in traffic, and
one of these areas is in front of the schools. The other is Powell Creek Drive which is a narrow point
between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South, and it is used as a short cut for people to get to Route 29.
He stated that any time traffic numbers are considered, these two locations are examined to see what is
going to happen when certain accesses are discussed. This is the reason a conclusion has been reached
that the northern access only is the best solution as far as the access to Springridge for the complete
Forest Lakes community. He remarked that it is also the reason members of the Forest Lakes Board of
Directors strongly and unanimously support the north connection, and they are trying to convince the
residents. He mentioned that there will be two open houses on the next two Saturdays so people can
consider the traffic numbers and look at the maps. He has been involved in this type of thing all the time
he has been here in Charlottesville, and he knows one of the Comprehensive Plan goals is the desire to
connect neighborhoods. He said any goal has to have consequences, such as the Meadow Creek
o9 3a.9
Februa~ 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10) : .
Parkway and the Western Bypass. The road over the dam has very dangerous consequences for the
community, and that is why the Association is supporting the northern connection, and that is why it is
hoped the Supervisors will also support the northern connection only.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Forest Lakes Community Association includes Forest Lakes South.
Mr. MacDonald answered affirmatively. There are 600 residences in the north and 300 in the south. He
stated that in two years it is expected that Forest Lakes South will also have 600 residences.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. MacDonald would respond to the" V" connection idea. Mr. MacDonald
replied that the" V" connection has been examined, and one indication is that there would be a 25
percent reduction in traffic because the" V" connection is a more difficult route than going over the dam.
He said another estimate is that there would be a 50 percent reduction in traffic. In discussions the
Association had with the developer, though, both arrived at the conclusion that the" V" will not reduce the
traffic more than 25 percent. If school traffic is doubling because of the road over the dam, this means the
traffic would probably increase to 75 percent if the" V" connection is considered. The" V" seems as
though it is an attractive proposal in theory, but if it is considered seriously, the conclusion is reached that
it really does not reduce traffic enough to help the schools.
Ms. Thomas next inquired about the argument against having a connection sometime in the future
with Forest Lakes which would be south of the schools. Mr. MacDonald responded that perhaps the
community should have been planned with a service road in that direction, but he does not know who
owns the land or if it is available.
Ms. Thomas asked why the stipulation was included in the agreement that there should never be
a connection to Forest Lakes South. Mr. Martin clarified Ms. Thomas' question by recalling Mr. Runkle' s
statement that part of the agreement with The Kessler Group is that there will never be any type of access
in Forest Lakes South to Forest Lakes North, regardless of whether or not the access goes by way of the
school or the dam. Mr. MacDonald answered that this is not the intent of the statement. The intent is to
prevent the deeding of the northern connection in the future in order for the other half of the" V" to be
installed. He explained that if this happened, it would negate the original vote. The only reason for the
language is to prevent the other half of the" V" from being built.
Mr. Bill Sibert remarked that he lives in Forest Lakes South, and when he first moved in, it was
pointed out to him that the neighborhoods were not connected. He noted, though, that if they were
connected by a road over the dam, residents could get to the businesses, or to see friends in the north
section much more easily than going via Route 29. He had thought this was not a bad idea at all until he
noticed the Powell Creek Drive traffic. There are two important sections of Powell Creek Drive. He
clarified that one section is in Forest Lakes South, and it is a narrow 18-foot wide section connecting
Hollymead and Ashwood Boulevard. The other section is in front of the schools. Both of these sections of
Powell Creek Drive would be impacted dreadfully by any road over the dam. He added that any
connection to enable people to come from Forest Lakes North and go south or vice versa would hit these
particular sections of road. He helped develop the new traffic numbers, and the basic condition in front of
the schools in July, 1997 was 2,800 cars per day. He added that ifa road is built over the dam,
projections show traffic will increase to 5,370 cars per day, which he thinks is intolerable. In addition, if the
"V" is done, the 5,370 will decrease to approximately 4,900, which would still be considerably higher than
the 2,800 vehicles currently using that road. The section of Powell Creek Drive where homes are located
is 18 feet wide, and it now carries 1,500 cars a day. If the road is put across the dam, it will increase to
3,100. He remarked that he is unsure if any of the Supervisors have ever seen that particular stretch of
road, but it is very narrow, there are 17 houses located on it and there are another 18 homes that feed into
it. He noted that if this road had a cul-de-sac, which every road in Forest Lakes has except that road, the
number would be 300 cars a day. Instead, there are 1,500 vehicles a day on the road now, and a road
over the dam would increase this number to 3,000. He, as a resident of Forest Lakes South, would
benefit by a connection to the north, but he is very much against connecting the neighborhoods. He said
such a connection would be more than the people who live and go to school on Powell Creek Drive could
tolerate, and that is why he is against the road.
Mr. Bruce Rose, an Albemarle County resident whose children attend the Hollymead Elementary
School and the Sutherland Middle School, mentioned his concern about the traffic in front of the schools
as far as what will happen if a road is opened over the Hollymead dam. He is not alone in his fears,
because he has spoken to many parents who feel the same way. He recently read a Sutherland Middle
School news article where the Principal, Mr. Zimorski stated that parent drop-offs and bus arrivals create a
high volume of vehicular traffic which poses the potential for an accident if students are inattentive. Mr.
Rose said this leads to the fact that with increased traffic, there will be problems with the children,
because moving cars and young children do not mix. A common sense objective must be set, and the
traffic in front of the school must be limited as much as conceivably possible. He explained that the
schools are in the center of a well developed residential neighborhood with large numbers of children and
adults walking to and from the school grounds, and that is why he would be against connecting to the
south at this time. He said with the increase to 600 homes in Forest Lakes South, a lot of traffic will be
involved. He stated that his children play in the area and cross the street to go to the basketball courts,
etc. If the connection is made to the south, the number of trips and cars would make it too dangerous for
his children to play in the area.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Richard Lutz, a resident of Forest Lakes North, stated that he would like to discuss the road
over the dam. He added that it is clear to the residents of Forest Lakes that one of the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan is to connect neighborhoods. He said any resident of Hollymead, Forest Lakes
South or Forest Lakes North will tell you that their neighborhoods are already connected. There are
walkers, bikers and strollers using the dam every day. He pointed out that this is also consistent with
another part of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages alternative means of transportation rather than
vehicular traffic. The residents have it, they use it, and they like it. He commented that opening the door
to vehicular traffic is going to fundamentally change the character of the connection between the
neighborhoods. He thinks it is important to say activity cannot be equated with preferential access for
motor vehicles. He then asked the Supervisors to consider the importance of this issue to the residents of
the Forest Lakes community and consider the scenario where the residents are voting to exchange
common land so the access will not occur for vehicular traffic. This is a very powerful statement indicating
that it is being done solely to preserve the character of the community. He referred to Mr. Sibert' s and
Mr. MacDonald' s comments about the numerical reasons as to why this became such an issue to the
community. He also noted that two years ago when a similar proposal came forth, and the numerical
arguments couldn't be made, there was no chance of selling this type of idea to the community. Things
have changed, and residents understand they are in the growth area, but they are just asking to maintain
some of the character in the area where they now live.
Mr. David Madigan, a resident of Forest Lakes North, is the father of two children who attend
Hollymead Elementary School and one child who attends Sutherland Middle School. He has a strong
concern for the safety of the children who attend both these schools. He stated that as a community it is
imperative to protect the safety at these schools, and he feels it is not responsible citizenship to allow the
road to be built across the dam. The increased traffic in front of the schools that would be caused by
constructing the road over the dam is an increase to the danger for the community' s school age children.
He added that it is for this reason he is willing to support an alternative to the presently proposed road
over the dam. He stated that if the Springridge development could be accessed from Forest Lakes North
and no through road was constructed across the dam, then he feels he could strongly support this
solution. He will make every effort to promote this alternative at the upcoming Homeowners' Association,
because such an alternative would keep traffic in front of the schools from large increases. He next urged
the Board of Supervisors to give its support to the northern connector as an access route to Springridge.
Mr. John Oliver commented that he is a resident of Forest Lakes North at Copper Knoll which is
adjacent to Springridge. He is not thrilled with the idea of a new development, but he understands the
realities involved, and he understood when he bought his home there that the area would be developed.
He is opposed to the road over the dam for all of the reasons the Board has already heard, and he would
like to concentrate on one of the proposals in the development with which he is encouraged. There is a
20 foot buffer between Copper Knoll and Springridge, and the idea is to keep it in its natural state. He
explained that this area is fully forested now, and he would like to keep it that way, and he believes he
speaks for all the residents in Copper Knoll. However, he was informed by Mr. Runkle that a sewer
easement could come down the middle of the buffer effectively eliminating it. Mr. Oliver pointed out that
20 feet on each side is required for a sewer easement, which would clear out all the trees. He has talked
to Mr. Runkle several times, and he seems very willing to try to locate the sewer easement to the back of
the lots of Springridge and keep the area natural. He is encouraged by this. He went on to say he has
seen the grading plan for Springridge and within the loop area all the trees will be graded away. He would
like to see as many trees left as possible. He reiterated that he is in favor of keeping the buffer, and he
asked the Board of Supervisors to encourage Mr. Runkle and his associates to continue working to try to
keep the buffer in its natural state.
Ms. Jo Anne Ebersold, a resident of Forest Lakes South, stated that she works in the Sutherland
Middle School. She is strongly in favor of the northern connection, not only because of where she lives,
but also because of where she works. She is concerned for the children, none of which are drivers, and
these elementary and middle school students don' t need the road. They need the bike path, and if it
takes delaying the meeting to allow time for the vote to be taken at Forest Lakes, then she would
appreciate this time being taken. Her parents always taught her that if something is worth doing, it is
worth doing right. She urged the Board to delay the decision if necessary, but to do it right.
Mr. Peter Bromann said he is a resident of Forest Lakes North and the father of three children,
and two of them attend Hollymead Elementary School. He stated that parents appreciate allowing their
children to take their bikes to school: The children cross the dam and although it is challenging, they
cross the busy street in order to get to the school.. If the road is put over the dam, the traffic will be there
too, and it will increase the amount of risk the children will have in getting across the street. He pointed
out that now there is one traffic guard, and she is managing the whole process. He is unsure if this one
person is going to be able to accomplish the same thing when traffic patterns increase by threefold. He
emphasized that he is strongly in favor of pursuing the northern attachment, and he would appreciate the
Board of Supervisors' consideration for that proposal.
Mr. Jose Gomez, the current President of the Hollymead Homeowners Association, stated that he
feels qualified to speak for Hollymead residents. He reported that he has worked with Mr. Runkle and his
staff, as well as Forest Lakes representatives, for a year gathering as much information as possible and
getting it out to the Hollymead community. In so doing, he got lots of feedback from the Hollymead
residents. He commented that the Hollymead community overwhelmingly supports only the northern
000321
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
entrance. If this is the way the Board chooses to go, it will certainly have the Hollymead residents' vote
of approval.
At this time, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, since no one else came forward to make
comments. He asked Mr. Runkle if he would like to make his rebuttal remarks at this time.
Mr. Runkle stated that he does not want to rebut any of the comments, but he would like to use
the five minutes allowed to speak. He is the father of nine children, and eight of them have already
graduated from college. He thinks the concerns are pertinent as far as the traffic in front of the school,
and he referred to the model developed with the residents and the numbers which have been predicted.
He remarked that the resulting future volumes in front of the school are not only the result of a road
crossing the dam, but they would also be a result of the connection and all future development in the
Hollymead and Forest Lakes areas. He said any current land there would access through those neighbor-
hoods that are in the growth area, which was assumed to be developed at its existing zoning. He stated
that Springridge was expected to develop at the maximum density sought in the rezoning, which is part of
the reason for the increase in traffic, although the connection would also increase traffic. There is no
question that whatever the condition, there would probably be less traffic in front of the school without a
connection than with a connection. However, when a 200 percent increase is referred to, it is not all the
result of the connection, because it is partly due to future development as well. He referred again to the
model developed with the residents which was based on the agreements with them and available data at
the entrances to Forest Lakes South, Hollymead, Forest Lakes North and Powell Creek Drive. The model
was then balanced based on information and those assumptions, and predictions were made for critical
road sections. He stated that at the end of the process, there were about 2,500 vehicle trips predicted in
front of the school, but the actual major volume in front of the school at the end of the process was 4,200.
If 4,200 trips are used in the model, it greatly over predicts the data at the entrances, so it suggests that
there is a lot of internal traffic going to and from the school and not exiting the community. He emphasized
that part of the traffic volume in front of the school is local neighborhood generation going to and from
school. He stated that whatever improvements are made in front of the school and whether or not the
connection is made, this will have to be taken into account.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Runkle is talking about vehicles in the community making round
trips. Mr. Runkle answered affirmatively. The traffic volume includes people driving from their houses to
school and then back to their houses and never exiting the community. There is no other explanation for
it. It is interesting that there has been little or no comment about the development itself. The Commission
indicated a great deal of fondness for the development, and he hopes the Supervisors have read his
comments from the Commission meeting. He described the development as being near traditional in form
and a tighter mix of product as well as a higher density than is typical in Forest Lakes or in other
development areas. Yet, it is still below the minimum Comprehensive Plan recommended density at
approximately 2.7. There are many features in the plan such as sidewalks on both sides of the street and
paved pedestrian trails. He mentioned, too, that about 50 percent of the product is rear loaded, and there
are a lot of things included that the Infill Committee is recommending. He pointed out, though, that the
cost is about $650,000 in additional features above what would be contained in conventional development
at Forest Lakes. This amounts to about $5,000 per lot in cost, with sidewalks adding approximately
$2,000 per lot or $260,000 in cost. It has been a very difficult process to go through at this point with the
regulatory requirements currently in place. His staff has had to do a lot of creative thinking with Ms.
Echols in terms of how to make the plan work. There are townhouses fronting on the central green, and
there were going to be alleys behind them. However, private roads had to be built behind them to state
standards because every lot is going to front on the street.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Runkle is estimating that approximately $5,400,000 will be spent on the
project for 124 lots. Mr. Runkle answered affirmatively. He said there may be 135 lots, but it will more
likely be 124. Mr. Marshall wondered how much money this would be per lot. Mr. Runkle responded that
it would be $43,000 per lot. Next, Mr. Marshall asked how much the houses will cost. He went on to say
his concern relates to affordable housing, and this appears to be an expensive project. Mr. Runkle
replied that the average lot price will probably range from $32,000 for a town house lot to $70,000. There
will be some lots for attached homes that will be 40 feet to 50 feet wide, plus detached homes on lots
increasing to an area of 80 feet. The 80 foot lots will probably cost $65,000 to $70,000. Mr. Marshall
inquired as to the price of a town house. Mr. Runkle said town houses will probably sell in the range from
$140,000 to $180,000. He noted that they are set up so they can have detached garages that are loaded
from the rear. Mr. Marshall then asked about the price of the cottages. Mr. Runkle stated that the price of
the cottages will range from $175,000 to $250,000. The attached product on a 40 foot lot will probably
range from $140,000 to $200,000.
In response to a question from Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Runkle replied that lots fronting on a public
road can have an alley behind them, but houses facing the central green, will have access from the rear.
Those roads to the rear have to be private streets because of the subdivision requirement.
Ms. Thomas referred to the part of the agreement indicating that there will never be any
connection to Forest Lakes South. It is possible from the topography that there will never be such a
connection anyway, but she wondered why this is part of the language. She mentioned the strong feeling
about never increasing traffic in front of the schools, but she wondered about the connection to Forest
Lakes South.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Runkle explained that this specific agreement states that The Kessler Group will agree not to
make a connection if the northern connection is approved through the common area. The agreement
further stipulates that The Kessler Group will deed the dam and the 50 foot strip leading to Forest Lakes
South to the Homeowners Association. The proposed southern access road goes all the way to Forest
Lakes South although it is not shown on the map in this manner. Mr. Martin noted that this road would
have been the exit from Springridge into Forest Lakes South, if it was approved.
Ms. Thomas asked if the agreement indicates that this will never happen. Mr. Runkle said that if
the northern connection is made now, the connection to which Ms. Thomas is referring, will never be
made. Ms. Thomas stated that there may never be any reason to make the other connection, but she
thought the language in the agreement was unnecessary. Mr. Runkle answered that he does not think
this connection is physically possible, but 15 acres of the piece of property that The Kessler Group does
not own is in the growth area.
There being no other comments from the public, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin
said the Planning Commission raved over the project, but the Commissioners had concerns about the
access. He hopes this Board can move directly to the access issue. He pointed out that the Commission
approved the road over the dam and strongly recommended that Mr. Runkle work with the three
neighborhoods -- Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South and Hollymead -- to figure out a way to do a
"V" connector with the idea in mind that this connector would limit the amount of traffic. The
Neighborhood Association and The Kessler Group disagreed about some of the numbers so they gOt
together and developed a new set of numbers to which they can both agree. He stated that it seems as
though the" V" connection only limits the amount of traffic in front of Hollymead by about 25 percent. The
neighborhood is strongly behind the single entrance to the north, although there is some sentiment on this
Board about the road across the dam. He hopes the Board will agree with the residents of the three
neighborhoods due to the extreme amount of support for the connection from the north. He remarked that
the issue on which this Board needs to focus is whether or not the matter should be deferred or whether it
should be sent back to the Planning Commission. He would like to think it can be deferred until the
Planning staff can develop a report to make sure that the north connector is appropriate which would also
allow the people in Forest Lakes South and Forest Lakes North to vote on the matter. He noted that there
has to be a 75 percent favorable vote in order to sell the land to The Kessler Group.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the percentage relates to 75 percent of the votes or 75 percent of the
lots in both Forest Lakes South and Forest Lakes North. Mr. Runkle answered that it has to be 75 percent
of the votes. Mr. Martin stated that 75 percent of the total number of people voting would put the vote on
the record as being very strongly supported by Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South. The
representative from Hollymead has spoken very clearly in favor of the agreement, as well.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board deals with these situations individually, and usually there is
strong opposition to accesses between neighborhoods. He was particularly impressed with Mr. Lutz' s
comments when he spoke to the fact that there is already an access between the neighborhoods in terms
of pathways and bike paths, and people can move back and forth to school, etc. He does not know how
shopping would fit into such an access, but Mr. Lutz' argument carries some weight with him, in lieu of
feeling that there is only one way to access communities.
Mr. Marshall inquired about access for rescue squads and fire trucks. Mr. Martin answered that
he does not think access for emergency vehicles poses a big issue within the neighborhoods. The
concern involves traffic being blocked on Route 29 where there is an accident as far as what would
happen if there was a fire in one of the neighborhoods at the same time. Mr. Marshall wondered how
emergency vehicles can access the community. Mr. Martin replied that the read across the dam is being
proposed as access in an emergency situation.
Ms. Thomas commented that she took advantage of the pretty weather recently and sat on the
dam as the schools were being dismissed. She enjoyed the peace, as well as the wildlife, and she
understands why people don' t want the dam disturbed. She added that she counted the children as they
walked by and there were 15 children who either walked or bicycled across the dam. This access is used
some, and it is a beautiful site. She next noted her concern about school buses going out on Route 29
and then returning. When the safety of children is considered, she has to think about the situation with the
Western Bypass and about the figures made available recently. If the Western Bypass is built, the
number of vehicles and particularly the number of trucks are going to increase on Route 29 North, and
they are going to be right in that section of highway. There are currently no plans to have anything other
than service roads to take local traffic off Route 29, and there is nothing to take the increase of trucks off
that highway. She predicted that it will become more dangerous to the school buses and the parents who
are driving out on Route 29 to Forest Lakes North and then back into the neighborhood again. It can only
be hoped that this fact has been taken into consideration when the residents indicate they would rather
have that type of situation than have a connector to their school.
Mr. Martin commented that he has mentioned this issue a lot of times, but it does not seem to
carry any weight with the residents. He has also brought up the issue of locating property for a northern
elementary school. He stated that if this school is built north of Proffitt Road, chances are the children in
Forest Lakes North are going to be changing schools, and they will no longer go to Hollymead. He
remarked that if the children have to go out on Route 29, anyway, they may as well be taken to the
northern elementary school. He has seen the emotion that takes place when the subject of redistricting is
090323
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
mentioned, and he has seen how upset parents have gotten when their children are being taken out of a
school where they have been going for several years. He thought this argument would hold some weight,
but it doesn't. He emphasized that people are strongly opposed to connecting the neighborhoods.
Ms. Humphris recalled that a lot was said about the construction costs in the report, and she
asked staff to review the proffers concerning the northern connector road versus the road over the dam,
as well as other improvement proffers. Ms. Echols said all that is known at this point is that the $100,000
in off site improvements is retained with the second set of proffers. She explained that this money will be
available for the items listed in the proffers which are many of the things included in the original plan. She
stated further that the staff has not yet examined the cost to construct only the road from the north.
Ms. Humphris remarked that she thinks the staff recommendation should be followed by this
Board so a deferral action may be in order to allow staff and Planning Commission to complete a review of
the proposal and proffers. The Board of Supervisors should hear about this project again after the March
4, 1999 meeting of the Association because the Supervisors don' t have all the information yet. There are
no good maps to show exactly the information being discussed, and she would feel more comfortable if
the Supervisors had the whole package in front of them with approval or disapproval by the Association.
Mr. Marshall asked if another public hearing is needed. Ms. Humphris answered," no."
Mr. Davis pointed out that there is another special use permit relating to the stream crossing to be
presented to the Commission which will be required for the alternate proposal. This special use permit will
have to have a public hearing by the Planning Commission as well as this Board before the alternative can
actually go forward.
Mr. Martin stated that the proposal can go forward without the stream crossing, but the project
cannot actually start before the stream crossing is approved.
Mr. Davis explained that if for some reason the stream crossing is denied, this project would not
be viable. He said a pre-decision cannot be made on the stream crossing issue by approving this project.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the stream crossing is another reason for the proposal to be deferred. Mr.
Davis answered affirmatively. The stream crossing approval is essential to the project being built.
Mr. Martin asked if SP-98-46 relative to the Springridge stream crossing needs to also be
deferred. It has been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis replied that this stream crossing
was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. However, if the Powell Creek Drive
connection is not going to be considered, then this approval is not necessary.
Mr. Martin suggested that all options be kept open. He then stated that a motion is needed to
defer ZMA-98-12, ZMA-98-13 and SP98-46 for specific reasons. These items will not be sent back to the
Planning Commission before an update from staff comes back to this Board. Mr. Davis suggested that
this matter be deferred to the date the special use permit for the other stream crossing will be heard by the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the date for the special use permit hearing on the other stream crossing
has not yet been set. Since another public hearing is not needed for these three items, the date is not
critical, because they will not have to be re-advertised. Mr. Davis agreed. He emphasized that these
items should be considered by this Board at the same time the special use permit for the stream crossing
is being heard.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the items would be brought to the Board of Supervisors sometime in
May. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Planning Commission' s public hearing will be held some time in April,
and the special use permit will more than likely get to the Board of Supervisors in May. He stated that
when the special use permit gets to the Planning Commission, the commissioners will want to know why
this matter is being brought to them. The staff will have to explain the alternative route, and the
Supervisors' reaction to it at that meeting. He said although the three items will not be deferred back to
them, they will be examining the issues anyway.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she is still distressed about the clause indicating there will never be
any connection with Forest Lakes South even if the connection is not made to Powell Creek Drive, nor the
dam, nor with the" V" connector road. She said even if the connector road were to go across an area
that is in the growth area, but not owned by the present applicant, this clause would eliminate this
possibility. She would hate to have the connection ruled out totally, although she realizes that it is not the
Supervisors' responsibility to suggest language for the Neighborhood Association' s documents. Mr.
Martin answered that it is his understanding the wording does not suggest there will never be a connection
anywhere, but instead it stipulates there will never be a connection using the two portions being deeded to
the Neighborhood Association.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that some of the property is owned by a separate person, and the
language of the clause includes this property, as well. Mr. Martin said his understanding is not that there
will never be a connection of the other property. However, it could not happen using a road across the
000324
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
dam, etc. Mr. Marshall stated that this is why better maps are needed. Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas
concurred.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Association could propose an alternative for another property
unknown to the Supervisors.
Mr. Davis referred to the January 25, 1999 letter from Steve Runkle to John MacDonald stating
that agreement has been reached not to build a connecting road from Powell Creek Drive, or English
Oaks Circle North to Springridge through Areas A, G or E.
Mr. Martin stated that this not something the Supervisors can deal with now. Mr. Davis'agreed.
He pointed out that the County is not even a party to the agreement between The Kessler Group and the
Homeowners Association, so the Supervisors have no direct control over it. Mr. Martin stated that he will
be attending at least one of the meetings, and he will bring up this issue to see if the language in the
clause can be reworded.
At this time, Mr. Marshall offered a motion to defer ZMA-98-12, ZMA-98-13 and SP-98-46 until
the date the special use permit for the stream crossing is to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. (Note:
These items were deferred to May 12, 1999, the date SP-99-02, Springridge, is scheduled to be heard by
the Board.)
Ms. Thomas noted that this deferral is being made in order to get further staff study on the
implications of a Timberwood only connection, as well as the result of the vote by the Homeowners.
Mr. Bowerman also noted that the Supervisors will be interested in the Planning Commission' s
reaction to the fact that a special use permit is being brought to them relating to another stream crossing.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Marshall accepts the additions to his motion. Mr. Marshall answered
affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that better maps are needed. She has been totally frustrated with the
maps for this project.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had trouble with the original maps for the Charlottesville Catholic
School. However, he had no trouble with the maps for the project after it was changed.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff members have tried hard to have good maps, but they depend on
the applicants. The staff members would never have the time to furnish the information and plans plus the
maps, if they were using their own resources. He reiterated that most of the maps the Supervisors
receive, except for location maps, are coming from the applicants.
Ms. Humphris noted that simple things would help such as noting directions as well as the names
of peripheral roads.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff could furnish the road names, if they are missing from the plans.
Mr. Cilimberg concurred.
Agenda Item No. 12. Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Statement for
1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper (deferred from February 3, 1999).
Mr. Martin noted that a statement is before this Board relating to the Albemarle County Six Year
Plan to be taken to the Pre-Allocation Hearing on Interstate and Primary Systems to be held in Culpeper
on March 15, 1999.
Mr. Cilimberg referred to a request the County has received from the Chairman of the Fluvanna
County Board of Supervisors relating to a full cycle traffic light at Routes 250 and 616 at Boyd' s Tavern.
The staff is recommending that this be added to the list, and suggests that it be a part of the Route 250
East corridor discussion. He noted that Fluvanna County is also represented on the Route 250 East
Corridor Committee which begins its work in a couple of weeks. This is for the Board members
information, and he wanted to make sure they were aware of this request, since it came from Fluvanna
County.
Ms. Humphris referred to the first paragraph under the section," Surface Transportation
Program." She thought County officials are now dealing with TEA-21 and not ISTEA. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed that Ms. Humphris is correct.
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16) ..
Next, Ms. Humphris mentioned the first paragraph under" Standard Projects Include:" where it
states that the Parkway is the County' s next highest priority. This is unclear, and she asked if the
Parkway is the County' s next highest priority after the Route 29 widening or is it the highest priority. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the Parkway will be the County' s highest priority after the CATS projects and the
Route 29 improvements. This is the understanding from priorities laid out several years ago. Mr.
Marshall suggested that the wording be changed to indicate that the Parkway is the County' s highest
priority. ..
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Route 29 improvements are not yet complete. The last section
of Route 29 to be completed will be from the river to Airport Road.
Ms. Thomas noted that the sentence before the one to which Ms. Humphris referred begins by
saying," In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway She suggested that the phrases
be turned around so the language will state," In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway, the
Parkway is the County' s next highest priority."
Ms. Humphris next suggested that since this is the eighth year of requesting primary funding for
the Parkway, this fact should be included: Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a problem with such
language being added to the statement.
Ms. Thomas referred to the fact that the heading of the statement reminds everyone that the
hearing includes comments for mass transit. She noted that nothing is being said about anything other
than roads, bicycles and pedestrian ways, although she applauds these things being included. She said
people have been coming to the MPO meetings saying that the CATS Plan discusses alternatives to the
single occupant vehicle, but funding is requested only for roads. She has been told the time to request
funding for things other than road projects is at the Pre-Allocation Hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg wondered how the request should be handled, if the Supervisors are looking for
state funding to come to the County for mass transit. He recalled that, in the past, mass transit system
decisions have always been handled internally between the County and the City. Ms. Thomas stated that
she is not sure how this reference should be made unless it could be included in the same manner as
CATS projects. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the state will probably ask if County officials want to divert
some primary monies to mass transit.
Ms. Thomas recalled that the TEA-21 money that came to the state could have been for mass
transit. However, the Commonwealth Transportation Board chose to put most of it into roads. This was
the Transportation Board' s decision, so she feels County officials can suggest that there should be some
shifting of monies. She pointed out that now local governments have to pay for a percentage of their
requests in terms of transit whereas roads in the counties are funded.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that he does not want the County to get involved in a mass transit
business. Ms. Thomas stated that the County already has JAUNT. Mr. Marshall said JAUNT is all the
County needs. He reiterated that he does not want the County to be involved in a bus system such as the
City has, and he suggested that the County use what it already has. He views the whole mass transit
issue the same way he looks at roads and schools. The only way there will be bus routes for people to
ride to work is when the roads are so congested, people will not drive anymore. He stated that people
don' t want to give up their car, and such a system will never work until it reaches that point. He stated
that it is similar to the situation whereby the County does not build a school until there are too many
children in the ones already built, and trailers have to be used, or there are too many cars on the road
before they are widened. He emphasized that mass transit system will not work any other way or any
other time.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that JAUNT has increasing ridership. She would like for the mass transit
request to be made instead of just asking for more roads. She mentioned that bicycles and pedestrian
pathways are being requested, and she is glad this is being done. Mr. Cilimberg explained that traffic
calming was not included in this set of priorities because generally it is not an allowed use on primary
system roads. The staff focused traffic calming on the secondary system.
Ms. Humphris next called attention to Number Two on Page Three, and she suggested that it
state," The County is closely following the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study." She then mentioned the
next to the last sentence in the same paragraph where it refers to the Route 29 South Corridor Study, and
she suggested that it be referred to as the Route 29 Phase II and III Corridor Study. She also said she
cannot recall undertaking the parallel roads issue, and she does not know what the staff is planning. Mr.
Martin agreed that he can recall nothing but a vague discussion of this matter. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that this item is a carryover from prior years involving discussions about Berkmar Drive to the Route 29
corridor. Ms. Humphris said she thought the statement was referring to service roads.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the parallel roads provide for local access, and the staff has been very
focused on not recommending service roads. In fact, the staff has recommended against the service road
concept in the Route 29 plan above the river, because the local traffic would be better served by interna-
lized parallel roads such as Berkmar Drive. Ms. Thomas wondered if Mr. Cilimberg is referring to nOrth of
the river. Mr. Cilimberg said this is part of access management which was included in the Phase One
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
project. Mr. Martin suggested a parenthesis be placed on this item to show that it does not include service
roads.
Ms. Humphris stated that it really concerns her because she has seen nothing about north of the
river, and she understands that the area north of the river could cause problems for some of the commun-
ities there. Mr. Tucker suggested that the language," south of Rio Road," be used. He believes Ms.
Humphris is talking about Hillsdale Drive. Ms. Humphris concurred that the Hillsdale Drive connector is
extremely important. Mr. Tucker noted that Berkmar is already connected.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there has been a meeting with the Great Eastern Management
Company and the City, as well as some members of the MPO. The matter of a two lane road to connect
Hillsdale to Seminole Square will be brought to the MPO, and it will be very Strongly supported bY the
merchants and City officials. However, he reported that part of the road is still in the County.
Mr. Martin wondered why the statement could not indicate this, since it is the only thing that has
been discussed. Mr. Bowerman further explained that the road to which he referred will be two lanes, and
it will go to and from Seminole Square without going on Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that in consi-
dering the Route 29 North plans involving development above the river, the staff has been trying to get
VDoT away from the concept of expressway service roads and limited access. The staff is trying to get
VDoT officials to examine the concept of main line and parallel road improvements. He said part of the
reason for this is because of the emphasis the Board of Supervisors has put on roads such as Berkmar,
Hillsdale and the Zan connector. He commented that these roads north of the river would actually be part
of the community, and they would be building from places such as Worth Crossing and Fortune Park Road
in the Forest Lakes area which are parallel roads. If the Board members are telling him this is something
they don' t want to see happen north of the river, then the staff members may not be on the right track in
terms of the comment they have made to VDoT.
Ms. Humphris stated that this is not what she is saying. She said now Mr. Cilimberg has
explained that the item is really referring to the County officials' goals, but it came across different when
she read it in the information furnished to this Board. Mr. Martin remarked that the sentence needs to be
reworded. Mr. Cilimberg commented that a reference will be specifically made to Hillsdale Drive and Zan
Road and also in the Route 29 North plans development.
Ms. Humphris then called attention to the" Safety Projects" category relating to installing traffic
signals at Routes 22 and 250 and the 1-64 interchange at Fifth Street. She suggested that the words,
"interchange ramps at Fifth Street" would be better understood instead of just the word," interchange."
Ms. Thomas mentioned the last line of Number One in the" Safety Projects" category which
refers to the construction of sidewalks along various primary routes within the County' s urban
neighborhoods. This relates especially to Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farm Apartments and
Darden ToWe Park. She asked that this request be made stronger, because it is written as though this
Board is not very worried about the issue, although the residents have raised concerns. She emphasized
that Board members are worried for the residents who are walking along this segment of road. She
suggested that the language read," Residents walking along that segment of the road, as currently
constructed, present a dangerous situation."
Mr. Martin commented that he has not had a single resident complain. He said complaintS have
come from people driving cars who have almost hit the pedestrians. Mr. Marshall mentioned that most of
the people walking that way are crossing the street to go to MCDonald' s or the PantoPs ShopPing Center.
He said signs indicating when people can walk will probably also have to be installed.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the sentence indicate that there is great concern with the Safety of
people walking along this segment of road as it is currently constructed. Ms. Thomas concurred.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved that the Statement of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors (copy on file) be formally adopted as its position to be given to the Pre-Allocation Hearing on
Interstate and Primary Systems in Culpeper by the Board' s Chairman, Mr. Martin. Mr. Perkins seconded
the motion.
Mr. Martin inquired if March 15 is the same day the County' s budget work sessions begin. Mr.
Tucker answered affirmatively.
Mr. Marshall recalled that the Albemarle County group went to the Pre-Allocation Hearing in
Culpeper very early in the day last year, and they didn't get back until sometime in the afternoon. Mr.
Tucker said the starting time of the budget work Session may have to be moved to mid-afternoon.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Approve_d by Boar
Date
Initials
February 10, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) 0'0032~
(Page 18)
Agenda Item NO. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 18 (A), 1996; and March 18 and August 5,
1998.
No minutes were read.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Bowerman asked for two volunteers to bowl for the Albemarle County Charlottesville Rotary
Club to benefit the American Red Cross. .
Ms. Thomas commented that a workshop is planned for Phases II and III of the Route 29 Corridor
Study, south of Charlottesville to the North Carolina border, for 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Friday, March
5, 1999 in the County' s Department of Forestry building. She and Mr. Cilimberg have been attending
these meetings.
Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has been given the opportunity to talk about the Sustain-
ability Council on March 22 in Baltimore, and work sessions are scheduled on the budget for March 22, 24
and 25, 1999, if needed. She recalled that last year the Board did not do the equivalent of any of these
work sessions, because the budget was finished before the last three meetings. She then asked if
eliminating the work session on March 22 would meet with the other Board membersl approval, since she
would like to go to Baltimore. If it becomes necessary to have the work sessions, Wednesday, March 24
and Thursday, March 25 would still be available.
Mr. Martin responded that it might be hard for him to attend a work session on Thursday, March
25.
Ms. Thomas noted that Wednesday, March 24 would still be available, and if another one is
needed, it could be held on March 25 instead of the 22nd.
Board members did not come to an agreement on eliminating the March 22 work session, so Ms.
Thomas said she may have to gamble that the March 22 work session won' t be needed.
At 9:00 p:m., Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris that the Board go into
executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider
appointments to boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
At 9:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Ms. Humphris, 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. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Mr. A. Gordon
Gledhill to the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. At 9:06 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
- - G;'~airman