The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-05-12May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000:1.54 A regular meeting of the Board Of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 12, 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, .Ir., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (arrived at 7:59 p.m.), Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg (arrived at 8:12 p.m.), County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, and, Chief of Community Development, David W. Benish. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 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. There was no one present to bring forth another matter. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution for Purchase of Keene Landfill Buffer Property. It was noted in the staffs report that the Keene Landfill is an inactive municipal solid waste landfill located on Route 704 in Southern Albemarle County. The property includes approximately 56 acres, 38 of which are filled with municipal, commercial and construction wastes. The landfill operated from 1968 until it officially ceased accepting waste in 1991. The Board, on February 3, 1999, authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of properties which would provide a buffer for the Keene Landfill site. Staff has successfully negotiated the purchase of Ms. Ruth Ward's property, Tax Map 129, Parcel 2A, for a price of $4800, which is equivalent to the 1999 assessment. The property, which is undeveloped and wooded, is located on the western boundary of the Landfill. Purchase of this property will improve the County's ability to maintain and protect the waste areas of the landfill. The Public Works Division recommends purchasing four acres of the property using funds from the Keene Landfill Closure Capital Improvement Program Account. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution' authorizing the purchase of the referenced property according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and Deed. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of record of certain property identified as the Keene Landfill, Tax Map 129-2A, located in Southern Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that a need exists to acquire certain real property adjacent to the Keene landfill; and WHEREAS, the County intends to utilize the acquired property for buffer and related purposes in connection with the closure of the Keene landfill; and WHEREAS, the County has conveyed a written offer, memorialized in the Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate attached hereto, to purchase approximately four acres of privately-owned property adjacent to the Keene landfill for the per-acre assessed value, contingent upon approval by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the property owner has accepted the County's conditional offer. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the purchase of the above-referenced property according to May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and Deed attached hereto. 000 L55 Item 5.2. Adopt Resolution for additional Park Land adjacent to the Proposed Meadow Creek By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, approximately 13 acres of Mclntire Park may be lost under the current proposed plans for the Meadow Creek Parkway; and WHEREAS, property to the north of Mclntire Park along the Meadow Creek Parkway corridor may be landlocked or otherwise of marginal use for development; and WHEREAS, this property may present an ideal opportunity to replace land lost in Mclntire Park with land extending north frOm Melbourne Road along the Meadow Creek Parkway corridor and incorporate existing trails adjacent to Meadow Creek; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) purchase of right-of-way along the corridor may present an economical opportunity to purchase associated lands for park use; and WHEREAS, the Meadow Creek Parkway Design Advisory Committee has requested that VDOT purchase such land and make it available to the localities for public use; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County requested as part of its March 15, 1999, statement at the VDOT 1999 Preallocation Hearing that "additional right-of-way funding for purchase of land be donated for the purpose of restoring acreage in Mclntire Park lost due to the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase I project"; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, in an August 14, 1998, letter to Shirley J. Ybarra, Secretary of Transportation, requested "that all Meadow Creek Parkway design and funding issues be addressed fully" including land purchase of compensating parkland"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby find that it is critical that the Meadow Creek Parkway design include a plan to replace lost land in Mclntire Park, with land north of Melbourne Road along the Meadow Creek Parkway corridor, to maintain essential environmental and recreational facilities in this community; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that Charlottesville City Council join in making this request to VDOT. Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes of April 27, 1999, was received for information. Item 5.4. Update on the FY 1998-99 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & of April 27, 1999, was received for information Item 5.5. Letter dated April 28, 1999, from Mr. C. Kemper Loyd, Environmental Engineer Senior, Virg Department of Environmental Control, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0029955, Southwood Mobile Estates Sewage Treatment Plant. It was noted that the proposed permit action is tentative and consists of reissuance of an existing permit to discharge treated sewage wastewater. Sewage sludge from this facility is pumped and hauled to the Moores Creek VVVVTP for further treatment. Agenda Item No. 6. Request by the City of Charlottesville that the County Grant to the City a Perman Natural Gas Line Easement Across Property Jointly-owned by the County and City and identified as County Map 45, Parcel 007 and Parcel 008, located within the Ivy Creek Natural Area Mr. Martin said there is a request to again defer this item. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, sec, by Ms. Thomas, to defer this request until June 10, 1999. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the folio recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-04. Montessori Community School (Sign #87). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow priv school expansion in accord w/Sec 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) contains 6.53 acs & is loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250E) appro× 1/3 mi from the intersection of Rt 20 N & Richmond Rd. TM78, Ps12A & 12A1. (The zoning for this property is CO & the Comp Plan designates this property as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 [Pantops].) Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 3, 1999.) Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Montessori Community School wishes to expand its facility located on Pantops. At present, there are 120 students in pre-kindergarten to the sixth grade. With the expansion, there would be two new grades and a student increase of 180. At build-out, the School would serve 300 students. Mr. Benish said the Montessori School has been in operation at this location since 1991. The property has an office, four classrooms and play areas. Approval of this request would allow for nine modular classrooms, a multi-purpose building, an office and 25 additional parking spaces on 6.3 acres. Regarding transportation safety, the entrance will be aligned and signalized prior to the completion of Phase I. Staff recommended that a path or sidewalk be constructed along that entrance to the intersection, or from the School to the intersection if the entrance is to be changed further. The pathway or sidewalk will provide access to the intersection of Rolkin Court and Route 250. Sewer connection was recommended as a condition of final site plan approval. Mr. Benish said staff found no factors that were unfavorable to the request, so recommended approval with six conditions. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1999, unanimously recommended approval subject to five conditions. Ms. Thomas said she would like to discuss the recommendation for pedestrian access which was changed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris said she has a question about parking for school- related events. Mr. Martin invited the applicant to speak first. Ms. Marcia Joseph said she was present to represent the Montessori School. She said the Planning Commission had piCtures of some of the modules at their meeting. One of their recommenda- tions was that the color of the modules be somewhat similar to what they saw in the pictures. She said the applicant would like the option of painting them in earth tones and using green on the bottoms. She then showed pictures to the Board members. Ms. Joseph said there are a couple of things that deal with the access issue. This is a school with primary age children. The idea is to keep the children on site and not entice them to go near Route 250. Also, since it is a private school, they do not wish to encourage people to come on the site. That is the reason the applicant asked that the Planning Commission remove the staff's recommended condition to have access from the front of the school to the intersection with Route 250 and Rolkin Court. The Commission did not recommend that wording as one of the conditions. Physically, it is also a difficult site. The buildings have been on the site for several years. If a sidewalk were built right along the roadway (they would have to comply with ADA standards), there would be 30-foot runs at 8.3 percent, and then a five-foot landing. By the time the sidewalk reached the road it would be eight-feet below the existing grade. If they built a meandering path following the grade to Route 250, it would traverse the entire site in order to comply with ADA standards. They ask that the Board consider that change, and a change in the color of the buildings. Ms. Thomas said she was concerned about the pedestrian access because she hates to create a school that no one can ever walk to. There will be quite a few apartments across the street, but there is to be a stop light at that intersection. Ms. Joseph said that at some point in the future, the entrance will connect with the Luxor Subdivision. Mr. Marshall asked if the meandering sidewalk were built if it would take area where future buildings are to be located. Ms. Joseph said "yes". Mr. Marshall said it makes sense to him not to do it. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. Joseph to address the comment in the staff's report that "Parking shown on the site plan meets zoning ordinance requirements, however, school-wide events will periodically exceed the parking capacity of the lots shown. The applicant anticipates using the shoulder of the travelways to accommodate excess vehicles." She is concerned that with the proposal for 300 students there will be a number of school-wide events. That would be a lot of vehicles to park. Ms. Joseph said originally there was to be just an additional lot. Requirements for parking at schools are very Iow. The Fire Official required them to build the travelway behind the modular units. County staff anticipated that parking could take place along the linear pathway behind the buildings, plus along the shoulders of the existing road. Ms. Humphris said that overall she is supportive of the proposal for expansion. When she thinks about having a school-wide event, she realizes that there is no other place people can park. Ms. Joseph said there are occasions now when a large number of people attend, and there is a very large soccer field that is accessible, and it has been used for parking if it isn't muddy. Ms. Thomas said that otherwise, they would have to car pool. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000157 With no further questions from the Board members, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-99-04 with the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Mr. Benish said there was a request from the applicant to broaden the Choice of colors for the modules. The conditions refer to a particular color which is in the pictures sent to the Board, a brown color. If the first condition could be amended to say "the color panel provided at tonight's meeting" that would be good. Mr. Bowerman said the colors all seem to be the same. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the green color is less obtrusive to the viewshed of Monticello. Mr. Bowerman said he is not going to pick one of those colors. Mr. Davis said the color chosen by the applicant is "Pine Needle SW3009," but he does not know if the Board should be that specific. Technically the Board needs to move to reconsider the prior vote, and then have another motion. Ms. Humphris moved to reconsider the prior vote. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris to approve SP-99-04 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, changing No. 1 to read: "Modular units which are not subject to ARB approval will be a shade of green closely matching 'Pine needle', in color and design with the modular units in the photograph shown." The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Modular units which are not subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval will be a shade of green closely matching Pine Needle in color and design with the modular units in the photographs shown at the Planning Commission meeting (and attached to the staff's report); Enrollment will be limited to not more than 300 students; Sewer connection shall be made prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first additional classroom; A conservation plan will be provided with the preliminary site plan to show how the undisturbed buffer between the residentially zoned properties and the school will be retained if required by construction of a retaining wall; and Approval of the conceptual plan does not constitute approval of the design or appearance of modular structures. Any buildings constructed in the Entrance Corridor must meet requirements of the ARB. Mr. Martin asked if the following requests must be discussed separately. Mr. Davis said they can all be taken at one time. 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. (These public hearings were advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 3, 1999.) §3-210. Carter's Bridge Agricultural & Forestal District. Proposal to add 117.69 acs in 5 parcels. Znd RA. Property is loc on E sd of Frys Path (Rt 627) near Carter's Bridge. TM112, Ps19E, 19F, 19G, 19H & 191. Scottsville Dist. Mr. Benish said the Carter's Bridge District is located in the vicinity of Carter's Bridge, Blenheim, Woodridge and Keene. The proposed addition is located on the east side of Frys Path (Route 627) southwest of Carter's Bridge. This District contains 9046.16 acres in 51 parcels. The proposed addition contain 117.69 acres in five parcels. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of this addition. §3-222. Moorman's River Agricultural & Forestal District. Proposal to add 110.442 acs in 2 parcels. TM41, P9E is loc on W sd of Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt 680) near White Hall in the White Hall May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000 .58 Dist. TM43, P44 is loc on W sd of Free Union Rd (Rt 601) near Owensville in the Jack Jouett District. Mr. Benish said the Moorman's River District is located in the vicinity of White Hall, Owensville, Millington and Free Union. This proposed addition is located on the west side of Browns Gap Turnpike (Route 680) south of White Hall, and on the west side of Free Union Road (Route 601) northeast of Owensville. The District contains 10,621.66 acres in 213 parcels. This addition contains 110.442 acres in two parcels. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of this addition. §3-228. Yellow Mountain Agricultural & Forestal District. Proposal to add 43.770 acs in 2 parcels. Property is loc on N sd Plank Rd (Rt 692) near Batesville. TM71, Ps 64 & 64A. Samuel Miller District. Mr. Benish said the Yellow Mountain District is located in the vicinity of Greenwood and Yanceys Mill near the intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 250 West, and in the vicinity of Batesville along Routes 637 (Dick Woods Road, 692 (Plank Road) and 691 (Ortman Road) in western Albemarle. The proposed addition of 43.77 acres in two parcels is located on the north side of Plank Road. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of this addition. §3-228. Yellow Mountain Agricultural & Forestal District. Proposal to withdraw 84.003 acs. Property loc on N sd of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt 250 W), Wof 1-64 intersect. TM55, Ps12B, 16, 16B & 20A. White Hall Dist. Mr. Benish said this is a request to withdraw property from the District. The proposed to be withdrawn is Tax Map 55, Parcels 12B, 16, 16C and 20A and is located on the north side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) and south of 1-64 in the Greenwood vicinity, just west of the Yancey's Mill interchange. The area contains 84.003 acres in four parcels, and is half wooded and half in pasture. Mr. Benish said the applicant missed the deadline for by-right withdrawal during the recent review of the district on January 13, 1999. The applicant then requested a by-right withdrawal on February 3, 1999, due to the recent death of his father. The applicant was informed that he could not withdraw under the clause which permits withdrawal upon the death of the owner because the property is owned by a corporation rather than a sole owner. The applicant then applied for a withdrawal which must be reviewed under the established withdrawal criteria. The Agricultural-Forestal Districts Advisory Committee discussed this request at its meeting on March 15, 1999, and recommended approval of the withdrawal provided the father had part ownership in the parcels. It was staff's opinion that approval of this request would set a precedent to allow future withdrawals under similar conditions. However, because many family farms are owned by corporations for estate planning reasons, this may indicate a need to change the State Code and the County's ordinance. Staff recommended approval of this request, as did the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 6, 1999. Mr. Martin opened the public hearing and asked if any of the applicants were present. There were none. No member of the public rose to comment. The public hearing was immediately closed, and Mr. Martin asked for a motion to adopt the ordinance as presented. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris 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, by amending Section 3-210, Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District, and Section 3-228, Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 99-3(4) 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, Section 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District, and Section 3-228, Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 3-210 Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000 .59 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, 19E, 19F, 19G, 19H, 191, 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; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99) Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B, 8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1, 80, 84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels 9E, 15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43, parcels 1, lB, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 191, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 21A, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H, 33, 33D, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 251 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30, 30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and last reviewed on December 21, 1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21, 2004. (4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988,' 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99) Sec. 3-228 Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Yellow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 55, parcel 15; tax map 70, parcels 15, 15A, 15D, 15E, 29, 37B, 37K, 37L; tax map 71, parcels 22, 22A, 22B, 64, 64A. This district, created on March 8, 1989 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to March 8, 2009. (Code 1988,' 2.1-4(p); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(1), 1-13-99; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99) Mr. Martin said the next three items are listed on the agenda as being public hearings. It was brough1 attention earlier in the week that the public hearings had been closed at the Board's meeting on February 10. has talked to several of the Board members so everyone is aware that he hoped to have a short public hearin since there are so many people present tonight to speak concerning these permits. He would like to allow 15 minutes for pro comments, and 15 to 20 minutes for comments from people against the requests. He asked suggestions from Board members. Mr. Marshall suggested limiting the number of people who can speak, since the Board has already held one public hearing. Ms. Humphris said the amount of communication received has been huge. She said the Board heard all kinds of things back in October, 1998 and again in February, 1999. She does not know what could be added that is new information. Ms. Thomas said some people have made the point that although the public hearing was opened and closed, it was a slightly different situation at that time. Mr. Bowerman said the decision to be made was dependent on action by others being taken first. Ms. Thomas said she thinks what is before the Board tonight is different enough to give each side 15 minutes to comment. Mr. Martin asked for a show of hands as to the number of people who came to speak tonight. There were so many people who wished to speak that the Board decided to stay with the three-minute speaking rule published on the agenda cover, and allow the public hearing to take place until 8:00 p.m. (about 35 minutes). Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-98-12. Forest Lakes South - Minor Amendment (Signs ~,, 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, P97A1 & portion of TM46B5, Pl. Loc at end of Powell Creek Drive on E side of Hollymead Lake Dam. Znd as Forest Lakes South PUD. In the Hollymead Community it is reoom for neighborhood density of 3-6 du/ac. Rivanna Dist. (Action on this petition was deferred from February 10, 1999.) (Readvertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 3, 1999.) Agenda Item No. 10. 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. (Action on this May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) petition was deferred from February 10, 1999.) May 3, 1999.) ((Readvertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-98-13. Springridge PRD (Sign #14). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 75 acs from R-I & RA to PRD. 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 lots (more or less 70 feet wide). 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. TMP46, P35. Existing use of property is vacant & the Comp Plan shows this as a neighborhood density (3-6 du/ac) & RA (1 du/ac). Proposed density is 1.8 du/a¢. Rivanna Dist. (Action on this petition was deferred from February 10, 1999.) (Readvertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 3, 1999.) Mr. Benish summarized the staff report. He said that on February 10, 1999, the Board heard the requests for ZMA-98-12, ZMA-98-13 and SP-98-46. Accompanying that request was an alternate set of proffers which, if approved, would have resulted in a development whose sole access would be from Forest Lakes North via Timberwood Parkway. With the understanding that the Forest Lakes Community Association would be taking a vote on the possible conveyance of land to provide this access, the Board deferred action on the requests saying it would take action after the vote and after receiving a recommendation on a northern stream crossing from the Planning Commission. In early March, the Association's vote was taken, and although there was an affirmative vote to convey the land for the stream crossing to support access from Timberwood Parkway only, the vote failed to meet the required 75 percent approval. So, the land conveyance necessary for sole access from Forest Lakes North was not approved and the applicant dropped the second set of proffers. The applicant has retained the second stream crossing to allow for the "V" connection into the property. The "V" connection would provide for interconnections of Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South without crossing the road over the dam. The Commission recommended approval of the second special use permit at its April 6 meeting. The proffers for the rezoning have been revised and were forwarded to the Board with the staff's report. The revised proffers have been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. Proffer No. 5C and Proffer No. 6C are still under review. The potential opening of the road over the Lake Hollymead Dam has been the primary issue of concern for the rezoning and special use permit requests. The Commission recommended approval of the Springridge rezoning with a road constructed over the dam to provide for interconnection of neighborhoods. As part of the rezoning request, the applicant asked the County to take ownership of the dam. Ownership of the dam by the County is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in order to accept the road into the public system for maintenance. The Commission strongly endorsed the concept of the "V" connection to provide an alternative interconnection to constructing the road over the dam. The dam itself was designed in the late 1960's and constructed in the early 1970's. In 1981, VDOT viewed the dam as acceptable for a road which they would maintain. In 1987, VDOT said that, with a permit from the State Water Control Board, they could accept the road for maintenance. In 1998, VDOT again reviewed the adequacy of the dam for a road and said that the dam was acceptable for a public road if seven criteria were met. Additionally, the County would need to sign a County/State agreement. Acceptance of ownership of the dam by the County would obligate the County for maintenance of the dam and possible liability. The annual insurance cost to add the Hollymead Dam to the County's general liability policy would be approximately $2000 per year. Average annual maintenance would consist of mowing, inspections and litter removal. It would cost about $5000 per year. If the dam were to fail in its entirety, which is highly unlikely since usually only portions of dams fail, the replacement cost would be approximately $500,000. If the Board decides not to accept the proffer dealing with the road over the dam, access would be provided solely from Powell Creek Drive. The alternative road interconnection is the "V" connection that would bring Powell Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway into the Springridge property without crossing the dam. To pursue this connection, the Forest Lakes Community Association would have to convey open space for right-of-way and easements to the developer. The ownership and maintenance of the dam would rest with the developer or the Community Association. The "V" connection alternative would remove the off-site proffers for street and traffic improvements near the school complex. The value of the off-site proffers, plus the anticipated cost for building the road over the dam, would be applied to the Timberwood Parkway component of the "V" connection. If the anticipated costs exceeded $270,000, and the County or other entity would not provide the difference, this option would not be pursued by the Applicant. The proffered dedication of the dam represents the developer's effort to provide for road interconnections between neighborhoods in Forest Lakes. The proffer is an "offer" to the County; the County is not obligated to accept the proffer. If the proffer is not accepted, but the rest of the rezoning is approved, then access would be provided solely from Powell Creek Drive. If the rezoning is approved with the proffers, staff believes the Board should make a statement of intent regarding the dam. Though non- binding, such a statement of intent would provide direction to the Applicant and bring closure to this controversial issue. To delay making a decision on whether or not to allow a public road over the dam would be to postpone the decision until a final plat is submitted for dedication of the dam. As part of the May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 0OO.1.61 dedication of right-of-way and acceptance of the road into the public system, VDOT would require the County to sign a County/State Agreement for "Maintenance of a Road over a Dam." By accepting Proffer No. 4 and not making a decision on whether the County should allow a public road across the dam by taking over ownership and maintenance, the Board postpones resolution of the issue. In this case, if the Board subsequently decided not to accept ownership and maintenance of the dam, the Applicant would provide access solely from Powell Creek Drive. It would be most desirable for the Board to express its intent regarding the dam at this time so the Applicant will know whether or not to develop engineering plans for the road and begin the submittal process for review and approval by the County. For the County, it is possible the $170,000 in road improvements could be proffered for other off-site improvements. For the neighborhoods, the controversy would be resolved. By stating its intent with approval of the rezoning, outstanding issues could be settled now. The Commission recommended approval of ZMA-98-12 to allow a change in open space to the Forest Lakes South PRD so as to allow construction of a road to the Springridge property. The Commission recommended approval of ZMA-98-13 and SP-98-46 for a neo-traditional type of development and a stream crossing for access. They recommended that the proffers for ZMA-98-13 provide for two alternatives for inter-parcel access. Although the cost for owning and maintaining the dam is about $7000 per year, the Commission said the Forest Lakes Community would benefit from having an interconnected neighborhood. They said the County would benefit by enabling neighborhood traffic to flow within the neighborhoods rather than on Route 29 North. The benefit of an interconnected neighborhood would also accrue with the "V" connection, although the Community Association would have to approve the disposition of open space to this use and it is unknown whether or not an affirmative vote on the conveyance is possible. The Commission recognized that the "V" connection might not be possible; however, the Commissioners recommended approval of SP-99-02 for the stream crossing by a road from Timberwood Parkway as the preferable way to connect the neighborhoods. The Commission recommended approval of the rezonings and special use permits and recommended that the Board accept the proffers as submitted. The Commission strongly endorsed the concept of inter-parcel access as well as the "V" connection. The Commission said approval of all four requests is necessary to proceed with the development. Staff would also recommend that, in its action on the rezoning of ZMA-98-13, the Board make a statement as to whether it will accept ownership and maintenance of the dam under terms and conditions acceptable to the County. Mr. Bowerman said he understands from the staffs report that there is a by-right connection existing to Powell Creek Drive which would access through the Hollymead Community. Mr. Benish said "yes"; the only access to the development, without the ability to access north of the dam, would be to south of the dam to Powell Creek Drive. With the proffers, as proposed, the Applicant offers to build a road across the dam which would connect Timberwood Parkway to Powell Creek Drive. Mr. Bowerman said that would also allow for a potential "V" connection at some point in the future. Mr. Benish said there is a second proffer that does leave the option for the "V" connection if the opportunity arises. There are cost implications to that option. It is more expensive. The proffer now reads that the developer is willing to commit up to $270,000 toward the "V" connection, but the current estimated cost would exceed that figure. To develop the "V" connector would require a commitment from some other entity to cover the remainder of the costs. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Benish knew what the total cost would be. Mr. Benish said he believes it is around $390,000. Mr. Martin said approving the proffers as they exist now does leave open that possibility. Mr. Benish said "yes", but only if that additional cost is picked up by someone other than the developer. Ms. Humphris referred to Page 6 of the proffers, No. 3, under GENERAL CONDITIONS, and said she got bogged down in the part about areas of critical slope. She asked what all that language meant. It refers to sections in the Zoning Ordinance and she did not take the time to look those up in the ordinance. Mr. Benish said he will look at the ordinance to be sure he has the right answer, and will give that answer to Ms. Humphris after the public hearing. (Note: Mr, Bowerman left the room at 7:36 p.m.) Mr. Martin told the applicant he could have three minutes to make a presentation. Since it is now much later than when he said the public hearing woUld end at 8:00 p.m., he will readjust and make sure the full amount of time is given for public comments. Mr. Steve Runkle said he is one of the partners of Forest Lakes Associates, which is the applicant. They have proposed a plan which they feel best meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant understood, before submitting this rezoning request, that the most sensitive issue would be the road across the dam. Because of that, they initiated discussion with the Forest Lakes Community Association in the Summer of 1996 relative to acquiring land to provide a single point of access to the north. That was voted on and failed in late 1996 or early 1997. They then developed the plan which was submitted and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission, with the strong recommendation that the "V" connection be pursued. The applicant agreed to defer the meeting scheduled in November, 1998 May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000 6 with this Board in order to pursue the suggestion with the Association. (Note: Mr, Bowerman returned to the room at 7:38 p.m.) Mr. Runkle said it became apparent that it would be just the single point of access from the north. Another proposal was made to the Homeowners', and again it was voted on and that vote failed. Although the applicant feels that the "V" connection has been pursued, that proffer is still part of the package of proffers. He said their latest cost estimates are for approximately $225,000 more than what is proposed the way the proffer is written. The "V" connection would require that a contribution of $100,000 for off-site improvements be applied against that connection. That would leave them about $125,000 short for that alternative which still requires approval of the Forest Lakes Community Association for the common area. He said that Mr. Don Sours can speak about the issue of steep slopes, if an answer is requested. Mr. Bob Fazia said he is a resident of Forest Heights. He thinks the primary concern is the traffic that will be going by Hollymead School. His fear is that without the "V" connector or the road across the dam, it will force all of that traffic past the schools. If there is some way to keep the schools from getting all that traffic, that would be a viable alternative. Mr. Victor Milner said he is a resident of Forest Lakes. With the proposed expansion of the Route 29 corridor, he feels the area would be best served by building a road across the dam versus having school buses constantly entering Route 29 with multiple lanes and increased traffic flow. This issue has been voted on several times. He does support going ahead with the dam construction. Ms. Lindsay Crawford, said she is a resident of Hollymead. She does not want the road built across the dam, but she agrees with the first gentleman. If the road over the dam is not built, then all of the traffic will be passing the schools. Since Forest Lakes North will not give over the area needed to have access to Timberwood Parkway, the dam road or the "V" connector is the next best alternative. Ms. Elizabeth Hare said she is a resident of Hollymead. Looking at the map of Forest Lakes North, everyone in Forest Lakes North, in order to go south to Charlottesville, must first go north on Timberwood. If a read over the dam is opened, many of those people will find it shorter in distance and shorter in time to come across the dam read right in front of the schools. It is her understanding that when the new northern elementary school is built, students in Forest Lakes North will most likely be sent to that new school. Many of the school buses people are concerned about will not be coming over the dam road, they will be going north on Route 29. The Board needs to consider that in the Hollymead Subdivision, and on Powell Creek Drive, many residents in that area back their cars right onto the street. If the traffic is doubled, people will not be able to get out of their driveways. She asked that the Board not vote in favor of the road across the dam. Mr. Franklin Mechichi said he is a resident of Forest Lakes North. He said there is one important traffic issue which he has not yet heard addressed. The roadway across the dam would complete a loop which would essentially be a bypass around the worst bottle-neck in Albemarle County, and that is the placement of four lights, which every afternoon, back traffic up significantly. He does not think the Board should disapprove the developer's request. Without the road across the dam, they can still develop the property through a connection on the south side of the dam. He asks that the Board not approve the roadway across the dam because he feels the safety and traffic issues far outweigh what would be the County's assistance in marketing and obtaining the highest property values for the developer. He asked that the Board not interfere with the market. He asked that the developer be allowed to develop the property with the minimum effect on both the community in Forest Lakes and the community of Hollyead. Ms. Jolene Jackson said she has been a resident of Hollymead for nine years. One of her sons walks to Hollymead Elementary and one son walks to Sutherland Middle School because no bus transportation is provided for their street. They must cross two busy roads without the benefit of a crossing guard. She said there is a push to route more traffic through Hollymead right in front of the schools. She asked that the Board members vote against the Forest Lakes dam being reopened. She said she is representative of many residents in Hollymead who were not able to attend this meeting, and for those who are complacent because they did not believe their wishes would make a difference in the outcome of this issue. Mr. Bruce Rose said he has been a resident of the Forest Lakes community for five years, and a member of the Forest Lakes Transportation Committee. He came to speak about the County's Comprehensive Plan to interconnect neighborhoods and why it is inappropriate to apply when discussing the building of a road over the dam between Timberwood Parkway and Powell Creek Drive. First, they agree with the concept of interlocking adjacent neighborhoods, and the County's Master Plan, as a whole. In fact, Forest Lakes North already has 23 neighborhoods interconnected, and Forest Lakes South presently has 12 neighborhoods interconnected, and that number will grow to 17. While Hollymead is only one large neighborhood, it is already interconnected with Forest Lakes South. These three communities are not isolated. They are connected by bikeways and walkways, with good social interaction. Therefore, they do not feel the road is necessary. They feel that building the road will compromise the quality of life for the majority of surrounding residents. Traffic will increase on Powell Creek Drive, traffic past the schools will increase, a number of residents utilize the dam for walking or riding bikes. The majority of the residents affected the most by the proposed road are against development of the road. He said they ask that the Board not degrade their quality of life. He said one need not look any further than Forest Lakes May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000i63 South. A connecting road was built there and it has done nothing to improve the traffic conditions on Route 29, but it has had disastrous effects on Hollymead and Powell Creek Drive. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan has been a failure. He asked that the same mistake not be made again. Ms. Emily Rymers urged the Board to vote against the road over the dam. She has walked to Hollymead Elementary and Sutherland Middle School each day for four years. The current level of traffic makes crossing the road dangerous. She said VDOT has indicated that traffic will increase by 100 percent in the area of the schools. Mr. Brad Pet[it said he has been a resident of Forest Lakes North for seven years. He understands the core issue for constructing the road over the dam is the interconnection of neighborhoods. As Mr. Rose pointed out, the interconnection of neighborhoods does not have to mean interconnection with automobile traffic. The road over the dam now is amenable to both bike and pedestrian traffic. If the Board approved this request based on the Comprehensive Plan goal of the interconnection of neighborhoods, it would be saying that interconnection necessarily means interconnection by automobile traffic. This would make Albemarle County much more like Northern Virginia where there is automobile traffic everywhere. Mr. John MacDonald, President of the Forest Lakes Community Association, spoke next. He handed to the Clerk a petition containing the signatures of 780 persons opposing the road over the dam. He said this is another indication why the Board of Directors feel that two out of every three residents in Forest Lakes oppose the road over the dam. This is not an insignificant majority. The community contains about 590 housing units, and is growing at 10 percent each year. The community is managed by an elected board of directors of seven members. The board of directors tried to determine what benefit a road over the dam would bring to the community. It is true that it will reduce traffic on Route 29 but in just a very short stretch of that road. It will take school buses off of Route 29 for only a very short stretch. There is another emergency access road available. But, there would be a great impact from the additional traffic in front of the schools, over the dam and through the Powell Creek neighborhood. Mr. MacDonald said that somehow putting the road over the dam is supposed to increase social interaction. He said that in Forest Lakes they have great social interaction, and if that is a goal of the County, they should develop more communities like Forest Lakes. In summary, they see no benefit to having the road over the dam and two-thirds of the residents do not want the road. He urged that the Board reject the road over the dam after seven years of battling over this issue. Ms. Joanne Ebersole said she is a resident of Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South, a Sutherland Middle School employee, and a member of the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee. The Board of Supervisors appointed her as a member of the Committee. She feels one of the main reasons to connect over the dam is for marketing purposes. The developer, at one point, had ownership of the land required to connect to Forest Lakes North. The developer chose not to retain that property. She asked that the Board not make the residents of Forest Lakes North and South and Hollymead pay for a lack of planning by the developer. She said there is a perfectly good bike and pedestrian path across Hollymead dam. This would be completely obliterated by a road across the dam, or severely compromised by a "V" connection or crooked road over the dam. The only traffic that would use the connection is traffic that would otherwise be using Route 29. The Board would be creating a Route 29 Bypass right through the middle of a high density growth area. As a resident of Powell Creek Drive, she asked that the Board not allow a connection over or around the dam because their road is already used beyond its capacity. As an employee of Sutherland Middle School, she asks that the Board not allow a vehicular connection in order to protect the lives and safety of the children who attend Hollymead and Sutherland schools. As a member of the Committee, she asked that the Board not allow this road connection in order to protect and enhance the paths that are already in existence. Mistress Lenora Dukes said she is a fifth grader at Hollymead Elementary School. She lives in Hollymead and is deeply concerned about the road over the Hollymead dam. There are many elementary school children who walk to school every day. All of the middle school students in Hollymead have no choice but to walk to school right along the road that might be the connection between Forest Lakes, Springridge and Hollymead. Four thousand cars will be passing right by all of these children every day. Why put more traffic right by the school instead of leaving it on Route 29 where the cars come back on 29 at the Forest Lakes South entrance? She said many in the community oppose the road across the dam. The lake is important to her. It provides a space to stop and think, go for a walk or a bike ride, or just be with nature. She loves the lake and believes it is too beautiful to ruin with a road. She said there will be too much traffic there, and judging by the condition of other roadways in Charlottesville, more litter will be lining the dam. She would like for the Board to consider vetoing the request of the developer. Mr. Peter Broman said he lives in Forest Lakes North. He said Ms. Thomas made a point earlier when she said she hated the idea of children not being able to walk to school. He totally agrees. The numbers indicate that if this change is made to put a road across the dam, it will increase the automobile trips per day up to 5371. He is against the increased risk to the community that will result from an increase in traffic in front of the school. He commended the Board for its vision in approving the plans for Forest Lakes. In that development, there is the proper balance of quality living and community safety. Together, these variables equate to quality of life. This community is in opposition to increasing community traffic because the impact of that traffic will disrupt their life balance. In 1991, a proposal for a road across the dam was presented to this same board of supervisors, and it listened to the concerns of the residents and made the right decision to not approve that proposal. In 1995, another proposal for the May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000 64 interconnection of communities was submitted. The Board again listened to their concerns, and made the right decision. One Board member even said "VVhy do we want to take all the time and effort and money that would go into this to manage it in the future if so many people are against it?" For the third time, the community has come together and expressed a majority opposition to increased traffic. Their position has not changed since 1991. Why should the Board's? Mr. Broman said every decision requires an understanding of its benefits and its drawbacks. How does one actually quantify safety? If the Board cannot quantify safety to the people who are most affected by this decision, then how can the Board justify that the benefits of this proposal outweigh potential risks? He encouraged the Board to seek out proposals that mimic the one the Board approved to develop Forest Lakes. Please do not approve this proposal. (Note: Mr. Tucker arrived at the meeting at 7:59 p.m. and Ms. White left.) Mr. Martin said it is now 8:00 o'clock, and he had said that he would allow public comments until now. He asked how many people still wished to speak. Quite a number of people raised their hands. Mr. Marshall said he has heard nothing new so far tonight. Mr. Bowerman asked that a few more people be allowed to speak. Mr. Martin said he would keep the hearing open for two more minutes. Ms. Vicki Cowling said she would like to personalize her comments. She is speaking for the 11 children under five years of age who live on Powell Creek Drive. She is concerned about their crossing the street. She said it is hard to explain why they cannot go out of the house between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., and then again between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m. She said any increase in traffic will be devastating to them, and she asked that the Board vote "no." Mr. Tom Rash said he is a resident of Forest Lakes North. He asked that the Board vote "no" to the dam road. He said Mr. Marshall said he had heard all the facts, so he would like to appeal to the Board's common sense. Ms. Sue Murray said she is a member of the Forest Lakes Board. She lives on Pepperridge, which will be affected as much by the road over the dam as Powell Creek will be. There are a lot of children under the age of six living on that road. Right now, it is difficult to go across the road to get to the playground. She understands there will be a new school to the north, so the children who now go to Woodbrook will instead be walking to Hollymead. The kids of Pepperridge will have a hard time getting there safely. Ms. Patricia Palmateer said she is a new resident in Forest Lakes North. She moved here from Rochester, New York, where she lived on a road which was an access road to other subdivisions, as well as schools. Each year there were two or three children hit by cars. It took her five to ten minutes each time she went in and out of her driveway. Had she known this was the case in Forest Lakes North, she would never have bought her home there. Forest Lakes North appealed to her because of its community setting. She is concerned for her daughter's safety. If the road goes over the dam, her child will no longer be able to walk the path or ride her bike on the path, to school. She asked that the Board vote "no" to the road over the dam and put this issue in the grave. Ms. Modery Mix said lives in Hollymead, Her son walks to the school. She walks every day around that lake. She thinks that if a road is put across the dam, it is a quality of life issue. Hollymead also had a petition with about 90 percent signing asking that the road not be put across the dam. There was nobody in the community who did not sign. This new community is really a part of Forest Lakes. Most feel it should have a connection into Forest Lakes rather than be forced completely through Hollymead. She asked why Hollymead has to bear the burden of another community's development? Mr. Jose Gomez said he is the President of the Citizens Association of Hollymead. He remains neutral on this question. He is, however, acting locally when asking for road improvements in Hollymead. Regardless of the Board's decision tonight, there will be an increase in traffic on the main roads in Hollymead. Ms. Brian Campbell said he has been a resident of Forest Lakes for two years. He moved here from Northern Virginia so has seen the effects developers can have in a community. He said they moved to Albemarle because of the safety factor and the quality of life, and the design and development of Forest Lakes, particularly the cul-de-sac development. The only thing he wonders is why the burden is put on the homeowners every time a developer buys land and then finds himself landlocked. Ms. Vicky Harris said she is a resident of Powell Creek Drive. She has attended everyone of these meetings and listened to everything that has been said. She was pleased at the last meeting when Ms. Thomas said she sat in the neighborhood and enjoyed the area at the dam, and she observed kids riding bikes. That was in February. She lives across from the apartments and sees the children from the apartments crossing the road all the time. The road comes to a high peak right in front of her house. She knows several people have lost their pets in this section of road, and they do not want to put their children in that situation. She has spoken to several residents who said they would not allow their children to walk May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) to school anymore. The traffic study that was done will actually change because these people would now drive their children to school. Mr. John Oliver said he is a resident of Forest Lakes North. He said the Board has heard a lot of opposition to the road across the dam so may think the logical choice would be the "V" connector. He asked the Board to consider the impact of the "V" connector on the recreational opportunities in Forest Lakes North. One of the reasons the conveyance of land was rejected was that the north side of the "V" connector would cut directly across a recreational field which is used by a lot of residents and their children. He urged the Board to consider the impact of that choice on recreation. Mr. Bill Stiley said he is a resident of Forest Lakes South. (NOte: Mr. Cilimberg arrived at 8:12 p.m.) He said it will cost the County money to keep up the dam. He thinks there are better things to do with the money when the majority of people in the area do not want the road across the dam. The vote taken was at about 74 percent. They lost by 12 votes. There were 100 votes that were not counted because they were handed in the day of the vote, and it had been said they had to be in the day before the vote. He thinks that if those votes had been counted, it would have passed. He said the question on the ballot was confusing because it only gave a choice of "accept" or "not accept" instead of being on this one question. The proposal was actually five pages long, and a lot of people got confused by that. He said that of the three people speaking in favor of the road tonight, one spoke because he is worried about the school buses, but buses are probably not going to be an issue in the future. The other two spoke about traffic. He thinks they misunderstood. There will be more traffic from that neighborhood, but the impact of traffic from Hollymead North going south and south going north far outweighs the traffic from the new neighborhood. There will actually be more traffic with the proffer. Mr. Stiley said his neighbor has had three mailboxes on Powell Creek Drive taken out in the last 12 months. Mr. Tim Eppley said he has been a resident of Hollymead for seven years, living on Powell Creek Drive. He said safety is the most important thing to him. He moved here from Northern Virginia for the quality of life. If it takes him a little longer to drive to work, so be it. The natural thing is that when you are late you drive a little faster, and that can already be seen in the neighborhood. With the increased number of cars, he thinks more cars will go quicker. Also, living on Powell Creek Drive, he gets more trash in his front yard where there is traffic than he sees when he takes his daily walk across the dam. He thinks the Board needs to look at the environmental issue. Mr. Andrew Crouse said he is a homeowner who lives in Forest Lakes on the lake and he is the father of three small children. Three years ago they moved to Forest Lakes because of the sense of small community within the greater Charlottesville community. The excellent elementary and middle schools were within safe walking distance. There was also the tranquility of the lake and the secluded neighborhood. He urged the Board to not allow the bridge over the Hollymead dam. He said that for three years this has been an issue which has consumed the Forest Lakes community. Several months ago, 73 percent of the residents said they did not want the road built. Unfortunately, a number of neighbors feel that The Kessler Group has done nothing but "grind everyone done." It is no surprise that whenever they feel the issue has been killed, it comes back again. He asked that the Board help protect their community, the roads and the schools for the children. He said that as a resident of the last street in Forest Lakes North, he can tell the Board that the traffic running through the neighborhood will only increase. As it is now, all through the night there are cars speeding through the neighborhood and spinning around the cul- de-sac because they can't get out. The prevention of crime is just as important as pedestrian safety. He said that Charlottesville has a good reputation worldwide for its ease of living. Many of the people here tonight are not from Virginia or Charlottesville, but selected this fine town because they believe in its fine beauty. He asked that the Board not ruin their neighborhoods because of greed, efficiency, or some grand master plan. He urged the Board to vote "no" on this issue. Mr. Steve Hammond said he is a resident of Forest Lakes South. He said the Board has heard all the reasons, and all of the statistics and all of the logical reasons not to approve this request, and now they are asking for mercy. That is all that is left. They had their big chance to go out and take a vote and come back to the Board to say they would give some land for another alternative. He said it didn't happen. He said they got 73 percent of the vote, but needed 75 percent. He asked that the Board not impose a sentence on their community that will put a stranglehold on places like Powell Creek Drive. That road will have a two-fold increase in traffic coming down that 21-foot street where the mailboxes are right up against the road. He drives that street in the morning, and it is a dangerous place to be. He said they have been slow to reorganize, but they have done so now. He said the Board can feel their strength and see their numbers. He asked that the Board not impose a sentence that will strangle their neighborhood. At this point, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to ask some questions. Mr. Martin said he would first like to correct, for the record, some things that were said. One thing he kept hearing was about children from Forest Lakes North being bused to a new northern elementary school. He thinks part of that rumor has to do with his telling some residents about a new school which the Board knows will be built soon. Unfortunately, it has gotten turned around. He actually told people that if Forest Lakes North is not connected to Hollymead, then they have set themselves up as a prime candidate to go to the northern elementary school. If Forest Lakes North is connected to Hollymead, in his opinion, they would most likely stay at Hollymead Elementary. One gentlemen used the word landlocked and another person from Hollymead suggested that folks enter only from the north into this property. He wants people to May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) understand that this property is not landlocked. The owner of the property has, by-right, an entrance into Hollymead so that if neither the road across the dam or the "V" connector is done and the project goes forward, the developer can access directly into Hollymead south of the dam. He wanted information in the record to be factual. Mr. Bowerman asked the construction date for the six-laning of Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no set date for that project. Mr. Benish said there used to be a date, but then the date was pulled back with further contemplation of the Route 29 Western Bypass and the interchange that comes in near South Forest Lakes. VDOT is working internally on a proposal that will be sent to the Board soon, but there is no time frame on that either. Mr. Cilimberg said that at one point the six-laning project above the bridge to Airport Road was scheduled for one year after the bridge project was completed. When VDOT redesigned the whole concept of what would be done from the bridge northward, the date was deleted from the Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is even a guess as to when that project might take place. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes it could be no sooner than five years from now. Mr. Benish said it depends on the concept for the improvement. It is possible that there will be a separate road system which could actually be constructed before the improvements to the main line. Based on funding, he agrees with Mr. Cilimberg. How the project gets constructed will depend on the actual improvement contemplated. Mr. Bowerman said that addresses one of the issues raised that going north to go south would be quicker on Route 29. He knows some major improvements are contemplated on Route 29 North. He asked the design of the road that would cross the dam (two lanes, two lanes with bike lanes and ways, separation). Mr. Benish said the intent is have two lanes to replace the existing ~edestrian access. Mr. Bowerman asked how much right-of-way exists. Mr. Benish said there is 120 feet of right-of- way. Originally there was a two-lane roadway on the dam and it had sufficient shoulder area to accommodate sidewalks. When the Meadow Creek Parkway was discussed with the "T" alternatives, in some situations the concept called for a four-lane roadway. Mr. Cilimberg said Timberwood Parkway was to have been connected to Proffit Road and run all the way to the Meadow Creek Parkway, and it was designed to be built as a four-lane facility. Four-laning over the dam would have required additional earth for the dam. It could not have been done on the existing dam crossing. Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to clarify that the actual design would be two lanes with a bike Mr. Cilimberg said it would be with bike path and a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be removed from the roadway or on the actual road surface. Mr. Cilimberg said what is in place now is actually removed from the roadway. The concept would be continued, but it could also include actual bike lanes on the road, as well as separated paths. Mr. Bowerman asked about the eight percent that was voted by The Kessler Group. Mr. Steve Runkle said the eight percent represents recorded lots in Forest Lakes that The Kessler Group still owns. It did not represent any non-recorded portions of Forest Lakes, nor did it include Springridge. Ms. Thomas said she knows VD©T is working on the concept of having parallel roads along Route 29. She wonders whether there will be another connection between Timberwood Parkway and Hollymead created by any parallel road. She said she asked staff this question this afternoon and was told that the Holly Memorial Gardens cemetery would probably make that impossible. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the parallel road would only be on the west side of Route 29. Ms. Thomas said VDOT would like to have a parallel road on both sides of Route 29. Mr. Benish said that right now, the unofficial idea is to have a parallel service road system on both sides. On the west side it would run internal to the mostly undeveloped properties south of Airport Road down to an area just south of the entrance to Hollymead Subdivision. On the east side, because the Western Bypass interchange ramps would come into and just north of the existing South Forest Lakes entrance, that crossover would have to be closed, so they are looking at a parallel road system from the Polo Grounds Road up to the commercial area in Hollymead. There would be a connector road between Polo Grounds Road and the intersection. Because of the cemetery, and the difficult topography around the undeveloped tract of land south of the cemetery, they have not proposed a connector road between North Forest Lakes and Hollymead Drive. Staff has encouraged them to find a way to do that. Further up, they would utilize the road system of Worth Crossing and Fortune Park Road to capture that traffic and funnel it to Proffit Road. Ms. Thomas asked if Ashwood Boulevard would be closed. Mr. Benish said the crossover would have to be closed because the northbound ramp from the Western Bypass actually intersects it. There can no longer be the entrance on South Forest Lakes. The proposal is for a parallel road that will allow traffic to go south to Polo Grounds Road or north up to the existing Hollymead entrance. Mr. Marshall said the vote by the Planning Commission was 6:0 for approval of this road. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended what is actually before the Board tonight with the proffers in a slightly different form, but basically the substance is the same; they preferred the "V" connector to the Hollymead dam crossing, but did recommend the full proposal which is before the Board tonight. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000i67 Mr. Martin said this area is in his district. The question of this road keeps coming back to the Board. At one time, the road being discussed was proposed as a four-lane road across the dam to be a part of the Meadow Creek Parkway and the "T" connectors. He asked that the Board not support that concept, and they did not. Now, there is no proposal for the Meadow Creek Parkway to continue through Forest Lakes. Several years ago, the road across the dam came up again as a concept, and it was defeated. Now it is back before the Board under different circumstances, primarily because there had been an alternative offer. The requirement was for 75 percent of the vote to be in favor before the proposal passed. Under that scenario there would have been an entrance from Forest Lakes North into Springridge development. Mr. Martin said he has listened intently to the people present tonight. Contrary to what he has heard, his E-mail has been running at 30 percent in favor and 70 percent opposed. Given the level of opposition to this among the people at Forest Lakes North and South and Hollymead, he cannot support this request and will vote in opposition. Mr. Marshall said he understands the predicament Mr. Martin is in, particularly since all of these people live in his district, and he is running for re-election. He said he is faced with a similar situation concerning the Southern Parkway joining Fifth Street. This Board has told him that an alternative road has to be built, that alternative methods for joining neighborhoods for fire and police protection, has to be developed. He asked if this means that when it comes up in Southern Albemarle, that the Board will vote against it. He can guarantee that every resident from Mill Creek North and South and Lake Reynovia will be present to oppose that road. This situation is not that different. The Board is concerned with the health and safety of people, and he thinks that is what the Planning Commission did when they supported the request. It is unfortunate the Planning Commission did not support the "V" connector. Mr. Marshall said he was born at 835 Bolling Avenue in Belmont. In front of the house was a ditch, and on the side of the house was dirt. He walked to Clarke School everyday until he was in the fourth grade. Then he moved to 415 Park Street. Any time you go by that address you will see that the steps literally sit right on the highway. It is one of the busiest roads in Charlottesville. When he married he moved to 415 Carrsbrook Drive which is on the corner of Carrsbrook Drive and Carrsbrook Court. That was before there were zoning laws in Albemarle County and somebody took a bulldozer and ran down the middle of the field and built a dirt road. He bought a house in there, put in a septic tank and sewer system, and later all these people moved in and they paved the road and made him hook up to the public water and sewer. He has experienced all of this. He moved to Southern Albemarle about 35 years ago. Now the growth is moving his way. It is people, people, people, cars, cars, cars. Mr. Marshall said the population is growing because these people moved here. These people want their freedom, they want their automobiles, they oppose mass transportation because they want that freedom. The traffic in those subdivisions is created by the people who live there. The people who drive too fast are the people who live in those subdivisions. Right now, from what he has heard, there is nobody taking a short cut through there. It is the Board's job as elected officials to protect the people. He understands their feeling in wanting to live on a cul-de-sac and not have anybody intrude upon them. His entire life he has been intruded upon by people moving in and changing his environment. He does not know the answer. He thinks it is unfortunate that they did not vote for the "V" connector. What does the Board do? Does it not vote for this because this neighborhood perceives that it is the best thing for them? Truthfully, is it the best thing for them? Does the Board do what it was elected to do, and protect the citizens? Does the Board furnish fire and police services where they should be, and keep the school buses off of Route 29? Last week, there were three or four bus accidents in this country. Regulations govern planes and trains, but not buses. Even cars have seat belts. Does the Board put the children in more danger by not building this road? Mr. Bowerman said the County has built some elementary schools on roads which developed quickly. Agnor-Hurt is on Berkmar Extended which probably has a traffic count between 5000 and 10,000 per day. He does not know the traffic count in front of Cale Elementary. There will be a lot of traffic in front of Monticello High School. Albemarle High School is on a five-lane road. It is inconceivable that a pathway and bikeway system cannot be maintained to connect those communities along side of a transportation corridor. He does not seek one as being exclusive of the other. It may take some additional acquisition and some work by VDOT in terms of traffic calming issues. Mr. Bowerman said he was a member of the Planning Commission when the "T" connectors were proposed all along the Meadow Creek Parkway. It made sense to have an access point for the people who were going to live in this area so they could get downtown for work and shopping. When the issue was discussed, all the entrance points that were designed to serve the community that Forest Lakes was built around, were cut off. Forest Lakes was allowed to develop because of the highway system that had been planned for that area, and it has all been changed. The road system no longer serves what it was designed to do which was to move individuals easily and quickly. The Board acceded to the fact that major connector roads were not wanted running through neighborhoods. Mr. Bowerman said Springridge is going to have access to Hollymead. It is going to have 1300 to 1500 vehicle trips per day, new trips, and maybe more than that with people driving their kids to school and turning around and coming back. He does not see why kids cannot continue to walk to school. He does not see why people living in Hollymead cannot go to the commercial center in Forest Lakes easily. He does not know why they have to drive 40 miles per hour. He does not know why the people who live May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 000:1,68 along that road have to put up with the violators of the law. He thinks that is an enforcement problem that needs to be addressed. Accepting the Planning Commission recommendation with the applicant's proffers does not exclude the possibility of the "V" connector, which is a viable alternative. He said Mr. Martin was right about the school redistricting. It is likely that would go the other way; it just means more buses on Route 29. He has heard a lot of arguments; he understands how difficult it is for a community to have a decisive issue such as this in front of them, and to have friends and neighbors on different sides of the issue. He thinks the Board has a responsibility unless someOne convinces him otherwise. Mr. Martin said as the Supervisor who lives in that neighborhood, but also as Chairman and not being able to put a motion on the floor, he will ask if there is a member who will make a motion to deny this project with the proffers. There was no motion forthcoming. Mr. Martin asked if there were another motion a member would like to make. Mr. Bowerman said he will respect the Chairman'S position and put a motion on the floor for the Board to vote on; to deny the developer access over Powell Creek Drive, with acceptance of the applicant's proffers which would limit Springridge to access into Hollymead only. There was no second to the motion, so the Chair ruled the motion dead. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the audience deserves having the Board discuss this issue a little more. She thinks the "V" connector is not quite ideal in what the County's plan proposed in terms of interconnection, but it is better than being the ultimate traffic calming device. She said there is going to be a lot more traffic, it is just a question of where. She thinks that with employment opportunities growing in the northern part of the County, there will be a lot of Springridge people and others who will want to go north. To have the entire development of Springridge not be able to go north, but have to go through Hollymead to Route 29 in order to do that, people will think the Board made a mistake. She also does not think that turning a walking and bicycle path into a roadway (even though she thinks Mr. Bowerman is right), is a good idea. She thinks it is the Board's responsibility to not make the traffic do something illogical when there is a logical path for the traffic to take. Ms. Thomas said if the Board votes affirmatively tonight, it does not preclude the residents from taking another vote because the proffers say that if it is possible to do the "V" connectors, that is what they will do. Mr. Martin said the neighborhood opposed having a single entrance into Forest Lakes North that did not also go into Forest Lakes South. What is before the Board tonight would allow the "V" connectors as an option. Mr. Runkle said the agreement specifically forbid any connection other than the connection to Forest Lakes North. The Planning Commission encouraged the developer to pursue the "V" connection. When they met with the Board of the Association, their position was to vote on a single point of access to the north. The proffers before the Board tonight still allow for things to be worked out among the three parties to allow the "V" connection, but at an additional cost. Mr. Bowerman said that would allow traffic to go north, but not south. Ms. Thomas said that did not make any sense to her. She said the proffers before the Board allow for the best possibility, which is the "V" connector. But, that would require another vote of the homeowners. She will support the proffers before the Board, and she hopes it turns out to be a "V" connector instead of a road across the dam. Mr. Marshall said he would rather see the property not develop at all, and let it be a park instead. He knows the developer will not do that. If there were a way to run an advertisement in the newspaper and ask people not to move to this area, he would be for that also. Mr. Perkins said there have been a number of similar requests before the Board, such as in Mill Creek where the Board decided not to make the connection between subdivisions except for emergencies. He appreciates the feeling of the two neighborhoods and he does believe there will be with cars speeding, and it will be more inducive to crime, etc. It is a tough situation. The Board has tried to remedy that on future roads by putting up signs saying "this is not a dead-end road, it will be connected through in the future." Mr. Bowerman said the Board approved Forest Lakes North with a totally different understanding as to how it would be served by roads. Mr. Perkins wondered if the road across the dam could be a private road. If it's a public road and it is VDOT who will take care of it, there can be no speed bumps on it or anything that will slow down traffic. If it was a private road, it would be a different situation. Mr. Martin said in that case the County would have to maintain the road and the dam. Ms. Thomas asked if the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Mr. Perkins said he and Ms. Thomas met with some people Monday afternoon about Old Route 250 West, and they want to shut it off. Mr. Marshall said he knows some people on Route 20 South who would like to do the same thing. Mr. Bowerman asked if someone had made a motion. Mr. Davis said there are actually three items in front of the Board. The special use permit, a minor amendment to the Forest Lakes PRD, and the Springridge PRD. Ms. Humphris asked the correct order for voting on these items. Mr. Davis said the way they are listed on the agenda is the correct order. Mr. Cilimberg said ZMA-98-13 is the amendment that has the associated proffers. ZMA-98-12 is for the necessary changes in the Forest Lakes South zoning to allow for the access from Powell Creek Drive. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Benish said Ms. Humphris had a question about the mention of critical slopes in the proffers. That condition is essentially granting the developer a waiver of the critical slope provisions. He believes the staff made a reasonable evaluation of that during this rezoning and feels comfortable with that waiver. Ms. Humphris said she has found this to be a difficult situation to deal with. She had hoped the Community Association would allow the connection to Timberwood. She thought that would be a good solution to a difficult situation. That did not happen, and no one knows if they would want to go back and try for that again. Therefore, she thinks this request should go forward keeping in mind the carefully thought out plan in the Comprehensive Plan for connecting neighborhoods for safety and to offer alternatives that are becoming important to the community because of its rapid growth. It has been found on other roads that are traveled much more than any of those in Forest Lakes that if the residents will police themselves and drive the speed limit and watch for their own children, that will take care of a lot of the problem. She does not believe Forest Lakes suffers from that much cut-through traffic at this time. Mr. Bowerman said it is traffic from the same neighborhood. Ms. Humphris said it is neighborhood to neighborhood traffic and not traffic from outside of the neighborhood. She will support a motion to accept the proffers. Mr. Bowerman said he will second the motion to approve ZMA-98-13, Springridge PRD, with proffers dated May 5, 1999. Mr. Martin asked the Clerk to call the roll. Mr. Perkins asked that the Board discuss the private road issue. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Perkins asked if it is a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg said the first question has to do with who would maintain that private road. Mr. Perkins said the County will be maintaining the dam. Maybe the Community Association would maintain the private road. Mr. Martin said he would be in support of using a private road across the dam if that were possible. He is not sure that would deter people from using the road. Mr. Davis said the proffer, as it is worded at this moment, requires a public road to be built. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Runkle to speak. Mr. Runkle said the applicant would be willing to amend the proffer to allow it to be a private road. He thinks it needs to be established as to who would maintain the road. Mr. Bowerman said that according to Mr. Davis the Association would have to be responsible for the maintenance. Mr. Runkle said they are willing to amend the proffer to allow that, provided the Board approved the private road, and the Association agreed to maintain it. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want the issue of this road to come back before the Board again. Mr. Davis asked the purpose of a private road. Mr. Bowerman said it is to allow for traffic calming. The community could plan for its own road system rather than VDOT dictating it. Mr. Runkle said the developer will also need County approval for the design of the road. Mr. Davis said there are several issues that would need to be discussed. One is County Subdivision Ordinance requirements that the road be built to VDOT standards, which would be an obstacle. Second, is the insurance issue, particularly with speed bumps. There is a lot of liability associated with that. Third, there is a significant expense envisioned from the insurance and maintenance costs of $7000 a year that would be significant to a private entity. Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board had to make that decision now. He believes the Board can allow for it as an option. Ms. Thomas asked if the word "public" should be deleted. Mr. Davis suggesting adding another paragraph saying that "notwithstanding the above, a private road may be constructed across the dam. Such road shall meet all specifications required by the County." Mr. Martin asked for a comment from Mr. Branham. Mr. Branham said they think that if the builder is given the opportunity to renegotiate his proffers at this point, the Community Association should be granted some flexibility to possibly reconsider the vote that was taken a few months ago. He thinks this is important because when the neighbors felt that this was something they could vote on, they did not realize it was a choice between the "V" connector or the road across the dam. If the average homeowner had understood that he had a choice in that matter, it might have changed the entire dynamic of how they voted. Mr. Martin asked if Board members had other questions. Mr. Davis said before voting, if Mr. Runkle is proposing to add that proffer, it needs to be reduced to writing and initialed. The law requires that the proffer be in writing before the vote is taken. Mr. Martin said the Board would take a recess so the attorney and the applicant could consult and reduce the proffer to writing. The Board recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m. Mr. Martin said it is his understanding that there is a motion on the floor which has been seconded, and after the seconding there was a suggestion by Mr. Perkins to look at the option of allowing a private road. Only the developer (owner) can make a proffer. The Board cannot force a proffer. Mr. Runkle, along with Mr. Kessler, agreed to a proffer change, and Mr. Davis has that proffer which is now Paragraph "E" to Proffer No. 4. Mr. Davis asked that the Clerk read the proffer into the record. The Clerk read: "Notwithstanding the above, a private road may be constructed across the dam. Such road shall meet all specifications required by the County. All agreements required for this private road must be obtained within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning or the road shall be built as required above." Mr. Martin asked if the person who make the motion and the seconder to the motion are both in May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) agreement with that wording. Ms. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman agreed. Roll was called, and the motion to approve (Agenda Item No. 11) ZMA-98-13, Springridge PRD, with proffers as amended tonight, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Martin. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 5/5/99 ZMA# 98-13' Tax Map Parcel(s) # 46-35 .75 Acres to be rezoned from R-lIRA to' PRD in accordance with Application Plan dated 10/7/98 and General and Specific Conditions dated 5/5/99. Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. o Maximum number of Dwellinq Units: The fifty (50) acres west of Powell Creek shall be developed with not more than one hundred thirty-five (135) total dwelling units. The unit mix may include only the following types of dwellings: single family detached units, single family attached units, and townhouse units as referenced in the General and Specific Conditions as shown on "The Application Plan". A. If the dwelling units are exclusively single family detached units, then not more than one hundred (100) dwelling units shall be developed. B. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for new development within an existing subdivision. Common Area Open Space: The twenty-five (25) acres east of Powell Creek, as shown on the Application Plan, shall be designated as common open space to be privately owned and regulated under Section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance in effect on May 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached to these proffers. The area shall be maintained in its natural state except for the installation of public utilities, stormwater management devices and erosion control measures, and other associated infrastructure for the development, such as footbridges, walking trails, and the like. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's objectives to provide active/passive recreation areas and to provide a buffer between the Development Area and the adjacent Rural Area. Cash Contribution for Off-Site Improvements: The owner will contribute one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to an escrow fund to be established by the County of Albemarle ("the County") for any of the following items: (1) installation of traffic calming measures, such as, but not limited to speed humps, traffic circles, and raised intersections, along Powell Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway between their intersections with Ashwood Boulevard and Cove Pointe Road; (2) construction of road improvements along the same section of road, such as, but not limited to realignment of intersections, road widening, turn lanes, and pavement overlays; or (3) any other projects from the County's list of capital improvement projects within the Hollymead Community and mutually agreeable by both the County and the owner. Payment for the off-site improvements will be as follows: fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) will be contributed at the time of closing for the first residential lot and an additional one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each residential lot Will be contributed at the time of closing for each of the first fifty (50) residential lots for a total contribution of $100,000. B. This proffer shall have no force or effect if the owner constructs the "V!' Connection described in Proffer 5. Construction of Public Road Over Lake Hollymead Dam: The owner shall construct a two lane, twenty-four (24) foot-wide rural section road shall be constructed to VDOT standards for a projected traffic volume of up to four thousand (4000) ADT, from the end of state maintenance for the northern terminus of Powell Creek Drive across the Hollymead Dam to the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway. The value of the road described herein is estimated to be one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000). May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) o A. The public road shall be built or bonded as part of the final subdivision plat for the Springridge development. The public road right-of-way shall be the 120 foot wide strip of land shown on the Application Plan. This proffer shall have no force or effect if: (1) the County does not agree to accept ownership of the 120 foot wide strip of land and the maintenance responsibilities for the Hollymead Dam and provide guarantee of the Hollymead Dam sufficient for acceptance of the road by VDOT; or (2) the "V" Connection described in Proffer 5 is constructed. D. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plant's recommendation to interconnect neighborhoods. E. Notwithstanding the above, a private road may be constructed across the dam. Such road shall meet all specifications required by the County. All agreements required for the private road must be obtained within 90 days of the approval of this rezoning or the road shall be built as required above. Construction of"V" Connection Road as Alternative to Road Over Lake Hollymead Dam: The owner shall aggressively pursue the acquisition of land for right-Of-way and easements necessary from the Forest Lakes Community Association to construct a road from the southern terminus of Timberwood Parkway into the Springridge parcel. This road shall be called the "V" Connection. A. The "V" Connection shall be an alternative to the road over the Lake Hollymead dam described in Proffer 4. If the owner acquires the necessary land for right-of-way and easements, it shall prepare preliminary engineering plans from which a cost estimate will be made for construction of the "V" Connection. The engineering plans and cost estimates will be provided to the County for evaluation. If the cost estimate, including the cost of acquiring land and easements, exceeds two hundred seventy thousand dollars ($270,000), this proffer shall have no force or effect unless the County or another entity commits to provide the difference between the estimated cost of the "V" Connection and the two hundred seventy thousand dollars ($270,000) to be contributed by the owner (which shall be in lieu of the one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) cash contribution described in Proffer 3 and the one hundred seventy thousand dollar ($170,000) estimated value of the Lake Hollymead Dam road described in Proffer 4). This proffer shall have no force or effect if the land for right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the "V" Connection is not acquired, the County evaluation of the preliminary engineering plan is not completed, or the source(s) for any additional funding requirements above the two hundred seventy thousand dollars ($270,000) detailed in Proffer 5B are not committed within ninety (90) days after acceptance of this proffer, unless an extension is agreed upon, in writing, by the owner, Forest lakes Community Association, and the County Board of Supervisors. D. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to interconnect neighborhoods. Dedication of Land for Greenway and Establishment of Nature Trail: The owner shall designate a strip of land at least one hundred (100) feet in width along Powell Creek (the "Greenway"). The Greenway shall extend from the point where Powell Creek enters the property to where it exits the property. The owner also shall establish a nature trail along Powell Creek. The nature trail shall be established within the Greenway, and may be located on either side of Powell Creek, at the discretion of the owner. The Greenway and the nature trail may be established at any time, but not later than the date the last final subdiVision plat for the Springridge development is approved. The Greenway and the nature trail shall be designated for future dedication to the County on a final subdivision plat. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Greenway and the nature trail shall be conveyed in fee simple by deed to the County after the nature trail is constructed and is acceptable to the County. If the Greenway and nature trail are never used by the County for the purpose for which they were proffered, the County shall convey them to the owner of the common area open space described in Proffer 2. If the County amends its Comprehensive Plan so as to abandon the Greenway concept along the portion of Powell Creek described herein before the Greenway and nature trail are conveyed to the County, the owner shall retain the Greenway as common area open space described in Proffer 2. D. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation to establish a greenway along Powell Creek. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) o Installation of Street Trees: The owner shall install and maintain street trees on both sides of the loop road shown on the Application Plan within the five (5) foot planting strip between the loop road and the sidewalk 'spaced approximately fifty (50) feet apart. Ao The street trees shall be shown on the final road plans and bonded with road improvements. The installation of the street trees described herein is conditional upon the owner's ability, with the assistance of the County, to obtain approval from Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the Albemarle County Service Authority ("ACSA") to locate and install the street trees in either the public right-of-way or within utility easements adjacent to the public right-of- way. This proffer shall have no force or effect if the owner is unable to obtain the approval frOm VDOT and ACSA described herein prior to approval of the first final subdivision plan for the Springridge development. C. The purpose of this proffer is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation that new developments include design elements. Stream buffer; best manaqement practices: The owner shall establish the required stream buffer at the rear of the property lines, as shown generally on "The Application Plan", for lots abutting Powell Creek. This proffer shall be interpreted to allow the stream buffer to be reduced to as little as fifty (50) feet, as provided in the Water Protection Ordinance, if approved by the Engineering Department. Stephen N. Runkle Stephen N. Runkle, General 5~5~99 Signatures of All Owners Partner, Forest Lakes Associates Date Printed Names of All Owners GENERAL CONDITIONS (5/5/99) o A minimum 20' wide common area open space will be provided along the rear of those lots backing to Copper Knoll and Echo Ridge. This area is intended to serve as a buffer between Springridge and these adjacent neighborhoods, as such it will be maintained in its natural forested state wherever possible. Common area open space shall be maintained in a natural state wherever possible. Man-made features may be constructed for erosion control, stormwater management and for providing public utilities. This condition is subordinate to, and therefore does not exclude uses and conditions detailed in Proffer 2 and Specific Condition 7, 11, 12, 16, 19 and 23. Areas of critical slope, 25% grade, have been identified on the Application Plan based on ACSA topographic maps. Critical slopes west of Powell Creek are within areas proposed for residential development, as such the provision of Section 4.2.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (adopted 12/10/80 and its subsequent revisions) are applied at the time of this rezoning to modify Section 4.2 criteria allowing the proposed construction. (a) The road system shown on "The Application Plan" consists of public streets, private roads and alleys to be designed and constructed as follows. Sections of the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, which specify road design criteria (i.e., intersection angles, right-of-way widths, minimum cul-de-sac radii) in excess of those allowed by this application shall not apply. (b) (c) The public streets within the neighborhood shall be 28' (face-of-curb to face-of-curb) in width and constructed in accordance.with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. The public street between the neighborhood and Powell Creek Drive shall be a 22' wide rural section road and constructed in accordance with the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements. (d) Private roads within the neighborhood shall be designed in accordance with the vertical and horizontal criteria in the VDOT 1996 Subdivision Street Requirements for project traffic volumes up to 250 ADT. The roads shall be, at a minimum, 18' wide rural designs with a minimum pavement section consisting of 8" of stone with a prime and double seal. (e) Alleys shall be, at a minimum, a 12' wide rural section consisting of 6" of stone with a prime and double seal. (f) Horizontal and vertical design standards for the alleys shall be limited to establishing a minimum 100' stopping sight distance, 100' intersection sight distance, and shall include a minimum clear zone of 3' on each side of the travelway to accommodate two-way traffic. The paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts shall serve as the second point of emergency access for the proposed development. As such, the paved walking path shall consist a minimum of 6" of stone and 1.5" of asphalt constructed a minimum of 8' in width, with a minimum 2' clear zone on either side, and have a maximum grade of 20%. If Proffer 5 is executed, May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) this path shall still be provided, but per the specifications outlines in General Condition 14(b). Sidewalks shall be provided along both sides of the loop road and other areas as shown on "The Application Plan". The preferred design is a 5' planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk. However, if required by VDOT for state acceptance, the owner may oPt to locate the walkway adjacent to the curb. If the state does not maintain the sidewalks, the Owner may substitute a paved walking paths design along the same general alignment. 10. Paved walking paths shall be provided as generally shown on the Application Plan to provide connection between the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths along Timberwood Parkway/Powell Creek Drive, the basketball courts, and the paved walking path to English Oaks in Forest Lakes South. At the discretion of the Owner, vehicular access along the paved walking path between the loop road and the basketball courts may be discouraged with design features, including but not limited to removable bollards, a removable chain, or mountable curbing. Pedestrian access shall be provided between the internal network and the greenway nature trail, described in the Proffer 6. At a minimum, this connection shall be provided by extension of a nature trail through Area 7. Raised crosswalks are proposed in 6 locations to calm traffic and provide safe road crossing at key pedestrian links. If approved for construction by the County and VDOT, they will be installed as part of the construction of the loop road. 11. (a) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 10'. 12. 13. (b) On detached lots, the side yard setback for primary and secondary structures shall be a minimum of 3'. (c) On attached lots, a zero side yard setback shall apply along common walls and for any accessory structures along the respective property line. (d) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 20'. Where lots are rear loaded from a private road or alley, the rear yard setback may be reduced to 3'. (e) Where shared driveways are constructed, the setback from the shared access easement shall be a minimum of 3'. (f) Within Areas 18 and 21 of"The Application Plan", the setback from Area 19 shall be 10"; the setback from the adjacent private road shall be 3'. Flag lots shall be permitted. The areas identified on "The Application Plan" shall be developed in accordance with the following table and the Special Conditions provided in the Textual Statement. Area Use/Feature 1 SFD Lots 2 SFD Lots 3 SFD Lots 4 SFD Lots 5 SFD Lots 6 SFD/SFNTH Lots 7 Central Mail Pickup Area 8 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 9 SFD Lots 10 Raised Crosswalk 11 Median 12 Park 13 Raised Cross Walk May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) OO01?4 14 Raised Cross Walk 15 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 16 Park 17 Raised Cross Walk 18 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 19 Park 20 Raised Cross Walk 21 SFD/SFNTH Lots 22 SFD/SFA/TH Lots 23 Park 24 Raised Cross Walk 14. Within the Proffers, General Conditions and Specific Conditions the following terms are defined: (a) sidewalk - a minimum 4' wide pedestrian travelway built to VDOT standards within the public rig ht-of-way. (b) path - a minimum 5' wide pedestrian travelway constructed with a minimum of 4" of stone and 2" asphalt. (c) trail - a pedestrian travelway loosely defined by a mulch surface or through periodic maintenance, such as clearing and mowing. 15. At the discretion of the Owner and subject to approval of the appropriate drainage calculations by the County, stormwater management requirements may be provided for off-site within the Hollymead Lake and common area lakes within Forest Lakes. 16. A protected area will be established along Powell Creek. The protected area will be an average of 200' wide plus the width of POwell Creek, and will be protected within common area under enforceable easement or deed restriction. This measure will be given credit for and considereda component of the project's stormwater management plan. 17. Interpretations and clarifications of this application may be made by the Director of Planning, without necessity foramendment provided that adherence is made to the general intent, concept, densities and design elements described in the General Conditions and "The Application Plan". SPECIFIC CONDITIONS (5/5/99) The following specific conditions apply to areas referenced on "The Application Plan". Area (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) May be cul-de-sac design if approved by County/VDOT, otherwise lots will front on loop road. (c) Lots shall be front loaded from public streets. Area 2: (a) (b) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Area Area 3: (a) (b) (c) (d) 4: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. Minimum lot size shall be 0.27 acres. A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear property line. Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. Minimum lot size shall be 0.35 acres. A minimum 20' wide common area shall be provided along the rear property line. Lots shall be front loaded from public street. May be cul-de-sac design if approved by County and VDOT, otherwise lots will front on loop road. Area 5: (a) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. (b) Minimum lot size shall be 0.27 acres. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000175 (c) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Area 6: (a) At the discretion of the Owner, residential development may be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots. (b) Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Area 7: (a) (b) A central mail pickup area may be provided in lieu of individual mailboxes and subject to approval by the local postmaster general. At the discretion of the Owner, parking may be provided within Area 7 and/or the eastern end of Area 19. Area 8: (a) (b) Residential development may be any mix of SFD/SFAFFH lots. Lots shall be front loaded from public street. Area Area 9: (a) (b) 10: (a) (b) Residential development shall be limited to SFD lots. Lots shall be front loaded from public street or rear loaded from alley. This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such as raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. The raised crosswalk shall be designed and constructed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk. Area 11: (a) This median area near the intersection with the loop road may be provided if approved by the County and VDOT, otherwise the access road will be a 2 land street throughout its entire length. (b) Landscaping, signage, and entrance features may be placed within the median subject to permitting by VDOT. Area 12: (a) (b) (c) The entry park shall be approximately 0.25 acres in size. A sidewalk shall be provided along the loop road perimeter. At the discretion of the Owner, park like structures (i.e., gazebo, benches, tables), landscaping and signage may be constructed in this common area. Area 13: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 14: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and (b) Area 15: (a) (b) VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots. Lots shall be rear loaded with private road or alley. Area 16: (a) (b) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. At the Owners discretion, and subject to County attorney, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 17: (a) (b) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Area 18: May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000 .? (a) May be any mix of SFD/SFNTH Lots. (b) Lots shall be read loaded from private road or alley. Area 19: (a) (b) (c) (d) This central green will be designed as the primary public space for the neighborhood and shall be approximately 0.9 acres. Sidewalks or paved walking paths shall be provided along all 4 sides. Bench seating shall be provided at a minimum of 4 locations. At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, lighting, and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 20: (a) (b) Area 21: (a) (b) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots. Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 22: (a) (b) May be any mix of SFD/SFA/TH lots. Lots shall be rear loaded from private road or alley. Area 23: (a) (b) This interior park will be designed to provide a buffer between the alleys and shall be approximately 0.5 acres. At the Owners discretion, and subject to County approval, parking areas, a tot lot and landscaping may be constructed within this common area. Area 24: (a) This area is considered a key link in the internal sidewalk system and the existing network of paved walking paths, as such a raised crosswalk will be constructed, subject to County and VDOT approval, to calm traffic and to help provide a safe pedestrian road crossing. (b) The raised crosswalk shall be designed in general conformance with the accepted standards for a speed hump or textured crosswalk and installed during construction of the loop road. Mr. Perkins said there were several people who talked as if the Forest Lakes Association would like have another opportunity to vote on the north portion of the "V" connector. Mr. Bowerman asked if they did n( have 90 days in which to do that. Mr. Martin said that 90 days was only for the private road. Mr. Davis said in the proffer document, they have 90 days to reacquire the property that is necessary for the "V" connector. Cilimberg said that would be to allow access both to Powell Creek and to Timberwood under the proffers. Thomas asked if it is the "V" connector, or the road over the dam, and either way there may be County mone that goes into this. She decided that although it is possibly greater money for the "V" connector, the year-by- amount of money that would go toward maintenance of the dam would add up. She did not think there was a of difference in the amount of money the County was obligating itself to between those two options. They are both unknowns, but it seems to her that it was not the deciding factor. They do obligate the Board to spend County money. Mr. Martin said that in February, the Homeowners Associations in Forest Lakes and Hollymead came to the Board and requested time to work out a connector that would be only to Forest Lakes North. They left here with the Board's blessing to work that out. What the Board is saying now is that it hopes The Kessler Group and Forest Lakes will work out something and hopefully it will not be the road across the dam, but the "V" connector. That is out of the Board's hands at this point. He thanked all who were present. He said he knows it is an emotional issue, and apologized for having to use his gavel. He said things may not have gone the way the majority of the people present wanted, but that is the democratic process. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-98-12. Forest Lakes South - Minor Amendment. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve ZMA-98-12 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-46. Springridge Stream Crossing. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve SP-98-46 with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) OOO .? 7 motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan; Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands. This will include correspondence with FEMA for changes to floodway or flood plain; Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans; and Engineering Department approval of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no increase in one hundred year flood levels. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-99-02. Springridge Stream Crossing - FLN (Signs #52, 74 & 76). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow road to cross stream in accord w/Sec 30.3.5.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fill in the flood plain and stream crossings. Znd R-4. Property contains 0.17 ac where the crossing occurs & is loc on Timberwood Pkway (Rt 1720) approx 0.1 mi from Hollymead Lake Dam. TM46B3, PA2. (The Comp Plan designates this as neighborhood density in the Community of Hollymead w/a density of 3-6 du/ac.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28 and May 3, 1999.) Mr. Benish said Forest Lakes Associates has requested a second special use permit for grading and construction in the flood plain for the Springridge project. The second stream crossing would allow for access from Timberwood Parkway across Powell Creek to the "Brown" property. If approved, the stream crossing would support the "V" connection described in the proffers with the original proposal for ZMA-98- 13, Springridge PRD. Because the Comprehensive Plan supports road interconnections between developments and because County regulations should ensure the least amount of environmental degradation possible with the stream crossings, staff recommended approval of this special use permit subject to three conditions. Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1999, unanimously recommended approval, with the understanding that the permit may not be applicable if the road path which requires the crossing is not approved by the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association. The Commission's approval was subject to the same three conditions recommended by staff. The public hearing was open. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed. Ms. Humphris moved approval of SP-99-02 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan; Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams; and Engineering Department approval of culvert crossing plans and hydrologic and hydraulic computations demonstrating no increase in one hundred year flood levels. This will include determination of impacts of backwater at the crossing particularly in the recreational areas. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 11(A), 1996; March 11(N), March 18(A) and April 1 1998; February 10 and March 10, 1999. Mr. Bowerman had read March 11(N), 1998, and had one correction. On page 7, second full paragra. second line, insert the word "to" between "opportunity" and "meet". Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April 1, 1998, and noted one correction. On page 21, second paragraph, change the first sentence to read: "Mr. Bowerman asked whether this was legal." Mr. Perkins had read March 11, 1996 (A), February 10, 1999, and March 10, 1999, and found them order. He noted one typographical error where it refers to 740,000 square miles in Albemarle County on page March 10. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) Mr. Martin had read March 18, 1998 (A), and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins offered motion to approve those minutes read, as corrected. The motion was seconded Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman said he appreciated the Board allowing him to send the City's recent fire proposal to ti- chiefs and captains in the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association. This was done yesterday. Ms. Humphris suggested that the media representatives hang around to make sure they know what happened here tonight. It became rather confusing toward the end of the conversation, particularly in relation proffers and the action the Board took. Ms. Thomas said there was a group that wanted to come to this meeting under "Items not on the Age They decided not to come because of what was scheduled on the agenda. She said that she would bring up point which has to do with the question of where this community will find an additional supply of water. group of citizens who want to be sure there is ample opportunity for citizen participation in the decision. The decision seems to be mostly in front of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. They would feel more comfo~ if this Board participated in that decision, but also allowed them some way to have a public hearing early they have some real input. They asked her what the process would be, and she said there is none, but there precedent set when a joint hearing was held with City Council when making a major decision about the Ivy La She would like to ask staff to work out some kind of proposal for a process. She thinks the citizens have a legitimate point. Mr. Tucker said the RWSA is required to hold a public hearing. He understands there is a and does think it would be a good idea to have a public hearing among the three entities. Mr. Marshall recommended that everybody check the web site of the City of Charlottesville, particular about the Meadow Creek Parkway. Ms. Thomas said there is a meeting tomorrow morning of the MPO's Advisory Committee on the Meadow Creek Parkway. They are getting a presentation of Will Rieley's design of the City's portion of the Parkway. It is at 10:00 a.m. in the Basement Conference Room in City Hall. Mr. Martin said he is having a cookout at his house Saturday from 2 - 5. At 5:30 p.m., he will make ar announcement that he will be running for re-election to the Board this Fall. At 9:40 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1 344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider the appointment of a specific administrative employee. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. At 10:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. May 12, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 00017 Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. ~;;~;hairman ~pproved by ~ard of Coun · .,u pervisors Date Initials