Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 12 78 PC Minutes3 z. September 12, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James L. Huffman, Jr., Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Absent was Dr. James W. Moore. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. In the initial absence of Mr. Easter, Col. Washington chaired the meeting. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of September 5, 1978, were approved subject to the corrections made by Mrs. Graves. Minutes of August 22, 1978, and August 29, 1978, were deferred until September 19, 1978, in order that they could be re -submitted to the Commission with the corrections made by Mrs. Diehl and Mrs. Graves. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 18-22 of the County Code and Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish performance standards for off -site and on -site drainage facilities: At the request of Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, Mr. Gloeckner moved further discussion and action on this resolution of intent be deferred until October 31, 1978. The motion, seconded by Mr. Vest, carried unanimously, with no discussion. ZMA-78-13. James F. Walker and Blue Ridge Farm have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 560 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 692 approximately 1 mile southeast of the intersection of Routes 250 West and 692. County Tax Map 70, Parcels 34, 35, 35A, and 37 ( part thereof ). White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and passed out to the Commission and read to the public the latest comments from the Highway Department, along with an estimate of on -site improvements, and from the Department of Education regarding school impact ( see attached sheets ). ( Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the meeting. ) He explained the proposed road improvements via the map. ( Mr. Easter arrived at the meeting. ) 33 Mr. Keeler further noted that the road categories within the development depend upon the addition or deletion of lots, which is still up for consideration. He noted that this is due to the fact that the applicant has done a detailed slope analysis which the staff would like to have additional time to review. Furthermore, he noted that the staff would like: to possibly re -address conditions 1, 10, and 12, due to the detailed slope analysis. Mr. Michael Gleason, representing Dan Ford of Blue Ridge Farm, addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed RPN, and asked that the application be approved ( see attachment ). Mrs. Vera Holowinsky from the W. S. Roudabush Surveying Firm, reviewed the details of the plan via several visual aids. She discussed the existing land conditions, the slope study, the buffer areas proposed with the RPN, the location of the residences, etc. She stated that the applicant has worked as closely as possible with the Comprehensive Plan with the intent of preserving the agricultural land. Mrs. Holowinsky stated that the applicant has been very environmentally aware of the existing amenities in the development of this proposal. Mr. James Wooten, attorney for the applicant, discussed the proposed covenants that will run with the land. He said that all lots will be restricted from further subdivision, and thus there is no anticipated amendment to the RPN, when considered from a practical matter. Mr. R. D. Wade discussed the merits of the plan, noting that he feels it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan's intent of maintaining the beauty of the rural area, protecting the open land, and preserving the rights of the individuals already living in the area. He noted for the record that the applicant intends to live within the development and wants to preserve the quality of life that already exists in the area. He asked the Commission to approve the plan because it conforms with the pre -determined desires of the County. Mr. Gleason again addressed the Commission stating that the scope Of the proposal is one of the desirable aspects. He also felt that it essentially downzones the property since it could be completely developed in small pieces in two -acre lots. Mr. Gleason noted the protective covenants are one of the most important aspects for the Commission to consider, since they guarantee no further subdivision from what is approved in the RPN. Mr. Paul Peatross, representing the residents of the area who oppose the approval of the RPN, noted for the record that according to the Zoning Ordinance a general water system layout with proposed hydrants and a general sanitary system layout are missing from the application. He stated that water is one of the major reasons for opposition, and asked that the Commission consider this omission from the application. Mr. Peatross advised the Commission that he will present a petition of opposition with approximately 150 signatures from area residents. Addressing the roads of the area that will serve the development, he noted the many inadequacies via the visual aid map. Furthermore, he presented pictures of the roads as they exist,to the Commission for its consideration. Pictures of the farm as it currently exists were also presented to the Commission. Mr. Peatross then introduced Mr. Herb Stuart who would be the first speaker from the opposition. 9 31 IMPACT ON SCHOOLS SERVING THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT Name ofs-ems School Projected Planned School Estimated Capacity Enrollment Improvements Enrollment Within the Next 5 Years � mentary 175 215 (— None - `4 -ML-T—=y 755 920* None =temediate I 1150 1450 .-7 None :acondary Location: Adjoining Rt. 692, East of its Intersection with Rt 5691L-*'� completion Date or Estimated Phasing: Additional Cannents: e The impact.of the enrollment project for this development will fill all of the available student spaces at the elementary level. At the middle school about 165 spaces exist "on paper", but the reality is that mobile classrooms are required for the programs offered fhe current enrollment of 755 studens. The impact at the secondary level will be slight. Jdohn W. Massie, Jr. Administrative Assist nt to the Superintendent Including 3 large and 3 small mobile classrooms -S;/-7 8/ En m 35 JOHN E. HARWOOD. COMMISSIONER 1 'LEONARD RyHALL. BRISTOL. BRISTOL DISTRICT HORACE G. F RALIN, ROANOKI.NALF.M DISTRICT THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG. LYNCHBURG DISTRICT MORRILL M. CROWE. RICHMOND. RICHMO.ND DISTRICT UAM T. ROOS. YORKTOWN, SUFPOLK DISTRICT W S G. BRITTON DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER J LEO E BUSSER III « GiRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION - J M WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPEHATIONS �1J P ROYEP. JR Di RECT�,P')F PLANNING �.JLAS G. JANNE Y, F RE DE RIC KSBURG, h'REDL'RIC'X38UR G DISTRICT 'ter V B COLDIRON RALPH A. BEETON, FALLS CHURCH, CULPEPER DISTRICT -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING ROBERT S. LANDES, STAUNTON,STAUNTON DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH of -V1RQiNJ- !.,{� A , `` IH DRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT R i PERKI%SON.JR. T. RAY HASSELI, III, CHESAPEAKE.AT LARGE -URBAN ' CHARLES S. HOOFER, IR., CREWE,AT LARGER ORAL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION -,�� 'EPLI >LEASE REFER 70 P.O. Box 910 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 2n Blue Ridge Farm Routes 692, 691 & 637 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Attention: Mr. Ron Keeler Dear Mr. Keeler: In reference to your questions concerning impact on key areas of the existing road network: Item #1 - As we have indicated previously sight distance at the inter- section 'of 691-and.,692 is`restricted. To obtain minimum sight distance, appro- ximately 800 feet of 691 need to be regraded at a cost of approximately $36,000, exclusive of Right of Way (based on $45/foot.) If Right of Way or an easement to obtain at clear sightline cannot be obtained along the north side of 691 the roadway could be shifted to the south. Item #2 - To improve Route 691 from 692 to 250 to the appropriate standard would cost approximately $500,000 exclusive of Right of Way (based on $50/foot and bridges). Item #3 - To improve Route 692 from 691 to 250 to the appropriate standard would cost approximately $450,OCO exclusive of Right of Way (based on $50/foot). WBC/asm Very truly yours, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: W. B. Coburn, Asst. Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION — AMERICA'S LIFELINES m JOHN E. HARWOOD, COMMISSIONER J%+ Ilk .O NAHO R .ALL, BHiSTO L, BXISTOL DISTRICT as IC I r_.h Ace •, I antI", ROANUKL.SALEM DI.SIRI('T T ,If,'n l• . fAA:',.I. YNCHBLIM,, LYNC718UR(: I)IS7'R/(7' y ,! MUHHICLM.(:fI(jNF,RICHMONI),R/('//AfONDDI.P'/'R/C'/' . 1.11 YORK TOWN,.SUP'HILK DI.STIO(T AS (, JANNEY. F RI III HICK 1111FIG, EREDL'RICKSBURG DLSTRICT H.LPHA t1E(71,i'l,FALLSCHURC14,Cl/LPEPLRD/S7'R/C7 �7I�TA )11�1�y L♦�\ 1I1I /'p��I7!-1y� �/71(7Ih'1C, !.7f 1I1►LA� ROHFR: ;. LANDF S, STAUNTON, STAUNTON DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH yq ,L.YL y. Y.,iY /L Y of v ILL` QINI.0 L T. RAY Hl S'�F LL, III, CHESAPEAKE. AT LARGE -URBAN [HAPLtSs HOOPER.JR,CREWE.ATLARGE .RURAL . DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 910 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 September 6, 1978 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Attention: Mr. Ron Keeler Dear Mr. Keeler: 3� W. S. G. BRI TTON DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER LEO E. BUSSER III DIRECTOR OF AUMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY, JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J. P. ROYER, JR, OIRECTOH OF PLANNING P. B. COLDIRON DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING H. R. PERKINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Blue Ridge Farm Routes 691,692, & 637 Albemarle County A review of the property as proposed indicates an additional 1370 VPD will be generated from this site. Primary access is provided the site by Route 691 and 692. Both routes are narrow 14-16 foot surface treated roads with poor horizontal and vertical alignments. Both roads are either at their design capacity or exceed it. The following table compares the existing traffic with estimated traffic for various sections of roads involved. The 1978 count is the actual count taken; it is listed unofficial since final tabulation has not been made: VDH&T VDH&T (unofficial) Estimated Route From To 1976 1978 Additional 637 Pt 2 Pt 3 38 36 233 b37 Pt 3 Pt 4/5 38 36 328 691 Pt 4/5 Pt 6 222 282 539 637 Pt 7 Pt 6 52 56 751 691 Pt 6 Pt 8 251 285 1290 692 Pt 1 Bates- 467 469 70 ville 692 Pt 1 Pt 8 467 469 130 692 Pt 8 Rt. 250 279 390 400 691 Pt 8 Rt. 250 478 336 900 TRANSPORTATION — AMERICA'S LIFELINES 37 (2) Route 637 is a 14 foot gravel road; if not improved this additional traffic would create problems on the road which would be difficult to main- tain. If this development occurs as planned and the routes involved are not improved as a condition of developement, it may be necessary to revise the six (6) year plan of improvements. The Department recommends as an absolute minimum the improvement of both sections of Route 637 and Route 691 from 637',a,to Route 692. C_ 1 ou i iy If you have any further questions,. please advise. WBC/asm cc: R. D. Harrison J. F. Coates M Very truly yours, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: W. B. Coburn c Asst. Resident Engineer m ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1) Improve existing public roads internal to RPN -Route 691 from Pt. 4/5 to Route 692 -Route 637 from Pt. 2 to Route 691 -Route 637 from Pt. 7 to Route 691 2) Improve intersection of Routes 691/692 $162,500 100,000 12,500 $275,000 $ 36,000 3) Improve frontage of Route 692 from Route 691 westward $ 92,000 TOTAL $403,000 'Estimates based on $50/lineal foot and exclude right-of-way acquisition and extra- ordinary realignment (vertical and horizontal). See Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation memo of September 11, 1978. om m Presentation to Albemarle County Planning Commission Blue Ridge Farm September 12, 1978 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: My name is Michael Gleason. I am here tonight in behalf of my client, Mr. Dan Ford of Blue Ridge Farm, for purposes of requesting rezoning of Blue Ridge from Agricultural A-1 to Residential Planned Neighborhood RPN-A-1. We intend for our presentation to be lengthy enough to adequately cover the subject and brief enough to satisfy your very busy agenda. Blue Ridge, a 650-acre farm in western Albemarle, was built in the 1850's. It is one of the last grand homes constructed in ante-bellum Albemarle. It has been, and it remains, a fine example of architectural beauty in our county. Its setting at the foot of the Blue Ridge mountains, with its rolling hills, abundant wood lands, and expanse of pastures, still reflects a tradition of the estate -farm in the surroundings of typical Albemarle beauty. *AW Blue Ridge Farm -- could it speak itself -- could tell you how it has witnessed through the years a dramatic change in the "Albemarle way of life": how a rural county has given way to urban growth, and then experienced a regrowth -- a move back to the county by residents seeking a non -farming style of country living. In the 1920's, at a high point in its historical and social standing in Albemarle, Blue Ridge was one of 3,000 farms in the county. These numerous farms were cultivated by full-time owners and their families who comprised the majority of the 26,000 residents. Today, a half -century later, county population has increased half again; farm values have increased three -fold; at least half of the farms are run by part-time or retired owners; and farm population represents less than six per cent of the total. County population has increased greatly, and is still on the rise; farm population has decreased greatly; and projections for our future suggest a continuation of "rural sprawl": in the next 15 to 20 years, without immigration or out migration, the population could increase a third again, just due to a natural increase; during the same time period, when overall population figures are considered, total residents could be double that of today; 2 1 e) -- agricultural land, even farms like Blue Ridge, will become increasingly difficult to operate economically; "to, -- agricultural land, even farms like Blue Ridge, will be increasingly sought by those who wish to reside in Albemarle and enjoy its many attractive features; -- and, those who plan the county's future will continue to face the never ending complexities of land use. These complexities have already been dealt with by those of you in county government -- and we speak specifically of your own Comprehensive Plan: a highly respected document which addresses itself so well to the goals and objectives of county development. It is from a part of your Comprehensive Plan that we address you tonight -- that part which relates to the Residential Planned Neighborhood concept. From among the alternatives available for residential land planning, this is a concept which appeals most to our client. Dan Ford is a retired business executive from New England. As a former Vermont dairy farmer, he saw in Albemarle County what we as natives and long-time residents appreciate: beauty, pleasant and seasonal weather, life style and cultural flavor, historic tradition: a great place to live. His first look at Blue Ridge was through the eyes of a dairy farmer, and he considered the farm -- among numerous in Virginia -- for its agricultural potential. Careful investigation, including consultation with farmers, businessmen, and realtors, proved to him that he had no way to justify such agricultural use economically. He gave up on plans to buy the farm. A group of realtors, realizing that Blue Ridge had been for sale for several years with a substantial price tag, succeeded in convincing Mr. Ford to reinvestigate the farm's potential for its non-agricultural possibilities. Here was a farm, rich in history; with its natural and scenic beauty; near urban and recreational facilities; with exceptional internal road frontage; a place where our client would be willing to live himself. And, here was a county, with its Comprehensive Plan; encouraging residential clusters in wooded areas or on unsuitable agricultural land; encouraging open land be left free from development; concerned about orderly growth and the preservation of its historic estate -type farms; a county eager to find alternatives to strip development of its farm lands. With such potential in mind, Dan Ford purchased Blue Ridge Farm. Countless sessions, concepts, and plans relating to land use at Blue Ridge were considered. Strip development was a concept emphatically vetoed by Mr. Ford from the beginning. Our client's strict criteria included the wish for a program he could live with -- figuratively and literally. Acquiring the services of William S. Roudabush Inc., a respected land planning and surveying firm, Mr. Ford has developed a plan unique in the 3 concept of land use. This is the concept we present to you tonight for consideration. Our proposal is for a community of clustered parcels, on which building would be permitted. These parcels would be located primarily in wooded areas, or in areas not suited for agriculture. Open, common, and agricultural land would be maintained, and building or subdivision on this land would be prohibited by perpetual covenant. -- about 45 per cent of the farm would be utilized for building lots; -- about 55 per cent would be established as common areas, landscaped buffers, agricultural areas, and open space; twice that required within the zoning we seek; . -- with the parcel clusters and density factor proposed, the concept of Blue Ridge represents a "down zoning" when compared with present permitted alternative uses; -- the importance of a particular parcel's size is diminished when compared to the expanse of open space proposed; -- residents would have the advantages of an estate -type farm operation; without the expense, maintenance, problems, and other disadvantages associated with a contemporary agricultural farm; -- sales would be targeted to the retired or nearly retired who might be interested in this cooperative program; who might have an interest in owning and building in an area with so many attractive advantages; and who could afford the choice property and the minimum square -foot liveable space building requirements; through their property owners' association the residents would assure a community of homes built in accordance with high standards, establish strict guidelines for architectural control, and determine the best use of common facility areas; realizing that such common facility areas would be limited to the uses permitted by the RPN zoning ordinance. To speak about the specific proposal, we wish to call on Vera with William S. Roudabush Inc.: technical aspects of this Holowinsky, a land planner To speak about the Blue Ridge Farm project, and its relationship to the Residential Planned Neighborhood concept and the Comprehensive Plan, we wish to call on R. D. Wade. Mr. Wade served on the advisory panel for developing the Comprehensive Plan; he is currently serving on the county's zoning ordinance review committee; he is a local home builder, a vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, and one qualified to speak about the proposal: 4 �'Z Presented to you tonight is a unique concept: -- developed with your Comprehensive Plan as a guideline -- an alternative to residential land planning -- a way to provide attractive building parcels while preserving open space and agricultural areas -- and a way to preserve an estate -farm so much a part of our county's heritage. The scope of Blue Ridge is part of its unique quality. A project of this size demands careful scrutiny and design from the very beginning -- it commands immediate and continuous attention. With such attention, the Blue Ridge Farm concept offers a more attractive land planning alternative; and it offers many more advantages in a larger package than would several similiar, smaller programs. Unstandably, there will be those who oppose our request. A unique, new approach to a problem often faces opposition. However, we wish to assure you that any problem raised by this proposal will not meet with strange ears -- exceptionally careful planning preceeds us here tonight. We wish to further assure you that the impact of Blue Ridge -- internally, in the community, and in the county -- will be gradual. We submit to you that, with the "down zoning" aspects of the proposal, the impact will be minimized when compared to alternative land use concepts. It is assuring to know that in our county -- with its exceptionally rich heritage -- one of its grand estate -farms can be protected and preserved with the provisions of a perpetual covenant. With such a perpetual covenant, Blue Ridge will be preserved in a way that others of its scale and history may not boast. This concept will mean very much to those who revere Albemarle today, and to those who will share our thoughts in future years. We respectfully request your approval of our request for rezoning. To the Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County in regard to �� the Blue Ridge Farm RPN. Thank you, Gentlemen, for this opportunity to speak to you concerning the advisability of your approving the Blue Ridge Farm RPN. I know that you and your Staff have been working ` with all the County Agencies concerned with this plan and it is such a huge and detailed • undertaking within its boundaries that I hope you have been thoroughly advised. I have studied Article 19 and if the proposed plan meets these requirements in detail my concern rests squarely upon whether the whole plan meets the intent of the County Com- prehensive Plan (1977-1995) and the best judgment of the neighborhood upon which it is imposing itself. In the relatively short period of time the neighborhood surrounding Blue Ridge Farm has been aware of what is being planned, there has developed a very strong will to do our • best to avoid a calamity. We believe that the RPN will destroy much of our future farm business and country way of living. In other words, why force a city with all its dis- turbances into an area where it does not belong? The people of the country surrounding Blue Ridge Farm have asked me to tell you about some of the extremely hazardous traffic problems which now exist in our farming area. With the problems we now have, will you imagine what could develop should the Blue Ridge Farm RPN be added to the recently approved Wavertree development? Mrs. Stuart and I are joint owners of approximately 200 acres of farm and woodland and our home gounds are bounded by 240 feet on route #692 and 1410 feet on route #637. In this area of about 25 acres we conduct an Arabian Horse breeding establishment known as ARARAT. Our driveway is on #637, 240 feet fron the blind corner and as we stop and carefully turn right to go downhill 1.4 miles to Batesville to get the mail or to the route #29 dual highway we are regularly reminded that #692 is an historic road which came into being a9 the easiest way for the farmers of the Shenandoah Valley to drive their cattle through the Rockfish Gap and down to Scottsville for shipment by boat to Richmond via the James River. Between our corner and Batesville there are 8 to 10 blind curves and two to three blind spots due to rapid change in elevation. Whether a curve is blind or a change in elevation is blinding depends upon whether the driver is in a high seated truck or in a small, low.car and it has much to do with whether he consistently stays on his side of the road. After we get to Batesville, #692 is wider, lined, and safer with fewer steep curves. This width is allowed by a 50 foot right of way whereas the Batesville to #250 portion has only a 30 foot right of way. This 30 foot right of way is practically impossible to widen as it passes through Batesville. In short, it would destroy the village and I 9 rm have no way of knowing what plans the State Highway Department may have. Now, returning to our corner of #692 and #637, if Mrs. Stuart and I were to turn left for 1.9 miles to .the intersection of #692 and #691 we would encounter first the blind turn out of #637 and then four blind hill curves, two blind changes in road elevation r+' and one blind but relatively flat curve. The first downhill blind curve is very dangerous because some truckers will pick up speed on the way down the long hill and stay near the middle of the road to avoid turning over their top heavy loads. This curve has a bad record of very serious accidents in the past few years. Mrs. Stuart had a very narrow escape in January 1977. As we continue on #692 for 1.61 miles beyond the #691 intersection on our way to #250 we encounter four blind hill curves, one blind curve on the flat, and two blind spots due to change in elevation. This is one of the main arteries from Blue Ridge Farm to route #250 west, to route #6, and to Waynesboro. Once again, it is a 30 foot right of way. Please pardon my detailed account of traveling on #692 from Batesville to #250 but unless all concerned know this road as we do it will be very difficult to evaluate the extreme hazards we all face now, even before a population expansion. Traffic is also \ increasin gas truckers and through travelers discover that #692 is a shortcut from #250 to #29. We also know that stone from Red Hill is needed in great quantity when roads and homes are under construction. We have seen some of this very dangerous truck traffic when Interstate #64 was built. Other heavy truck traffic would come our way from #29 s when the cement, bricks and lumber are hauled in. Shortly after Mrs. Stuart was run off the road at one of these blind curves I was personally motivated to see what I could do to make the roads we Gave safer. I first attended a meeting of the County Safety Commission who kindly referred me to Dan Roosevelt of the Department of Highways who also kindly.came out and we rode together over #692 from Batesville to #250 and back. He saw, as I did, the need to provide more stop signs, dangerous curve signs, safe speed signs, and they have been helpful but, as you know, many drivers and truck drivers in particular need more than a warning, of danger. Mr. Roosevelt advised me that the lines I asked for could not be applied because the road is not wide enough and a 30 foot right of way does not allow it. In other words, as of now we are stuck with a very bad situation and in my opinion the State Highway Commission may never be able to provide us with a reasonably safe road without spending millions they are not prepared to spend. Neither are the property owners prepared to give land for rights of 11:1 way which undoubtedly would be needed. To alleviate our present situation, I am advised by Mr. Roosevelt to request the Board 0 of Supervisors to consider restricting truck traffic on #692 in accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 46.1-171.2. I am referring only to through truck traffic that is not serving the area but using our country road as a shortcut from #29 to #250. The other r important thing that can be done is to request a reduction of the legal speed limit, now 55 MPH, so that the State Police and the Sheriff's Department can enforce regulations. I am telling you of our hopes of making travel on #692 less hazardous so that you will know that approval of the Blue Ridge RPN would be a terrible mistake and could lead to disturbance, death, and destruction for which we will all be responsible. A very personal and neighborly concern I have is traffic on #637 from #692 to #691. This light -surfaced, very narrow, crooked, and hilly road will not allow for passage unless it is done very carefully. The Stuarts use this road for approximately 1400 feet to haul all produce and farm equipment to and from the major portion of our land. We travel this road with extreme care and wait for oncoming.drivers to pass slowly. This r6ad is also used by us and by our neighbors for exercising and training horses. Thb road runs through a rough, wooded terrain and it could not be widened without the loss of many beautiful trees that would practically ruin (and devalue) the front of our homestead and the homes of three nearby neighbors. Should the Blue Ridge Farm RPN be developed, let us remember that it lies on both sides of #637 at its #691 intersection. In some way, traffic should not be allowed beyond the boundary of Blue Ridge Farm; otherwise it would be devastating. This road should also be closed to trucks other than those needed to carry out farming operations. To save your time and the time of those assembled here tonight, I shall summarize the foregoing. The two roads which bound our property at the intersection of #637 and #692 are presently unsafe for those of us who must use them regularly. This is particularly true during such winter weather as we have had during the past two years. In view of the facts we have assembled it is very obvious to us and to many of our friends along these roads that to approve the Blue Ridge Farm RPN in addition to the recent approval of the Wavertree Hall development will bring about a planned catastrophe.• The rapid increase in truck traffic needed to transport stone from Red Hill and other bulk supplies via #29 would be most hazardous. There is no way the State Highway Department can saye us promptly and if they, in the long run, plan to widen and grade the old towpath roads we have, it will destroy our land and many of our country roads at the cost of millions. The real need we have now is to reduce our legal speed limits and have them rigidly enforced. This report is a segment of the findings of thoughtful and dedicated owners and residents of the area surrounding the Blue Ridge Farm RPN. Please do not approve the Blue Ridge Farm RPN. Mr. Herb Stuart, owner of Ararat, addressed the roads of the area ( see attached comments ). Mr. Peatross then presented pictures of the roads just mentioned in Mr. Stuart's comments. Mr. Henry Marasi discussed Route 691 to Route 250 via the map, noting that there is only one sign on the entire section of roadway that warns of its hazardous conditions. There is a safety problem for anyone riding a horse or bicycle on those roads. Mr. Marasi felt that with the approval of this RPN, the two unauthorized garbage dumps on the road will only become worse, noting that it is unfair to those current residents to have the roads become more dangerous. He asked that all roads be improved prior to commencement of any development of the farm if the RPN is approved. Also he noted the single -lane bridge, shady conditions in summer, and icy road conditions in winter, resulting in many towed vehicles. Mr. Peatross again presented pictures of the existing problems discussed by Mr. Marasi. Mr. Peatross also addressed the vehicles per day on the roads mentioned in the Highway Department letter, noting that the roads are already at design capacity, and in some cases the vehicle count exceeds capacity. In his opinion, the impact the development would have on the entire transportation system is reason enough to deny the RPN. Mr. Thomas M. Gaithwright discussed the water situation in the area, noting the rock type in the area. According to Mr. Gaithwright, the rock type is tight and difficult to obtain water from, and the topography is such that the ground water flows away from Blue Ridge Farm. He noted that most area wells are shallow, and even the deeper wells do not yield the gallons per minute that would be necessary to support a development of this size if a central system is proposed. Furthermore, he felt that many individual wells would be confronted with the same problem. He questioned the lack of a general water layout plan in view of the problems that exist. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission at this point that he sees no problem in asking the applicant to submit this water layout plan prior to the next meeting. Mr. John Pollock, an area resident, discussed the air pollution that would result from the development and felt it would be sufficient to destroy the quality of the air. At this point in the presentation from the opposition, Mr. Peatross showed an aerial photograph of the area as it exists today, noting the rural atmosphere that pervails. Mr. Ferrell said that the area offers a quality of farm life. He said that approval of this proposal will leave little alternative for other farmers in the area to follow suit with this sort of development, thus destroying the quality of farm life currently existing. Mr. Randy Lane said that in the past Blue Ridge Farm has been one of the most productive farms in Albemarle County, and he hates seeing it taken for development. He felt that it has the possibility of being the most productive farm in the county. Mr. Ed Robb addressed the lack of police protection for the area, and said that the impact from this development would make the existing problem worse. He asked the Commission to deny the rezoning. �7 Mr. Richard Warner noted that the community now has a cross-section of all socio-economic backgrounds, and felt this elitist community would destroy the area with its social impact. He felt the only ones to profit from this approval would be those selling property. Mrs. Lola Marasi noted that the students from this development would overcrowd existing schools. Mr. Peatross concluded the opposition's formal presentation by asking those present who opposed the development to give a show of hands in order that the Commission would see the vast opposition. Furthermore, he noted that in his opinion the development does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan, since it would create another village, larger than Batesville ( already designated as a village ) only two miles away,and would necessitate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He read sections from the Comprehensive Plan which addressed maintaining agricultural land and keeping existing farms in production. Mr. Peatross concluded by requesting that the Commission not approve the RPN, stating that the purpose of the RPN is to be consistent with the County and with what exists in the area in which it will locate. This would not create a better environment when all the unfavorable aspects are considered. Mr. Findlay, an area resident, stated that he opposed the development, since it is inconsistent with the neighborhood. There was a brief question and answer session in which road improvements were again discussed. Also discussed were the cost of lot and house according to today's market, and plans for any future commercial area. approval Mr. Roy Barksdale questioned why Highway Department Awas not included in the list of conditions recommended by the staff for approval. Mr. Keeler said that Highway Department comments had just been received by the staff, and the conditions of approval are in preliminary form. Highway Department approval will be included for internal roads, and some conditions will be developed for off -site improvements. Mr. Johnson stated that in his opinion the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must make a decision such that even the worst possible alternative does not happen. Ms. Beverly Leonard opposed the development, especially noting the hazardous area roads. Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. The Commission recessed for five minutes. After the recess, the Commission itself discussed areas of concern. Mr. Gloeckner said that in view of the water problems, he is concerned about the lack of a general layout for the water system. Mr. Easter questioned the sanitary sewerage sytem. Mr. Tucker responded that individual septic systems are planned, though the Commission could require soil samples on lots at this time. Upon questioning from Mrs. Graves, Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the lot size will be no smaller than 40,000 square feet, though no lots are specifically laid out on the plan at this time. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the discrepancy between the number of lots in the applicant's proposal and the staff's recommendations addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff would like to review the topo and the slope analysis done by applicant's representative prior to making any sort of final comment on the number of lots. Mr. McCann said that he feels the Commission needs more time to consider the application, in view of all the comments made during the public hearing. Furthermore, he felt that the applicant has more information to supply the Commission prior to its making a decision. Col. Washington established that lot #147 is part of the RPN and subject to the covenants proposed for all other lots. Furthermore, Mr. Wooten told the Commission that this lot is to be operated as a separate lot and not part of the common space of the development. Mrs. Graves pointed to her concern for the access roads to the farm, and asked if the Highway Department could be asked to purchase the right-of-way with the developer keeping funds in escrow for future payment of the acquisition. Mr. Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineering of the Highway Department, said that he is not aware of this ever having been done in the past and it would certainly be an unusual precedent. Furthermore, he felt that a condition of this sort would need approval from the Board of Supervisors from the onset. Mr. Gloeckner said that in view of the vast opposition to the rezoning, the Highway Department could probably secure right-of-way only through the condemnation process. Col. Washington said that he does not know how the County will determine the water situation on the property without drilling a well, however if this is approved, there must be protection for the potential individual lot buyers that water is available. Otherwise, the County will create a problem where no public water is available. At this point in the discussion, Mr. Wooten offered to supply the Commission with a copy of the draft filing to HUD since all these properties will be marketed on an interstate basis. Mr. Easter questioned if the applicant is willing to agree to the conditions of approval as presented by the staff and the Highway Department. Mr. Gleason asked that "natural state" in condition #4 be defined. Furthermore, he pointed that there is some concern with conditions 1, 3, 7, 10, and 12 as presented by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner said that he is concerned that both the applicant and the opposition have used the Comprehensive Plan in their arguments to the Commission. He asked if the staff could clarify this somewhat at the next meeting. Col. Washington asked that condition #3 as presented by the staff be written such that it has the exact wording of Appendix A of the ordinance. Mrs. Graves stated that if there are to be commercial areas this cannot be left to a future decision, but must be part of the approved plan. When advised by Mr. Easter that more specific uses of the commercial area were needed for the next meeting, Mr. Wooten replied that the idea had been that future lot owners would be able to choose the amenities of the common area. Mr. Tucker stated that he does not feel it would be appropriate to leave that area open to the whims of future residents. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that unless the uses of the common area are determined at the approval stage, the Zoning Administrator will have nothing to work with. Mr. Easter then questioned the density of the RPN. Mr. Keeler replied that the staff's proposal is 1 dwelling unit per 3.8 acres, and the applicant has proposed 1 dwelling unit per 3..4 acres. The Commission requested the staff to foward to the applicant and his various representatives a list of the comments and questions that should be addressed for the next meeting when the Commission would consider the RPN. Mr. McCann moved that any further discussion and action by the Commission be deferred until October 10, 1978. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ZMA-78-14. William W. Stevenson and Alton F. Martin have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 32.6 acres from A-1, R-2, and B-1 to B-1 and R-3. Property is located on the northwest side of Route 29 North, just north of the intersection of Route 631 and 29 North. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the comments from the Highway Department and gave the staff report. IR 9 Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicants, stated that there is no contract purchaser for the property and at present there are no plans for the property. However, he felt that it could be possibly combined with the property ( zoned B-1 ) to the north, making a larger parcel, and thus more attractive from the aspect dif flexibility. He stated that R-3 zoning has been requested for the purpose of a buffer, noting that there is substantial R-3 zoning in the area, though it is not recognized by the Comprehensive Plan. There was no public comment and Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the thinking behind the most recent approval for B-1 zoning in that area. Mr. Tucker responded that the property had been rezoned due to the fact that the frontage and depth did not make it marketable. Mr. Tucker also responded to a question from Mr. Gloeckner about the possible use of the undeveloped corner. Mr. Tucker stated that in the past the corner had been considered for low to medium density; however that does not seem like a good idea in view of the other intensive uses in the area. Mrs. Graves questioned if the staff has considered any professional office space in that area, as was proposed in the neighborhood land use committee meeting. 50 Mr. Tucker replied that this could be a possibility, however he did not have the map from the neighborhood with him. Mr. Bain said that the Comprehensive Plan shows part of the property as having a commercial use. Mr. Huffman said that he feels the County has to follow the quotas for B-1 zoning since it has to follow the limits for M-1 land in the County. Mr. Tucker said that the Board of Supervisors has addressed only meeting the quota for M-1 zoning, however he feels their intent was also to address all other zones. Mr. McCann said that in this particular case, he sees no harm in extending the B-1. Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the R-3 request because it puts Neighborhood I even more out of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, she said that she could support Commercial Office zoning for part of the property. Mr. McCann said that he does not support the R-3 request, however does support the request for B-1. Col. Washington said that he is concerned about the B-1 in view of the County's permitting light industry in the B-1 in the recent past. Also he noted his concern for the projected traffic onto Route 29 North, noting that the situation is already of concern. Mr. Gloeckner said that at this time he is opposed to the rezoning, and feels that the zones over the County should be made to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Easter said that he feels this application may be premature, and noted there is currently an .exess of B-1 zoning in the County. Route 29 North is, in addition to I-64, the best road in Albemarle County and therefore probably the best place for growth to occur. Mr. Gloeckner said that after all his concerns and statements, he might have to support the request to be consistent with previous actions. Mrs. Graves moved that the petitionbe denied. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. McCann, Vest, and Gloeckner dissenting. Copperfields Site Plan: With neither the applicant nor his representative present, the staff advised the Commission that this item would be placed on the following week's agenda. However, he stated that the request is to add nine units within the buildings that have been previously approved. 5( Cosmopolitan Spa Site Plan Amendment: Mr. Keeler explained that this is a request to omit most of the parking area lighting since the working drawings and approved plan were two different plans, which accidentally occurred. Mr. Sandy Lambert was present on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the building is lighted and provides adequate lightiin the areas for which the applicant is requesting relief. He also noted that the operation will soon be expanding and the County will no doubt be seeing revised plans. The main purpose for seeking relief is to keep from tearing up the asphalt. Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl noted concern for one particular area on the plan that needs night lighting. Mr. McCann moved that most of the parking area lighting be deleted. However, he included in the motion that the light in the extreme northwest corner ( "called north" on approved plan ) is to be installed. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1-1, with Mrs. Diehl abstaining, and Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the Board of Supervisors will be conducting a work session on the Route 29 North Corridor with the Virginia Department of Highways on September 20, 1978, at 3:30 in the Board Room. With no further business to consider, the Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. C 9