HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 1-40f
� orr
July 8, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
July 8, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Court House, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter
Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mrs. Ellen
Craddock. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman, and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Deferred Items:
Earlysville Heights Section 4:
Mr. Carr stated that the applicant had previously requested deferral. He also
stated that he was not present at the previous meeting in which this item was discussed
and asked Mrs. Scala to give a brief resume about this section.
Mrs. Scala stated that this was the last unit to be developed in the subdivision,
which is zoned R-1. She stated that the preliminary was approved in 1964 and was re-
zoned in 1972 to R-1, at which time the preliminary was renewed. Mrs. Scala also stated
that there are fifteen lots in this subdivision, average lot size is .66 acres and minimum
is .55 acres. Her main comment on this subdivision was that the Health Department re-
commended a central well. If the Planning Commission see fit to waive the water and
sewer and approve, this section will have to go before the Board of Supervisors to waive
this requirement. A grading permit for the road is needed. She also stated that the
Planning Commission had thought it would be a good idea if the applicant used 40,000 square
foot lots and put in a central well. This would make the subdivision in compliance with
the present subdivision regulations.
Mrs. Craddock asked to be refreshed on the water system in this area.
Mrs. Scala stated that presently it is served by individual wells and individual
septic systems.
Mr. Carr asked how many lots were in Earlysville Heights.
Mrs. Scala stated that there were approximately 44 lots in this subdivision, and
that the staff would recommend a central well.
Mr. Easter asked if the staff were aware of any septic problems in this section.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Health Department didn't say specifically but that
there were some problems.
Mr. Tucker stated that he was going to get something in writing from the Health
Department in regards to whether or not there were problems with the septic system.
Iftw Mr. Barksdale asked if all 44 lots were this small.
Mrs. Scala stated that they were this small except for maybe two or three of
the lots.
Mr. Carr noted that there were 3 or 4 sections remaining that he was aware of
in existing platted subdivision that never had final approval. He further stated that
they tried to look at all of these before they dealt with them to see what problems
they might be creating, recognizing that each one had to stand on its own merit.
Mrs. Scala stated that she had seen Marshall Manor and Brookwood. Marshall Manor
has about 6 or 8 lots that do not comply. Brookwood has smaller lots but it does have
a central well on it and is slated for public sewer.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the topography of this section of Earlysville Heights
and other sections are low lying and are receptive to streams and wet places. She said
she has had complaints about the drainage situation here and people fearing further pro-
blems if all these lots are not developed with central water. She noted that she would
like to see them either enlarge the lots or have central water.
Mr. Barksdale said that each lot has to have its own individual certificate for
each septic system.
Mr. Rinehart moved to deny this section and inform the developer that he should
provide a utility and a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion. The vote was 6-1 to deny this request. Mr.
Barksdale voted against the motion.
Thacker Subidvision - Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this subdivision consisted of 9 lots on Route 727. The
average lot size is 2.0 acres. The staff's only comment is that lots 1 and 2 do not
meet the present frontage requirements. The plat is subject to Highway approval because
of the shared entrances. The area is largely wooded. Mrs. Scala indicated that there
were three (3) letters of opposition in reference to this subdivision.
Mr. Pickford (representing Mr. Thacker) stated that he had a letter of opposition
from Mrs. Patterson. Her main concern was the road - the fact that it is not paved and
is very narrow. He stated that the State Highway Department does not give attention to
these roads until roads are up to the width desired by the Highway Department. The
county requires dedication of portions or strips up to 25 feet for road improvement. He
stated that he went to the tax accessor's office and looked at their maps. State Route 727
lies between Route 627 and 708 and has parcels from .7 acres to 233 acres fronting on Rt.
727. He pointed out that in the last couple of years there has been considerable deve-
lopment on Mr. Thacker's side of the road and down the road on both sides. In May, 1973,
a subdivision was approved consisting of 9 lots with about 2.10 acres per lot. Most of
the lots were pipestem lots, which the new ordinance prohibits now because of road front-
age requirement. In August, 1973,closer to Mr. Thacker's landja subdivision for Monti-
cello Builders was approved with lots of about 2 1/10 acres consisting of 9 lots. This
is based on records through last year.
Mr. Murray (representing Mr. and Mrs. Stewart Byrd and Mr. and Mrs. Frederick
Liebert) stated that there were five(5) objections to this subdivision. 1) Condition
,,, of road - all gravel, very sharp and narrow. The Highway Department will widen the road
but not straighten it. 2) Condition of soil - Virginia Health Department came and in-
spected the soil on Mr. Patterson's property because he wanted to put a septic system
on his land. The Health Department eventually agreed to let him use the septic system
but limited him to no washing machine because of the condition of the soil. 3) Water -
immediately adjacent to Mr. Thacker's property is 65 acres owned by Mr. Frances Hofer.
Mr. Hofer attempted to find water on this 65 acres and couldn't find any. Eventually
he had to run a water line under Rt. 727 in order to obtain water. 4) This property is
proposed for 5-acre zoning. This indicates a lack of suitability of property in this area
for development. Nearby there are clustersshown on the new map of Woodridge and Keene,
both of which are suitable for lots of this size and higher density. 5) Frontage re-
quirements - major point is that this property is located immediately across the road
from Blenheim, which is a historic landmark. He further stated that it is the minimum 2
acre lots in an agricultural zone and that Mr. Thacker intended to put minimum low cost
housing on this property across from Blenheim.
Bill Townsend (adjacent property owner) stated that he owns 180 acres of land and
if they widen the road they will take 10 feet on both soles of his property and he does
not want to give them his land. If they widen the road there would be much more traffic
and it would be terrible. He doesn't feel this is the right time for such a development.
Wayne Cromer (adjacent property owner) stated that he has two young daughters
that he sends to school. He doesn't send them on the school bus because he feels the
road is too dangerous. Mr. Cromer asked Mr. Thacker if he has given the right-of-way
to have the road widened.
Mr. Carr answered Mr. Cromer's question by stating that in submitting the sub-
division for approval that Mr. Thacker provided 25 additional feet to widen this road.
Fred Liebert (adjacent property owner) stated that it was all right for Mr. Thacker
to allow 25 feet road frontage for the new road. All people leading from Rt. 627 up to
the property Mr. Thacker owns have been denied the right-of-way to this road development.
Mr. Pickford stated he would like to comment on several things that Mr. Murray
said. 1) There are lots on the same side as Mr. Thacker's property that have wells
which have been drilled by Mr. Moore. He drilled about 100 feet and got 5-15 gallons
per minute. 2) The County Health Department sent a letter stating that the soil is satis-
factory for a proposed development. 3) Mr. Warner stated that if this right-of-way could
not be secured, there were other useable rights -of -way. 4) Blenheim is advertised in the
Wall Street Journal for sale.
Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Thacker if he intended to use the 79+ acre residue for
development.
Mr. Thacker stated that he did not plan to develop the remaining acreage at all.
Mrs. Craddock further stated that she respected Mr. Thacker's rights to develop
a subdivision. Her only objection was that the subdivision is being built right across
the road from Blenheim.
Mrs. Graves stated that she was appointed to view this property and found the
road to be in bad shape. Her main objection also was the fact that the subdivision was
being built right across the road from Blenheim.
Mr. Easter stated that he feels that the Planning Commission has to work under
the ordinance. Each man has a right to do whatever he wants to with his land as long
as he abides by the restrictions. Therefore he supports the subdivision.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the building setback line is his main concern. He hopes
that Mr. Thacker might consider dividing the acreage into 4 lots instead of 9 lots and
4
arriving at some kind of setback restrictions on his own to cause these dwellings to
fall back from the road, in order not to be in visual line of the traffic.
Mr. Easter stated that he agrees with Mr. Rinehart about moving the setback lines
on all the lots.
Mr. Carr stated that he agrees that most of these lots could take more than 150
foot setback improving this subdivision tremendously. "It is unfortunate we as a county
can't find a way to completely protect the historic sites." He stated that he would like
to negotiate a setback because he feels that Blenheim deserves as much of a setback as
possible.
Mr. Rinehart moved the approval of this final plat, including a waiver of the
frontage requirements on lots 1 and 2 and the pipestem serving the residue acreage.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The vote was 5-2. Mrs. Craddock and Mrs.
Graves voted against the motion.
Mr. Carr suggested that due to the location of historic Blenheim opposite this
subdivision, that maximum setbacks from the State Route be attempted, and as many trees
as possible retained.
Stonehenge Phase 2 :
Mrs. Scala stated that4his was the second phase of Stonehenge and that the first
,. phase had been approved. The applicant would like to revise the site plan from Section
7 on. The first six sections consisted of 66 lots platted. The second phase consisted
of 124 lots making the total 190 lots. The original proposed number of lots was 193.
Mr. McClure, acting as Chairman at the previous meeting requested deferral of this be-
cause he felt that the Homeowner's of the second phase would belong to the same associ-
ation as the first phase and that there would not be enough recreational facilities for
both phases.
Mr. Fred Payne (Assistant County Attorney) stated that Mr. McClure was concerned
that the addition to the original subdivision would be covered by the Homeowner's docu-
ments. There is a provision in the Homeowner's Association restrictions that states
that on 2/3 vote of the membership that they can annex other property and upon that annex-
ation the owners of the new subdivision take the same rights as the old owners. It is
his understanding that the vote has already been taken to approve this annexation. If
a Phase Three was brought in to this subdivision it would require another 2/3 vote from
the Homeowner's Association.
Mr. Rosser Payne stated that the Planning Commission and the Property Owner's
Association agreed at the previous meeting that the site plan was a great improvement
over the other site plan which was approved by the commission, it has fewer units and
much more distinct engineering control and site plan control on the units going in. He
stated that the project would be finished.
Mr. Carr stated that it was his understanding that the Commission was satisfied
with everything except the issue about the Homeowner's Association.
Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Rosser Payne if this was the last and final stage of
Stonehenge and would this complete it.
Mr. Payne stated that this was the last phase as far as Suburban Ferguson is
concerned and as far as he is concerned.
Mr. Rinehart asked if this represents final approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that they would see the final subdivision plats later on,
probably in sections.
in them.
Mr. Carr asked how many units are complete, occupiable, or have someone living
Mr. Rosser Payne stated that sections 1-6 have building permits.
Mr. Easter moved for approval. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
SP-483. Clay Smith. To locate a gift, craft and antique shop on 5 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural.
Applicant wished to have this SP-483 withdrawn without prejudice. The motion
to accept withdrawal carried unanimously.
New Business:
James Nay Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat was approved in 1971 but was never recorded.
However, all the residue acreage was put to record which listed this as a recorded lot.
The applicant came to Mrs. Scala to get the plat up -dated, but she could not sign it
because the plat was not able to meet the road dedication -two acres would not remain.
The property already has a parcel number.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Dezio if he had anything to add.
Mr. Dezio stated that this property has been taxed as a separate lot.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that he felt they should not deal with this plat. This
was already taken care of when the rest of these lots were put to record.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne how could the County get the 25 foot right-of-way.
Mr. Payne stated that the County can not get the 25 foot right-of-way. This
should have been taken care of when the rest of the property was approved.
Mr. Dezio stated that there is a violation setback.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the Planning Commission hear this plat because they do not
have authority to rule on it.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charles and Delmae Roberts Plat:
,. Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant requested a new 20' right-of-way to serve
one (1) six acre parcel which comes off an existing 14' right-of-way which is about 180
feet to State Route 604. In other words you have to go down a 14' easement to get to
the 20' easement. There are a total of three (3) lots for the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicant was present. (He was not). He further asked
what Mrs. Scala's recommendations were.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Commission had done things like this in the past.
Mr. Carr asked why an old county road had not been used.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that he was speculating, but the reason for that probably was
that there is not one shown on the tax map.
Mr. Carr asked if the same person owned the first two (2) front lots.
Mrs. Scala stated that all three (3) lots were in Roberts' name and that she
assumed that they were going to selloff the two (2) existing residents.
Mrs. Craddock moved that they defer this item until the next meeting so that the
applicant could be present.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Alwood Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the property was zoned R-2 and is adjacent to Stonehenge.
The property fronts on Rio Road, however, the terrain is very difficult there. They have
to use the old Rio Road and a 20' existing right-of-way to get to the property. At one
time the Commission saw a site plan for townhouses on this property which was approved.
That has since been scraped. They wish to subdivide it as a temporary measure while they
are negotiating an access way. If this final plat is approved before this, the Planning
Commission has to approve the extension of the existing 20' right-of-way as shown on
the plat. It is shown extended across Parcel A and would eventually come out on Brookway
Drive near the V1. That is one access they are now negotiating. The other one is
through Stonehenge.```'
Mr. Jay Douglas (one of the property owners) stated that they have had a great deal
of difficulty in achieveing other accesses to this property. What they are attempting
to do here is to divide this property into three (3) lots without jeopardizing what was
their original master plan. That is why the access remains shown on the parcel. He
further stated that he plans to build his own residence on Parcel C.
Mrs. Scala stated that she felt that this could be approved for building only
single-family units on each parcel and that the applicant would need the Commission's
approval for townhouses or duplexes. The decision was made already that townhouses could
not use the existing right-of-way. She does not feel that there are any problems in
the future development as far as accesses were concerned. Mrs. Scala further stated that
`%r the Commission has full control on this.
Mr. Carr stated that if they grant them the extension of access to Parcel A then
all that they have permitted the applicant to do is build single-family dwellings on these
three (3) parcels.
.....:....
Mr. Douglas stated that there was an existing house on Parcel A.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that they could put rental units on Parcel B. They cannot
subdivide any further.
Mrs. Scala stated that they need site plan approval to do this.
Mr. Tucker stated that they could put rental units on the property. The applicant
needs site plan approval, not subdivision approval.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she would turn down rental units on this property because
of the 20' right-of-way.
Mr. Carr asked if they could say that the easement is only designed to serve
individual dwellings on these three (3) lots.
Mr. Tucker stated it would be a good point that the width would not be adequate
to serve however many rental units could be placed on this parcel.
Mr. Carr asked if they could say the reverse -that this easement is granted with
the understanding that it will only serve single-family dwellings on Parcels A, B and C.
Mr. Payne stated that the Planning Commission did not have the power to say this.
He further stated that he thought that the Commission should consider the possibility that
they might be able to put rental units on Parcel B (whatever the zoning ordinance permits)
and it might not be possible to deny this.
Mr. Douglas stated that their attempt is not to have rental units on this property.
In his case, he wants to build an individual home.
Mr. Tucker stated that his plans may change, that he may sell this parcel, or
all three (3) parcels.
Mr. Easter asked how many rental units could be put on this property.
Mr. Tucker stated that a maximum of 8 per acre if they develop in duplexes and
6 per acre if they develop in townhouses.
Mrs. Craddock asked if they could give approval for a 20' right-of-way provided
that Mr. Douglas give them a letter of intent that there is only to be single-family
dwellings on each parcel.
Mr. Payne stated that this would not be binding.
Mr. Douglas stated that if it would help further restrict this development, they
would be glad to place any covenants or restrictions in accordance with his original
townhouse preliminary approval plan. He said he does not want to jeopardize his plans
as originally presented to the Commission. They had spent a great deal of time pre-
serving the trees.
Mr. Rinehart asked if they could have a deed restriction stating that only single-
family dwellings may be built on each parcel.
Mr. Payne stated that such a deed restriction could be put on the property,but the
Planning Commission could not require it.
Mr. Rinehart asked if they could approve this plat upon conditions that Mr.
Douglas bring them proof that this deed restriction is being applied to Parcels A, B
and C.
Mr. Tucker stated that if this was not done, the plat would come back to the
Commission.
Mr. Douglas asked what would happen if one person was to reacquire these three
(3) lots.
Mr. Rinehart stated that it is true that the deed restriction could be lifted
without their approval. "In other words you could sell all three of the parcels and
they would come back to you in the present owners and talk you into lifting the deed
restrictions."
Mrs. Scala stated that Mr. Huja called her to review this property because it
is one mile outside the city limits. He had stated that he did not want to interfere
in this, but the city did not think easements were a good idea, especially when one has
to cross two (2) lots to get to the third.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt the only solution was a site plan. He called for a
motion that this matter be deferred with the understanding that Mr. Payne come back to
them with a recommendation within the ordinance as to what they should do with this pro-
perty.
Mr. Tinsley moved deferral until Mr. Payne came back with the recommendation. Mrs.
Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ester Baber Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a subdivision consisting of two (2)
parcels located on an existing 16' right-of-way off Route 729. The reason for the odd
shaped pipestem was that a pipestem, instead of an easement, is needed to serve the
back lot, labeled C. Financial reasons demand frontage on the right-of-way. The pipestem
takes a bend near the easement and the reason for that is the location of an existing old
garage which is labeled Parcel A so they cannot bring the pipestem straight out along
the property line. Parcel A will become part of Parcel B, which will make up a 2 acre
lot. The subdivision ordinance now prohibits out lots so you would have to waive that
provision to prevent that out lot, then you would have to waive the frontage requirements
on both lots and allow the pipestem for the back lot.
Mr. John Moore (applicant) stated that Ester Baber had given her mother the lot in
the rear to build a house on. The only reason that there are pipestems on the other side
is that there is a row of 30-40 foot white pines down the whole property line. He fur-
ther stated one only has to drive 100 feet down the right-of-way to get to the property.
Mr. Tinsley asked Mr. Payne to comment on the pipestem being connected to an
easement.
Mr. Payne stated that he did not have any idea why they required a pipestem on an
easement. He did stated that this would require four (4) separate waivers of the ordi-
nance.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Moore if the garage was new, or was old and falling down.
Mr. Moore stated that it was an old cinderblock garage and is being used. It is
located on the 16' easement and the property line.
Mrs. Craddock asked if it were the lending agency that required this pipestem.
Mr. Moore agreed that it was the lending agency.
Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Moore if Parcel A could become part of Parcel C. He also
askedthe value of the garage.
Mr. Moore stated that the value of the garage was $500.00 maximum.
Mr. Rinehart stated again that if Parcel A could become part of Parcel C, increasing
Parcel B to 2 acres, allowing the family to work out some way that they all could use the
garage. This would eliminate the crooked pipestem and give a wide entrance onto the
easement. The pipestem serving Parcel C would be approved, as well as a waiver of frontage
requirements on Parcel B and C. He made this comment into a motion.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hollymead Butcher Shop:
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant requested to have a butcher shop located
in the basement of the Hollymead Inn. There is an existing entrance way from Hollymead
Drive. Mrs. Scala stated that her main concern was that a new driveway off Hollymead
Drive was not being created. An old cottage is in the back of the Inn. The parking
spaces are not now marked, but will be. There are four (4) parking spaces. The applicant
is going to construct a new stairway down into the basement which will meet the building
code requirements.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the parking spaces being marked.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Long Meadow Subdivision - Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary was approved on this subdivision. There
had only been one change, which is Lot 3 on the preliminary plat - it did not show the
pipestem because the road was extended a little further. The road has been built. The
County Engineer is in the process of inspecting it for approval.
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. St. John pointed out to the Board that there is a long
road frontage on this restricted road and various other people to both the north and the
west of the property, and for purposes of access and use of this road, the Commission
has the power to restrict subdivision. He does not feel that the Commission has the
power to restrict access onto it, if it is not involving subdivision and this is wide
enough to satisfy the site plan ordinance.
Mrs. Scala stated that there had been one more change - adding Parcel A to the
subdivision, now making a total of 8 lots. That is the property abutting on the left.
It is a 13 acre parcel. The Homeowner's Agreements have been approved by the County
Attorney to include the 8th lot and the Board has approved it.
Mr. Rinehart asked if there should be further subdivision on this restricted road
without further approval.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Board is going to review the restricted road policy
and possibly revise it.
Mr. Rinehart asked if they could spell out that Parcel 1-7 plus 8 have access
rights for one dwelling unit on said restricted roads only.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a public road.
Mr. Carr stated that when the County grants a restricted road to accomplish cer-
tain things, why doesn't the ordinance provide the right to stipulate the users of the
restricted road.
Mr. Tucker stated that you can stipulate the users of an easement.
in
Mr. Payne stated that the problem is that/every subdivision where a restricted
road is used each substantial area abutting on other property, both the subdivision and
the state road can come off with the same problem. He thinks to deny it would almost
certainly involve litigation.
Mr. Easter asked what if he moved the restricted road back a foot.
Mrs. Scala stated that spike strips were not permitted in the ordinance.
Mr. Carr asked if the County could draft into its restricted roads the restrictions
that the road can be specified at whatever use the County dictates.
Mr. Barksdale asked who maintained the road.
Mr. Payne stated that the people will maintain the road.
Mrs. Scala stated that in the applicant's restrictions none of these lots can be
subdivided into parts less than five (5) acres. Only three (3) lots can be subdivided.
lot #3.
Mr. Barksdale moved for approval of this plat, including the pipestem to serve
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John B. Moore Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a resubdivision of three (3) lots into four (4)
lots, located on Route 29 South, just south of Cross Roads. The three (3) front lots
consist of 2 acres and have the proper width. Lot 4 is the back lot consisting of 3.5
acres which shows an easement serving it, which the Commission will have to approve.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Moore (applicant) if there were any houses on the property.
Mr. Moore stated that there were no houses on the property.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission could require common driveways.
Mr. Moore stated that they would for lots 1 and 4 and lots 2 and 3.
Mrs. Scala stated that she talked this over with Mr. Moore and he stated that
they could notemploy shared entrances. They could put them side by side.
Mr. Moore stated that they could put the ones on the road side by side.
Mrs. Scala stated that this was an improvement over the existing three (3) lots.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the 1) Health Department approval; and
2) shared entrances shown between lots 1 and 4, and 2 and 3. The 25' easement would
be approved to serve lot 4.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Running Deer:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is one lot which Mr. Kirby would like to put to
record and also would like the Planning Commission's approval of the dedication of
1000' of the proposed Running Deer Drive at the end of state maintained 808. This is
actually the way it was shown on the preliminary plat and she stated that Mr. Kirby will
post the bond for the construction of the 1000' of road to state standards.
Mr. Rinehart asked Mrs. Scala if she saw any problems.
Mrs. Scala stated that she felt everything was in order.
Mr. Barksdale moved for approval of this plat subject to the road bond being
set and the inclusion of the dedication of the 1000' of Running Deer.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
with no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Ctn L. Humpfirey, 6Vcietar
EM
July 15, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting to consider site
plans and subdivisions on Tuesday, July 15, 1975, Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; and
Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman and
Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Deferred Items:
Charles and Delmae Roberts - preliminary plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a preliminary plat, with a proposed 20 foot
right-of-way off an existing 14 foot right-of-way to Route 604 to serve one 6-acre
parcel. She stated that the item had been deferred in order that the applicant could
be present.
Mr. Snow answered questions regarding the right-of-way.
Mrs. Scala siad that the staff recommended approval.
A motion to approve the preliminary plat was made by Mr. Barksdale, seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner. It carried unanimously.
Alwood final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat shows 3 parcels on an existing 20 foot
right-of-way and a proposed private access easement, off Route 631 ( Rio Road ).
Action had been deferred in order that the office of the County Attorney could
review the plat.
Mr. Payne, representing the County Attorney's Office, stated that the
road would have to be up -graded in order to meet the site plan ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval;
2. Approval of this subdivision voids the previous approval for townhouses on this
property.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Scala stated that the City of Charlottesville has requested that
an existing water main located in Old Rio Road be shown on the plat.
/_-3
-2-
SP-502. Virginia Marie Walker has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to lcoate a mobile home on 2 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 616.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 74. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Angus Arrington, an adjacent property owner, objected to the mobile
home on the bases that it devalued his property, noting that her mobile home is
already on the property, thus making a technical violation.
present.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action be deferred until the applicant could be
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-504. Virginia W. and Temple S. Collins have petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 10.79 acres zoned A-1.
Property is located on the north side of Route 53, approximately 1
I%W mile east of Simeon. Property is further described as County Tax Map 92,
Parcel 43, Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Collins stated that the mobile home would be his permanent residence.
Mrs. Nash, representing Mr. Woodward, stated that her client's concern
had been a precedent being set in that area with a mobile home.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Minimum setback from Route 53 right-of-way of 100 feet;
2. Minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet;
3. Minimum side yard setbacks of 25 feet;
4. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
5. This permit is issued only to the applicant and is non -transferable;
6. This mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances;
7. Provide and maintain adequate screening from Route 53 required by the Zoning Dept.
8. This permit is valid for 5 years and is to be removed or renewed on or before
the expiration date;
9. Compliance with all state and local regulatory agencies.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously.
Ms
SP-499. Peacock Hill Ltd.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant requests that action be deferred until
August 19, 1975.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the petition be deferred until them.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Peacock Hill Section 2 final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that teh applicant requests that action be deferred on
this plat until August 19, 1975.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried
unanimously.
Peacock Hill - presentation of open space plan, including the recreation plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that the general plan had received preliminary approval
subject to approval of the open space and recreational plans.
Mr. Frank Smith, representing Peacock Hill, explained the three areas of
recreation and the open space.
Mrs. Scala noted that the plan he explained was somewhat different from the
one he had submitted to the Planning Office.
Mrs. Graves questioned moving the commerical area within the PUD.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral until the amended plan could be reviewed
by the staff.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wakefield Road - Vacation requested:
Mr. Humphrey stated that on June 19, the Board had requested that the
Planning Commission review the request that Wakefield Road be vacated. He noted
that this road runs into a cul-de-sac. He also stated that this has been reviewed
by the City Planning Commission and City Planning Staff. He stated that the City
Planning Commission recommends that the road be vacated, but left with a fifteen foot
utility easement. He pointed out that the City and County Staffs recommend that the
road not be vacated. Mr. Humphrey stated that the County Planning Staff recommends
at least a twenty foot utility easement, if the road is vacated.
Mr. Lloyd Wood told the Planning Commission that the request to vacate
the road has been submitted by the property holders along that road. He noted that
/,
WC
they have had the responsibility of maintenance, yet they have received nothing for
it.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that they have had the use of the property without
having to pay taxes.
Mr. Payne said that if the road is vacated, the Board can require a utility
easement.
Mr. Carr noted that the landowners have the use of the property, don't pay
taxes for the use, and actually are not being hurt.
Mr. Wood acknowledged that indeed they have not been hurt financially.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the deeded right-of-way not be vacated.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
The vote was 3-3, with Messrs. Gloeckner, Rinehart, and Tinsley voting
for the motion.
Amend Section 16 of the Definitions to read: Sec. 16-44-2 HORSE TRAILER SALES
LIMITED: Horse trailer sales to be limited to not more than three (3) horse
140W' trailers on the property at any one time and they shall be lodged at all
times in an enclosed structure until they area sold.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Payne stated that he was opposed to the definition on the basis that a
numerical figure is given and the fact that it is limited to an enclosed structure.
Mr. Rinehart stated that any structure not limited in size could be out
of proportion in relation to the intent of the Agricultural zone.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the applicant needs an indicator that this sort
of sales is to be limited, and is not to be a commercial use of agriculturally zoned
property.
At this point there was a discussion on the wording of the definition for
the A-1 zone.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the use should be in a business zone.
Mrs. Craddock moved thatithe definition not be included in Section 16.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1. Mr.
Barksdale voted against the motion.
Amend the A-1 Agricultural Zone to allow for Limited Horse Trailer Sales
under Section 2-1-25(18.2):
-5-
Mr. Tinsley voted to deny the request to amend the A-1 Zone to allow for
Limited Horse Trailer Sales.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Amend Section 5-5-1 of the R-2 Residential Zone in order to clarify the
side yard requirements for two-family dwellings.
Amend Section 5-1-1 and 6-1-1 of the R-2 and R-3 Residnetial Zones
concerning accessory buildings.
Amend SECTION I - DEFINITIONS - WORDS AND TERMS.
Amend Sec. 1-54, rewording of the definition for SUBDIVISION.
The Commission, by unanimous vote, deferred action on the above four items.
SP-478. Cole E. Digges, III.
Mr. Tinsley moved that this request be denied due to previous action by
the Planning Commission on this date.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Berkmar Office Park Site Plan:
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the staff recommended the
following conditions:
1. Approval is contingent upon the rezoning of this property;
2. Note on site plan that parking space curbs will be located as shown on the site
plan plus along the north side of Building A, east side of Building B, and the
west side of Building C;
3. Driveway connection to Berkmar Drive shown on site plan and edge of existing
pavement;
4. Note on site plan concerning lighting, i.e., all lighting will be directed away
from all adjacent properties;
5. De-ce1 lane shall be provided if required by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation;
6. Safety guard rail to be provided along the bank on Berkmar Drive to extend from
the east property line to the entrance or until the grade of the bank is level
with the street; and
7. Grading plan approval.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hedgerow Corporation Preliminary plat - Route 677:
d! 7
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the vote and the discussion by
leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a plat for seven lots with an average lot
size of 3 acres on property zoned A-1 Agricultural. She stated that the applicant
proposes a cul-de-sac along the existing right-of-way. There has been preliminary
Health Departmetn approval. She stated that among other things, the staff recommends
no further subdivision and the plat must be approved by the county fire marshal.
Mr. Josh Harvey represented Hedgerow.
Mrs. Mahler, an adjoining property owner, requested that the drainage plan
be such that her property would not be flooded, expecially since the situation becomes
critical on her property during heavy rains.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing right-of-way must be constructed to state standards;
2. The proposed road is approved as a restircted road, subject to all County
requirements ( to serve seven lots );
3. The Commission waived the frontage requirement on lots 4, 5, and 6, in order
that they may enter onto the proposed road;
4. Lots 4, 5, and 6 may not enter onto Route 677 ( Ballard Road ).
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Richard Bailey Site plan - 2 new rental units:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, stating that the staff recommended approval
subject to the condition that the Board of Supervisors approved the
central well, SP-498.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the staff's recommended condition.
Mr- Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lake Hills preliminary plat - Route 743:
In the staff report, Mrs. Scala pointed out to the Commission that the adjacent
property has been approved for subdivision.
Mr. Tucker read a letter from Bill Gentry regarding the plat.
Mrs. Graves asked if 5-acre lots had been recommended for Lockridge
subdivision on the reservoir.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that 5-acre lots had been used as much as possible.
He stated that to move the road in this case and have larger lots doesn't apply.
Mr. Gentry stated that a 200 foot setback for building is too restrictive.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
-7-
1. 200 foot setback from reservoir of all improvements requiring extensive
excavation;
2. Lots 10 and 11 are to be revised so that they both front and enter on the
proposed state road. ( It was suggested that the property line between
between the lots be turned 900.)
3. Virginia Departmetn of Highways approval of proposed road and private entrance to
lot 1;
4. Waiver of lot frontage on lots 4 and 6 is granted;
5. Health Department preliminary approval;
6. No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval ( note on the final plat );
7. Maintenance of the common open space to be provided for at the time of final approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Gloucester Court final plat:
Mrs. Scala said that this is a 4 lot plat.
Dr. Hawkins, speaking for himself and two other property owners, noted
his concern for the road and the historic significance of the house near the develop-
ment.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to Health Departmetn approval.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that a bond to cover the cost of road construction
must be posted before the plat can be signed.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville Panorama site plat - Route 631:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, noting that the applicant requests
final site plan approval for the 30 acres zoned R-2. She noted that the staff
recommended approval subject to a series of conditions.
Mr. Warner Hausler, the architect, representing the applicant explained
the use of the land.
Mr. Kenneth deHaviland, President of Citizens for Albemarle, opposed
the development on the basis that this is a sensitive area, and asked that action
be deferred for further study.
Ms. K. Gilmer read a statement from the League of Women Voters noting their
concern for the reservoir, which this projects borders.
Mr. H. Humphries asked for a moratorium on all building around the reservoir
area.
Mrs. Frances Martin cited several points from the Evergreen hearing
that could be pertinent to this development, asking that the Commission defer action.
Specific points related to the sewage pumping and the drainage pond.
-8-
Moore
Mr. Bedford/opposed the development on the basis of the potential danger
to the reservoir.
Mr. Frank Patterson spoke in favor of the development as long as the
engineers, etc., worked closely with the County Planning Commission and Staff.
Mr. John Pollock of Rivanna Water and Sewer asked that the matter be
deferred for further study.
Mr. Wendell Wood, owner of the property, stated that he is completely
within his rights to ask for this sort of development. He noted that this is not
a zoning case.
Mrs. Clay asked that the matter not be tabled, noting that everything is
in order according to the County ordinances.
Mr. Carr suggested to the Commission that the matter be deferred for a
work session.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral, requesting that Rivanna Water and Sewer,
City Council, County Staff, and the County Attorney all be properly informed of
the situation.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bentivar final plat - 12 lots:
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommended approval.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval with no conditions. This motion, which
carried unanimously, was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner.
Gilbert Scruggs preliminary plat - Route 20N:
Mrs. Scala said that the plat requires a waiver of frontage on the back lot.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval to waive the frontage requirement and give
preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Both lots use a common entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Better Living preliminary plat - Route 663:
Action was deferred on this plat by unanimous vote of the Commission.
C l
MOM
Richard Anderson Final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated the that the request is for approval for final subdivision
of 9 lots.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval. The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale,
carried unanimously.
Charles and Delmae Roberts preliminary:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Gloeckner moved, and Mr. Barksdale seconded, approval of the preliminary
with no conditions.
The meeting adjourned.
July 29, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, July 29, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barks-
dale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs.
Joan Graves; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
In the interest of all citizens present, Mr. Carr deferred until the end of the meeting
all those items of business except Charlottesville Panorama Site Plan, the primary item of
business on the agenda.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a site development plan that was in line
with the Townhouse Development Ordinance. She stated that the staff was in receipt of a
project sheet explaining the development. It was noted that there were memos from J. Harvey
Bailey and Ashley Williams, County Engineer and Assistant County Engineer, respectively, re-
garding on -site inspections of the project. She noted that there were also written comments
from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of Albemarle Service Authority; from Steven M.
Young of the Department of Health - Bureau of Sanitary Engineering; from Satyendra S. Huja,
Director of Planning of the Charlottesville Department of Community Development; from Cogs-
well-Hausler, the architect for the project; letters of opposition from Fredson and Nancy
Hale Bowers, adjacent property owners to the proposed project. There was also a memo from
the City of Charlottesville stating opposition to the proposed project. Mrs. Scala said
that the County Planning Department had found the revised site plan to be in order subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the site plan does not guarantee sewer.
2. The plan requires a waiver of privacy fences.
3. A sidewalk must be built out to the state road when developed.
4. The Commission must decide if 34 foot public access easement as described in the Town-
house Ordinance with a 24 foot paved roadway is acceptable and if the interior roads
should be built to state standards. If the interior roads are built to state standards
then parking bays will have to be redesigned.
The staff further stated that at the time of subdivision approval the following condi-
tions must be adhered to:
1. Final landscape plans
2. Engineering final approval as per the letter from Ashley Williams of water, sewer,
storm drainage and road design.
3. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance and access road.
4. Grading permit issued in accordance with the recently adopted soil erosion and sedimen-
tation control.
5. Approval of Homeowners documents by the office of the County Attorney.
The staff also posed question of fences along the reservoir.
Mr. Tucker stated that all agencies that the Planning Commission had instructed the
staff to correspond with had submitted written comments except for the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority. It was pointed out that Mr. George Williams of that department was in the
audience, and that he would have some comments to make.
Mr. Williams made the following statement:
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors adopted at their meeting
on July 21 a resolution recommending that a policy of extreme caution be utilized
on development in the -South Rivanna Reservoir pending completion of the 14 month study
which was authorized at the same meeting. The policy further recommends that every possiblf
precaution be made a part of any development plan that the respective political subdivision
should choose to consider. The Board of Directors had also requested that provision be
made for inclusion of any further requirements that the study deems appropriate.
It, of course, would be desirable if results of the Reservoir study were currently
available to aid in review of such projects. The firm of Betz Environmental Engineers has
been selected to perform the study which should commence next month. There are some speci-
fic areas of concern which we feel should be a part of the developer plan. We realize that
plans are only preliminary and many of the following items will be handled at a later stage,
SEWAGE COLLECTION AND PUMPING - A fail-safe system designed and constructed to preclud(
the discharge of any domestic waste to the reservoir is imperative. This includes the need
to design, construct and inspect the collection system in accordance with stringent infil-
tration standards and to design and construct the two proposed lift stations, as a minimum,
in accordance with Department of Health and Water Control Board requirements to preclude
pump malfunction and electrical power failure. This will require dual pumps in each lift
station and provision for standby power either by a standby generator or an alternate power
source back to a substation in accordance with Federal guidelines on reliability. Spare
parts for pumps, motors and related equipment must be on hand. In addition, a person in
responsible charge should be on call at all times to take any necessary action in care of
an emergency. An alarm system to indicate malfunction should be included.
STORM WATER HANDLING - Lack of data at the present time prevents any meaningful
calculation of nutrient contribution resulting from storm runoff. Additional informaNWO
tion on this matter would be desirable since phosphorus and nitrogen are implicated as the
prime causes of the eutrophic trend of the Reservoir.
SILTATION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL - The development plan calls for the construction
of siltation and sedimentation basins within the project area. These basins should be
constructed in the first stage of constuction and maintained through construction and life
of the project. A bond or other suitable means of insuring their continued maintenance
should be required.
ACCESS TO RESERVOIR AREA - Since recreational use of the reservoir is restricted, un-
controlled access to the reservoir should be prohibited.
It is apparent from a review of the site plan that attention has been given to design
of the project recognizing the sensitive location with respect to the reservoir. The Ri-
vanna staff had an opportunity to meet with the planning staff and the developer this after-
noon to discuss the project in general and specifically the items mentioned above. We ap-
preciate the opportunity to comment and participate in review of this project.
Mr. Tucker read the following letters from the agencies that he had corresponded with
regarding development on the Rivanna Reservoir, especially Charlottesville Panorama.
(PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE ATTACHED COPIES OF THE LETTERS - Those included are from
the following agencies:
1. A memo to John.Humphrey, Director of Planning from J. Harvey Bailey, County
Engineer, dated July 25, 1975. SUBJECT: Panorama/Charlottesville Site Plans.
2. A memo to the Planning Commission, County of Albemarle, from Satyendra S. Huja,
Director of Planning, Dept. of Community Development, dated July 25, 1975. Re-
garding: Charlottesville Panorama Housing Development on South Rivanna Reservoir.
3. A letter addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant Director of Planning,
County of Albemarle Planning Department, dated July 24, 1975. SUBJECT: Albemarle
County Water: South Rivanna - Proposed Panorama Townhouse Development. The letter
was signed by Steven M. Young, Assistant Regional Engineer, Department of Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
4. A memo to Mary Joy Scala, Planner, from E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director
of Albemarle County Service Authority, dated July 24, 1975. SUBJECT: Panorama
Site Plan.
5. A memo to John Humphrey, County Planner, from Satyendra S. Huja, Director of Plan-
ning, Dept. of Community Development, dated July 15, 1975. Regarding: "Charlottes-
ville Panorama."
6. A memo to Mary Joy Scala from J. Ashley Williams, Assistant Engineer, County of
Albemarle, dated July 15, 1975. SUBJECT: Site -Plan Review - Panorama/Charlottes-
ville.
7. A letter addressed to Albemarle County Planning Commission from Nancy Hale Bowers
and Fredson Bowers, adjacent property owners to the proposed site on Route 631,
dated July 5, 1975.
Mr. Hausler, architect for the project, asked that the lines of communication be kept
open, since this was established as a work session. He pointed out that the technical
requirements have been met and saw no mechnical reason for this project not being approved.
He said that Hickman and Associates are present to discuss the storm water management for
the project.
Mike Nerocky of Hickman and Associates told the members of the Commission that his firm
had worked closely with the EPA and the Department of Interior on storm water management
and urban runoff and sedimentation. Mr. Nerocky said that the firm has some conceptual
designs that could be implemented during construction as preventative measures that could
be kept on site after construction.
Mr. Emerson, also of Hickman and Associates, mentioned four methods of managing runoff:
1. Source control, where one avoids point source discharges and allows water to infiltrate
into the ground
2. Storage and control release
3. Storage treatment
4. Potential treatment.
He stated that there could be dry sediment control at each drainage swale, with a slow,
controlled release, where the water coming from sediment ponds would be monitored. He
mentioned putting polyfilter X around stanpipes to control the rate at which water leaves
the sediment trap. He stated that they intended to infiltrate water, have sediment traps,
collect storm water, etc. to controllthe runoff.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the Homeowner's Association would be controlled and enforced
by the Homeowner's Association.
Mr. Rinehart asked on what basis the sediment basins would be designed.
Mr. Emerson explained that they would be designed on the basis of a two inch rain in
ten hours.
Mr. Easter cited an instance of a four inch rain in six hours the previous week, noting
that this is not that uncommon.
0
Mr. Wendell Wood asked that he have time at the end of presentation for comments.
Mrs. Francis Martin questioned pollutants from vehicles.
Mr. Emerson told her that studies have been done on roads which transport traffic.
He stated that in this particular case the primary problem with vehicles is parking. With
slow speeds, pollution would be small from automobiles. The compounds which are dangerous
as pollutants are lead, zinc, and organic compounds. He said that practically all elements
can be treated, but some materials are expensive to treat.
Mr. Hausler stated that runoff would be monitored for these materials, since the pro-
bability of their being there was low. He stated that the water would be checked by the
appropriate officials, and that if pollutants show up, treatment will occur, at the expense
of the reserve fund that would be established in the covenants of the Homeowners Agreements.
Mr. Hausler referred to a study in Columbia, Maryland, that had substantiated that there
is not a substantial increase in pollutants from automobiles.
Mr. Gene Potter stated that there are mechanisms for monitoring water quality. He saic
that the State Health Department uses drinking water as its criteria.
Mr. Easter asked if the County could run the tests, and was informed that at the pre-
sent it does not have the capability, since some tests are sophisticated and relatively
expensive to undertake.
Mr. Huja stated that according to some quick mathematical calculations, he had arrived
at the cost of $6.00 per month per residence.
Mr. Emerson stated that the common elements to monitor are color, PH, and sus-
pended solids. He said that there are no nuclear nutrients in the area. 10)
Mr. Barksdale requested a periodic cost test.
Mr. Potter stated that he would not venture a guess.
ice• Emerson stated that the cost would be approximately $5-7 per sample, depending on
the incidence of material.
Mr. Carr said that the Planning Commission needs to know the potential problems, the
cost of periodic testing, if the County is qualified to manage and test the water, and the
agency that will absorb the cost.
Mr. Emerson stated that the test that would be run would be on suspended solids, change:
in PH, and presence of phosphates. The tests would average two weeks in the beginning, once
a month while under construction, and once every three months when completed.
Mr. Robert Humphries questioned the location for testing.
Mr. Emerson stated that they would be made at the discharge from the sediment basin,
downstream, and upstream. He noted that he did not yet know the size of the storage basin,
since it had hot been designed, but that it would be located in the swales. It was pointed
out that it would be easier to put the basin across the swale, but possible to put on this
property.
Mrs. Francis Martin asked about the construction of the drainage basin since the
slope of the land is so great there.
OF ALE3,!—zAj�,d
CV�
'r
us 1'
A
r�irc►N�►'v
Office of County Engineer ,
411 EAST 11IGH STItEET,
CIIARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
J. HARVEY BAILEY J. ASHLEY WILLIAMS
COUNTY ENGINEER 1 ASSISTANT ENGINEER
MEMORANDUM °
DATE: July 25, 1975
TO: John Humphrey, Director of Planning
FROM: J. Harvey Baileys -a
SUBJECT: Panorama/Charlottesville Site Plans
.We offer the following comments on the site plan of
Panorama/Charlottesville which you requested us to review.
This plan is Preliminary in nature. It contc:qPlat:.s
the development of a townhouse -developmennt of 154 units
on a 29:826 acre site, described as Parcel 30 on Section 45
of the County Tax Map and is defined by a deed of record in
'the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 543-426. In addition to th1_s parcel on which
the townhouses are to be located, there is shown a road
system which connects the proposed development to St. Rt. 631.
The northern boundary is common with the South Rivanna Reservoir.
The drainage is divided by a knoll, approximately 30% of the
area draining to a draw on the east and 70% to a branch on the
West. This knoll is the site of the recreational development,
the townhouses are out on the slopes to the east, north and
.south. Slopes are progressively steeper as they approach the
draws and vary from 12% to 25% through the developed area.
From the rear of the townhouses towards the reservoir they
reach 75%. The area is shown as wooded.
Utility lines are shown but not sized. The Albemarle
Service Authority has a12"main in St. Rt. 631, approximately
1000' from the site. Two lift stations are required to serve
the area's sanitary sewers. On the east, a lift station will
receive wastewater from 55 dwelling units and a portion of the
recreational development. This station will lift the waste-
water approximately 90 feet vertically to a manhole, from which
it will flow by gravity to a second lift station where it will
join the flow from the remainder of the area. The closest public
sewer is located in the 4-Seasons development, approximately 1600'
distant and tht! vertical lift is approximately 110 feet.
July 25, 1975
There is no problem in serving the,proposed development
with water for domestic needs and fire protection. Sewerage
requires more care in design, particularly the lift stations.
Such systems require duplicate equipment, duplicate power
sources and other safeguards in order to reduce to a minimum
the spills„to which they are by thr-ir nature prone to experience.
We judge the most difficult item in the development is
drainage. The plan does not show any comprehensive storm drain
system. Because of its proximity_to the South Rivanna Reservoir,
the greatest care must be exercised in order to keep erosion
and sedimentation damages to a minimum. This plan will be
reviewed by the Technical Committee on Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control. It will provide for both temporary measures during
construction and permanent installations for continuing control
of stormwater runoff.
46
CITT OI"
CIIARLOTTESVILLE
VIRGINIA
MrMO
1�
TO: Planning Commission, County. of Albemarle
FROM: Satyendra S. Muja, Director of Planning, Dept. of Community Development S �'
DATE: July 25, 1975.'• ,
1 • 1 , e .
RE: Charlottesville Panorama Mousing Development on South Rivanna Reservoir
The
purpose of this memorandum is to share our concern as to the impact
of
this development on the.South Rivanna Reservoir.
our
comments are not meant to be addressed at the review of the site plan
or
the design of the proposed plan. We have the following comments con-
cernin.g
this project.
' 1.
This development will be contrary to the objectives of your comprehensive
plan. I note the statements from your Comprehensive Plan on Page 54
soil, rugged
"Conservation lands should be designed in areas of poor
those to flooding, and the watersheds of public -water
terrain, prone
supply impoundments. Conservation lands should be designated for
'
areas where natural scenic vistas are deserving of protection" and on
78 Watersheds above public water supply impoundments should be
Page
protected to the maximum extent possible.. In order to further protect
for supply and/or
the impoundments -- both of these designed water
flood control -- consideration s-hould be given to the acquisition of
.adjacent lands which could be used for County recreational areas in
the impoundments."
conjunction with water -oriented activities on
2.
According to the soil survey of Albemarle County by the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, land east of the reservoir is cecil loam with steep
that "this soil is
phase. On page 15 of this report, it indicates
subjected to considerable sheet erosion...
3.
The density of the proposed development is 5.5 units per acre which is
in
more than twice of the recontinended density of 2.5 units per acre
We think that the Comprehensive Plan showed
your Comprehensive Plan.
the low density so that the Reservoir will be protccted. Thus, any
development should be in harmony with your Comprehensive Plan.
4. Your Comprehensive Plan shows a green strip or conservation strip
along the Reservoir in the area of the'proposed project ranging
from a minimum of 200' to 1,000' whereas the proposed development shows
a 'conservation strip of a maximum of 200'. We wonder if you think this
should be enlarged to protect the Reservoir.
Planning Commission, County of Albemarle �.
Page 2
July 25, 1975
S. At present, the City and the County are doing a joint study of the
141. Rivanna Reservoir and Watershed for eutrophication control and
Watershed planning. We.believe any de:c'ision on this issue should
• wait until the results of this study have been presented to the County
Board of Supervisors and.City Cquncil.
CONCLUSION
'Based on the above concerns and based upon .the fact that the Rivanna River
Water Reservoir is a much needed water resource for the present
population of the County and the City and for the future growth of both
jurisdictions, we feel that any action on this development should be
withheld until a joint study of the Reservoir is completed or definite
measures be taken to make absolutely sure that the water quality in the
Reservoir will not be further deteriorated.
Thank you for your invitation to come and opportunity to express our concern
on this topic..
cc Cole Hendrix, City Manager
h_._ L• Planner, •A.lbeCiiai le Count
John �iUiiiNiii e;Y, �ou�l�•� y
Sandy Lambert, Chairman, Ch'ville Planning Commission
• , .►
MACK 1. SHANHOLTZ. M. D.
COMMISSIONER
OMpNWEALTH- of ';�'
VIR
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
BUREAU -OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
r
July; 24, 1975
LEXINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
129 SOUTH RANDOLPH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 9t5
LEXINOTON, VIRGINIA 24450
PHONES 463-7156
R .
SUBJECT: ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Water: South Rivanna - Proposed
Panorama Townhouse
Development
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Assistant Director of Planning P{anlliag Deaa,'tczent ..
County of Albemarle Planning Department ~
411 East High Street JUL P. 8 Re
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Tucker:
This letter is written in response to the site in which
was made by Mr. Ron Conner and the writer from this Department of
the proposed location of the Panorama Townhouse Develo m
July 22, 1975. pent on
The following comments have resulted from our field investigation
of the subject project:
1. Storm water runoff, especially the first flush,
would contain many pollutants which could be detri-
mental to the quality of the water in the South
Rivanna reservoir. The first flush would contain
many heavy metals which are the result of the
exhaust of internal combustion engines,..pesticides,
herbicides, nutrients, and, during periods of winter
snowfalls, salts. Siltation resulting during and
after construction would also pose a serious problem.
2. The property line of the parcel of land to be developed
is adjacent to the South Rivanna reservoir. Much of
the area to be developed is characterized by steep
slopes. This combination of steep slopes and close
proximity to the South Rivanna reservoir would probably
increase the detrimental effects of storm water runoff.
•s
Page 2
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.: July 24, 1975
SUBJECT: ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Water: South,Rivanna - Proposed
Panorama Townhouse
Development
3. The developer plans to use public water which would
be supplied through a water main located along
Rio Road.
4.- Plans indicate that several sewage pumping stations
will be required to pump sewage to the Meadow Creek
sewerage system. Malfunction of sewage pumping
stations represents a very serious potential source
of contamination for the reservoir.
S. In considering the management of a water supply
source such as the South Rivanna reservoir, the over-
riding principle which must be acknowledged is the
protection of that source from any type of contami-
nation which might affect the public health. It is
important- t0 realize t'flat tj:-_ Southa^....crvoir
is the only nearby raw water source capable of satis-
fying present as well as future water_ supply demand
for the Charlottesville -Albemarle County area.
This Department is of the opinion that developments such as the
proposed Panorama Townhouse development would indeed be detri-
mental to the South Rivanna reservoir. It should be emphasized
that all storm water runoff would discharge directly into streams
which feed the reservoir.
in August 1975 a 14-month study will be commenced by consultants
to the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority in order to obtain infor-
mation on the present condition of the South Rivanna reservoir,
the cause of its present condition, and to lay out a plan of action
intended to provide for the protection and enhancement of a major
water supply source for the Charlottesville-Albe-..arle County area.
It is the desire of this Department to prohibit any new development
along the South Rivanna reservoir, at least until the results of
the reservoir study have been finalized.
f•
Page 3
Mr..Robert W. Tucker, Jr.: July 24, 1975
`"SM7ECT: ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Water: South'Rivanna - Proposed
' Panorama Townhouse
t Development
If you have questions or if we can be of any further service, please
do not hesitate to call upon us.'` '
Very_ truly yours,
Steven M. Yo g
Assistant Re 3 1 EV9jneer
SMY/G/5
cc: Mr. George Williams, Executive Director, Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority
Albemarle County Health Department
M
i
M
on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
409 East High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 6777
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
,,-MEMORANDUM
To Mary Joy Scala
Planner
From E. E. Thompson, Jr.
E. E. THOMPSON, J R.
Executive Director
July 24, 1975
PANORAMA SITE PLAN
The Albemarle County Service Authority will accept the
Sewer Collector System in of Lift Stations and Force
Mains with the following conditions:
1. They must be installed commensurate with State
Health Department and State Vater Control Board
Rules and Regulations, as presently promulgated.
2. Review and approval of the County Engineer.
3. The owner must maintain and operate for one year
after acceptance by the County Engineer.
E. E. Thomps9 Jr.
Executive Director
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
• VIRGINIA
MEMO
TO: John Humphrey', County:Planner
FROM: Satyendra S.`"Uja, Director of Planning, Dept. of Community Development S S•�'
DATE: July 15, 1975
RE: "Charlottesville Panorama"
The purpose of this memorandum is to indicate our concern as to the
above projects impact on Rivanna River Reservoir.
We have not had an opportunity to fully 'analyze and comment on this project
nor do we -have adequate data at this time to do a comprehensive analysis.
i
At present, the City and the County are conducting a joint study of the
Rivanna Reservoir and watershed for eutrophication control and watershed
planning. We believe any decision on this issue should wait until the
results of this study have been presented to the County Board of Supervisors
and the City Council.
Thank you.
,1
OF ALSZ4
A
O v� , 04 A� �<
G F
G1
Office of County Engineer
411 EAST II1GH STREET
I CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
J. HARVEY BAILEY
COUNTY ENGINEER
MEMORANDUM.r
DATE:- July 15, 1975
TO: Mary Joy Scala
FROM: J. Ashley Williams avw
SUBJECT: Site -Plan Review - Panorama/Charlottesville
J. ASHLEY WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
The Engineering Department has reviewed the
revised site -plan of Panorama/Charlottesville. Approval
is given on the site -plan contingent to the review and
final approval of the following:
(a) Sanitary sewer system including State Health
Department approval of the left stations;
(b. Water distribution system;
(c) Storm drainage system;
(d) Road design.
JAW/ap
Albemarle County Planning
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Va.
Dear Sirs:
As of -
Box 467, Route 8
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
July 5, 1975
Commission
T
My wife and I^, owner of adjacent property to the proposal
to buIA d 16A, town houses north side Route 631 and east side
of route 743,. wish to enter ourselves in strong protest against
this proposal and to urge the -Planning Commission to deny the
request.
We understand that this site is not Included for such
purposes in the Master Plan, which we believe should be scrupulously
adhered to.
We know for a fact that the traffic burden generated by
such a development would overload the narrow roads into Charlottes—
ville, already carrying a heavy burden of traffic and being
correspondingly dangerous.
We are uncertain whether the population of such a
development can be schooled in existing facilities. We are aware
of the extra congestion caused to taaffic by -the extensive use of
the number of school buses required to transport the children from
this sI ie.
We are away from town on vacation and so have no
opportunity to inspect the site plan, but we are concerned that
It may verge too close to the reservoir and cause incipient or
actual pollution of this important water source. Being on vacati-on
we do not know whether city or.county water and sewage lines to
this srea already exist. If not, we believe there would be
an excessive burden on available facilities to hook in and extend
these lines, and that cess pools and the like, including wells
for drinking water, are not practicable in so large an area
that is relatively adjacent to the reservoir.
Yours faithfully,
i�ancy Ve Bowers
Fredson Bowers
�actning �tipart�cnt
Mr. Jansen asked for the names of developments on other reservoirs and the results and
effectiveness of control in these areas.
Mr. Nerocky stated that the total runoff is what is important. He stated that his
firm always takes into consideration the current studies.
Ms. Lynn McClave stated that as a result of her attendance of the afternoon with some
of the agencies, the developer, and the planning staff that with fertilizer the danger is
greater with single-family development rather then high density development. She pointed
out that Lake Johnson in Raleigh, N.C., is a similiar development.
Mr. Wendell Wood told the Commission that he had tried to meet all the criteria set
forth by the ordinances and by the County Planning staff and Planning Commission per the
last meeting. He stated that he had met with all the agencies, and that he is under dead-
line because of a contract. He said that he had brought in outside consultants, and that
the people opposed to the development were the same people who always opposed such develop-
ment - the "no growth people." He asked that the planning staff give its recommendation,
and he asked for comments from the Planning Commission and County Attorney.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves asked that the recommendations by Mr. Smart should be considered regarding
this development. She suggested that these remarks be a part of the record.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that he had comments from Mr. Smart, former chairman of
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District on behalf of the Citizens for Albemarle.
Mr. Tucker read these comments from Mr. Smart on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle.
(ATTACHED)
Mr. Easter asked the staff recommendation.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff had found the request to be in order with the condi-
tions she had brought out at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt the Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, and
then defer action until August 12, 1975.
Mrs. Craddock stated that there are technicalities that need to be addressed, that she
felt the proposal to be premature, that there is a joint study of the reservoir that will
begin in August that will take from fourteen months to two years for completion, and that
the Planning Commission needed the guidelines that would be established by the Board of
Supervisors regarding a proposed moratorium on development in the watershed area, especially
around the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he felt this is to be an excellant plan, with one area for
concern, that being the mechanism to control storm water runoff into the reservoir, in some
cases at probable extreme cost. He requested guidelines for testing criteria of water, the
design of the sediment basins regarding the amount of rainfall over a period of years, and
the time of testing. He stated that this could be a precedent setting case in the nation,
most certainly in the County of Albemarle, and acknowledged that if criteria can be set,
these criteria need to be considered.
Mrs. Graves questioned the route of school buses in the area, asking if they would
go into the development.
Mr. Easter wanted to know who will pay for monitoring the runoff, and said that he felt
that some sort of agreement should be made between the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
and Mr. Hausler in order that there is no cost to the County.
Mrs. Craddock moved that action on the request be deferred until there had been
some decision from the Board of Supervisors regarding their proposed moratorium, and
until the questions posed by Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Easter could be answered.
Mr.Carr said that Hickman and Associates and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
should explore the question of the cost of monitoring, the agency that would do it, and the
cost.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff will explore the question of who is to absorb the cos
Mr. Carr asked that the motion be amended to include the date to which the request woul,
be deferred.
Mrs. Craddock did this, stating the date as August 12, 1975.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Hausler asked if another deferral could be anticipated at that date.
Mr. Carr told him, "Hopefully, no."
Mr. Rinehart asked if there were any other conditions that need to be addressed before
that date. He said that he himself was interested in the request to waive the fences.
Mr. Hausler stated that they proposed decks and wing walls in some cases for privacy.
Mrs. Scala again read the recommendations from the staff.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Planning staff would submit the following
items in writing to be considered by the applicant:
1. Submit criteria for testing storm runoff;
2. Design parameters for sediment basins;
3. Who will bear the costs of monitoring the runoff;
4. Who will conduct the monitoring;
5. How often should the monitoring be conducted;
6. Estimate of costs which may be incurred for monitoring;
7. Submit plans or written comments on what type of physical or natural barrier is pro-
posed to prevent access to the reservoir.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors has re-
quested that the Planning Commission might wish to make some comments regarding development
around the reservoir area and in the entire watershed. The chairman asked if the Commissio
wished to make these statements as a body or if they wished to make individual comments.
He stated that the Board is interested in comments regarding the continued protection of
the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Rinehart stated that if criteria can be realized and enforced, and if the
county can establish performance criteria for development around the reservoir, there may
not be a problem with the possible pollution from urban development. He stated
that if these criteria can be established for limiting pollution, it will be the de-
cision of the developer to see if he can afford it.
??�v C "'i
CITIZENS FOR ALBEMARLE
Comments on Site Plan for "Charlottesvil-b Panorama"
July, 1975
1. According to the Comprehensive Master Plan, this section of the urban area is
to be developed at a density of 2.5 units per acre. The slopes adjacent to the
reservoir were recommended for protection as open space. No density credit was
recommended for the areas withheld from development.
2. In a recent visit to the site, I,Ir. John Smart, former Chairman of the Thomas
Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and President of the Albemarle County
Farm Bureau, stated that since this site is bounded on the west by serere slopes
rising from two tributary streams and the Rivanna Reservoir, grading and development
would require extensive control measures to prevent slippage into the reservoir.
Because the soil at the bottom of the slopes is saturated with water, any pressure
at the top might cause the entire slope to collapse. He recommended that the
following measures be made conditions for site plan approval in order to minimize
this danger:
A. Before grading begins, a cement diversion terrace should be placed along the
the top of the entire slope.
B. During grading no soil should be pushed over the slope. All dirt dislodged
should be hauled away (and disposed of in such a manner to avoid erosion elsewhere).
C. No fill dirt should be placed for at least 50 feet from the top of the slope.
I?, No drnAnq should be 0.3.nwe to dr_,ros,t rin-off on th-_M s1cYc.
E. Run-off from the developed area should be diverted to a sediment basin designed
by a competent engineer and of sufficient sire to contain all run-off until mud
and other pai-ticles have settled. Careful calculations should be required to demon-
strate the adequacy of this basin. This basin must be a permanent installation,
regularly cleaned and maintained. No pipes shoO_d conduct runeff to the reservoir
without passim, throu h the dedimcnt basin.
F. After treatment in the sediment basin, the run-off should be carried to the
adjacent stream iii a large pipe of sufficient capacity to prevent overflow and
washing. Collars should be installed on the pipe to prevent leakage. At the
bottom of the slope a second sedia:ictnt basin of sufficient size should be installed
to prevent the escape of any particles remaining in the run-off.
G. A hiLfence should be constructed along the entire top of the slope along a
contour line to prevent traffic on the slope by children and pets, causing destruction
of vegetation and resultant erosion.
H. All buildings at the edge of the slope shoi:ld be set on piles sunk 20 feet deep.
3. Further treatment of run-off. Due to the additonal pollutants such as oil, metals,
and chemicals found in parking lot run-off (335 spaces estimated in site plan), some
facility should be designed to remove these substances before they reach the reservoir.
The developer should demonstrate in detail what means he will employ, and such a plan
Should be a requirement for preliminary site plan approval.
M
Mrs. Craddock stated her feelings that a moratorium of some sort should be declared
to protect the dying water supply. She stated that there is no reason that a farmer can't
be told to stop plowing right up to a stream's edge. She stated that high density on steep
slopes is bound to pollute a reservoir. The extent of the moratorium should be left up to
the Board of Supervisors, since unless something is done right away, there will be no reser-
voir. She also suggested that if the Board's action makes a property owner's land condemned
the county should think of preparing some sort of means by which to purchase the land.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt that Mr. Rinehart had suggested the necessary guide-
lines, and that it was his feeling that there could be development if it is done properly
with the proper rules. He stated that a moratoruim limited to the developer will be arbi-
trary. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the proper location for a reservoir used for drinking
water should be located in the mountains, where there is natural foliage for protection.
He also stated that perhaps the Charlottesville Panorama Site Plan should be used as a test
project. He stated that there would be probably very little runoff from this project as
compared to organic runoff.
Mr. Barksdale said that his opinions are the same as those of Mr. Rinehart and Mr.
Gloeckner.
Mr. Easter said that he has drawn no conclusion concerning development around the re-
servoir. He said that perhaps the county should take an option on the property in this
area in order that the property owner could have some sort of pecuniary remunerations.
Mr. McClure said that there has been no conclusion drawn about the link between land
use and pollution. He seemed to think that high density might have less to do with pollu-
tion than agircultural runoff. He said that if there is a moratorium, it should be uniform.
Mr. Carr said he felt that there is no evidence that is strong that names high density
in the reservoir area as the culprit. He stated that it would be difficult to convince
him that activity in the watershed area can be controlled sufficiently to preserve the re-
servoir without damaging a great deal of activity in the County of Albemarle. Soil erosion
from high density seems to be the only problem as far as high density is concerned.
Mr. Tinsley said that with conditions that can be enforced, he saw no reason to cur-
tail development in that area.
Mrs. Graves addressed the problem on development in the reservoir area by stating that
the policy of the Comprehensive Plan speaks to Conservation in the areas of water supply.
She said that she did not know what guidelines could be employed until the study of the
reservoir is completed, therefore suggesting that a moratorium is in order. She suggested
a moratorium on taxes in this area might be used until the study is complete. She stated
that she was probably the only member of the Commission who paid a water bill whose in-
creased rates would reflect the cost of the study that would soon commence.
Mr. Rinehart said that possible engineering to have a fail-safe method for development
on the reservoir might be possible. He said that it is the responsibility of the County to
set stringent conditions for development that might later even be relaxed. However, a num-
ber of large acre sites such as the proposal that had been reviewed that evening could be a
problem to monitor.
Mr. Carr asked if the Commission wished to make a statement to the Board of Supervisors
as a body.
The Planning Commission decided that it could not reach a consensus, and Mr. Carr asked
that the staff enumerate the individual feelings of the members of the Commission.
4-1-)
Mr. Easter put this suggestion into the form of a. motion, which was seconded by Mr.
McClure; it carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves asked the chairman that the individual members be allowed to see the
comments that would be sent on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr directed the staff that these should be presented to the Commission at the
next regular meeting.
Appointment of ex-officio members of Planning Commission to the Site Review Committee:
After a brief discussion of the need for input from the Planning Commission at the
advisory level, it was decided by the Chairman that membership on this committee would be
done on a rotation basis. Mr. Rinehart and Mrs. Craddock were appointed to serve for the
September and October meetings.
Limiting the number of agenda items on subdivision/site plan meetings of the Planning
Commission:
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff needs a statement of policy from the Commission re-
garding the number of items that can be placed on an agenda at site plan/subdivision meeting
Mr. McClure moved that the staff's recommendation that the agenda on the third Tuesday
be limited to 12 items be accepted. He also included in the motion that anything that goee
over 12 items be heard by the Commission on the fourth Tuesday of the month, and that bit
items be scheduled for the fourth Tuesday.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
F9