Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-17November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 491 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 7:42 P.M.). Absent: Miss Ellen V. Nash. Offi~cers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Principal Planner, Keith Mabe. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:41 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that Miss Ellen Nash had fallen yesterday afternoon and is hospitalized. Since she cannot be present tonight he had informed her that no action would be taken to adopt either the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study or on the Comprehensive Plan until next month. (Mr. Lindstorm arrived at 7:42 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: SP-82-63. Alice H. Browning (Catherine Buffalo). To locate a mobile home on 8.003 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located on the north side of Route 53 about 8/10 mile west of intersection of Route 729 and Route 53. County Tax Map 093, Parcel 15. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 12, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, presented the following staff report: SP-82-63 Alice Browning Owens Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 8.003 acres Zoning: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 93, parcel 15, is located on a private road which intersects the northeast side of Rte. 53, about 8/10 mile northwest of Rte. 729. Character of the Area: This site is located on a private road about one-half mile from Rte. 53. Two dwellings at Rte. 53 are served by this road. One other dwelling, newly constructed, is located about 850 feet from this site toward Rte. 53. Directly adjacent to the site is a temporary mobile home and dwelling under construction. (The special permit for this mobile home expires January 7, 1983). This site is wooded. Staff Comment: Mrs. Owens is applying for this permit for her mother, Mrs. Buffalo. Four or five junk vehicles are located on the site. While the site is listed as eight acres, it consists of two physically separate pieces (These pieces may not be sold or transferred separately without subdivision approval by the Planning Commission). Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) Removal of junk vehicles prior to location of mobile home on the site. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 16, 1982, recommended approval of SP-82-63 with the conditions recommended by the staff and a third condition reading: "Maintenance agreement to be approved by County Attorney." Mr. Tucker then noted three letters received in opposition to this petition. The letters were from Mr. and Mrs. Clifton Pennington, adjacent property owners to the west of the property, letter dated November 1, 1982; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Good, property owners to the west of the property, letter dated October 27, 1982; and Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Himelrick, property owners about 850 feet toward Route 53, letter dated November 1, 1982. Mr. Fisher asked if the third condition recommended by the Planning Commission about the maintenance agreement is in regard to the road. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher asked how a temporary permit for this mobile home got issued. Mr. Tucker said the permit for the mobile home located on the property adjacent to this property was administratively approved originally as an interim means of housing while the applicant constructed a conventional dwelling. When the permit expired, the applicant (Mr. Fuller) came to the Board and requested a permanent mobile home permit, but the permit was granted for only two years so it expires in January 1983. Mr. Fisher asked if the permit for the mobile home on the adjacent property is only to allow the construction of a permanent home. Mr. Tucker said yes; there is a home being constructed, and it is about 50% complete. The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mrs. Alice Browning Owens, the applicant. She said the purpose of the request is to get her mother back into the community. Even though there is opposition to the petition from adjacent property owners, the mobile home is not visible. Mrs. Owens said she agrees with all the conditions except for the road maintenance agreement. She did not feel that condition would have been required if a house were to be constructed on the property. Mrs. Owens did not feel the Board has the authority to impose this restriction. She noted that the persons who will be living in the mobile home, her mother and step-father, do not drive an automobile so there will not be any vehicular traffic. She also noted that the persons opposing the 4,9 2 November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) petition use the road themselves to go back to land for hunting. Therefore, she did not want to maintain a road for that purpose. Mrs. Owens said the property in question was owned by her family prior to any of those in opposition living in the area. For these reasons, Mrs. Owens requested approval of the petition without the third condition recommended by the Planning Commission regarding the maintenance agreement. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Owens if her mother has housing. Mrs. Owens said her mother and step-father are living in an apartment that is too small for two people. Speaking next was Mr. Garrett Kirksey, president and owner of the Milton Development Corporation, and developer of Milton Hills, a subdivision continguous to the subject property. The houses in that subdivision range in price from $80,000 to $150,000 and were built in the last five to eight years. He felt it would be a shame, after his corporation has worked so hard with an architectural committee to make sure that the houses built comply with the rules and regulations for Milton Hills, to then allow a mobile home next to Milton Hills. Mr. Kirksey said the corporation has been to court to get restrictions upheld and he hoped that the restrictions would be upheld tonight. Mr. Fisher asked if the subject property abuts any property in Milton Hills. Mr. Kirkse'y said yes, two lots. Next to speak was Mr. Ralph Himelrick, property owner of the newly constructed home on the entrance road, which is about 850 feet from this site. He noted that he maintains the road which is close to one-half mile in length. He has incurred all the maintenance expenses for the road. Mr. Himelrick noted that other persons using the road have refused to contribute to maintenance costs of the road. He said that his home is also higher priced and he does not feel that a mobile home being placed adjacent to his property is in his best interest. He noted that the junk cars mentioned in the staff report have been on the subject property for six years. As far as the Buffalo's not having a driving permit, he felt someone would have to take them in and out. Therefore, he did not agree with the lack of vehicular traffic. He also noted that Mrs. Fuller, who lives in the rear of the property, drives a school bus across this road. In conclusion, Mr. Himelrick said he would be disappointed if the petition is approved. Mr. Robert Thompson, property owner in Milton Hills whose property abuts the parcel in question, spoke. He seconded the words of Mr. Kirksey that the people who live in Milton Hills are geared to high standards of construction and design of the community. He noted being proud of the community and pointed out on the map that most of the property to the east of the property in question lies in Milton Hills and adjacent subdivisions. These areas have significant potential for growth. He felt it is in the best interest of this region of Albemarle County that the high standards which presently exist be maintained. Next to speak was Mr. Gerry Dixon, architect and member of the architectural review board. He said his property does not abut this property but his concern is the same as each individual in the community. He felt the main thing about this petition is being careful about what kind of precedents are set. Mr. Dixon felt that it is important to try to keep precedents from taking over issues. Mr. Robert Good, owner of property next to Mr. Fuller, said it is his hope to be able some day to build on his property, but he does not desire to build in a trailer court. He understands that if this permit is approved then Mr. Fuller will try for a permanent permit and he has heard that perhaps another mobile home will be requested for the two acres adjoining this property. Mrs. Bernice Hereker, property owner in Milton Hills, spoke next, and noted that the smaller tract of land abuts her property. She then asked how a special permit could be approved for this applicant when Mr. Fuller could not obtain one. She said property values are of concern to herself and the other people in Milton Hills who have worked hard as a group to clear the land to have a community they can be proud of. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the third condition recommended by the Planning Commission is enforceable. He also asked if the temporary mobile home is on an adjacent tract to this property. Mr. Tucker said yes, a temporary mobile home permit was issued but expired before construction of the home started so the owners' only recourse was to apply for a permanent mobile home permit. The Board saw fit to issue the permit for only two years and the permit is about to expire again. Mr. Lindstrom again asked if condition #3 is legitimate when there is no new subdivision lot being created. Mr. St. John thought it would be, but did not feel that the people who already have homes on the road can be required to join into this .homeowners agreement "after the fact." He felt the condition is enforceable as to the applicant provided that the other homeowners agree to join in. Mr. Fisher said if condition #3 is intended to apply to all of the property owners and any property owner decides not to agree, it will essentially veto the special permit. Mr. St. John said if the mobile homeowner agrees to the condition, then he has fulfilled the obligation placed on him. Mr. Fisher said the issue of the extension of the permit on the adjoining property was a request that the Board heard about two years ago. He thinks the reason the perm'it was only issued temporarily was. due to the opposition of the neighbors. If the permit expires and the permanent house is near completion, and the permit is extended for a few months, he assumes that by the end of 1983 the mobile home will be removed from the property. The question tonight is whether the Board wants to create another mobile home on a permanent basis. Mr. Lindstrom said this is not one of the easier mobile home requests that the Board has heard because of the opposition and he understands the reasons for the opposition. The Board has resisted issuing mobile home permits when a mobile home would be rented, used as a vacation home or hunting lodge etc. Other than that, he does not remember a mobile home permit being denied for an actual residence. Mr. Lindstrom said the .ordinances of the County set out certain controls for siting, screening and also allow the Board to place conditions on mobile homes in a way that is advantageous to the County. In his own mind, he has a hard time distinguishing between a mobile home and another type of permanent dwelling. November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to preserve the mobile home ordinance and offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval with the three conditions. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr.· Lindstrom's statement. He felt something much less attractive than a mobile home could be built on the property and either type of dwelling could be maintained in a number of different ways. He. did not feel the Board could tell someone who has owned property for years how to maintain that property. He felt removal of the junk vehicles would help. He then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the proposed occupants of this mobile home have housing in The Meadows. He has supported mobile home applications where people did not have any housing, but where there is a considerable amount of opposition and no permanent precedent for mobile homes in an area, he finds its hard to do this to people who have invested as much as these people in Milton Hills have invested in this subdivision. Mr. Fisher felt approval of this request would create a permanent situation when there are other housing options. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher did not feel he could support the request for a permanent mobile home. Mrs. Cooke said she is somewhat familiar with the character of the area and she does not feel that this type of construction enhances an area. She supported the statement of~ Mr. Fisher that this does not appear to be a hardshi~ case since the applicant does have housing at the moment. For that reason, in order to preserve the area, and in order not to set al,precedent in the area, she would not support the motion. Mr. Butler sympathized with the persons having problems with housing particularly at this time.. However, he feels there are other alternatives to a mobile home that are just as inexpensive. Mr. Butler said because there are other alternatives available, he would not support placing a permanent mobile home in this area at this time. Roll was then called on the motion which failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstorm. NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 3A. Public Hearing: Budget Amendments. School Bus Driver and Pupil Safety Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 9, 1982.) Mr. Agnor said this is a Federal grant awarded through the State Department of Transportation Safety for a School Bus Driver Training Program and Pupil Rider Safety Instruction in the amount of $13,118 for the period from October 1, 1982, through September 30, 1983. Mr. Ray B. Jones in a memorandum dated November 4, 1982, recommends that this grant be handled in the County's Grant Fund since the allocation goes beyond the end of the County's fiscal year. The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against the budget amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution with same being effective on November 24, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $13,118 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and Coded to 9302-3012 for 1982 School Bus Driver and Pupil Safety Program. AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues in the 1982-83 County Budget shall be amended by addition of Code 102404.210, 1982 Safety Grant Funding (Project No. SB81-12-04-82t) in the amount of $13,118. AND FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be effective on and after November 24, 1982. Agenda Item No. 3b. Public Hearing: Budget Amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 9, 1982) Refunds (Soil Erosion Bond). Mr. Agnor said this is.actually for a site development plan bond and not a soil erosion bond in the amount of $30,169.13. The bond was cash by the County and placed in the General Fund. The Director of Finance now needs the Board's authorization to refund this amount to the depositor of the bond. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the budget amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by. Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution with same being effective November 24, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $30,169.13 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund. Coded to 9201-5803.14 for Refund-Site Plan Bond; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be effective on and after November 24, 1982. Agenda Item No. 4a. Agenda Item No. Second Reading: Second Reading: Budget Amendment. Budget Amendment. ESEE Title IV-B (Libraries). Instructional Supplies. 494 November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Agnor said the public hearing on these amendments was held last week and this is the seven day delay required before making the actual appropriations. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolutions: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $6,200 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated form the School Fund and Coded to 17RK-405 for ESEE, Title IV-B, Libraries, Instructional Equi~pment-Capital Outlay (this amount is the unused portion of the 1981 grant); AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues of the 1982-83 County Budget in the Education section shall be amended by the addition of Code 23301.040, ESEE, Title IV-B, Libraries, in the amount of $6,200; AND FURTHER that this resolution shall be effective on and after November 17, 1982. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and Coded to 17J-305 for Instructional Supplies AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues of the 1982-83 County Budget in the Education section be amended by the addition of $2,000 in Code 21803.020, Rents and Rebates, to cover additional monies received from the University of Virginia; AND FURTHER that this resolution shall be effective on and after November 17, 1982. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the two resolutions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 5a. Request from JAUNT: Authorize transfer of local match funds. Mr. Agnor said JAUNT has become a corporation under Virginia Law but the old corporation cannot be dissolved until several items are completed. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, needs authority to t~ansfer the local match funds appropriated by the County for FY 1982-83 from the corporation (Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc.) to JAUNT, Inc. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 5b. signing new contract. Request from JAUNT: Authorize JAUNT to provide transportation by Mr. Agnor said this contract between Albemarle County and JAUNT, Inc., is a document similar to an agreement executed a couple of years ago. Mr. St. John has reviewed the agreement and approved the form of same. Mr. Agnor requested that he be authorized to execute the contract and noted that the contract changes only the title to JAUNT, INC. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute the following contract. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. CONTRACT BETWEEN JAUNT, INC. AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 19th day of November, 1982, between JAUNT, INC. (JAUNT), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the County). 1. TERM OF CONTRACT: This agreement shall cover the period from November 1, 1982, through September 30, 1983, inclusive. 2. SERVICES PROVIDED: JAUNT shall provide the following services to residents of Albemarle County: a. Fixed route service between Crozet and Charlottesville. b. Fixed route service between Scottsville and Charlottesville. c. Contract services to participants or clients of medical and educational institutions, businesses, service organizations, churches and human services agencies who reside in, or use services located in, the County. NOvember 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 495 d. Demand-responsive services to groups or individuals of the general public residing in the County. e. Ride-Sharing services in the form of technical assistance and computerized matching for employees of County located business or to residents of the County. f. Any other transportation services as mutually agreed upon by JAUNT and the County. 3. FEE FOR SERVICES: a. For the above-described services, JAUNT will charge its passengers according to its rate schedule in effect on October 1, 1982. A copy of this rate schedule is attached and hereby made a part of this aEreement. Ail fares will be based on JAUNT'S current hourly rate. Any changes or amendments in rates recommended by the Board while this contract is in effect will be presented to the County for approval before being implemented. Rate changes in the urbanized area will be subject to public hearing as required by UMTA regulations. No user fees will be charged for Ride-Share assistance. b. The County has agreed to appropriate funds for the local fiscal year (July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983) in the amound of $12,938.00. Appropri- ations for the finaI quarter of the term of this contract will be subject to the outcome of the regular budget allocation process for local fiscal year 1983-84. ~ 4. SCHEDULING AND PASSENGER PRIORITY: Ail services will be prioritized according to JAUNT'S goals and objectives, attached and hereby made a part of this agreement. Trips will be scheduled and coordinated for maximum cost efficiency and vehicle utilization. Ail JAUNT vehicles will be available to the general public at all times, and all group contracts will so specify. 5. SPECIFICATIONS OF PERFORMANCE: a. JAUNT shall provide the above-described services in a timely and courteous manner, in clean, safely maintained, fully-insured vehicles. JAUNT shall not be obligated to provide transportation services during hazardous driving conditions, or to carry any passenger who represents a threat to the safety or comfort of the other occupants of the vehicle. Requests for service outside the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. of the regular work week or on State and/or National holidays shall be honored at the discretion of JAUNT. b. The County shall assist in making these services known in Albemarle County. 6. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT: agreement of both parties. This contract may be renewed by the written 7. MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT: This contract may be modified by the written approval of both parties. This contract may not be assigned or transferred by either party without prior consent of the other. 8. TERMINATION: This contract and its obligations may be terminated by either party on sixty (60) days written notice. (Note: the Board.) Attachments referred to in the contract are on file in the Office of thebClerk to Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on a resolution to include the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) as an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan for 1982-2002. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 11, 1982.) Mr. Fisher again stated that the Board will not take final action on this item tonight, but will wait until Miss Nash can be present. He then noted that many citizens, elected officials, the staff of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the staff of the County Planning Department, the staff of the City Planning Department, and other persons had worked on this study for many years. The request to the Board is to review the recom- mendations and make a judgment as to what the needs of the community will be for the time frame studied. These recommendations will then be made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan for planning purposes. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Ken Lantz, Jr., Associate Transportation Planning Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, who was responsible for preparation and coordination of the CATS study for the Highway Department staff. Mr. Lantz noted pleasure at being present tonight to give the findings and recommendations of the CATS Committees. Mr. Lantz noted that City Council has, by resolution adopted October 4, 1982, approved the study document. Adoption is also needed by the Board of Supervisors in order to make this the official document guiding the development of transportation facilities in this area. Mr. Lantz said that the number of vehicle trips per day by persons in cars, buses, bicycles, and other forms of transportation, is directly related to the type of land use that is occuring along a given road or in a given area. The purpose of transportation planning is to convert the forecast of future land use into a forecast for future travel. This involves four steps: l) Collection of data regarding existing land use and traffic volumes; 2) Develop equations relating these traffic volumes to land use; 3) Use the equations to produce future levels of travel; 4) Test different ways of.accommodating the travel. In order to produce estimates of future travel, land use activities must first be estimated. November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) To simplify this process, the study area was divided into many zones in which there was only one land use each. For each of the zones, an estimate was made of the number of persons, cars, houses, students, employees, and the average household income for the years from 1974 through 2000. Mr. Lantz said that it is important to keep in mind that between the year 1974 and the year 2000, the population in the study area is expected to increase over 100%; from 29,800 persons to 61,800 persons. Vehicle trips per day in the study area are expected to increase from 258,000 in 1974 to over 485,000 in the year 2000. In order to forecast how this increase in traffic will affect travel times in the study area, the level of service for each roadway was calculated and four sets of alternatives were tested. The committee then came up with a combination of widening of existing roadways and construction of new facilities (Note: See Minute Book 21, Pages 39-41, January 28, 1982, at which time Mr. Lantz made the same presentation to the Board.). Mr. Lantz then listed the proposed improvements. He noted that the study contains recommendations for public transit, bicycles, air, and rail transit. He said that the recommendations are the best judgment of the Policy and Technical Committees for the area transportation needs until the year 2000. Mr. Fisher asked the recommendations of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said that on September 28, 1982, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan with regard to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, with certain changes from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation draft study, said changes outlined in the staff report which follows: After several work sessions between the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the Albemarle County Planning Commission, it appears that a consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendations of the CATS proposal. Staff has prepared an amendment for the Comprehensive Plan 1977-1995, incorporating comments from members of the Planning Commission. This same amendment is also recommended for the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. Basically, the attached text to the Plan and Revised Plan makes three significant changes to the CATS proposal: Delete the Route 20 - Rio Road Connector from the CATS proposal because of the problems encountered with proper alignment and more importantly it was generally determined after further analysis that this route was not necessary. Shift the proposed Western Bypass from Phase II to Phase IV as it was determined that this road would not be needed in the immediate future as well as provide additional time to analyze the need for such a facility based on improvements proposed in Phase II and the impact such a facility would have on the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed. Shift McIntire Road Extension between Rio Road and Route 29 North (Hollymead) from Phase IV to Phase II. This improvement along with improvements proposed to Route 29 North should provide viable transportation alternatives for the Urban and Hollymead growth areas for the foreseeable future. Recommended Text: (Text should appear .as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan 1977-1995, following page 20. Map X replaces current map on Page 20. Text and map are also recommended for the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, to be pages 221-229 with Map 18 on page 223.) The transportation needs and recommended improvements in the Charlottesville Transportation Study Area have been determined based upon an analysis of existing conditions and a study and evaluation of projected growth within the City of Charlottesville and the contiguous area of Albemarle County expected to be urbanized by the year 2000. The improvements that are recommended have been designed to improve the present level of transportation service and to meet, at a relatively high level of service, the transportation needs for the study area in the year 2000. It is hoped that these recommendations will serve as a useful tool for making decisions concerning future development in the Charlottesville Transportation Study area. It should not be interpreted, however, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or the City of Charlottesville or Albemarle County by adopting this plan are required to initiate these improvements or that development is limited to those recommended. Following is a summary of the recommendations for transportation improvements that will be necessary to satisfy existing and future demands placed on the local transportation systems. More detailed information regarding each proposed improvement can be found in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study, prepared for the County and City by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in 1981. This is available in the Planning ~epartment, located in the Albemarle County Office Building. Highway Recommendations: Major highway improvements include both those projects that are already committed to being constructed and those additional projects that are recommended to be built in phases by the year 2000. Major projects are shown on Map X in the Comprehensive Plan 1977-1995 and on Map 18 in the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. Committed projects for the County include: Hydraulic Road between Route 29 and Route 631 (Rio Road) - Widen to four lanes divided. McIntire Road Extension between Melbourne Road and Route 631 (Rio Road) - Construct new four lane limited access facility. 497 NOvember 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Phase I projects are: Route 29 North between South Fork of Rivanna River and Rio Road - Widen to six lanes divided. Route 29 North between Rio Road and Hydraulic Road - Widen to six lanes divided. Rio Road between Route 29 North and McIntire Road - Widen to four lanes divided. Route 250 East between East High Street and Route 20 (including Rivanna River bridge) - Widen to six lanes divided. Rio Road between Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Route 29 North - Widen to four lanes. Recommendations for Phase II projects include: McIntire Road Extension between Rio Road and Route 29 North - Construct new four lane partially controlled access facility. Route 250 West between Route 29/250 Bypass and Route 677 - Widen to four lanes divided. Route 250 West between Route 677 and Route 637 - Widen to four lanes undivided. Ivy Road (Route 250 Business) between Emmet Street and Route 29/250 Bypass - Widen to four lanes with flush median. Route 631 South from 0.56 miles North Route 706 to Route 1103 - Construct new four lane divided facility to improve alignment. Route 250 East between Route 20 and Interstate 64 - Widen to four lanes divided. Phase III projects are: Greenbrier Drive Extension between Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road - Construct new two lane facility. Route 29 North - Rio Road Intersection - Construct grade separated interchange. Georgetown Road between Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road - Reconstruct two lanes to improve alignment. Projects recommended for Phase IV include: Route 29 North - Hydraulic Road Intersection - Construct grade separated interchange. Hydraulic Road - Route 250 Bypass Intersection - Construct grade separated interchange. Route 637 between Route 250 West and Interstate 64 - Reconstruct two lanes to improve alignment. Western Bypass between Route 29 North and Route 29/250 Bypass - Construct new four lane limited access facility with interchanges at Route 29 North, Route 743, Route 654, and Route 29/250 Bypass. In addition to the major highway projects, a number of transportation system management (TSM) projects have been approved for implementation. These projects, which consist of improved signalization, improved inter- section geometrics, etc. will be made at several locations. Ail of the TSM projects are within the City's corporate limits. Public Transportation Improvements: Recommendations for the ~ublic transportation element were made for the short and long term (five and ten years, respectively), and are too numerous to completely list~here, but are summarized below. A complete list of recommendations may be found in Chapter Four of the Charlottesville Area TranspOrt~at~ion Study, 1981. Extension and improved headways on Charlottesville Transit Services' routes. Suggested improvements should be instituted incrementally over the next ten years. Improvements in transit services in the following areas: - Fares (Resolve fare incompatability between CTS, UTS (University Transit Service), and JAUNT: provide discount day passes to shoppers; promote commuter passes; encourage employers to make available to employees discount passes; and other general recommendations). - Marketing (increase interest in public transportation through better marketing actions such as distribution of maps through commercial outlets; enlist community support; increased advertising). November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) - Elderly and Handicapped (increase use of volunteers in program; development of special courses on elderly and handicapped for drivers and users; increase level of service to social agency clients; etc). - Bus Stops (more convenient stops and improved facilities). - Fringe Lots (possible locations include the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport; Fashion Square Shopping Mall; the University of Virginia; Piedmont Virginia Community College; churches; and excess road right-of-way). A two step plan to improve the administration and planning of the area's three public transportation provides as follows: - Cooperation - Coordination Use of school buses in the transportation system. Better use of taxis in the transportation system. Continue to implement ride-sharing programs in the area. A review of pertinent literature and operational experience of other public transportation providers has resulted in the identification of some ten innovative treatments and strategies that could potentially increase transit patronage in our area. These include: - Priority treatment - Route deviation - Use of railroad right-of-way - Personal rapid transit - Expanded demand-responsive services - Shared-ride taxis - Light rail transit - Short-Germ car rental - Special fixed-route services - Improved multi-modal transfer provisions - User-side subsidies Aviation Recommendations: Major recommendations for air operations in the study area include: Install additional navigational equipment in order to improve airspace and control capacity. Growth of the airport's facilities should be coordinated with its surroundings. Improvements to parking at the airport should be made in order to improve the circulation pattern, to make more effective use of the terminal curb side, and to segregate short and long term parking. In addition, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport prepared a Master Plan Update for the Airport in 1981. The Board of Supervisors approved the Update as a guide relating to future land use decisions in the airport area in May 1981. Railroad Recommendations: Several steps should be taken to preserve the rail system as a complement and supplement to other transportation modes. These recommended steps include: Continue to monitor and evaluate at the local,~ regional, and state level the impacts of proposed mergers, deregulation, abandonments, etc. Promote the continuation of rail passenger service to the Charlottesville area by Amtrak. Develop a multi-modal transportation center at the location currently used as an Amtrak Station. Promote the utilization of rail lines in the industrial development and comprehensive planning efforts of the local jurisdictions. Bicycle Recommendations: Recommendations for improving bicycle transportation in the study area must address engineering, education and enforcement needs. The recommendations for each area are summarized below. 499 November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Engineering~r~ecOmmendations include: Ensure that the appropriate bicycle facilities are incorporated in local and regional development plans. Provide at schools, public libraries, the University of Virginia, the downtown mall, shopping centers, parks and recreation center~, and other appropriate areas parking devices which secure the entire bicycle. ® Develop an ongoing roadway hazard identification and elimination program. At signalized intersections with heavy bicycle use, modify vehicle detectors to make them sensitive to bicycles. In addition to bicycle-sensitive detectors, incorporate in roadway projects such features as adequate roadway width and sight distance, bicycle-safe inlets, etc. Select locations for recommended routes on the basis of: - Safety - Demand - Use of existing easements, right-of-way, etc. - Ability to connect activity centers - Need to link neighborhoods with community facilities and schools - User convenience - Optimum use of the natural environment. Enforcement recommendations include: Develop a coordinated city, county and University of Virginia regis- tration system, backed by adequate enforcement and publicity. Expand registration locations to include local government offices, police departments, schools, bike shops, libraries, banks, etc. Improve the accident reporting and analysis procedures such that a more complete picture of causative factors and subsequent corrective measure is obtained. Devise an effective enforcement program with the assistance of cyclists, educators, civic groups, etc. that is characterized by consistency, emphasis on proper registration, adequate and appropriate penalities and the positive attitudes and knowledge of police and the courts. Institute a peer enforcement and court system for the purpose of dealing with youthful bicycle riders who are observed violating traffic and safety laws. Efforts in education should include: As part of high school driver training classes emphasize the respon- sibility of the motorist to the cyclist. Provide an information package on bicycle safety, registration, suggested routes, etc. to University of Virginia, Piedmont Virginia Community College, and public school students at the start of classes. Offer appropriate age and experience-level effective cycling courses as part of continuing education and special interest classes. Promote bicycle safety through the continuous use of maps, slide presentations, bumper stickers, media notices and announcements, a safety outreach team, bicycle week, and sponsorship of medium and long distance regional tours. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan of some of these projects will not make those projects eligible for Federal funds when said funds are available. Mr. Tuc said yes. An unidentified gentlemen asked if a project were left out of the plan if that would forever bar that project from eligibility for Federal funding. Mr. Lantz said at the present time a Metropolitan Planning Organization is being formed for this area of the State. This organization will be responsible for guiding the transportation planning and implementation of facilities in the area. Mrs. Cooke asked if any portion of the plan were found to be undesirable by the MPO, even though the Plan had been adopted by the City and County, if that portion could be deleted. Mr. Lantz replied that it could. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Donald Holden, Secretary for the Montvue Citizens Association, who read the following statement: The Western Bypass for Route 29 as proposed in the CATS study (and, I understand, approved by the Planning Commission) is, because of its overall ramifications, an improper application of otherwise acceptable highway engineering. 500 November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) We are against this location for such a roadway as, among other things, it abuts the western border of our subdivision. I trust you will be patient if I mention some things you are already fully aware of. While construction of such a roadway is, I understand, not envisioned to occur for 20 or more years, it is a mistake of the highest order for the present Board of Supervisors and the current population to put it in the long range plan. Such action would certainly compromise the living conditions of another generation for them to be faced with an open invitation to the Highway Dept. to build this road whenever it, in its wisdom, decides it should be done. I don't know whether you, under your procedures, can put only part of the CAT study into your Comprehensive Plan or must accept it in total as presented, or reject it wholly. But we respectively request that the suggested "Western Bypass" not be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan - even at the trouble of redoing the CAT study to eliminate same. You are fully aware, I'm sure, that if you accept this proposed "Western Bypass" you will be going completely counter to the policies you have evolved and adopted after long and careful consideration for the protection of the reservoir and its drainage area. We do inquire, however, if you intend to accept this proposal without having had made a detailed environmental impact study and analysis - and, incidentally, an economic analysis comparing it with other alternatives. No need to dwell on the horrors of living anywheres near a four lane express highway. You know as well as we this proposed roadway, if incorporated in the County's plan, will immediately downgrade the values of adjacent and near-adjacent property - and the start of construction, whenever it occurs, will result in further devaluation. Among other things we ask are you prepared and do you think it wise to substantially devalue some of the County's prime resi- dential property? We, as residents, have this immediate and practical objection to this proposed roadway for ourselves and for future residents. Would you want to live within earshot of such a highway? This proposal is not the only and sole solution to an extrapolated problem. We do not pretend to be experts in traffic flow and highway design. But we note that the early steps proposed for alleviating Route 29 traffic problems are additional laning and grade separation at intersections. Ail of which can essentially be accomplished within existing right of way. If the experience of subsequent years may develop still further traffic flow (and I emphasize the word MAY) it is no more than logical to add further laning - express lanes or elevated lanes - to. solve the problem as the parameters become better defined. This is a logical further step rather than a "Western Bypass" with all of its expense and bad effects. Other cities of both moderate and larger size in Virginia and other states have handled through traffic with construction and location of highways that do not impinge on their better residential areas. There may well be other alternatives to solving the envisioned problems that pointed the CAT study to the suggestion of a "Western Bypass". We respectfully request that this proposal of a "Western Bypass" not be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan and that State and area planning activities be directed to develop a workable alternative. Mrs. Bahs Huckle, was present for the League of Women Voters, and read the following statement: The League of Women Voters has previously expressed its opposition to the concept of a Western By-pass. We still feel it would be a totally inadvis- able solution to the traffic problem on Route 29 North. Foremost among our concerns is damage to the Rivanna Reservoir, both during construction of the By-pass and later during its use. So many steep slopes and tributary streams adjacent to the reservoir would have to be crossed it would not seem possible to prevent erosion and siltation during construction. A large interchange is planned for Hydraulic Road near the Ivy Creek Natural Area which has been viewed as a means of protecting water quality. Surface run-off and air pollution from cars and heavy vehicles using the Western By-pass would find its way into the reservoir thus putting harmful chemicals into our drinking water. It has been suggested that water quality problems at Ragged Mountain Reservoir were due to construction of 1-64. The Western By-pass would pass near St. Anne's-Belfield, Jouett, Greer and Albemarle High Schools. Experience in California with schools located near the freeways has shown that students can receive dangerous amounts of lead from breathing air containing pollution from vehicles. Construction of this By-pass with several interchanges will stimulate all categories of development of adjacent land thus completely invalidating the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County on which so much time, effort and concern has been spent. These problems have been recognized by the Highway Department in their comparison of alternatives. Ail these disadvantages will occur in order to save an estimated 5 to 10 minutes of travel time. November 17, 1982 (Regular Night ~eeting) The traffic congestion on Route 29 North was forecast before Fashion Square was constructed. The new Seminole Square project now beginning construction will add greatly to this congestion. We feel consideration should be given to a more imaginative widening of present Route 29 North to 6 lanes. Why not construct "express lanes" in the middle of 29 such as are used on 1-95 in Northern Virginia? This could have one interchange on each side of Charlottesville for those long-distance travelers who wish to visit Charlottes- ville, and it would still provide an arterial highway, unclogged with local traffic, for those who are only passing through. It could pass underneath local cross streets as 16th Street does in Washington, D. C. The. right-of-way for such a project is already owned or reserved by the Highway Department and, being shorter, could hardly be more expensive than the proposed by-pass. In the meantime, even elevating the busiest crossings (Hydraulic and Rio) would speed up traffic. One very easy and cheap improvement would be to lengthen the left turn lanes on Route 29 at Hydraulic Road. Much congestion could be eliminated and traffic speeded up if drivers could reach the left turn lane without driving on the median. No matter how far in the future construction of the Western By-pass is projected to be, its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan will give it a certain validity. We hope that the Board will not include this destructive plan in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Frank Lankford, resident of Colthurst and a member of Citizens for Albemarle, spoke next. Mr. Lanford said Citizens for Albemarle is opposed to the proposal for a western by- pass. This discussion tonight comes as a surprise because at the Planning Commission hearing several weeks ago, Citizens was under the impression that any final decision on the by-pass would be made in the distant future. It was stated that the Planning Commission was recom- mending a shift of the by-pass from Phase II to Phase IV because the road would not be needed in the immediate future and this would give time to analyze the need for such a facility after other improvements had been made; those improvements in earlier phases being made to relieve the congestion on Route 29 North. Mr. Lankford quoted statements from the Study pertinent to the proposed western by-pass, citing such items as causing conflict with proposed land uses, a change in air quality, an increase in the noise level, and the possibility that the roadway might involve the one hundred year critical flood plain. Mr. Lankford quoted one statement he felt of particular significance: "Soils in the vicinity of the proposed project(s) are somewhat thin and highly erodable. Because of this high erosion potential, there has been some concern expressed on how the western by-pass will impact the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir which is already experiencing problems with sedimentation as a result of erosion." He mentioned as one final point, the cost of the by-pass, which is estimated to be $37 million, and further estimated that the by-pass would save the traveler less than five minutes in travel time. He asked if the by-pass is worth the money. He urged the Board to reject the recommendation for a western by-pass at this time and reconsider same when some of the other projects are completed. Mr. William Edgerton, a resident of the Garth Road area, noted his concern about the proposed western by-pass because of its impact on the rural quality of the area, the noise pollution that would result from heavy truck traffic in a relatively quiet area, and the environmental impact to the reservoir and the Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr. Edgerton said it has been calculated that the most significant benefit of this by-pass would be to save the non-resident six or seven minutes of travel time while by-passing the strip commercial development along Route 29 North. This bothers him, because, in spite of the negative features of the strip development, the area significantly contributes to the economic base of the Charlottesville-Albemarle area and it also depends on automobile traffic. Since the existing Route 29 North is not adequate to support the traffic loads it must carry, he feels the efforts should be toward upgrading 29 North to handle the traffic. Motels and restaurants would not benefit from a reduction in traffic. Mr. Edgerton said he feels that the western by-pass ~s totally unsympathetic to the orderly growth of the County. The negative impacts far outweigh any positive impacts and the cost would be astronomical. As a landowner, he is opposed to the by-pass going through some of the County's most environmentally sensitive rural land. As a taxpayer he is opposed to the misuse of funds for such an ill-conceived project. Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres was present to speak for the Piedmont Environmental Council. They oppose the western by-pass for three basic reasons: 1) it is in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan and it would create growth in an area which is designated as a rural area; 2) it would cause environmental damage to the Reservoir and its tributaries; and 3) it would disrupt the character of existing neighborhoods which depend on the rural landscape in which they are built. Mrs. Paula B. Thompson, representing the Ivy Farms Subdivision, Phase II, read the folIowing: "We, the undersigned, urge the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. to turn down approval of the Western By-pass. We feel the facts at this time do not justify the projected outlay of money and disruption of established neighborhoods. Ail alternatives should be reconsidered." from a petition dated November 15, 1982, and signed by 24 persons. She said this petition represents less than one-third of the residents on the lower part of Lamb's Road in Ivy Farms. Mr. William Cole, president of the Ivy Creek Foundation, spoke representing 475 members of the Foundation. He showed a map of the Ivy Creek Natural Area and noted that the proposed interchange for the western by-pass would take some of the area and cause a visual impact. The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle spent Federal funds for the acquisitior of the property and he would suggest that serious consideration be given as to the alignment of this proposed roadway. Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, resident of Falcon Drive in Colthurst, spoke against the western by-pass. She is opposed to the by-pass because of the negative impact it would have on her family. Also, it would cost millions of dollars to save just a few minutes in travel time. The construction of the by-pass would have an~adverse affect on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In addition to the air, noise and water pollution attributable to automobiles on such a by-pass, there is also the possibility of an accident and if a vehicle should be 502 November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) transporting toxic substances, those substances would be in the water supply'almost immediatel There are also the hugh amounts of salt and'chemicals used by the Highway Department on roads in the winter. These risks should be considered. Construction of this roadway would be equal to constructing 153 acres of impervious surfaces in one of the most beautiful areas in the County. Mrs. Humphris said that future generations will judge us on how well we have cared for the legacy entrusted to us. Mr. George Woods said the western part of the County has the most beautiful and the most expensive land. He believes the tax base should be retained. Mr. David Parrish, a resident of Colthurst, expressed concern about the County's tax base. He said that a by-pass would be damaging to very valuable property in the County. He was concerned about the western by-pass merely "hanging over our heads" by moving it from Phase II to Phase IV. He felt the by-pass should be "killed,'. Mr. Bedford Moore, a resident of~ the Jack Jouett District, said he would agree with all the points made by previous speakers concerning the western by-pass. He felt it would be difficult for the Board to protect the reservoir and the water supply if a by-pass is constructed right through the middle of the watershed. He appealed to the Board to set this proposal aside and replace it with a more intensive effort to correct the Route 29 North problem. Mrs. Nancy Hale Bowers said she had written to Mr. Lindstrom stating her reasons for opposing the western by-pass because she feels aesthetically and environmentally it will ruin a great deal of countryside. Mr. John Owen, a resident of Colthurst, said that based on his experience~with other by-pass roads in the State, if this by-pass is built, both ends of same will outlet in areas where there will be tremendous traffic congestion. The proposed roadway is too short and too close to present traffic lanes to offer any help. He noted that originally 1-64 was to have been built to the north of Charlottesville, but those plans were changed through the opposition of the citizens. Now 1-64 from Shadwell to Ivy forms a sort of by-pass and he feels it would be advantageous to get the traffic over to Route 250 east and then to 1-64 to make a circle around the City by taking advantage of existing highways. Mrs. Joan Graves, a member of the CATS Policy Committee, said she supports the recom- mendations of the Committee wholeheartedly. She had hoped that a more northerly and more westerly by-pass would cause less controversy, but feels that the ~approximate routing chosen is the best route available. The further north and the further west the roadway is placed, the more impact it has on the watershed and the more crossings of the Reser¥oir. She agreed that the improvement of Route 29 North is imperative and urged the Board to adopt the CATS plan, if not as presented, then as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Gwen Myers, a resident of Ivy Farms Phase I, said the western by-pass would have an impact on her community. Mr. John Fishback was present to represent the trustees of the Percy Hunter Faulconer Estate, which owns a tract of land through which the western by-pass would cut. He said that a letter has already been sent, but he would still register his clients objections to the proposed western by-pass. At this time, Mr. Fisher announced that if there were no further comments on the proposed western by-pass, the Board would take a recess (9:45 P.M.), but that this discussion would be deferred until the Board's meeting of December 15, 1982, at which time the discussion will be continued, hopefully, with Miss Nash being present at that time. The Board reconvened at 9:59 P.M. and Mr. Fisher asked for comments on other projects in the CATS study. Mr. Dick Crickmer, a resident of Key West, said he had already submitted information to Mr. Tucker and the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission had decided to drop the eastern by-pass through Key West. He hoped the Board would not run that "bloomin' thing" through Key West. An unidentified gentleman spoke against straightening the curves and improving Route 637 from Ivy to 1-64. He travels this road regularly and does not feel that the amount of traffic on the road warrants the proposed improvement. Mrs. Pat Crickmer, a resident of Key West and a member of the Key West-Cedar Hills Association, said she had expressed relief at the decision of the Planning Commission to delete the proposed road. She is against this roadway for the same reasons expressed by the people speaking against the western by-pass. Also, there seems to be no reason for such a roadway to go through Key West when the road would go further north or further south. Mr. Wallace Reed, Chairman of the CATS Committee, and a city resident, said this plan came about because~of the land use changes that have occurred in the Route 29 North area and the fact that the County continues to invest in the area through utilities. Several years ago, there was a Route 29 North Corridor study made to determine if the road could handle rapid traffic movement and still accommodate the large-scale commercial development that was coming. It was concluded that it could not be done at a price the County was willing to pay. Mr. Reed said he thinks the Board has tried to do what is best and most reasonable for all of the people in the region. At about the same time as the 29 North Corridor study was taking place, the County decided to take action to protect the watershed. It is clear that past actions have created precedents and set the Board's decision making abilities, but Mr. Reed said he is confident that the Board will balance the matter as best it can. Mr. Frank Tigner, a resident of Key West, spoke against the road proposed to go from Route 20 to Rio Road. He said that he would not like to have this road going through his front yard which appears to be the case. Mr. Lindstrom said in speaking to a resident of Key West recently, it was his impression that the concern was not so much about the connector road itself, but the fact that the road was being routed through Key West and there was an alternative route which would have taken a portion of Penn Park, and brought the road to the south of Key West. A gentleman said that idea had been discussed as a possibility. November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 503 Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, said he,has recently looked at the Plan developed in 1967 which this plan will replace. The estimated traffic volume for Route 29 North in 1985 was 23,000 v~t.p.d. On Hydraulic Road near Albemarle High School the count was estimated to be about 12,700 v.t.p.d, in 1985, and the 1980 count was already 16,000 v.t.p.d. He said he points this out to emphasize that in the year 2000, the traffic will be here and will have to be dealt with in some manner. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer this item to the Board's meeting on December 15, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote' AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs~. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan for 1982-2002. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 3 and November 10, 1982.) Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said that the State Code requires localities to review and up-date their Comprehensive Plan at least once every five years. There are four elements of the Plan: 1) land use; 2) community development; 3) community facilities and utilities; and 4) transportation. The thrust of this plan is the same as the initial plan and that is to encourage development in designated growth areas shown on the land use plan, and discourage growth in the rural areas. Growth areas are composed of seven neigl surrounding the City of Charlottesville; two communites--Hollymead and Crozet; and five villages--Ivy, North Garden, Earlysville, Scottsville and Piney Mountain. Since detailed neighborhood plans were adopted in April, 1980, there are no significant changes proposed. That is also true of the Hollymead community, but in the Crozet area, the southern growth boundary has been shifted to use Route 250. This removes some of the low and medium density residential, as well as some of the commercial land use areas, presently shown on the south side of Route 250. Stony Point has been shown as a village, but with the expected growth of the General Electric facility, an expansion of the Piney Mountain village is being shown on the east side of Route 29 North, and Stony Point deleted as a village. Expansion of Piney Mountain will, of course, be contingent upon public sewage disposal becoming available. A new chapter has been added to the plan, "Community Development", which relates to the~ provision of adequate services to meet human needs. This chapter identifies concentrations of substandard housing and proposed methods for eliminating that condition. The "Transpor~ tation" element includes recommendations of the County's adopted Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road improvements, identifies rural road deficiencies, and will at~a later date include final recommendations from the CATS proposal. Mr. Tucker said that basically the plan has been updated to reflect current census data and in so doing improvements ha~e been made in mapping and graphics and organizational structure of the entire plan. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 12, 1982, voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY 1982-2002, prepared by the Albemarle County Planning Department, AUGUST, 1983 with the following additional materials: Two sets of errata sheets; a new "history" to be inSerted on page 10; a new map 5, entitled "Historic and Scenic Landmarks"; a new map 10 entitled "Community of Hollymead, Land Use Plan"; a paragraph entitled "Scenic Vistas and Areas" to be inserted on page 210; a complete Chapter 13, Transportation Plan, to be inserted; language concerning the Buck Mountain watershed to be inserted on page 243; and a map 21 entitled "Buck Mountain Reservoir" to be on page 245. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Fred Landess representing Eloise Yancey as trustee and owner of two parcels of land at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 635. These two parcels are shown in the existing Crozet community plan, but would be removed from the community under the proposed plan. The two parcels are a two and one-half acre parcel at the intersection which is currently zoned R-4 medium density residential, and a twenty-acre parcel currently zoned RA. The small parcel is on a main road, close to schools, and has water and sewer available; main elements necessary for development. The parcel is too small for agricultural use, and if it is deleted from the community, it will be left in a "no-man's land". Since this parcel is in the Albemarle County Service Authority project areas, it would seem to make sense to have the Crozet community boundary follow the Service Authority line. Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking for Citizens for Albemarle, said the Citizens believe that Albemarle County will be a better and cheaper place to live if this overall Plan is adopted. It will be cheaper becaus~ the population will be concentrated where services can be rendered and public facilities easier provided. He commended the Planning Commission for preparing the document, and urged that same be adopted. Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters, said the League feels this update is well thought-out and presented. The League is pleased that the County has as its goal the improvement of water quality in County streams and impoundments. The League reiterat its recommendation for farmland preservation and encourages growth to take place in the designated growth areas. The League supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission that Crozet have more "downtown" commercial, thus discouraging a super shopping area on Route 250 West. The League approves of the intention that plans for some development be tailored to the topography and natural siting rather than grading, etc. to fit builder's plans. The number one priority under human resources of reviewing controls which might increase the cost of hOusing is supported, but the League cautions against permitting untried or unproven building materials and techniques which might add cost to customers. In co the League feels that this is basically a good Comprehensive Plan, but states that plans are only as good as their implementation. The League hopes that after this plan is adopted the ordinances that implement same will be enforced effectively. November 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked why the Planning Commission had recommended expanding the village of Piney Mountain since he feels this creates urban sprawl from the City Limits to the Greene County line. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had some difficulty with this recommen- dation and he feels that their recommendation was based on "heresay" about the expansion of General Electric. They felt this would be a logical place to provide for housing for the area and had recommended only low density residential on the east side of Route 29. Mr. Fisher asked how much of the medium density residential already approved in this area has been developed. Mr. Tucker said that there are a few lots in Camelot which are not developed. In Briarwood, there have only been plats approved for 60 lots so far. This is based on sewage capacity. The PUD plan for Briarwood actually contains about 220 duplex lots. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed changes in Crozet have any bearing on the watershed issue. Since he did not clearly understand where the watershed lines for Crozet are, he asked that a map be brought to the next meeting showing these. Mr. Fisher said he also feels that the sewage interceptor line will create more intensive uses in that area. He feels that the Board should move forward at this time to do something to protect the reservoir~ downstream. Mr. Tucker said a recommendation for an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek has been carried forward into this plan from the other plans. The County Engineering Department staff has been working on a study of alternative dam sites along Lickinghole Creek for the Rivanna Authority for use in alignment of the interceptor and manhole locations. Mr. Fisher then suggested that further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan amendments be deferred. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Board members to hold another work session on this Plan on December 1, 1982, at 2:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #7. Motion to defer any further discussion of the Comprehensive Plan amendments to December 1 was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said that a number of months ago Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash were appointed as County representatives on a committee to study the future of the Visitors Bureau. The committee has finished its report and he handed copies of same to the Board members since this will be an item on City Council's agenda the first Monday in December. Agenda Item No. 9. Adjournment. At 10:50 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn this meeting until December 1, 1982, at 2:30 P.M.. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. Ch~'irman