1989-12-06December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
322
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 6, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Auditorium, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:31 p.m.), F. R.
Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:40
p.m.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the consent agenda. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1. Resolution to accept Bentiva~ Drive in Bentivar Subdivision
into the State Secondary System of Highways. Request was received from Mr.
James H. Hill, Jr., agent for Mr. Charles W.~.Hurt, dated October 1, 1987,
requesting that Benitvar Drive be taken into~the system. The following
resolution was adopted by the vote shown abo~e:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation be a~d is hereby requested to
accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspec-
tion and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
road in Bentivar Subdivision:
Bentivar Drive:
Beginning at Station 0+24, a point~i!common to the southern edge of
pavement of State Route 643 and th~ centerline of Bentivar Drive,
thence in a southerwesterly direction a distance of 5,340 feet
along the centerline of Bentivar D~ive to Station 53+64, the end
of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed aliiSO foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along thi~. requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the ~!lerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 914, pagei~22; Deed Book 1067, page 524;
Deed Book 1015, pages 765 and 766.
Item 4.la. Resolution to accept Skylar~ Court in Whippoorwill Hollow
into the State Secondary System of Highways. i Letter was received from Mr.
James M. Hill, Jr. Agent for Charles W. Hurt,i'dated October 1, 1987, request-
ing that Skylark Court be taken into the Sta~e System. The following resolu-
tion was adopted by the vote shown above: ~
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Cod~ Section 33.1-229, the Vir-
ginia Department of Transportation be a~d is hereby requested tp
accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident'~ighway Department, the
following road in Whippoorwill Hollow:
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
323
Skylark Court:
Beginning at Station 0+10, a point common to the centerline of
Skylark Court and the northern edge of pavement of Thrust Road
(Route 1616), thence in a northerly direction 760 feet to Station
7+70, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1076, pag~ 613; Deed Book 867, page 253;
Deed Book 869, page 372.
Item 4.2. Resolution to Accept Maintenance for a Portion of a Sidewalk
which Extends into the Right-of-Way for Greenbrier Drive. The following
resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors .of Albemarle County has
required the installation of sidewalks and walkways with the construc-
tion of the Branchlands P.U.D. and more specifically said walkways
have been designed to connect to GreenSrier Drive in Albemarle County,
Virginia; and ~'i
WHEREAS, a portion of the walkway !~xtends (approximately 15 feet
in length) into the limits of right-ofqway of Greenbrier Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thg~t the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby accepts all maintenance responsi-
bility for those portions of this pathw~ay that extend into the
right-of-way of Greenbrier Drive; and ~
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of~. Supervisors in no way holds
the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation liable for maintenance or anyiother responsibility in
conjunction with this pathway.
Item 4.2a. Statements of Expenses for ~he Department of Finance, Sher-
iff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of November,
1989, were approved by the vote shown above.
Item 4.3. Copy of the Thomas Jefferson. Planning District Commission
Financial and Compliance Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1989 (on file in
Clerk's office), was received as information~
Item 4.4. Copy of the Albemarle County'3Service Authority Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1989, received as infor-
mation.
Item 4.5. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes for November 9 and
November 14, 1989, received as information.
Item 4.6. Letter dated November 20, 19R9, from the Department of Educa-
tion, addressed to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, ~ivision Superintendent, re:
approval of application for support under ES~A Chapter 1, Migrant Education
for Fiscal Year 1990, received as information.
Item 4.7. Letter dated November 9, 198~, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Highway Commissioner, re: approval of Garthfield Lane in Garthfield Subdivi-
sion into the State Secondary System of HighWays, received as follows:
"November 9, 1989
As requested in your resolution dated January 4, 1989, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County if hereby
approved, effective November 9, 1989.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
ADDITION
GARTHFIELD SUBDIVISION
Route 1021 (Garthfield Lane) - From Route 658 to
Southeast cul-de-sac.
LENGTH
0.14 Mi."
324
Item 4.8. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
at the General Election held on Tuesday, November 7, 1989.
Item 4.9. Lewis Mountain-University Heights Neighborhood. Study, as
adopted by the Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee, October,
1989, received as information. ~
Item 4.10. 1990 Legislative Package. iForwarded was a list containing
two legislative requests adopted by the Board and submitted to the Virginia
Association of Counties in August, two othe~ legislative requests specific to
Albemarle County, and a draft of the region~! legislative positions to be
adopted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, all of which
will be discussed with the area legislators ~at a meeting on December 13.
Agenda Item No. 5. CPA-89-2. Public l~aring to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to inclUde recommendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine AvenUe
"Area B" Study. Proposed amendments include! both text changes and changes to
land use designations on the Land Use Map. tIAdvertised in the Daily Progress
on November 21 and November 28, 1989.)
Mr. David Benish, Planner, gave the staff's report as follows:
"CPA-89-2. JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area B 'Study. Proposal to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to iinclude recommendations of the
Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue '!Area B' Study as stipulated in
the Three Party Agreement between the Cpunty, City of Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia. PropoSed amendments include both text
changes and changes to land use designations on the Land Use Map.
Text changes include:
The iow and medium density residential area south of 1-64
and west of Sunset Avenue is to b~ developed under a con-
solidated, planned development sensitive to environmental
and topographical constraints. Clhstering of dwellings at
higher net density is desirable t~]maintain sensitive areas. ;
The residential area north of I-6~:.ii and west of Sunset Avenue
is designated low density with development at higher net
density possible to maintain sensitive areas.
Development of the Office Service area between Fontaine
Avenue, the City Corporate limits,ilNorfolk/Southern Railroad
and Route 29/250 Bypass in Neighborhood Six is not to be
developed to any scale for which parking cannot be accom-
modated on-site.
·
Map changes include:
Change land use designation from l~w density to medium
density residential in an area sou~h of 1-64 and west of
Sunset Avenue (Route 781) (Neighborhood Five).
Change land use designation from Community Service, medium
density, and institutional to Offi6e Service in the area
bounded by Fontaine Avenue (Route ~9 Business), the City
Corporate limits, the Norfolk/Southern Railroad, and the
Route 29/250 Bypass (NeighborhoOd ~ix).
Change land use designation on institutional area west of
Route 29/250 Bypass and south of FOntaine Avenue (Neighbor-
hood Six) to office service.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
325
NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE
Location
Neighborhood Five is bounded on the west by a ridge line west
of the 1-64/Route 29 interchange, the Sherwood Farms subdivision and
Route 631; on the north by Moores Creek; on the east by Biscuit Run;
and on the south by a series of lakes and a tributary to Biscuit
Run.
Existing Land Use
Residential: A total of 895 dwelling units and 2136 persons
are estimated (1985) within the neighborhood. Mobile homes account
for nearly four hundred units which are predominately located in the
Southwood Mobile Home Park. The Country Green development contains
approximately 250 apartment units. Very few new housing units have
been constructed in recent years.
Commercial and Office: Two small stores and one hotel are
located in the area. Additionally, thelVirginia Power Regional
Headquarters is located north of 1-64. ~
Other Land Uses: Currently, two churches and the Mountainwood
substance/alcohol abuse treatment center exist in the neighborhood.
Environmental Characteristics
The major portion of the area drains east to Biscuit Run, while
smaller drainage basins in the northwest corner of the neighborhood
drain directly into Moores Creek. '~
The neighborhood is primarily comp6sed of one soil association,
the Elioak - Hazel - Glenelg Association. Some limitations for
sanitary facilities and building site development are present (see
Neighborhood One for explanation).
The majority of the land area is p~esently forest. Small open
areas of agricultural use occur on the western side of Route 631 and
south of 1-64. A number of areas of steep slope on undeveloped
areas north of 1-64 and west of Sunset Avenue restrict development
at gross density. Areas of flood plain~i~ialong Biscuit Run and Moores
Creek are restricted from development a~d are appropriate as open
space.
Public Water and Sewer
Utilities are not currently availa le to southern areas of the
neighborhood. The neighborhood will benefit from the water improve-
ments identified in Neighborhood Four. ?The Biscuit Run interceptor
will provide public sewer access.
Roads
Poor horizontal and vertical curved along local roads in the
neighborhood severely restrict sight distance for access. Road
widths also restrict capacity. The proposed Fifth Street Extended
realignment will provide a major development corridor for the
neighborhood. With the scheduled closuzJe of Sunset Avenue, Old
Lynchburg Road becomes an important con~ector to the City from the
County and improvements along Old Lynchbhrg and at the Old
Lynchburg/3efferson Park Avenue intersec~tion (in the City) will be
necessary.
Recommendations
Medium and high density residential east of Sunset Avenue
and along the realigned Fifth Street Extended. Medium
density residential west of Sunse~ Avenue near its inter-
section with Stagecoach Road.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Low and medium density residential areas west of Sunset
Avenue to be developed under a consolidated planned devel-
opment sensitive to environmental and topographical con-
straints. Clustering of dwellings at higher net density
is desirable to maintain sensitive areas.
Regional service in the southwest quadrant of the 1-64/
U.S. Route 29 South interchange. This area is to be
accessed from the existing frontage road off of U.S. Route
29 South. Steep natural drainage swales are not to be
disturbed in the development of this area.
The existing polo club along Route 631 in the southern
part of the neighborhood is desiknated as low density
residential for future developmeht.
Development plans along Route 291 South are to be sensitive
to its status as an entry corrid6r to the Urban Area.
Transportation Improvements include:
Construction of Fifth Street/A+on Street
Connector.
Realignment of Fifth Street Ex~ended and the
southern part of Old Lynchbu~g Road.
Improvements to Sunset Avenue ~oincident with
development along Sunset Avenue.
Utility improvements include:
Construct the southern water l~ne connection
(western loop).
The Moores Creek Interceptor r~lief lines as
described in Neighborhood FoUr.
Evaluate the Stagecoach Road St'orm Sewer for
repair needs. ':
Flood plain areas along Biscuit i~un and Moores Creek
should remain open space. These~iareas may be suitable for
development as linear parklands.
Consider design recommendations df the City/County/
University Planning and Coordination Council for the
Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Ax{enue Study Area. Incor-
porate adopted recommendations iN the Comprehensive Plan
for the County.
TABLE 5~
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE
Residential - Low
Residential - Medium
Residential - High
Residential - Subtotal
DevelOpable Dwelling
Acreage Units
290 290 1160
56 224 - 560
14~ 1471 2940
495 1901 4492
Neighborhood Service
Community Service
Regional Service
Office Service
Non-residential Subtotal
Undeveloped Land - Total
Develppable
Acreage
68
98
591
326
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
327
NEIGHBORHOOD SIX
Location
Neighborhood Six is bounded on the west by the steep slopes of
the Ragged Mountains, on the north bY! Route 250 West, on the east by
the City, and on the south by Route 27 South and Moores Creek. The
neighborhood contains a majority of the UniversitY of Virginia.
Existing Land Use
Residential: In 1985, this neighborhood was estimated to
contain 855 dwelling units and 2064 P~rsons. The UniVersity Heights
Apartment Complex (452 units) account~ for nearly half of the area's
dwelling units. The University of Virginia maintains 2552 dwelling
units within the neighborhood area Wi~h approximately 4800 students
residing therein. The Central Ground~ of the University, the
Birdwood tract, and a variety of UniVersity prOperties are located
within the neighborhood.
Con~nercial and Office: Commerci;1 and office development is
located along Route 29 and in the Boa~'s Head/Ednam area. Com-
mercial retail uses cover 128,011 squ~re feet of building space.
Office space accounts for over 69,0001!square feet of floor area.
Other Land Uses: The Virginia Dgpartment of Forestry maintains
a research center east of the Route 29/250 bypass. Also located in
the area is one church.
Environmental Characteristics
This area essentially provides the headwaters for Moores Creek.
The area slopes off from the northwesCern corner to the southeast
where Moores Creek leaves the area. koute 250 West on the northern
boundary is the ridge separating the ~eadow Creek and Ivy Creek
drainage areas from the Moores Creek drainage area. A series of
lakes stand in the center of the neighborhood on land presently
owned by the University of Virginia a~d drain into Morey Creek which
skirts the Bellair and Buckingham CirCle subdivisions.
Three soil associations are foun~ in this neighborhood: Elioak
- Hazel - Glenelg ASsociation, Hayesv~lle - Ashe - Chester Associa-
tion, and Parker - Chester - Porters ~ssociation. As described in
earlier neighborhoods, the Elioak - HAzel - Glenelg Association has
some limitations for development actigity. A majority of the
neighborhood is in the Hayesville - AAhe - Chester Association. It
has some limitations for development ~ue to moderately permeable
clayey subsoil and shallow depth to b~drock. A very small portion
of the neighborhood is composed of th~ Parker - Chester - Porters
Association, which is a soil found al6ng moUntain ridges, side-
slOpes, and colluvial slopes in the m~Untains. Development poten-
tial in these soils is generally pooriidue to steep slopes and rock
fragments.
Nearly two thirds of the neighborhood is forested at varying
densities. A wide area of wooded lanai screens the Route 29/250
Bypass from residential areas between iRoute 250 West and 1-64.
Areas of steep slope immediately Inorth and south of 1-64 and
west of the Bypass/Route 29 Business ~terchange restrict develop-
ment. .
Public Water and Sewer
Public utilities are generally aV~ailable in the neighborhood
with the Morey Creek sewer interceptorl and major water lines along
Fontaine Avenue and Route 250 West.
Roads
Access is very poor to undevelop~d tracts near Moores Creek
south of the Southern Railway.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
328
Recommendations
Office Service concentration on Route 250 west of Route
29/250 Bypass recognizing existing office concentration in
the Boar's Head/Ednam area.
Office Service concentration south of Fontaine Avenue east
and west of Route 29/250 Bypass and north of 1-64.
Coordinate with University on development of its properties.
Office Service area between Fontaine Avenue, the City Cor-
porate limits, Norfolk/Southern Railroad and Route 29/250
Bypass is not to be developed to aDy scale for which parking
cannot be accommodated on-site.
Community service concentration on Route 250 west of the
City limits (extends from similar :oses in City).
The residential area west of Sunset Avenue is designated
low density with development at higher net density pos-
sible to maintain sensitive areas.~
Utility improvements include:
Development of the Lewis Mountai~ water storage
tank to improve water pressure~
Interconnection of the South Rivanna and Observatory
water transmission lines to improve water supply
capacity and flow.
Development plans along Fontaine A~enue and Route 250 West
are to be sensitive to their statu~ as entry corridors to
the Urban Area. '~
Transportation improvements include:
Widening Fontaine Avenue to fouriiilanes.
Widening Route 250 West to four ~anes. Access
is to be accomplished through ~oint entrances,
frontage roads, and side streets.
Consider design recommendations of the City/County/ Univer-
sity Planning and Coordination Council for the Jefferson Park
Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Study Area.
Consider recommendations of the City/County/University
Planning and Coordination Council ~r the Jefferson Park
Avenue/Fontaine Avenue: Birdwood, ~.and LeWis Mountain Study
Areas. Incorporate adopted recomm~hdations into the Compre-
hensive Plan for the CountY.
Neighborhood service designation o~ Fontaine Avenue West of
the Bypass (Old U.S. 29 South) limii{ed to existing zoned
TABLE 52
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD SIX
DeveIppable
Units
Residential - Low
Residential - High
Residential - Subtotal
Neighborhood Service
Community Service
Office Service
Non-residential - Subtotal
Undeveloped Land - Total
Devel~
Acreage
449
7
456
~able
2
70
7
79
535
Dwelling Acreage
449 - 1796
70 - 140
519 - 1936
329
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
September 19, 1989, recommended approval by unanimous vote of the above-noted
Comprehensive Plan amendment with the following addition to staff's first
recon~nendation on page 3:
The proposed medium density residential designation west of
Sunset Avenue be limited to the general location as shown
on the Land Use Plan with a specific notation to its size
in the Plan.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ian Stephenson, an area landowner, said he opposes a development
proposed for this area, which would place about 400 houses on what is now
woodlands and pasture. He said the roads in the area cannot handle any more
traffic. He said his property will be invaded by dogs and trespassers. Mr.
Stephenson said he has talked with developers who claim that the County's
planners are responsible for the density of the development. According to
these developers, they originally submitted a plan for a development of ten to
fifteen-acre lots and were told by the planner to come back with a plan for
medium to high density. He said amending th~ Comprehensive Plan to include
the recommendations of the Area B study wilI?ilead to instability and cause
landowners to worry about the fate of their property. He said he is less
concerned about the depreciation of his propgrty than he is about the degrada-
tion of the surrounding countryside. He urged the Board to consider this
matter carefully.
Since no one else wished to address thf~ issue, Mr. Way closed the public
hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that an area in Nei~ghborhood Five, on the northwest
side of Interstate 64, has no designation. Me asked if this is a mistake.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community DevelopMent, said this area lies in the
flood plain and has been designated for use ~s open space.
In reference to the residential area south of Interstate 64 and west of
Sunset Avenue, Mr. Lindstrom asked if the gr~ss density would be low density,
with clusters of medium density. Mr. Benish~isaid "yes"; this would allow
developments of higher densities to occur on ~:plateaus in the area, protecting
the steep slopes. Mr. Lindstrom asked how sQmeone looking at the land use map
would know that this entire area is not slated for medium density development;
that, in fact, the gross density would be lo~ density. Mr. Benish said that
recommendations concerning the density would iibe inserted into the text of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Benish to explain the significance of the change
from community service and institutional usei]:to office service in the area
bounded by Fontaine Avenue, the City, the Railroad and the Route 29/250
Bypass. Mr. Benish said the Division of ForSstry owns this property, which
will be transferred to the University as par~~ of the deal involving the sale
of the Blue Ridge Hospital Site. After the ~xchange, the property will be
turned over the University Real Estate Foundation. With that in mind, Mr.
Benish continued, there is the potential for ~more intensive use in that area.
Part of the property has been rezoned for a ~opping center.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Benish to expla~/n the change from low to medium
density in the area south of Interstate 64 a~d west of Sunset Avenue. Origi-
nally, Mr. Benish said, the JPA/Fontaine Average Study recommended this entire
area for medium density. When the Planning qpmmission reviewed the study, the
Commission recommended that this area was inappropriate for medium density and
that the traffic would put undue pressure on the existing roadways, without a
connector to Route 29. The Planning CommissiOn recommended reducing the area
slated for medium density development to 30 a~res near the intersection of
Stagecoach Road and the planned Fifth Street improvement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this 30 acres was~.~delineated by identifiable and
unambiguous boundaries. In some locations, ~e boundaries are clear, Mr.
Benish replied. The thirty acres is bounded by a stream, which Mr. Benish
indicated on the map, but the line connectingithe stream to the intersection
of Stagecoach Road and Sunset Avenue is not c~learly defined.
330
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any advantage to showing medium density
in this small area in the middle of an urban area, especially if the bounda-
ries of the 30 acres were not clearly marked. He said it may cause problems
with adjoining property owners. Mr. Benish agreed that the additional holding
capacity created by showing 30 acres medium density, rather than reducing the
entire area to low density, may be insignifidant.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Benish to show where the high-density development
is to occur to which Mr. Stephenson referred.~ Mr. Benish said the recommenda-
tions of the JPA/Fontaine Avenue Study would not add any high-density, resi-
dential areas to those already shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He said there
are existing areas zoned for high-density development north of Interstate 64
along Sunset Avenue. There is also a high-density development, Sherwood
Commons, planned for south of Interstate 64. However, these areas have
already been shown for high-density development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the COunty ils asking for trouble by placing
30 acres of medium density in the middle of many acres of low density, without
significantly improving the carrying capacit~ of the urban area. He said he
believes this recommendation should be deleted, but he supports the recommen-
dation to change the designation of the area ibounded by Fontaine Avenue, the
City, the Railroad and the Route 29/250 Bypass to Office Service.
Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. LindstroM.
If a developer approached the Planning S~aff with a planned development
for the entire area south of Interstate 64 an~ west of Sunset Avenue, a
development along the lines proposed by the ~%aff, Mr. Bain asked, would the
30 acres then be important? Mr. Benish said !he thinks there is enough flexi-
bility within the planned development scheme~o allow for the desired net
density, regardless of whether the 30 acres iS set aside for medium density
development. Mr. Benish noted that the developer who has presented a rough
plan for the development of this region is present at the meeting. Mr.
Cilimberg said the developer has submitted an~!application for rezoning. Due
to the large area proposed by the developer f6r open space, Mr. Cilimberg
said, the gross density throughout the entire site will not even approach the
upper limits of a low density development. ~,
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to ~prove CPA-89-02 as submitted,
but to delete the 30 acres of medium density.ii~ The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried[.by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. CPA-89-1. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to add a new village growth area in the ~astern part of Albemarle County.
The proposed growth area is located in the vicinity east of Shadwell and south
of U. S. Route 250 East, north of the RivannaRiver, east of Route 729, and
west of Route 808. (Advertised in the Daily ~rogress on November 21 and
November 28, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Location: Glenmore is located east of the City of Charlottesville
and south of Route 250 East. The southwestern boundary is formed by
the Rivanna River. The western boundary is formed by an unnamed
stream just east of Camp Branch. The northern boundary is formed by
Route 250. The eastern boundary is formed by the eastern watershed
boundary for Carroll Creek.
Existing Land Use: Glenmore was designated as part of Rural Areas IV
in the previous plan. The area consistsof low density residential
and agricultural uses. The existing population is estimated to be
220.
The Village of Glenmore includes: 73 dwelling units; one church; one
upholstery business.
331
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Stone Robinson Elementary School is located just west of the village
on Route 729. Clifton, which now serves as an inn, is listed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register of historic properties and is also located
on Route 729 adjacent to the village. While no commercial area exists
in the village, there are currently three convenience stores located
along Route 250 between Route 22 and the County line. In addition,
the village is located approximately four miles from a major shopping
center and other commercial areas on Pantops Mountain (Urban Neigh-
borhood Three).
Environmental Characteristics: The area is largely wooded with open
areas along Route 250 and adjacent to the Rivanna River. As the
village develops, it will most likely b~ orientated toward the river,
rather than Route 250. There is extensive flood plain along the
Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. The Rivanna River is
a state designated Scenic River. Along:. the Rivanna River exist ruins
~f the canal connecting Charlottesville? to the Kanawha Canal along the
James River.
The soils in the Glenmore Village are ciassified in the Manteo-Nason-
Tatum Association. Manteo soils have moderate limitations for devel-
opment due to drainage problems. In addition Manteo soils have a very
shallow depth to bedrock of 10 to 20 inches. Development may be more
costly or difficult due to the requiredi~excavation of rock.
Nason-Tatum soils have few limitations ~or development.
Roads: Access to the Urban Area is goo~ using either Interstate 64 or
Route 250. Improvements are planned to~?iden .Route 250 to five lanes
(undivided) between the Shadwell Interstate 64 interchange and Route
20, and seven lanes divided from Route 20 to High Street, including a
replacement of Free Bridge.
Recommendat ions: i'.~
Preserve the extensive flood plain !along the Rivanna River,
Carroll Creek and other streams as !~open space. Protect the
unique scenic and historic characteristics of the river with the
development of the village.
Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to
the County and region (including pqssible designation as a Rural
Historic District) and have large Acreage in an Agricultural/
Forestal District. To preserve and~ protect these resources, do
not expand the village boundaries ~orth of Interstate 64, west of
Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna !River.
No development of properties above .current allowable zoning
densities shall be permitted unles~i public water and sewer are
made available. Ultimate gross denSity with the provision of
water and sewer is not to exceed viillage density as described
under Residential Land Use designat!ions.
Residential development dwelling un~it type shall be limited to
single family detached.
Existing local convenience commercial uses in combination with
the proximity of Urban Area commercial are sufficient to serve
the village.
Consider development proposals under a planned development
approach to allow for the coordinated planning of utilities,
public facilities and roads necessary to support the entire
growth area. i
Access within the Village between Route 250 and the Rivanna River
is currently provided by roads whic~ do not connect. An internal
road network should be planned to p~ovide an alternative to
travel on Route 250 and is to be in6orporated into development
proposals. ~
332
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
As this area could function as a public service center for the
eastern part of the county, necessary public facilities are to be
located consistent with objectives and strategies of the Public
Facilities Plan.
Justification for a New Growth Area:
The growth management goal in the new Comprehensive Plan promotes a
combination of: (1) growth areas to support future growth; and (2)
conservation of rural areas for resource protection purposes. The
Plan states that this and future plans :must make adjustments that can
influence development patterns to better meet growth management goals,
including the addition of growth areas.~
Early in the discussions of the revised Plan, the Planning Commission
discussed enlarging existing growth areas to help attract building
activity away from the rural area. A qoncern was the great reserve of
potential rural area building lots as ~ompared to the growth areas'
dwelling unit potential. In particularl, low density areas were
determined to be lacking in the existing growth areas. Expansion
areas were added to the Urban Area, Cr~iZet and North Garden. The
Board of Supervisors supported these recommendations and further
analyzed other expansion areas. However, its final decision deleted
the Ivy and Stony Point Villages. Fur6hermore, the Board has decided
not to increase the rural area residue ~tot size from 21 to 40 acres as
recommended by the Planning Commission.'~' As a result, the imbalance of
rural area to growth area dwelling unit? potential (estimated to be a
maximum 54,500 lots in the rural area ~s. a range of 15,400 to 39,900
dwelling units in growth areas) still e~ists.
Conditions present when the Planning Commission began reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan in 1987 still exist.~. An existing and future
rural/growth area development imbalance~remains. Residential develop-
ment in the rural area continues to out~ace growth area residential
development. (53 percent of residential% building permits were issued
in the rural area in 1986, as compared ~o 65 percent of permits in
1987 and 59 percent in I988. ) Residential development areas providing
an alternative to the rural area continue to be desirable. It is
staff's position, therefore, that consideration of a new growth area
is justified.
A new growth area in eastern Albemarle ~as discussed by the Planning
Commission well before the Glenmore development was proposed. The
Milton area was recommended initially b~ staff because it had con-
venient access to the Urban Area, was nDt located in a reservoir
watershed, and the popularity of Ashcroft and other developments
indicated an interest in the area for h6mesites. The Boards' decision
to remove Stony Point as a village leaves the eastern part of the
County without any growth areas. Basedilon these considerations and
the direction from the Board, staff has~iiidentified nine study areas
within the general Milton area to analy~e for development potential
and effect on adjacent land use. ~
Study Area: The area studied was d~v~ded into four areas:
Area I included Shadwell Estates and St~e Robinson School Areas;
Area II included Glenmore Farms and adjacent areas up to, but not
including, Running Deer SubdiviSion;
Area III, the Route 53 area southwest o~ the Rivanna River; and
Area IV, the Milton Hills/Auburn Hills mrea.
Other adjacent areas studied in this rep!orr include:
Area V, the area between Route 250 and Interstate 64, east of
Route 22;
Area VI, the Keswick/Keswick Country Club Area;
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
333
Area VII, the Limestone Creek Area;
Area VIII, the Black Cat Road/Boyd Tavern Area; and
Area IX, the area between Shadwell and the Urban Area.
Comprehensive Plan History:
In 1971, the Keswick Community included Areas I, II, V, and VI. In
addition, growth areas were designated at Nix (Routes 53/729) and
Cismont (Routes 22/231).
In 1977, Keswick and Nix were designated Type I villages; Cismont was
designated a Type II village.
In 1980, Land Use Plan amendments were adopted, including only the six
villages designated in the 1982 Plan. K~swick, Cismont and Nix were
deleted as villages based on neighborhood committee recommendations.
The 1989 revisions to the Plan proposed ~o growth areas in eastern
Albemarle. The Board deleted Stony Point as a village during its work
sessions.
Scenic/Historic: The Rivanna River in t~e study area is designated a
state scenic river.
Routes 22/231 are designated a Virginia Byway.
Clifton is the only Virginia Register property in the study area.
However, Monticello and Edgehill are within close proximity to the
area. Parts of the study area may be visible from Monticello. Also,
several structures of historic significance have been mapped in the
study area, including the canal locks arc,Milton and Shadwell.
The Route 22/231 corridor connects Montieello and Montpelier and is
being considered for designation as part;'i!of a National Register Rural
Historic District.
Agricultural/Forestal Districts: The Ke.sswick Agricultural/Forestal
District (5922 acres) lies in close proximity to the study area.
Conservation Easement: Several hundred alcres of easements have been
donated in the area of Simeon.
Water Supply Watersheds: The study area.does not lie within an
Albemarle County reservoir watershed. H6Wever, the Rivanna River
serves as a water supply for Lake Monticello, down river in Fluvanna
County.
Utilities: Based on the history of septic and well problems in the
area, it would not be desirable to consider establishing a new growth
area unless it was served by public utilfties. The better soils in
the eastern part of the study area could probably support septic
systems at a village density. However, g~roundwater ava~lablll y is
uncertain in the study area.
Two alternatives have been studied to provide public sewer to the
study area. The Albemarle County Service Authority has compared the
cost to construct pump stations and provide treatment at the Moore's
Creek Treatment Plant to the cost of a new package treatment plant at
the confluence of Carroll Creek and the IIivanna River. They recommend
the package treatment plant due to lower ~cost, and because it will not
use capacity at the Moores Creek Plant. '~
There is currently a small package treatment plant which serves the
Stone .Robinson School. It may be desirable to discontinue this plant
if the larger plant is put in place. :
It is important that a treatment plant be located farther than five
miles from the Lake Monticello water intake on the Rivanna River. The
Service Authority has said this requiremen~t can be met.
334
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Public water could be extended to the study area from the Urban Area
along Route 250. A water line should be large enough to provide fire
protection. If growth is extended to Route 616, some storage facility
will be necessary.
Some issues are:
Extension of public water along Route 250 may create pressure for
additional development within Area IX, currently designated as a
Rural Area in the Plan.
Use of a package treatment plant avoids the problem of allocating
remaining capacity at Moore's Creek plant. However, extension of
public water will affect the life Of the South Rivanna Reservoir.
The question of capacity and service provisions will be addressed
in the utilities master plan.
Making public utilities available to this study area also makes
them more available to the surrounding areas where developers may
request extensions. Also, the County could be asked to extend
utilities to such properties shoul~ they experience well or
septic problems. Therefore, the Cdunty should be prepared to
continue to enforce its jurisdicti6nal area policy.
Public Facilities: The East Rivanna Fi~e Company, currently located
at Keswick, proposes to relocate its facility. The proposed Public
Facilities Plan will include criteria f6r locating the facility.
The Stone Robinson Elementary School (A~a I) was recently expanded to
accommodate 570 students. Milton boat ~anding is located in Area I.
Access: Access to the Urban Area from ~ihe study area is excellent
using either Interstate 64 or Route 250~'~ Improvements are planned to
widen Route 250 to four lanes between Free Bridge and the Shadwell
1-64 interchange. Free Bridge will be Widened to seven lanes.
Improvements are also planned at the intersection of Route 250 and
Route 729, which will provide safer access to Stone Robinson School.
Route 729 near Route 53 is currently inadequate for additional
traffic.
Access within the study area between RoU~e 250 and the Rivanna River
is currently provided by several state roads which do not connect. If
this part of the study area is developed~ an internal road network
would be necessary to provide an alternative to travel on Route 250.
The Glenmore Proposal: A current proposal for developing part of Area
II includes 1040 acres to be developed a.~ 'Glenmore Downs', a planned
community of low density, upper-priced hgmes, an 18-hole golf course,
swim and tennis club, and equestrian facilities. The property is
located between Route 250 and the RivannA River.
Attachment #7 ( on file) has been providgd by the developer to justify
his proposal. The main justifications a~e:
1. An upper-scale planned community of~!low density residential
development will attract homeowners*~iwho would otherwise choose
to live in the rural areas;
2. The proposed area is outside a reservoir watershed;
3. The developer will provide public uCilities (extension of the
water line from Pantops Mountain to~lenmore Downs and a tertiary
sewage treatment plant); ~
4. The area will be served by adequate Itransportation systems;
5. The developer has pledged funds for ~apital improvements, and
offered to donate fifteen acres for m school site and a parcel of
land for a fire station;
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
335
The higher-priced homes and developer contributions for public
utilities and facilities will offset the cost of residential
growth to the County.
Development Potential: Staff opinion is that parts of the study area
are capable of supporting a new growth area, assuming that public
utilities will be available.
Area I. Development potential is limited by existing development and
some steep slopes. Also, the quarry owns several parcels surrounding
the school. This area is a logical part of a growth area since it
contains an elementary school, existing subdivisions, and lies in the
path of the proposed utilities.
Area II. This area has greatest development potential since proposed
utilities would be available within a reasonable distance under the
assumption that Glenmore Downs would proceed. Carroll Creek divides
this area. Internal access should be pcovided across Carroll Creek.
Area III. This area has several larger ~parcels with limited develop-
ment potential. This area of Route 53 has some large farms. Utili-
ties would have to be extended across the Rivanna to serve this area
and Area IV. Route 729 is inadequate iA this area. This is not a
desirable expansion area.
Area IV. Most of this area has been subdivided into lots, and there-
fore lacks potential for new development. Some acreage is currently
being farmed, and has potential for future development. Some infill
of lots not suitable for septic could also take place. Also, the
historic village of Milton is located h~re. The University of
Virginia/Milton Airport property, much 6f which is in flood plain, may
be developed. This is a possible expansion area.
Area V. This area is a long strip formed by 1-64 and Route 250. It
varies in width from 500 to 2000 feet. ~This area and Area VI drain
toward the river and could be served byi.~.the proposed package treatment
plant. Development potential is limite~ somewhat by the shape of the
land and some steep slopes on Camp Branch. Any access to th~s area
for development should be from internal:.i~roads rather than stripping
Route 250. This is a possible expansio~~ area.
Area VI. The steep slopes along Camp B~anch extend into this area.
The soils are mixed. The major limitatf~on for development is the
proximity to the important historic/scen~ic area to the north which is
being considered for designation as a RUMal Historic District. Also,
part of this area is in the Agricultural/Forestal District. The core
of the district lies adjacent across Rotate 22, a Virginia Byway. This
area should remain in the Rural Areas and the Interstate highway
should be a firm boundary for any growth, area to the south.
Area VII. The Limestone Creek area would be a logical future expan-
sion area. The soils are good. One or both utilities could possibly
be extended into this area. Wastewater would have to be pumped
upstream to a package treatment plant. ~his area and Area VIII are
convenient to the Black Cat Road/I-64 imterchange. Expansion of the
Running Deer Subdivision to the east or ~outh is a possibility.
This area also contains prime farmland a~d is actively farmed. The
loss of such farmland is a concern. Theiiultimate size of a growth
area encompassing this area is also an i~sue.
Area VIII. This area is well suited foridevelopment. It has good
access to 1-64. Soils are very good with gentle topography. Develop-
ment is limited by existing subdivision,~but potential exists along
Route 623. The major limitation is the distance from utilities (a
water line extension to this area would ~equire storage, and
wastewater would have to be pumped), andlthe ultimate size of the
growth area.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
336
Area IX. This area lies between the proposed growth area and the
Urban Area, excluding property owned by Monticello and Luck Quarry.
This area will be most affected by the development of a eastern growth
area as pressure will likely increase to change it from a Rural to
Commercial designation. The major limitation for development is a
location at the entrance to Charlottesville, clearly visible to
Monticello and adjacent to the Southwest Mountain historic/scenic area
and the Route 22 Virginia Byway.
Commercial Areas: There are currently three convenience stores
located along Route 250 between Route 22 and the County line. In
addition, the study area is located about four miles from a major
shopping center and other designated commercial areas on Pantops
Mountain. The developer of Glenmore Downs does not propose a new
commercial area at this time.
The Route 616 (Black Cat Road)/I-64 interchange is not proposed for
commercial development in the current plan. Part of the southwest
quadrant is zoned C-i, but is undeveloped. The interchange is a
sensitive location at an entrance to Albemarle County and on the
boundary of a historic/scenic area. If'. the growth area is expanded in
this direction, there may be pressure to allow commercial development
at the interchange.
During the Planning Commission's initial discussion of the Milton
area, a request was submitted for a commercial designation of property
located north of Route 250 and west of Route 22, the frontage of the
Edgehill property. This is also a sensitive location, at the 'gate-
way' to the Routes 22/231 corridor. The proximity of the proposed
water line and the possible growth area~!will likely create additional
development pressure.
Area V currently has several commercial~iuses and some commercial
zoning. The shape of the properties an~ good access to Route 250 make
it susceptible to strip commercial development pressures.
Staff Recommendation: A new County growth area, in staff's opinion,
has justification for the reasons earlier discussed. More particu-
larly, this analysis has defined a stud~ area east of the Urban Area
which contains potential growth areas t~at are both consistent with
County growth management goals and~ii6ies and suitable for
development. ~
For any possible growth area within the~istudy area, firm boundaries
must be established, especially to the north and west. Areas I, II,
IV, V and VII have been described as having merit for growth area
designation. The total area (5023 acre~), however, appears to be too
expansive. Initially, any growth area that may be designated should
be kept to a size that is manageable from a public service standpoint,
yet provides opportunity for development. Areas I and II best meet
that criteria. While large in acreage (1485 developable acres as
compared to 972 developable acres in North Garden; 1040 developable
acres in Crozet, and 1748 developable aeres in Hollymead), they
contain a combination of public facilities, utility potential, and
developable acreage that would be necessary to have a functional
growth area.
Staff recommends that Areas I and II beildesignated a village area to
be served by public utilities. Density'Ishall not exceed low density
(up to four dwelling units per acre). Diwelling type shall be limited
to single family detached and duplex, asi'~stated in the Village
functional description in the revised Pi~n. No commercial shall be
designated at this time. The need for cbnvenience commercial should
be re-evaluated during the next five-year review of the Comprehensive
Plan. Future growth shall not extend north of 1-64 nor west of Route
22. Areas IV, V, and VII should be reviewed as possible expansion
areas in future Comprehensive Plan reviews based on development
trends. ~
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
337
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 29,
1989, recommended unanimously to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a new
village growth area located in eastern Albemarle County. The Commission
recommended that the village be named "Rivanna" rather than a name specific to
any one property. The Commission also amended staff's recommendation not to
expand the village boundaries north of Interstate 64 by adding "... west of
Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna River."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission was concerned as to whether the
creation of this growth area would attract more growth to the County. He said
the Commission concluded that an entirely residential growth area would not
lead to increased growth within the County. :
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff analyzed nine possible growth areas stretch-
ing from the Interstate 64/Route 250 interchange to the Fluvanna County Line.
These nine areas are listed in the staff's report. After studying the staff's
analysis, the Commission limited its study tO Area II, which includes Glenmore
Farms and adjacent areas up to, but not including, Running Deer Subdivision.
The recommendations of the Planning Commission for amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan are those words which are~included in the staff's report.
These recommendations would lead to an village residential area of 1218
developable acres, with a potential of 883 dwelling units.
Mr. Cilimberg said the contract purchasAr, Mr. Frank Kessler, made
several presentations concerning his development proposals to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said these proposals were much more specific than
usually provided for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kessler also
made offers which could be accepted as proffers once he applies for a change
in zoning.
Mr. Way referred to the fifth recommendation which states: "existing
local convenience commercial uses in combination with the proximity of Urban
Area commercial are sufficient to serve the ~illage". He asked if this meant
there would be no additional commercial development in the area. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes". Mr. Bowie said he thi~s this recommendation should be
stated more definitely to make it clear that'%here will be no more commercial
development in the proposed growth area.
Mr. Lindstrom said a 14-inch waterline Ras been proposed to serve the
proposed growth area, on the basis that this i!was the width necessary to
provide the water pressure necessary to meet :~inimum fire flow standards at
Stone Robinson School. If this factor were ~iiminated, Mr. Lindstrom asked,
what size waterline would then be needed to provide water and fire protection
to the proposed growth area? Mr. J. William ~Brent, Director of the Albemarle
County Service Authority, said the minimum f~re flow requirement for the
proposed growth area would be 2500 gallons p~r minute. Delivering this fire
flow would require a 14-inch waterline. The i~ine could serve 20,000 people.
If for some reason this line did not ha~e to provide fire protection for
Stone Robinson Elementary School, Mr. Lindstr..~m said, he sees no reason to
provide waterflow for 20 times the number of ~ouses proposed for this project.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if an eight-inch line could serve the needs of the pro-
posed growth area. Mr. Brent said an eight-inch line would not come close to
serving a community the size of the proposed Rivanna Village. He said the
Service Authority investigated the possibilit~ of using a 12-inch line. Using
a 12-inch waterline instead of one measuring !4 inches would reduce the water
pressure at Shadwell by 50 pounds. He said t~ere are several ways of deliver-
ing the volume of water needed for fire protection to a community, for exam-
ple, smaller pipes can be used in conjunction',iwith large storage tanks.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if placing a storage~i tank to serve both the Rivanna
Village and the Stone Robinson Elementary SchOol would allow the size of the
waterline to be reduced. Mr. Brent said "yeseS; the storage tank would compen-
sate for what is lost by reducing the size or,the pipe. Mr. Lindstrom asked
how many people could be served by an eight-i~ch line and a storage tank. Mr.
Brent said they would serve about as many people as the 14-inch waterline.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any way to ~ize the waterline simply to meet
the domestic needs for water from a village of about 800 people; and serve the
fire pressure needs in some other way, such as using storage tanks. Mr. Brent
said he doubts it, but he thinks the question-ishould be directed to the
engineering staff.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
338
Mr. Lindstrom said he is very uneasy about the prospects of having a
waterline built that would serve 20,000 people. He said he likes the idea of
the Rivanna Village, but he is concerned that the size of the waterline could
lead to a lot more growth than the County plans for the area. Mr. Brent
agreed, but said that refusing to size the waterline to meet the fire flow
standards is dangerous.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the capacity ~f the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Brent said the Rivanna Village would require a sewage treatment plant with
a capacity of around 750,000 gallons. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many households
a plant with this capacity could serve. Mr. Brent said it could serve the
number of units originally planned for areas I and II, which is 2633.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the sewage treatment plant could be reduced to
serve about 1000 households, the number of units planned for the Rivanna
Village. Mr. Brent said "yes". After the plant has been built, Mr. Lindstrom
asked, how difficult is it to expand? Mr. Brent said expanding an existing
plant is not inexpensive, nor is it difficult to do. He asked Mr. Paul Shoop,
Director of Engineering for the Service Authority, to address further the
matter of the waterline.
Mr. Shoop said it would be possible to use a smaller waterline if the
Board wished to serve just the domestic need~for water in the Rivanna Village.
However, he said, using the smaller line may~.not limit the potential for
development in this area, because a pumping ~tation could be added to increase
the water pressure to the desired level. Mr?Shoop said using a smaller
waterline now will just cost more money in the long run.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it were possiblelto size the line to limit the
number of houses the line will serve and to ~ompensate for the loss of fire
flow by adding storage tanks. Mr. Shoop said that adding storage tanks
created the potential for growth. Mr. LindsCrom asked if a flow of 2500
gallons per minute was necessary to serve 800 houses. Mr. Shoop said the
figure of 2500 gallons per minute was based an meeting fire protection
standards for Stone Robinson School. Mr. Li~dstrom asked what flow would be
needed to serve 800 houses. Mr. Shoop said ~hat different fire flow standards
are set for different developments and he does not know enough about this
proposed development to answer this question.I~
Mrs. Cooke said it her understanding thJ~ it does not matter whether an
eight-inch or 14-inch waterline serves the development, since the smaller
line, with storage tanks, would create as muqh of a potential for growth as
the larger line.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is worth~!considering everything the Board
can do to limit the size of the Rivanna Village to what has been planned for
that area. He said he wants to know the minimum size of waterline needed to
serve 800 houses and he is still waiting for an answer.
Mrs. Cooke said there is nothing this Board can do to keep a future Board
from adding storage tanks to an eight-inch waterline, thereby increasing the
potential for growth. She said she does not Want the citizens present at the
meeting to get the wrong idea of this Board's!authority. Mr. Lindstrom said
he just wants to find out what this Board can.ildo right now.
Mr. Way asked the Service Authority to address Mr. Lindstrom's question.
Mr. Shoop said the County Fire Official sets ~he fire flow standards for
subdivisions, based on the density of the development, how close together the
houses are, and whether there will be a clubhpuse or school in the subdivi-
sion. If the Fire Official were to set a fir~ flow standard for the Rivanna
Village, then Mr. Shoop could tell the Board ~hat they needed to do to meet
the standard. ?
Mr. Cilimberg said the fire flow requirea~ent for the Rivanna Village will
be based on a separation of units. If the un~ts are separated by 30 feet, the
minimum fire flow requirement will be 500 gal]~ons a minute at 20 psi. Mr.
Cilimberg said he thinks the units in the Rivgnna Village will be at least 30
feet apart, but staff has not seen a plan for the development.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
339
Mr. Lindstrom said he has been asking this question for nine months. He
cannot believe that he has been given no definitive answer. While he likes
the proposal, he said he will not vote on this amendment until he has an
answer to the question he has been asking about the waterline.
If the Board needs to know the exact size of the line required to deliver
the minimum fire flow to a specific point, Mr. Shoop said, the Service Author-
ity must have the development plans and must,know the highest point and the
location of the most remote house in the development. Mr. Lindstrom suggested
that members of the Service Authority meet with Mr. Kessler and review this
information. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like the answer to his question in
writing.
Mr. Brent said the Service Authority tr{ed to err on the side of safety
when it suggested a 14-inch waterline to serve the Rivanna Village.
Mr. Bain noted that the Planning Commission recommends planning an
internal road network for the Rivanna Village to provide an alternative to
travel on Route 250. He asked how staff proposed to plan this network and if
the language should be more specific. Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not want
to identify specific roads at this time, because some roads have not been the
subject of an alignment study, nor may they work towards the overall benefit
of the Village.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Frank Kessler said the County began ~considering a new eastern growth
area last year, after deleting Ivy and Stony iPoint from the Comprehensive
Plan. Some citizens began to express concer~that not enough study had been
done to substantiate the need for an eastern igrowth area. Since then, the
Planning Commission, the Planning staff, the~{essler Group and citizens'
groups have studied the need for an eastern g~owth area, with the result that
no growth area has been so studied.
Mr. Kessler said he believes that some ~itizens have misconceptions about
his plans for Glenmore Farm and the impact of. an eastern growth area upon the
County. In order to address these concerns, Mr. Kessler met with residents in
the area. One of the primary concerns expresped at this meeting was the
distance from the tertiary plant to the wate~ intake at Carroll Creek. He
said the Kessler Group has about two and one-~half miles of river frontage and
the plant could be located six to seven miles~from the intake for the Lake
Monticello development. Mr. Kessler said he nas passed this information to
Mr. Charles Burgess, the Fluvanna County Administrator, and the Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors, and has heard nothing from them since then.
Mr. Kessler said another concern expressed by citizens at the meeting was
the cost of water and sewer facilities. Mr. kessler said it is not true that
the County will be paying for the water and s~wer service to the development;
Mr. Kessler said he will pay for the tertiaryiplant and whatever waterline the
Board decides will serve this development. ~
Mr. Kessler said citizens were also concerned about the impact of the
proposal on Stone Robinson Elementary School. i He said he has arranged to put
into an escrow account with the County $1000 from the sale of each lot, or
$800,000, plus the interest this sum would dr~w, for capital_improvements. He
is also offering the County a fifteen-acre site for a new school, if a new
school is needed.
Mr. Kessler said citizens were also concerned about the character of the
proposed subdivision, the type and number of houses. Some citizens thought
there could be as many as 7000 homes. He Said the citizens were happy to
learn that he proposed to build single-family,! detached homes and that only
200 of the homes would be clustered. The remaining 600 homes will be built on
large lots. There will be no apartments and ~o townhouses. In addition to
the 800 homes, there will also be facilities ~or equestrian pastimes, golf and
swimming, as well as a country club. He said the citizens were also relieved
to hear that there would be no commercial development in this project.
Mr. Kessler said he learned that the Eas~ Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department was looking for a new location for ~its fire department. He said he
met with the Board of Directors for the East ~ivanna Fire Department and he
has agreed to give the Department five acres o~ land, and pay the planning
costs.
340
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
After all this discussion, Mr. Kessler said, there is still a handful of
people who oppose the project. He said he believes these people do not want
any growth east of Charlottesville. He said he has pledged that if the growth
area is approved and he can proceed with the Glenmore Downs development, he
will hold another public meeting to receive suggestions before bringing the
plan back to the County for approval. Mr. Kessler said the staff's report
concludes that there is a need for a new eastern growth area. He said the
area before the Board tonight is not in the watershed, has a good transporta-
tion system and would be served by public utilities.
Mr. Kessler said that Mrs. Bunny Murray~ Chairwoman of the Scenic River
Advisory Board expressed concern that the proposed development protect the
Rivanna River. Mr. Kessler said he gave Mrs. Murray a tour of the Glenmore
Farm and showed her the amount of green space that would lie between the
development and the river. He said she was satisfied with the amount of green
space. He said she is also concerned that two golf holes may lie too close to
the River, so he will allow Mrs. Murray to r&view the final plans before
bringing them before the County.
Mr. Kessler said the citizens are also i~oncerned about the size of the
waterline. He said he hopes the Board will .Vote on the growth area tonight,
because the Planning staff and the Board will have a lot of time to work out
the size of the waterline. He said some citizens are also concerned about the
quality of the water. Mr. Kessler said that,Applied Technology and Engineer-
ing has conducted a GAR test on the River and the results indicate that the
surface water is of a high quality. He said"ithe State Water Control Board
will study the River for at least five months, under many different condi-
tions, to determine the quality of the waterli~ because the Control Board
requires that the water returned by the tertiary plant be cleaner than what
was taken from the river.
Mr. Kessler said the Planning Commissio~ asked him to evaluate the
financial impact of Glenmore Downs upon the County and to demonstrate that the
project would draw housing from the rural areas. He said his financial impact
study showed that the development would bring a net gain to the County of $26
million over 20 years, due to the high price~/.of the homes and the few school-
aged children anticipated to live in the development. He said he included in
this net gain his contributions: for the utilities, the school site, and the
improvements to Stone Robinson Elementary School, which total over $3.5
million. He said the revenue generated by ti{e development is not new revenue,
but revenue that will be moving from the rural areas to the growth area. He
asked Mr. Steve Runkle, President of Real Estate III, to describe how the
proposed subdivision would direct growth away from the rural areas.
Mr. Runkle used the Forest Lakes development as an example of how a
large, planned development with amenities and' relatively small lots in a
growth area can attract growth away from the~rural areas. He said he examined
five sources of data: the Planning staff's 4Uarterly report on building
permits; information from the Forest Lakes s~aff on the sale of new homes in
the development; information from Real Estate~III concerning the sale of new
homes over $200,000; and information from the'Board of Realtors concerning new
houses for sale in the County, as well as bu{lding lots available in the
County. ~
Since January 1, 1987, 90 percent of th~ building permits issued were for
single-family, detached houses. From Januar~ 1, 1987 to the third quarter of
1988, approximately 70 percent of the permitS~ for single-family, detached
houses were for houses to be built in the rural areas. From the fourth
quarter of 1988 through the first quarter of i1989, only 40 percent of these
permits were for houses to be built in the rural areas. Mr. Runkle said he
feels this decrease in the number of single-f~mily, detached houses being
built in the rural areas is due to the Foresti. Lakes development, which began
in the fourth quarter of 1988. Mr. Runkle said the data from the most recent
quarterly reports continues to show that fewer single-family, detached houses
are being built in the rural areas.
Mr. Runkle then showed a graph illustrating the data collected from the
Forest Lakes sales staff. He concluded from the data that people looking for
houses in the higher price ranges are willing~to buy a house in a planned
community with small lots, provided that amenities and other desirable charac-
teristics are available. In 1987 and 1988, 100 percent of the houses sold in
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
341
the $200,000 and above price range were in the rural areas, because there were
houses available in this price range in the growth areas. In 1989, 46 percent
of the houses sold for $200,000 were in a growth area, the Forest Lakes
development. Before 1989, most of the building lots that would complement a
house in the upper price ranges were also in the rural areas; now, these lots
are available in the growth area, in the Forest Lakes development. To shift
houses and growth from rural areas, Mr. Runkte said, attractive alternatives
must be provided in designated growth areas, in planned communities with
amenities.
Mr. Kessler showed some slides of the Forest Lakes development, its
swimming and tennis club, waterslides, athletic fields, child development
center, and its houses, beginning at $100,000. Then, he showed slides of the
proposed Glenmore project: a parkway connecting Route 250 to a country club
in the rear of the property; and an equestrian center, race track and open
space where the manor house stands today. The country club will be built in
the style of a Virginia farmhouse to harmonize with the rest of the area. He
said the country club will be a place in which young people will marry and
civic organizations will meet. There will be a golf course lined by houses.
He said the lots will measure roughly 100 fe~t on a side and will cost around
$100,000 to $125,000. The cost of the well,i septic system and driveway is
included in the price of lot. He compared the cost of this lot to that of a
five-acre lot in the rural areas, which costs more and brings its owner no
amenities. Moreover, the owner of the five-~cre lot must pay extra for a
well, septic system and driveway. He said ~here is no doubt in his mind that
the Glenmore project will attract residents !~o the growth area.
Mr. Kessler said that due to the size 6~ this proposal and the many
amenities, it will be 1992 before any lots ate sold and 1993 before building
permits will be needed. He urged the Board ~to approve the request for the
Rivanna Village, so he can begin working on *~{he Glenmore project, in order
that the project can attract residential development from the rural areas as
soon as possible. He said that approving this growth area would serve the
goal of the Comprehensive Plan by preservingI the countryside.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:39 P.M.s!and reconvened at 9:44 P.M.)
Mr. John Hood, President of the Jeffers6n Fire and Rescue Association,
said the typical fire flow for a large home,~ such as the ones planned for
Glenmore, would normally exceed 1500 gallons per minute. To protect a build-
ing the size of the proposed country club and the school, fire flows exceeding
2500 gallons per minute would be needed. He~'said the East Rivanna Fire
Department can deliver over 2500 gallons perminute and soon will be able to
deliver over 3500 gallons per minute.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it mattered whether a facility had water sprin-
klers. Mr. Hood said it depends on whether the sprinklers were effective
enough to suppress the fire. He said some buildings equipped with sprinklers
have been completely destroyed by fire.
Mr. Hood said he is also Assistant Chief of the East Rivanna Fire Depart-
ment. He said the Fire Department asked himS'to address the Board on the
Department's three-year long search for a building site for a new fire sta-
tions. He said Mr. Kessler has offered the Cast Rivanna Fire Department
approximately five acres, with access to a r6ad, in the proposed Glenmore
development. He said the Fire Department in~ends to pursue this offer,
subject to the approval of the growth area b~ the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bill Frampton, a resident of Cismon%, said growth costs money and he
knows where the funds will come from for the~additional firefighters, police,
schools, libraries, parks and roads made necessary by this proposed
development. The funds will come from taxpayers in the County. He asked if
the residents of the County are ready to puti'!their money on the line to build
accommodations for people who will move to the County from someplace else.
According to Mr. Tom Jacobson, the Planning Director for Chesterfield County,
each new dwelling costs Chesterfield County $8370 in services, excluding water
and sewer service. Mr. Frampton said growth~congests the highways, overcrowds
the schools and increases taxes. He asked that the Glenmore proposal be set
aside for further study until the costs to t~e County have been investigated.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 3Z12
(Page 21)
Mr. Jerry Dixon, a resident of Milton Hills subdivision, said he thinks
the County needs controlled and balanced growth. He said growth has been
concentrated in the northern and western parts of the County; he thinks the
eastern portion of the County should grow, too. He thinks the Glenmore
proposal will add needed amenities to the eastern part of the County and
stimulate growth there. He said it is difficult to sell property in east
Albemarle now. He said he would like to live in the Glenmore project and
probably would have chosen this development over the six acre lot he now owns.
Mr. Don Payne addressed the Board and said he owns Long Branch Farm,
which is across the Rivanna River from the proposed growth area. He thinks it
will be nice to have an elite development in!this area; nevertheless, he is
concerned about the environment and the location of the sewage treatment
plant. He asked that the Board consider pumping the sewage back to the plant
at Moores Creek; otherwise, there will be sewage treatment plants at Moores
Creek, Stone Robinson School, Lake Monticello and Glenmore, along a fifteen
mile stretch of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Jack Douglas, a landscape architect"iwho owns Douglas Associates,
addressed the Board. He commended the Boardland the Planning staff for
providing growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan and said he supports Mr.
Kessler's proposal. He said growth areas ar~ one way to prevent urban sprawl
and growth in the rural areas. He said pla~ed communities provide fine
places to live and preserve the rural areas 6f the County.
Mr. K. P. Dane addressed the Board and Hsked why there should be a growth
area in this part of the County and why it s~ems impossible to keep a rural
area the way it has been. He said everything else is being preserved these
days, such as wildlife and wetlands. He said some of the most beautiful
rolling country in the nation is along Routei!~250 and Route 15. He does not
understand why the County would want to allow 800 houses to be built in this
area, thereby opening up the entire region t~ development.
Mr. David W. Cart said he thinks approving this growth area would be one
of the best decisions the Board has made in =ecent years to handle the growth
that is coming to the County. He said he tht, nks this project has everything
the County is looking for and he would not be surprised if the County had to
approve another project like this one in fou~ or five years.
Mr. Nell Means said he lives within par~ of the proposed growth area that
is not part of Glenmore Farms. He asked why'.!the proposed growth area is
bigger than Glenmore Farm. He said none of {he amenities proposed by Mr.
Kessler, except the fire station, will benefi~t residents of the rest of the
growth area. He said members of the Planning Commission stated that it was
convenient for the growth area to extend beypnd the boundaries of Glenmore
Farm. Mr. Means said he wants to know for whom this extension is convenient;
it is not convenient for him. ~
Mr. Cilimberg said the boundaries for t~e proposed growth area were based
on natural and physical boundaries, as is trUe for all growth areas in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said the boundaries r~ecommended by the Planning
Commission would create a natural drainage f~r the sewage treatment plant. He
said the boundaries were based on the physica.1 characteristics defining a
contiguous area where services, access to Rou~e. 250 and internal roadways can
be provided, i.~'~i,~
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many acres of t~ proposed growth area lie
outside Glenmore Farm. Mr. Cilimberg said th~re are about 300 to 400
developable acres in the proposed growth areai~, outside the boundaries for
Glenmore Farm.
Mr. Fred Westerveldt, owner of Milton Farm, addressed the Board. He said
the plan was once for a 5000-acre growth area~iand be credited the reduction of
the proposed growth area to 1200 acres to the~concerns raised by citizens and
the efforts of the Planning Commission. When,,it is time to approve the
Glenmore project, he asked that the Board judge the project according to
whether it meets an existing need in the County. He suggested that this
project be recognized as a subdivision instead of a growth area, in light of
the reduction in its size. He asked that the~Board assure residents of
eastern Albemarle County that this project will not become the nucleus of an
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
343
ever-expanding growth area in that part of the County. He does not think the
Board can stop the area from expanding by using a small waterline, but by
planning well and bearing in mind that eastern Albemarle County must not
become another Route 29 North.
Mr. Nelson Bickers, a resident of eastern Albemarle County, addressed the
Board. He said much of the development along Route 250 East has not added to
the beauty of this part of the County. He said he owns property adjacent to
Glenmore Farm and has reviewed Mr. Kessler's plans for the area. He thinks
the plans are well-conceived and people need some place to live. He supports
the plan and thinks that the physical boundaries, the River and Route 250
East, will help keep the growth area from expanding.
Mr. Ruben Hitchcock said he thinks there are two issues: the Glenmore
Downs project and whether the residents of the eastern Albemarle can trust the
Board to do what it says it will do. He said a growth area was studied near
Milton and excluded from the Comprehensive Plan. Then a developer approaches
the Planning Commission and promises a free ~Waterline and once again, there
are plans for a growth area. He said this proposed growth area was initially
planned to hold 5000 acres and 20,000 houses:. He said the residents of
eastern Albemarle protested the size of the initial project and now, at least,
the proposed growth area is reasonable.
Mr. Hitchcock said the figures used to ~justify the proposed development
were set forth on slides with no statistical~ analysis to show whether the
numbers meant anything. He said this is sloppy planning. He said he asked
the Planning staff to tell him how much thisi development would cost the
taxpayer, and the Planning staff asked Mr. Kessler to furnish this informa-
tion, which Mr. Hitchcock said, resulted in Some amazing numbers. According
to Mr. Kessler, this project will add $27 mi!Ilion in ten years to the County's
coffers. Mr. }Iitchcock said this figure is !~ased on the assumption that
everyone living in Glenmore Downs will be ei{her senile or sterile, that there
will be only one child for every four houses~ Mr. Hitchcock said using more
normal figures for the number of children per house will make the rest of Mr.
Kessler's figures fall apart. According to Mr. Kessler, Mr. Hitchcock contin-
ued, he is giving the County a generous glft!i,of $350,000 in property for a new
school. Mr. }titchcock said this property isi?nly six acres, for which Mr.
Kessler paid $2000 an acre. .i.
Mr. Hitchcock said that studies conducted by Chesterfield County, Loudoun
County, Culpeper County and the Piedmont Environmental Council have all
concluded that development costs money. The!present taxpayers subsidize
development. He said no one has answered his question about the cost of this
project, nor has anyone answered Mr. Lindstrdm's question about the size of
the waterline. He said he knows what will happen if a big waterline is
extended to the proposed growth area. He sa%d the Keswick County Club devel-
opment needs water. Across Route 22 from thg Keswick County Club development
lies 2500 acres owned by a developer who lives in New Mexico. Mr. Hitchcock
said the waterline scares him; he does not w~nt to see the area developed. He
said he does not know how the Board intends ~o control the size of the growth
area. Before the Board approves the request~ he hopes the Board has the
control necessary to prevent this plague from spreading throughout the South-
west Mountains. ~
Ms. Suzanne Grove said she resents very~much the implication that the
project proposed by Mr. Kessler will destroy !the County. As Vice-President of
the Virginia Homebuilder's Association and al!director of the national Home-
builders' Association, she said, she has seen many subdivisions. She said
this is one of the best projects she has eve~ seen and feels that the County
is fortunate to have someone like Mr. Kessler, a developer who is willing to
take a risk. She said that Mr. Kessler is w~lling to pay for the infrastruc-
ture for this project. She said she trusts ~r. Kessler's integrity and his
figures and she hopes the Board will do the=fos~ame.
Mr. Peter Hallock said that eastern Albemarle is one of the few areas
left in the County where a buyer can find a h~use under $100,000. He said he
thinks the Board should consider whether placing houses costing $300,000 and
$400,000 in this part of the County is a good idea. He also thinks there has
to be some way to control the size of a growth area and the Board should come
up with a way, so that surrounding land can Still be considered, agricultural,
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
344
rather than land just waiting development. He said he does not think flood
plains should be included in a growth area, but should remain as agricultural
land or set aside for parkland, instead of allowing the developer more develop-
ment rights. He does not think that approving this request will reduce the
number of building lots in the rural area.
Mr. Hallock said that establishing this village should go hand in hand
with setting a minimum lot size of 40 acres in the rural areas which would
surely cut down on building in the rural area. He said the building permits
for the first nine months of this year equal!the total number issued for all
of last year. The extra 25 percent of building lots have gone into the urban
area. He mentioned that the City of Charlottesville has no developable land,
so that population is coming out into the CoUnty's urban area, and this trend
will continue. Whether these two forces keep people from building in the
rural areas it is hard to determine. ·
Mr. Robert Bloch addressed the Board and said he is the third generation
of his family to farm their property in Keswick. He said this County is
supposedly rural and rural means "John Deer~!l, not "Mercedes Benz". He said
he would like for his son to be able to farm the property. Whatever the Board
does, he said, he asks that it save something for his family.
Mr. Joe Andrews, of Luck Stone Corporation, said the possibility of a
high-density, residential development next to his quarry concerns him.
However, he believes that this could be one ~he best proposals for a develop-
ment brought before this Board.
Mr. Woody Baker said he has aired his c~ncerns before about the environ-
mental aspects, the beauty of Glenmore Farm as a farm, its historical charac-
ter and the history of the area. He said he understands the plans for placing
a storage tank at Stone Robinson School to hold water for the sprinkler system
have been delayed, pending a decision on thei proposed growth area. He said
there are already problems at Stone Robinson.~ There are storage rooms that
cannot be used because the sprinkler system ~oes not work, so food has to be
ordered several times each week instead of o~ce a month. He said it will be a
long time before the waterline is in place, ~o perhaps something should be
done about putting a storage tank at the school now. Mr. Baker said he does
not wish to criticize the Planning Department, but he thinks this proposal for
the growth area has been rushed. He asked t~at the Board postpone a decision
until February.
Mr. Randy Wade, a builder of houses in ~he County for 30 years, addressed
the Board. For the past year, he said, he hJ!s built houses in the Forest
Lakes development and has found it to be the i~ost satisfying form of building
he has ever experienced. He said about 700 ~ouses per year are built in the
County. Placing these houses in a planned d~elopment will not increase the
number. He asked that the Board approve the;~proposed growth area.
Ms. Sally Thomas presented a statement ~rom the League of Women Voters.
She said the League believes that the propos~d growth area may counterbalance
the surplus of lots in the rural areas and tl~e ugly and inefficient sprawl
that has been the focus of planning efforts ~ the County. She said the
League had urged that the Planning Commissio~~ make explicit the western
boundary of the growth area and this has beem done. While the League is
impressed with the capabilities of package treatment plants, the League is
concerned that the Rivanna River, within five'years, will be receiving 30
million gallons of effluent per day from an e~larged Moore's Creek plant. She
said this is something the State Water Control Board will have to investigate
and she thinks it is impossible to secure theiiiapproval of the Control Board
before plans are laid for Glenmore Downs. S~ said the League is also con-
cerned that the County develop a master plan ~for utilities, because, as is
stated in the Comprehensive Plan, "adequate p.~anning for the provision and
funding of water and sewer facilities will be critical to the ultimate
pr.ovision of services to promote growth management policies". Adding the 800
houses proposed by Mr. Kessler to what is already planned for the southern
waterloop area will increase the consumption 6f public water by one million
gallons per day. She said the Rivanna reservoir water treatment facility
sometimes runs near capacity and cannot be expanded due to the size of the
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
345
water transmission mains. Extra capacity will be expensive. Whatever deci-
sion the Board makes on the proposal for theRivanna Village, she said, the
League urges the Board to proceed with the task of developing a master utili-
ties plan.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, a resident of the Rivanna District, said he supports
the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to provide an additional
growth area in the County, rather than allow subdivisions to proliferate in
the rural areas. He commended the Planning Commission and staff for their
role in determining suitable areas to accommodate residential growth in the
County. He said the Planning Commission hasldetermined that the proposed
growth area is suitable for a residential village to accommodate future growth
and has recommended the inclusion of this area in the Comprehensive Plan.
If this growth area is approved, Mr. Roudabush continued, many other
processes must take place before developmentlcan occur. The property within
the growth area must be rezoned and he thinks' it is likely that applicants
will make many proffers during this process to insure the adequacy of public
facilities. Various agencies, local, state and federal, will address land
planning and environmental concerns. Final, ~detailed plans for all elements
related to the development must be prepared,!Submitted, reviewed and approved
before any development can take place. ~
Mr. Roudabush said he has worked with MC~ Kessler and the Kessler Group
on many projects in the County, most recently~ the Forest Lakes development in
the Hollymead area. Mr. Roudabush said he is~proud to be associated with this
group. He said he believes that the Glenmore~area, if developed by Mr.
Kessler, will show the same high quality of planning and construction dis-
played in the Forest Lakes development. Mr. ~oudabush said the following are
some of the far-sighted actions taken by Mr. ~essler that made Forest Lakes an
outstanding residential area: long-range, de=~ailed pre-planning; a close
relationship with all County departments and Staff; up-front provision, of
residential amenities and infrastructure, such as the swim and tennis club and
the daycare facilities; the provision of central maintenance facilities,
equipment and staff; a system of trails linking all communities in the devel-
opment with the recreational facilities; majo~ improvements to Route 29 North;
the dedication of a 120-foot right-of-way thr6ughout the project in anticipa-
tion of a major road that may someday go through the development; the purchase
and dedication of additional property to real~ign an existing road in the
development with Route 649 (Proffit Road); th~ coordination and review of each
lot for site suitability before allowing anything to be built on the lot;
strict covenants covering the development andi!.type of construction; and the
selection of builders. Mr. Roudabush said that Mr. Kessler has exceeded the
minimum design requirements for roads, utilit{es and any other infrastructure
required for development. Mr. Roudabush said!i:he is sure that Mr. Kessler's
plans for the Glenmore project will include the foregoing qualities and more.
Mr. Roudabush urged the Board to approve the ~mendment to allow a planned
residential development in the area before th~ Board tonight.
Ms. Pat Spicer Napoleon, a teacher at StDne Robinson Elementary School,
addressed the Board. She is saddened to hear!of the fast-paced changes close
at hand and thinks her school will suffer befqre another school can be built:
classes that are too big now will grow even l~rger; and classes will have to
be held in trailers. She said it appears tha~ the developers are setting the
pace for growth, rather than the people who h~ve lived in and cared for the
community. While the pockets of developers a~ being lined with gold, the
rest of the residents are losing their heritaje.
Since no one else wished to address this igpplication, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said there are two things that ,are not before the Board this
evening: the Glenmore Downs project and the ~aterline. He said there will be
no development unless there is a waterline, b~t the details of the waterline,
its size and location, will be decided later w~en plans for a specific devel-
opment are presented. Mr. Bowie said some cit{~zens have said the County is
moving too quickly to designate an eastern growth area. He said the Board has
been considering the proposed growth area for ten months. During this ten
months, Mr. Bowie said, he has attended everymeeting held on this issue and
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
346
has met with .citizens whenever they asked. The Planning Commission has also
deliberated over the proposed growth area and held work sessions and public
hearings as well.
Mr. Bowie said the Board is not encouraging growth. He said he knows
growth costs money, but there is little the Board can do to stop it. He said
citizens have told him there is no growth in eastern Albemarle, but that is
not true. According to the quarterly building reports, the Rivanna District
is the fastest growing district in the County and 47 to 55 percent of the
building permits issued are for houses to be built in the rural areas. He
said this scattering growth is destroying the rural area. He said the Board
can direct growth; it cannot stop growth.
Mr. Bowie said he feels this proposed growth area will reduce the number
of building permits issued in the rural area~. He said he has problems with
two of the staff's recommendations. He said~ the second recommendation, which
states that the village boundaries should no.t be expanded north of Interstate
64, west of Route 22, nor south of the Rivanna River, implies the creation of
a growth area much larger than the proposed Rivanna Village. He also said
that the following language should be added ~o the fifth recommendation: "and
no commercial development will be allowed within the Village". With these
changes, he thinks it is in the best interests of the County to approve this
growth area. ~.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is still trying t~' figure out how big the proposed
growth area is. According to Mr. Clllmberg, ~the growth area totals about 1700
acres, 1100 of which lie in the Glenmore Far~. About 300 acres lying outside
the Glenmore Farm, but inside the proposed growth area, are developable. Mr.
Lindstrom noted that staff estimated that 88~ building units could be built in
the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said this figure is a conservative estimate;
if the property is developed at one unit per acre, which would necessitate
both water and sewer service, there could be tmore units.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has struggled wit~i this proposal. He thinks this
growth area would absorb development that wodld otherwise occur in the rural
areas east of Charlottesville. He said ther~ is a tremendous employment base
east of town that has not yet been realized. ~ He said there are 238 acres of
the Pantops Farms designated in the Comprehensive Plan for office and regional
service use. There are other such parcels o4 undeveloped land in the County
east of Charlottesville. He thinks it is unlikely that the employees of these
future developments will want to live in the iwestern part of the County. If
there is no place for these people to live in~ the eastern part of the County,
he thinks they will buy lots in the rural are~a,~, and they will buy these lots
in the areas citizens are fighting hardest t~! protect.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has taught planning for twelve years and has held
seminars on rural preservation. One of the ~echniques most frequently recom-
mended for areas trying to preserve rural ar~as is clustering development. He
said the growth anticipated in the ComprehenSive Plan for growth areas in the
rural area has not been happening as planned,~ because there was no way to
extend utilities in these villages and communities. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board then eliminated some of these villages :and communities from the Compre-
hensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Kessler has told him that he sought
to develop land outside the rural area, but could not find suitable proper-
ties. Mr. Lindstrom said he is sure Mr. KesS~ier would continue to develop in
the rural areas as he has done in the past, b~t the Planning staff encouraged
him to consider the proposed growth area instead. Mr. Lindstrom said he has
visited this site with Mr. Kessler and agreed?that it has potential. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks this growth area mayl be the best way to keep the
rural area from being overwhelmed by development.
Mr. Lindstrom said his biggest concern ib the utilities, because he has
yet to get an analysis from staff on the waterline: what the options are and
what the tradeoffs are. He said he does not Want to defer acting on thiS
growth area any longer, but he would like to wait one week and have staff
prepare, in writing, a report on the options,lilthe proposal at Stone Robinson
Elementary School and its implications for the waterline. He said he knows
the waterline can be changed later, but he doAs not want to see a waterline
installed that will encourage strip developmeht east from Charlottesville to
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
347
Fluvanna County. If the Board approves this growth area, he said, the BOard
is tacitly stating that there will be utilities to serve it and he thinks the
Board needs to know what it can do with those utilities. He asked again that
the amendment be deferred for one week so that staff can tell the Board the
minimum size waterline that is needed to serve the proposed development and
the implications for fire service. If a 14finch waterline is extended to the
development, he thinks developers will argue that all that water is going to
waste unless the land along the line is developed. If the line is smaller and
a pumping station has to be added, he thinks the land along the waterline is
less likely to be developed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the waterline is
part of this decision and not something the Board can think about later.
Mrs. Cooke said the County needs to prepare for growth. She said the
University of Virginia perpetuates and encourages growth in this community.
She said the Board can do nothing about the ~rowth the University brings to
the County, other than respond to it. She thinks the Board must be prepared
for this growth and approving this growth would be one method of preparation.
She said representatives of the University's Real Estate Foundation are
present tonight and are interested in what the Board decides tonight.
Mr. Bain said Mrs. Cooke expressed his ~houghts exactly. He said some
local governments would like to say "no" to increases in population, but they
cannot. Given these constraints, he would prefer that the growth not take
place in the rural areas of the County. He thinks this proposed growth area
may retard development in the rural areas, but only temporarily. He agreed
with citizens who are concerned about the cost of development and thinks the
County must learn what these costs are, so t~e County can benefit from condi-
tional zoning. He thinks the costs of infrastructure can be covered more than
they are in the proposed Glenmore project. H~ sympathizes with Mr. Bloch's
plea to save something and he thinks this pr?posed growth area, together with
the provisions for clustered developments in~%he new Comprehensive Plan, will
help save farmland. He said he sees this pnoposal as one step to slow down
rural degradation.
Mr. Way said he supports this amendment, i!but he does not mind delaying
action for a week to have staff prepare answers to Mr. Lindstrom's questions.
Mr. Bain said he does not object to the dela~il Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Cooke said
they do not object, but did not feel they needed the information requested by
Mr. Lindstrom to make a decision. ~';
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, secdnded by Mr. Bain, to defer any
action on this item for one week. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mejsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Agenda Item No. 7. Review: Department ~f Forestry's Master Plan for
Blue Ridge Hospital Site.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commissi°D, at its meeting on Novem-
ber 28, 1989, reviewed Master Plans A and B for the Blue Ridge Hospital Site.
In a letter from Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of P~anning, to Mr. Craig Covey,
dated November 7, 1989, staff had suggested segeral changes to accesses to the
site and internal roadways, such as eliminating the acceleration lane on Route
20, creating a 200-foot taper lane and a 200-foot turn lane into the site from
Route 20 on the north-bound lane to eliminate the existing access to the
Hospital and the crossover. The staff also suggested that the representatives
of the Forestry Department consider a differen~ configuration of internal
roadways to reduce the amount of grading necessary. He said the representa-
tives of the Forestry Department and the architect are unwilling to consider
changing the rear access to the administrative~support facility, as recom-
mended by staff. However, they have indicated~that the other recommendations
and suggestions, set out in the letter to Mr. Covey are acceptable and
feasible.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
348
Mr. Cilimberg said that Master Plan B addressed many of the concerns
expressed by the staff and the Commission on the siting of the buildings. He
said the Planning Commission is still concerned about the timing of the pro-
posal and therefore made the following recommendation to the Board:
"We recognize the magnitude of work involved and appreciate the cooperation of
the architect with regard to the Department of Forestry and DMME/DMR alternate
master plans, but this area is of critical, historical and cultural importance
and we feel the PACC study for this region should be accomplished before
Commission comment on any site plan. If this is not a feasible approach, the
Commission prefers Alternative B".
Mr. Way asked Mr. Dan Jordan, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation, which has owned and operated Monticello since 1923, to
speak.
Mr. Jordan addressed the Board and introduced one of the Foundation's
trustees, Mr. David J. Wood, Jr. Mr. Jordanihanded members of the Board
copies of a statement expressing the Foundation's position on the proposal by
the Forestry Department and the University of Virginia. He also showed
photographs of the site from the Thomas Jefferson Visitors' Center and the
Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Mr. Jordan said the Foundation has gra~ concerns about this site plan
but does not formally oppose it. Despite mm~y meetings with the University
over the past year, the Foundation has revieged only two concrete proposals,
the University's original plan south of Rout~ 53, which would have led to the
commercial development of the entranceway to~ Monticello; and the University's
current plan north of Route 53 as presented ~o the Board this evening. Given
these options, Mr. Jordan said, the Foundation accepts with reluctance the
north site. He said the Foundation acknowledges that the University has
attempted, without success, to find a distan~ location and that the architects
have been responsive to suggestions about th& site plan. He said the Founda-
tion and its friends, representatives of Mic~ie Tavern, Ash Lawn-Highland and
Kenwood, would prefer that this large complek be removed far away from the
neighborhood, but at least the complex is no~'longer on the doorstep to
Monticello.
From this point forward, Mr. Jordan sai.~, the Foundation's goals are
short-term mitigation and long-range protects{on. To mitigate the short-term
effects of the complex, the Foundation wishes to work with all parties to
minimize the intrusion on a rural landscape,.zoned RA in the Comprehensive
Plan, of 140,000 square feet of office and s~orage buildings, hard-surface
parking lots for 200 vehicles and the attendant grading and roadways. He
asked that the Board consider how this complex might expand and how many
antennas and helicopter pads the Police Department may require. He said the
Foundation asks for the Board's help in thin~ing how this project can be
implemented with a minimum of violence to on~ of the County's loveliest
settings.
Mr. Jordan said the Foundation believes'!that its second objective,
long-range protection, can be achieved only ~y careful, coordinated planning
for the entire Blue Ridge tract and by the c~eation of a scenic parkway from
Route 20 up the mountain to Monticello and b~ond to Ash Lawn-Highland. Mr.
Jordan said the Foundation has urged the UniVersity to grant easements 150
feet from the property line on both sides of ~oute 53, to protect permanently
the corridor to Monticello, as well as the rural environment. He said the
University has agreed to grant easements of ~0 feet from the center of the
road only, provided that the University can 6~btain access from Route 20 to its
property south of Route 53. Mr. Jordan said~he Foundation believes that a
scenic parkway will help to fulfill the County's comprehensive plan, which
recognizes the urgency of conserving Albemarie's cultural resources, which are
unique, finite and irreplaceable.
Ms. Carolyn C. Holmes, Executive Director of Ash Lawn-Highland of the
College of William and Mary, addressed the Bdard. She said she regrets that
months of discussion with representatives of lthe Forestry Department and the
University have not generated other options. ~iShe said residents of Albemarle
bear a responsibility to the nation for the ~tewardship of a part of the
nation's cultural heritage. While she under,hands Mr. Jordan's interest in
short-term mitigation, she urged the Board to!consider methods of long-range
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
349
protection for the roadway leading to Monticello and Ash Lawn-Highland. She
said she is especially concerned about any future expansion of the state
agencies planning to build on this site. With the ever increasing pressure of
growth, historic sites and major economic resources need assistance from
people beyond their own property boundaries and from people beyond their
staffs and boards. Ms. Holmes said it is not feasible for Monticello and Ash
Lawn-Highland to purchase the property and easements needed to protect the
corridor to these historic properties. She endorsed the establishment of a
historic and scenic parkway to lead to Monticello and Ash Lawn-Highland.
Mr. Ray Haas, representing the University of Virginia, addressed the
Board. He said the University has made every possible effort and spent over
$2 million to insure that the site for the Forestry Department is as compati-
ble as possible with the area and the entrance to Monticello. He said the
University has agreed to provide a scenic easement on the property it is
transferring to the Forestry Department, on the site identified as Site B,
which will screen the facilities from Route 53. He said the University has
also agreed to provide scenic easements at no cost on the remainder of the
property which borders the north and south sides of Route 53, if the Univer-
sity can retain a reasonable access to the property on the south side. He
said the University has also stated its willingness to trade the property on
the south side of Route 53 to Monticello for~property of a similar value.
Such a trade would give Monticello complete control of this portion of the
corridor. He said the University supports the establishment of a scenic
parkway leading to Monticello.
Mr. Haas said the University will transfer this property to the Forestry
Department, which does not have a land-use a~reement with the County. He said
he hopes the Board will keep in mind that th~ University has been helping the
County influence a project over which the CoUnty would otherwise have no
control. He thinks this demonstrates good f~ith on the part of the University
in keeping its agreement with the City and the County.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Haas if the University supports the scenic parkway
concept as recommended by Mr. Jordan and Ms.i'Holmes. As he understands the
concept of a scenic parkway, in terms of thei~ibuffering offered by the Univer-
sity, Mr. Haas said, he thinks the Universit~ will support the idea. If the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation has in mind a mo~e precise definition of scenic
parkway, he would like to see that definitioh.
Mr. David Wood, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Thomas Jefferson
Memoral Foundation, addressed the Board. He~,thanked the University for its
efforts to make the site plan as palatable as possible to the Visitors'
Center. Nevertheless, he said, the Board of ~Trustees is very concerned about
the entranceway to Monticello. Mr. Wood sai~ the only way to protect Route 53
is to secure easements along both sides of the road, strips wide enough to
permit planting to screen the development behind the easements. He said
easements running 150 feet from the property'{~line, not from the road or the
center of the road, would suffice to protect~this part of the corridor leading
to Monticello. Mr. Wood said the University ihas indicated that the deed of
property to the Forestry Department will guarantee easements measuring 150
feet from the center of the road. In some places along the road, these
easements would leave only 20 to 40 feet of ~lanting space. Mr. Wood said the
easement tendered by the University would rum only 400 feet along Route 53.
He said there is a great deal of land still owned by the University along
Route 53. If measures are not taken now to insure an adequate easement along
both sides of Route 53, he does not think the~",County will have another
opportunity. He said the University has promised to deed a 150-foot easement
along both sides of Route 53 if the Universit~ can obtain access over other
property to property owned by the University ~on the south side of the road.
Mr. Wood said the Board of Trustees is doing i~ts best to obtain this access.
If the access remains unavailable, the Univer'~ity will tender no 150-foot
easement from Route 20 on the south side. Along the north side, easements
will be offered only along the property to he'!transferred to the Forestry
Department.
Mr. Wood said he understands that the Board can make recommendations only
to the University and that the County has no control over this property. He
said the Board of Trustees asks that the Board of Supervisors lend its best
efforts to prevail upon the University to graht protection to Monticello's
access.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
350
Mr. Lindstrom said he respects the positions of both the University and
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. However, he does not think there is
any way to mitigate the impact of 140,000 square feet of office building. He
said he still thinks the buffer is a good idea, but he does not think it can
offset the bad idea of the University facilitating this kind of project at the
foot of the home of its founder. He said helthinks this project reflects
short-sightedness and greediness. He said the University has many resources;
this nation and this world have only one Mongicello. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board has recently acted to reaffirm the rural character of that side of Route
20, because of Monticello. He said it is hi~ understanding that the Virginia
Division of Historic Resources has refused t~ grant a permit for the destruc-
tion of the barn and silo currently on the p~operty to be transferred to the
Forestry Department. He said he thinks it wduld be amistake to say the
County has no authority in this area. He sa{d the Board represents this
community and is the only official body in this community that stands between
the development of this site and its not being developed. Rather than choose
between two unacceptable alternatives he th~nks the Board should stand by the
Comprehensive Plan, which is there to protec~the rural area and a national
historic shrine. Mr. Lindstrom said this prdject will have to go through
state-level reviews. If the Board selects Master Plan A or B, he said, he can
guarantee that it will be reported that the COunty endorses that plan. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should preserve its latitude as the spokes-
person for this community and state that the!~iproposal is contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan and contrary to the nati°Jial interest in this property. He
also thinks the Board shOuld use every effor~i, ipossible to encourage the
University, the Forestry Department and the State to see that this property is
not developed any more intensely than it is how, He said this project may
require a stop light to be installed and he does not see how the Board can
endorse a project that could cause that kind~i0f congestion in that area.
Mr. Bowie said one of the biggest disappointments of his life was visit-
ing the Alamo. After hearing stories all hi~iilife of the battle and its
heroes, he visited the site and found it sur~bunded by fast-food stores. He
said he visited the Coliseum in Rome and was i~isappointed to find it com-
pletely wrapped by an entrance ramp to a free~ay. He asked Mr. Jordan if he,
as Director of the Foundation for one of the l~wo best known architectural
structures in the nation, had no legal recourse at all in this matter. Mr.
Jordan indicated "no". Mr. Bowie said itupS~ts him that this project calls
for 140,000 square feet of office buildings ahd a huge parking lot and would
destroy Monticello and the County is asked t°iichoose between Plan A and Plan
B. He said he does not want his great-grandS~n to see Monticello for the
first time in the middle of a huge office complex.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the scenic parkway Wguld be funded with State funds.
Mr. Wood said he is not sure whether the fund~ come from the State or the
federal government. Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. iWood is sure the funds would be
available for a parkway. Mr. Wood said he doBs not know, espeCially if there
are buildings in the way. He added that traf[fic is congested on Route 53 now;
in the event that the road is widened to fou~ii.lanes, 150-foot easements from
the center of the roadway would provide even ~i%ess room for buffers.
Motion was offered at this time by Mr. L%ndstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie
to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors o{ Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia, on November 8, 1989, reviewed theiVirginia Department of
Forestry's Master Plan for the Blue Ridg~ Hospital site near
Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked the Albemarle County Planning Commission
for its comments on Master Site Plans A & B; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission re~iiewed these plans on
November 28, 1989, and forwarded to the Board a comment that "this
area of the County is of critical, historical and cultural impor-
tance'', and that the Planning and Coordination CounCil study for this
region should be accomplished before the i!Commission comments on any
site plan;
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
351
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after further discussion of
the proposals at its meeting on December 6, 1989, the Board wishes to
go on record that the proposals violate!the County's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and that this Board does not support either'
Alternative A or Alternative B.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with the motion. He said he thinks this situa-
tion is similar to a recent struggle involving the Bull Run Battlefield, in
Manassas, during which the federal government stepped in and bought the
property to protect it from development. Hethinks Monticello is more impor-
tant than the battlefield and he thinks the Board should request its represen-
tative in Congress to ask that the federal government buy this property to
protect Monticello.
Mr. Perkins said he supports the motion!i but he thinks worse things have
happened to the County. He thinks Monticello could have worse neighbors that
the Forestry Department and the other state agencies. He thinks the state
will be able to build office buildings that are architecturally pleasing and
to guarantee buffer strips along Route 53. ?
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the problem is that the office building is
just too big. He thinks the two buildings should be reconfigured into smaller
buildings. ?i,¥
There was no further discussion. Roll Was called on the foregoing motion
which carried by the following recorded vote~.~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~issrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board ~Aquest the County Attorney to
research this matter, with respect to the prqcess through which this project
must pass before it can be built, so the Board will know when it will have an
opportunity to speak to this project in the f~uture and what avenues of appeal
may be available. He asked that the County ~ttorney present this information
in a memorandum to the Board, preferably before the end of the month. Mr. St.·
John agreed.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks Mr. Bain's ideg.~, requesting federal funding to
buy the land necessary to protect Monticello~!i should be pursued. Mr. Bain
said he is willing to research the possibili[ies of this action.
Mr. Way said it is important that the Bd~rd show its disapproval of
either Plan proposed '! '
for this property, but hD th~nks it is also important to
recognize that the University has tried to cooperate with the County. He said
the County does not wish to make itself an ad.~ersary of the University. While
the Board would prefer that the offices not b~ built on this site, Mr. Way
said, he thinks the Board should acknowledge !She possibility that the project
will be built as proposed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the essenceiof the issue is whether one
State agency, the University, has the power t6 ignore the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning regulations of another State agency, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, particularly when a national historic site is threatened.
Agenda. Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes:~,i~ May 3(N), May 17, June 7(N) and
June 21, 1989.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for June ~1, 1989, and found them to be in
order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded, by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and their, motion carried by the following
recorded vote
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Me~:srs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
December 6, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
352
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board
and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom requested a copy of the profile of the future President of
the University.
Mr. Marvin Edwards, a resident of Camelot Subdivision, addressed the
Board. He said that Albemarle High School charges $25.00 a year to rent
textbooks for their children. As a citizen and a taxpayer, he said, he is
deeply disturbed at the fee, because it is inconsistent with this community's
commitment to free public education. If it is appropriate to charge for the
use of textbooks, then it may become appropriate to charge for instruction, or
for the use of a school building. He asked ~that the Board consider dropping
the fee for textbooks. Mr. Way thanked Mr. Edwards and said the Board will
consider this request during its work sessiohs on the budget.
Not Docketed: At 12:01 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to move to executi~ve session to discuss the sale of
property, under section 2.1-344.A.3 of the C6de of Virginia.
Roll was called, and the motion carried ~iby the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
At 12:05 A.M., the Board emerged from executive session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the
following resolution:
CERTIFICATION OF EXEC~IVE MRRTING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board; of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the COde of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County B?ard of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha~ the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to t~e best each member's knowl-
edge, (i) only public business matters ~awfully exempted from open
meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive
meeting to which this certification res0~ution applies, and (ii) only
such public business matters as were identified in the motion conven-
ing the executive meeting were heard, di~scussed or considered by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. CookE, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins
and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 12:06 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, the Board adjourned. '