1984-04-18April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 18, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., county Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve the consent agenda with the one item as presented. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Nay.
None.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request. Georgetown Green Subdivision. Request dated April 5,
1984, from Mr. Edmund S. Pendleton, President, Georgetown Green Homeowners Association, was
received.
The following resolution was then adopted:
WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Hydraulic Road (State Route 743) and Georgetown Green
(State Route 1460) at the southwest corner of its
intersection.
WHEREAS, a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through
the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be, and the same is hereby requested to install
and maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-83-7. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth.
SP-83-38. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth.
SP-83-39. John L. Wildermuth.
(Ail of the above petitions were deferred from March 7, 1984.)
Mr. Fisher said the applicants have again requested deferral, this time to May 16, 1984.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer the above three petitions to
the May 16, 1984 meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. '6. ZMA-84.-1. Willow Lake Developers, Znc. Request to rezone 21.976
acres of Tax Map 77E(t), Parcel 2 .and 2.5..6~4 .acres .of Parcel l(part) from R-1 to R-4 with
proffered general plan of development showing-35 single-family dwellings on 20.47 acres, 148
quadraplex condominiums on 14.37 acres, and 12.78 acres open space for a total gross residentia
density of 3.84 units per acre. Located west side of Route 20 South, 200 feet south of its
intersection with Route 53. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April
3 and April 10, 1984).
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
Requeste'd 'Zoning:
Acr'eage:
Existing 'Z'o~ing:
LocatiOn:
R-4 Residential '(PROFFER)
.47,.62 acres
R-1 Residential
Property, described as Tax Map 77E(1), part of Parcel l,
Parcel 2, is located on the west side of Route 20 South,
about 2,00.0 .feet south of Router ~3.
Charact'er 'of 'the ~r'ea: The "Hillcrest" property and Tandem School are to the South.
Hillcrest and Piedmont Virginia Community College border the property on the west.
Lakeside Subdivision is to the north. Route 20 South is a County- and State-
designated scenic byway.
April 18, 1984 (Re~_q_lar Ni_~ht Meetin~)~
Applicant's Proposal (PROFFER): The applic.ant~'s proffer is a plan of development
which, if accepted, would govern development of the property. The plan calls for an
overall gross density of 3.84 dwelling units per acre with 12.78 acres in open space.
The southern end of the property would be developed with thirty-five single-family
dwellings on approximately .60 acre lots served by public roads. The northern end of
the property would contain 148 quadraplex units in a condominium regime of development
served by a private road. Density in this area would be 10.3 dwelling units per acre.
A fifty-foot buffer would be provided along the existing Lakeside lots. Ail units
would be served by public water and public sewer.
Summary and Recommendat~i~on: While the requested density is within the range
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, Staff opinion is that the proposal for physical
development of the property could be improved and is currently not acceptable as
reflective of the public interest. Areas where improvement is suggested include:
Relationship to Lakeside Subdivision;
Sensitivity to scenic Route 20 South and historic/cultural aspects
of the area in terms of visual quality;
Sensitivity to environmental constraints of the site;
Improved amenities (better usage of open space; provision of
recreational facilities;
Cooperative effort in providing access to Route 20 South.
Site Characteristics: The Willow Lake property is primarily open land with scattered
field cedars and mature trees. A pond and Cow Branch are adjacent to Route 20 South.
Willow Lake is basically a hillside sloping to Route 20 South. In regard to physical
characteristics of the site, the following comments are offered ~Quotations are taken
from the Comprehensive Plan.)
Bands of twenty-five percent slope complicate access and building location.
As shown, some buildings and parking areas are located on twenty-five percent
slopes, which Staff does not endorse in this case, since reasonable use of the
property can be enjoyed without such encroachment. 'Buildings, septic systems
and other development should be discouraged on critical slopes.'
Most of the area proposed for development is of fifteen percent or greater
slope. 'Roads constructed on slopes of fifteen percent or more should
generally be discouraged. When possible, such roads should follow the
natural topography in a manner to minimize grading, cutting, and filling.'
While this plan generally reflects this standard, Staff will offer comment
later in this report intended to satisfy this and other transportation concerns.
'Natural drainage channels in areas of slope of fifteen percent or more should
be maintained in their natural state and/or stabilized to protect the natural
drainage systems from impact of development .activity.' About one-third of the
area proposed for condominium development would be impervious coverage. Extreme
care in development of this property would be necessary to avoid excessive
erosion and to protect the existing downslope properties in Lakeside Subdivision.
'Open areas subject to development should provide the equivalent of ten trees per
acre.' Should quadraplex development be authorized adjacent to Lakeside
Subdivision, Staff would recommend substantial screening.
Section 30.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that: 'This scenic areas overlay
district is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty as are
contained along scenic waterways and'scenic highways. Any development undertaken,
rezoning request or new use adjacent to or within any designated scenic areas
overlay district which is subject to any officer or employee of the county shall
be reviewed in accordance with the objectives of such designation as provided by
law.'
Staff opinion is that scenic consideration is particularly important in this area due
to proximity to the access to Monti. cello and in the. ~icinity of the Bicentennial
Center .and Piedmont Virginia Community. College. ~In addit.~.on .to scr. eening, parking
areas, consideration should be given tm orienting dwellings toward Route 20 South
for the lower single-family lots.
Residential Dehs'i'ty: At a gross density of 3.84 dwelling units per acre, this proposal
is within the low-density range of one to four dwelling units per acre as recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan. However, distribution of density within the project raises
concern. The single-family area is equivalent to an R-2 density, while the quadraplex
area has a density equivalent of R-10 Residential. The Comprehensive Plan recommends
that 'net densities should be significantly higher than gross densities when feasible
in order to provide usable open space and visual amenity, in suburban development.'
Open space in this case cons&sts of the lake and surrounding property which
is remote from the higher density area of the development.
The visual quality of higher density residential where parking is provided in
lots has been addressed under 'sits characterlst.~.c.s.'
The lower density single-family residential would he more compatible to
Lakeside Subdivision than the higher density quadraplex units.
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Locating the higher density quadraplex development in the vicinity of the
lake would make better use of the open space. Staff would recommend a
minimum of 7,400 square feet of developed recreational area be provided
for the quadraplex area. Sidewalks or other pededstrian ways should receive
consideration.
Staff opinion is that open space, among other things, should be employed to
protect areas sensitive to development. Zn this case, steep areas in the
vicinity of the lake should be included as open space as opposed to being
incorporated into lots.
Roads: The quadraplex area is proposed to be served by a private road. The Virginia
bepartment of Highways and Transportation has recommended and Staff agrees that all
roads in the development be public roads. Section 18-36(a) o£ the Subdivision
Ordinance (private roads provisions) states that 'private roads are intended to
promote sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the site and to encourage
subdivisions consistent and harmonious with surrounding development.' As stated
earlier, the current proposal does not reflect certain Comprehensive Plan
environm~htal standards, and quadraplex development adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision
does not appear consistent and harmonious.
The m~in entrance road is proposed in an "s" curve area of Route 20. The Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that 'sight distance for
a vehicle turning left off Route 20 into this entrance is 390 feet and 550 feet is
required. The horizontal alignment of Route 20 is the reason for the lack of the
required sight distance.' Sight distance entering Route 20 from the development is
adequate.
Staff has been approached recently about development of the Hillcrest property adjacent
to the west and south. Should the existing Tandem School road be used as access to
Hillcrest, the result would be two major intersections of Route 20 South separated by
about 420 feet. Staff has indicated to both developers that a combined access,
preferably the Tandem School entrance, would be more desirable from a transportation
viewpoint as well as in terms of development costs.
Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with matters to
be considered in rezonings as outlined in Section 1.4 Purpose and Intent, 1.5 Relation
to Environment, and 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan. While these matters have been
discussed under the 'Site Characteristics, Residential Density and Roads' sections of thi~
report, Staff would cite specific sections where improvement is warranted:
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.5
1.6
to reduce or prevent congestion in the public street
(combined access)
to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive
and harmonious community [Lakeside Subdivision; scenic
road)
to facilitate the provision of adequate...playgrounds,
recreation [use of open space; no developed recreation
proposed)
to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon
historic areas ~sensitivity to scenic road and historic/
cultural features in area including Monticello, Piedmont
Virginia Community College and Bicentennial Center)
to treat lands which are similarly situated and
environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use and character of
properties (relation to Lakeside Subdivision)
Relation to Comprehensive Plan (Chapter l0 Comprehensive
Plan Standards not fully reflected in proposal)
As stated earlier in this report, the requested density is within the range
recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff has suggested areas where
improvements could be made. At this time, Staff opinion is that the applicant's
proffer does not fully reflect the public interest and therefore should not be
accepted at this time.
Unlike the northern urban area, where much development has occurred, the County has
an opportunity in this area to address development on an areawide basis. Cooperation
among developers should be encouraged in the provision Of roads, water and sewer, and
other aspects of development in an efficient and .cost-effective manner reflective of
the public interest."
Mr. TUcker said that the Planning Commission, on February 14, 1984,~voted unanimously to
defer this re~oning request Do Marchit3, 1984, in order to allow time to address matters of
concern. Mr. Tucker continued that the applicant .s., in response to staff and public concerns,
by letter dated February 28' 1984, submitted an explanation of the need for development and thc
changes in the original proffer as follows:
115
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
"To:
Re:
Planning Staff
Willow Lake
NEED
There is very limited moderate-priced housing available. These units
will meet a gap in the market that has pushed many people away from the
dream of home ownership.
Willow Lake is located within 60 seconds of 1-64, the main traffic artery
of Central Virginia.
Willow Lake is within minutes of downtown Charlottesville and will appeal
to those who are weary of 29 North and 250 East congestion.
According to Sales and Marketing Magazine's US Metropolitan Area
Projections obtained at Tayloe Murphy Institute, future demographics
indicate that between 1981 and 1991 the number of households in
Albemarle County will increase from 16,600 households to 23,665. This
means there will need to be more than 7,000 new housing units constructed
to handle that increase. The estimate is conservative in that the
available land for development in Charlottesville is limited and there
is projected an increase of 7,594 households in the City. Chances are
many of these will end up in the County. We are faced with a bare minimum
of probably 9,000 additional housing units needed between 1981 and 1991 and
that number may still be conservative.
If we do not rezone to higher densities in the urban ring now, we will
lose our farmlands later.
In the Residential Activity Report of 1982 published by the Planning
Department in June of 19.83, the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan are stated. Those that apPly to Willow Lake are:
Provide housing to match the varied needs and income levels of the
County's present and future population.
Encourage the majority of residential growth to locate in the seven
urban area neighborhoods, the two communities and the six rural
village centers.
Develop incentives and r~gulations to.encourage the development of
vacant land in the designated, growth areas and to encourage
variations of housing types and densities.
de
Develop r~gulations and encourage the shifting of development from
the rural areas to the designated, growth centers.
The Comprehensive Plan has designated the area containing Willow Lake
for up to four units.per acre.
....... Proposed Changesi'In''TheOrig'inal Proffer
1. Locate only single-family homes next to Lakeside and screen with
white pines.
Reduce quadrapiex buildings..near PVCC from 37 tO 16 and move all
quads from Lakeside.
Overall density is reduced from 183 units to 118.
Ail roads are public.
5. Quad design near PVCC will include.
Berming and iow roof heights to reduce the impact of light
and sound pollution, from PVCC.
b. The roofline will be designed to look like a large-size
single'family house when viewed from Routes 53 or 20..
c. Ail units will be in earth tones to blend with the landscape.
Recreational facilities will include all of the..following:
Tennis, Swimming, Fishing, .Boating, Picnicing, Children's Playground,
Jogging Trail
These will provide residents with many options and will decrease their
inclination to use county, facilities located at PVCC.
All single-family houses will. face Route 20..
8. Ail water retention and drainage systems will exceed County standards.
117
April 18_ 1 8- 4 -'Re~ular Ni~ht Meeting0__
Rationale
In reviewing the input from Staff and Public, we chose this plan for several
reasons.
We feel it is essential to preserve as much as possible the mature wooded
portion located in the southern end. There are many trees that are over 75
years old. This consideration has kept us from locating the quadraplex units
in that area because after constructing the dwellings and parking areas, there
would not be many trees left.
By buffering Lakeside with single-family houses, we have retained the integrity
of their development. To further insure this division, we have placed a
recreation area as an additional buffer.
The architectural design of the quadraplex units near PVCC will reflect our
intention to make them visibly pleasing and functional in relation to PVCC
light and sound output. By berming the'units and keeping a low roof height
design, much of the sound will travel over the buildings. Since we are
lighting the parking lots of the quads, we feel that the occasional use of
PVCC's baseball lights will not be a concern. People who choose to live in
a quadraplex do so with the understanding that there will be car doors
slamming, increased people activity and generally a higher noise level. It
is this reason that we felt it appropriate to locate the quads near PVCC where
an occasional cheer from a baseball game would not be offensive.
We have reduced our density to a base minimum. The cost of water and sewer
from the Visitor Center and the construction of a public road system make any
further reduction impossible.
We have done our best to address every concern voiced by Staff and public.
Signed: Patrick Coffey
Willow Lake Developers"
Mr. Tucker then called attention to the March 13, 1984 addendum to the written proffer:
"TO: Planning Staff
RE: Willow Lake
We would like to tender an addendum to our written proffer dated February 28,
1984. In the rush to get documents to the Planning Staff an error in compilation
was made on page two, number three. We are requesting 120 units including the
existing house.
In reviewing the Staff comments, there appeared to be some ambiguity between
our notes that all units in open areas would be oriented toward Route 20 and
the Staff comments indicating that all single-family dwelling units would front
toward Route 20. Both we and the Staff are of the opinion that units which can
be clearly seen from Route 20 should be oriented in such a way that front or
side yards would be visible from Route 20 and that the homes be placed so that
the most attractive facade would be facing the highway. Specifically, we feel
that lots number 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 24, and 34 would
be included in the requirement of special orientation. Other single-family
lots are screened by existing vegetation, existing homes, or buffers of pine
trees to be planted during the development.
The Staff has also indicated to us that our agreement to create quadraplex units
which would appear to be large single-family dwellings from Route 20 or Route 53
was vague and that sketches would be helpful to the Commission.
A number of projects in the Charlottesville area have in our opinion, successfully
created the look that we envision. Birnam Wood from Hydraulic Road, Ednam from
Route 250 West, River Run from Rio Road are examples that come to mind. We feel
that it is impractical for us to complete architectural work until our proffer
has been approved and that pictures or sketches at this point could be more
misleading than the statements previously made and included in this addendum to
our written offer. However, we would be willing to have your approval of our
proffer tied to submission of final architectural drawings and specific locations
of the quadraplexes to the Staff for their r.eview.
Cordially,
SIGNED: Patrick Coffey
Willow Lake Developers, Znc."
Mr. Tucker then read an addendum to the Staff report dated March 13, 1984, in response
the applicant's revised proffer and subsequent .amendment,. as follows:
to
118
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeti~g)
"Staff opinion is that the revised proffered plan and written proffer adequately
address issues raised by the staff and that the current proposal is generally
reflective of the public interest.
Issues addressed by the current proposal are as follows:
Relationship to Lakeside Subdivision: Density has been substantially reduced from
about ten dwelling units per acre to about 1.6 dwelling units per acre adjacent to
Lakeside Subdivision. Quadraplex units have been replaced by single-family dwellings.
A substantial white pine buffer is proposed, as well as careful planning regarding
stormwater runoff. (Ail water detention and drainage systems are proposed to exceed
County standards.)
Sensitivity to scenic Route 20 South and historical/cultural aspects of the area
terms of visual quality: For quadraplex units, rooft~nes are proposed to imitate
single-family dwellings. Ail units are to be of earthtone coloration to blend with
the landscape. Ail single-family dwellings will front toward Route 20 South. The
total number of dwellings and parking spaces have been reduced by about a third.
Sensitivity to environmental constraints of the site: A reduction in density has
permitted design more compatible to~ the physical characteristics of the site.
Encroachment on steep slopes has been reduced. Stormwater runoff will be less of a
problem than under the' original proposal.
Improved amenities: The original proposal did not propose any developed recreation
areas. The current submittal proposes ten times the amount of developed recreation
area as required by the Zoning Ordinance. (This is exclusive of the jogging path
and lake recreation.)
Cooperative effort i~ provi'ding &ccess to Route 20 South: At the time of original
staff review, based on prior submittals, it was anticipated that access from the
adjoining Hillcrest property to Route 20 South would be over the existing Tandem
School Road alignment. Subsequently, a rezoning plan for Hillcrest was submitted
showing access to Route 20 South about 1,500 feet south of the Tandem School road.
While connection to the proposed Hillcrest road system would provide more direct
access from Willow Lake to Route 742, such connection would likely result in
substantial through-traffic.
In summary, staff opinion is that the applicant has conscientiously and effectively
responded to concerns raised regarding the original proposal. Staff recommends that
the revised proposal substantially reflects the public interest and therefore, staff
recommends approval?
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 13, 1984, voted five
to one to recommend denial of ZMA-84-1 based on the position that the proposed quadraplex
developmen~ is not consistent with the recommended residential development noted in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission was referring to the table in the
Comprehensive Plan that sets out various densities and the types of units which are normally
found in low-density, medium-density, or high-density areas. Quadraplexes are not usually
shown in a low-density category. For this reason, the Planning Commission felt that quadra-
plexes are not in keeping With the character of the area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff feels the applicant's proposal in any way conflicts with the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said no, adding that the table in the Comprehensive Plan is
generally used by Staff as a guide and is not followed literally.
At 7:44 P.M., the public hearing was opened. Mr. W$11iam Atwood, an architect working
with the Willow Lake development team, was the first person to speak. In an effort to clarify
the design approach and to better focus on the physical issues of the site, Mr. Atwood gave a
slide presentation of the Willow Lake property. He feels the Willow Lake design fits well into
existing urban/suburban fabric and also fits well into the concept established in the Compre-
hensive Plan. Mr. Atwood said Willow Lake will provide housing to match the varied needs and
income levels of Albemarle County's present and future population expected to increase from
16,000 families to over 23,000 families in 19~91. In addition, W~l!ow Lake follows the concept
of shifting development from rural areas to designated, growth areas, and is located in an area
allowing four dwelling units per acre or less. Mr. Atwood commented that this development will
adequately serve moderate income families. In conclusion, Mr. At~ood said a pond area is
included which will not only create a natural amenity, but ~hich amply meets the County's
requirement for a water retention element.
Mr. Mark Osborne, Engineer for Willow Lake Developers, presented a brief engineering
overview of the Willow Lake project. He said the roads are designed to meet State standards
and will be dedicated to the Highway Department. The maximum road grade is eight percent,
sight distance at the entrance is 550 feet in both directions, and'two, 72 inch corregated
metal pipes are proposed to convey Cow Branch Creek under the entrance road; these pipes are
adequate to carry a ten-year storm generat~ed £rom 1,~165 acres. Mr. Osborne said the Willow
Lake development will be able to a~equately meet Albemarle County's stormwater detention
ordinance as well as the soil erosion control requirements. Willow Lake itself, the center-
piece of the project, will be used not only as a recreation amenity but also as a stormwater
management facility. Mr. Osborne pointed out that currently there is no officially designated
one hundred year flood plain on Cow Branch Creek, however, the existing sixty-inch corregated
metal pipe at the entrance to Lakeside Subdivision carries only about one-quarter or one-third
of a ten-year storm before 'overtopping this road. As a result of the stormwater management in
Willow Lake, this condition will not he made worse. Mr. Osborne said the Willow Lake develop-
ment will bring in 2,000 feet each of water and sewer lines from the Bicentennial Center which
will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Albemarle County Service Authority
requirements. Upon completion, these lines will he dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority for public use. In conclusion, Mr. OSborne said that these lines will run directly
in front of the Lakeside Subdivision, so will be .available for use by the Lakeside residents.
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Atwood addressed the Board again saying that the Willow Lake development team has
a great deal of compromising in an effort to address all concerns. Mr. Atwood stated that the
basis of the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial was the Commission's feeling that
quadraplexes and single-family homes should not be placed in the same subdivision. Mr. Atwood
said the developers of Willow Lake do not propose an apartment project or any condominiums, but
rather individually owned cluster homes. In conclusion, Mr. Atwood asks that the recommenda-
tions of the Planning Staff be followed, noting that with the revised proffer, the largest
single landowner in the vicinity, Piedmont Virginia Community College, by letter dated April
13,~1984, retracted their original letter of opposition to the Willow Lake deYelopment project
(see letter signed by P. J. JenkinS, dated April 13, 1984).
Mr. Larry McElwain, an attorney representing a group of Lakeside subdivision property
owners, was the next person to speak. Mr. McElwain said his clients have expressed concern
over various elements of the site plan presented to the Board tonight. He began by calling
attention to the buffer proposed by the developers between Lakeside and Willow Lake which
starts with fifty feet of trees, narrows to twenty-five feet and then reverts to an eight-foot
high fence and then goes back to trees. Most of these will'be newly planted trees. The
individuals whose property abuts this proposed fence, object strongly to this type of screenin
between Lakeside Subdivision and the proposed Willow Lake Subdivision. Mr. McElwain feels the
fence is an affront to Lake Subdivision and suggests this fence is proposed in order for the
overall project to achieve maximumi density. Mr. McElwain said 120 units will be put on this
property. This density has been achieved by including land that is under water (a pond),
including the scenic highway setback of 150 feet, and using an existing lot in Lakeside Subdivi
sion (shown as lot 31 on Willow Lake plan). Mr. McElwain said his clients object to the Willow
Lake developers using building sit~s not appropriate to the lay of the land and cited as
examples lots 31 and 40 which are not consistent with the rest of the subdivision. Mr.
McElwain then handed out a plat of~ the Lakeside Subdivision, which plat was approved by the
Board of Supervisors in 1958. He referred to Brookhilt Avenue which is the road through
Lakeside Subdivision which was built by the original developer. The road was never really
completed as the developer died prior to completing his plans. Mr. McElwain continued that
there is a problem in that runoff runs down what is essentially a gulley and creates a serious
problem. At the present time, there is a single culvert designated to take all of the runoff
from this particular area and quite obviously it cannot do the job. Mr. McElwain said the
Willow Lake property in its existing, undeveloped condition creates an overflow condition
during rain at both Brookhill AYenme and Debenham Court, and from the engineer's statement it
does not seem the situation will b~ improved. Mr. McElwain said the Highway Department has
estimated that it would cost in ex~ess of $50,000 to alleviate the situation on Brookhill
Avenue if the homeowners pay a portion of the cost. His clients are people of modest income
and cannot pay such costs. Another issue Mr. McElwain mentioned is the existing dead-end of
Brookhill Avenue property adjacent to Piedmont ¥irginia Community College. A home sits at the
top of this road which is being used for a public thoroughfare because no turn-around was ever
built at this point on the property. Mr. McElwain said that while the developer of Lakeside
had grand ideas, he did not live long enough to see his ideas developed. Mr. McElwain said his
clients feel there is entirely too, much density proposed for this development and they feel the
concept of the scenic highway shouild be extended beyond the 150 foot buffer zone required by
the Zoning Ordinance. In conclusion, Mr. McElwain said his clients do not feel the proposed
Willow Lake subdivision should be ~developed to the extreme density allowed by ordinances.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. McElw~ain if, with respect to the drainage, further development of
this area will increase the runoff and that is why the residents of Lakeside feel the devel-
opers of Willow Lake should be responsible for making road improvements. Mr. McElwain said
that the present runoff situation is hazardous and as he understands from the engineer working
with Willow Lake developers, that !this situation will not be helped in any way. Mr. McElwain
said there is a problem on the road now which needs to be addressed. It seems that the creati
of the runoff is from Willow Lake property and there is the capability with the lake, to help
alleviate the problem. However, it appears that this has not been adequately done.
Mr. Joseph Garland, a property owner in Lakeside Subdivision, said he purchased his
property in 1966 after discussing with the developer of Lakeside, the developer's plans and
aspirations for this subdivision. Mr. Garland said the proposal by Willow Lake developers is
in conflict with the plans of the Lakeside developer, ~ho died before his dreams could be
realized. Mr. Garland continued that the entrance road ~rookhill Avenue) into the property
being considered for development is a problem; this is a gravel road and since the death of the
developer, the road has not been maintained and is being~ashed away. Before the developer's
death he and Mr. Garland had discussed this road. Mr. Garland ~as told that the road would not
be constructed to a more permanent state until after all the lots were sold. There would be
only one main artery into. the subdivision, and all the lots would be one-acre in size. In
1967, Mr. Garland proceeded to purchase an adjacent lot and he feels the Board of Supervisors
should help him protect what was originally shown ~n the 1958 plat. The density being con-
sidered in the Willow Lake proposal is incongruous ~ith the development in Lakeside Subdivision
Mr. Evans, another property owner in Lakeside Subdivision, commented that there are
approximately four inches of mud on the Route 20 side of the creek making it impossible to mow
and providing no drainage. He referred to the two 72 inch pipes proposed by the Willow Lake
developers and feels that despite what the developers state, further development will defi-
nitely affect the drainage.
Mr. Greg MacDonald from Michie Tavern, asked the Board of Supervisors to carefully evaluat
how this proposed subdivision will affect the character of the area. He said he had no objec-
tion to single-family ho~ses but does not feel that cluster homes ~ill ha~e a positive affect
on the roughly 750,000 visitors who come to enjoy the beauty of this area.
120
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)~
Mr. Daniel Lowe, a resident of Lakeside subdivision said an engineer from the Highway
Department had looked at the problem with the road in Lakeside Subdivision. The engineer
stated that because of the floodplain and because the road has been inundated with water on
several occasions, it would require two additional pipes to accommodate the existing water
~problem. Mr. Lowe asked that the Board give careful consideration to this problem before
approving any further development which'will increase the flow of water and make the situation
worse than it is at the present time.
Mrs. Alice West Brown, another resident of Lakeside subdivision, said she owns Lot 5 in
Lakeside Subdivision, the lot directly in front of Lot 31. in Willow Lake. She said that at -
the time she purchased her lot, 25 additional feet was added to her property so that she could
site her home on the lot to obtain the best view of the area. At the time, County Ordinances
required a 35-foot setback. This is why she n~gotiated with the Lakeside developer for an
additional 25 feet of property. Now she understands that only a 20-foot setback will be
required on Lot 31. Also, she is very concerned about the location of the proposed fence
buffer at the back of her property. Mrs. Brown stated her opposition to this fence saying her
property is easily seen coming down Monticello Mountain (Route 53) and the fence will be
unsightly for tourists.
Mr. George Gilliam said he felt Mrs. Brown brought the extra 25 feet of land to make her
own buffer. He said there is a significant grade problem in the area where the fence is
proposed. The developers felt it would be very difficult to plant any trees in that area. Mr.
Gilliam said that during site plan review, if it is found possible to place trees in the area,
the developers would much prefer to do so. Mr. Gilliam then addressed the reference to certain
lots being inconsistent with the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Gilliam said there are two lots
fronting on Brookhill Avenue in Lakeside Subdivision which are owned by the Willow Lake Devel-
opers. The State Highway Department wants the road upgraded and taken into the state system.
Under existing highway formulas, it would be incumbent on Willow Lake Developers to pay 17
percent of the cost to improve this road even though they are not. going to be using the road.
However, the Willow Lake developers have stated their willingness to pay their fair share of
improving and upgrading Brookhill Ayenue. The Lakeside subdivision was developed in the late
1950's and was created under a completely different~ set of rules than exist today. Today, the
Board of Supervisors would never allow a subdivision to be created without a road maintenance
agreement. There is no road maintenance agreement and Mr. G~lliam acknowledged that there are
definitely problems with this road. Mr. Gilliam stated that the proposed Willow Lake devel-
opment will not exacerbate the existing problems and in fact the raising of the lake level will
contain the water running off of Willow Lake in that direction. While this will not make
Lakeside's problems any less, it will not increase problems. Mr. Gilliam said that Mr. Pat
Coffey had offered to meet with the residents of Lakeside in order to help them structure a
road maintenance agreement, in which Willow Lake also participated. However, the residents ~
have refused to meet. With respect to the dead-end of this road at the Piedmont ¥irginia
Community College border, Mr. Gilliam said this situation was created when P¥CC bought the
property and is not something the Willow Lake developers can do anything about. Mr. Gilliam
said it is unfortunate that the residents of Lakeside bought into a subdivision that had no
restrictive covenants, and where the use of the land is not restricted.
Mrs. Brown approached the Board again stating she bought the additional 25 feet of land,
not to serve as a buffer, but rather to allow her to site her home in a desired location. In
addition, Mrs. Brown commented that she had never received any communication from the developer:
regarding a meeting of any kind. Mrs. Brown said she and the other residents of Lakeside were
told by' the developer that he would maintain the road until such time as the development Was
completed. Once completed, she understood that the H~ghway Department would then take over
maintenance of the road. However, the development has never been completed due to the devel-
oper's untimely death. Mrs. Brown further commented that all properties were bought with
restrictions as to land use. She has misplaced her copy, but notes that there are restrictions
Mr. Lowe addressed the Board again saying that Mr. Coffey had called him this past Saturda
morning asking if Mr. Coffey could speak with the residents of Lakeside. Mr. Lowe told Mr.
Coffey he could not speak for the other residents, and he personally could~tspeak to him
without his attorney being present. Mr. Lowe said he could not reach Mr. McElwain until Monday
afternoon. Mr. Lowe then contacted several property owners and it was decided there was not
enough time to get together for a meeting only two days prior to this Board meeting.
Mr. Evans came forward again saying that Mr. Coffey had spoken to him but represented
himself as a private property owner. Mr. Evans continued that Mr. Coffey approached him w~t'h a
road maintenance agreement whereby the residents would agree to susvain a cost of $174
per person for six months in order that Mr. Coffey could arrange financing to purchase property
in Lakeside subdivision. Mr. Evans then found out that the lot is being considered as part of
Willow Lake Subdivision. Mr. Evans said that Mr. Coffey told him he could not purchase that
land unless a road maintenance agreement existed. Mr. Evans feels this was a total misrepre-
sentation of the facts since Mr. Evans subsequently learned that Mr. Coffe~ was part of the
development team and was attempting to get the Lakeside residents to develop that road so it
could be used as an access road in the~development of Willow Lake Subdivision.
Mr. Coffey said that in the fall of 1~83, Willow Lake Purchased the lot at the top of the
hill in Lakeside Subdivision which is adjacent to ~iedmont College. This is a separate piec~~
of real estate from the rest of the proposed Willow Lake develoPment. Mr. Coffey said that
banks do not generally like to lend money to developers mnless there is an existing road
maintenance agreement between property owners. Mr. Coffey approached the residents of Lakeside
with the belief that it would be to their benefit to have a road maintenance agreement. Mr.
Coffey spoke with individuals on the block in an effort to determine if there was a willingness
to have a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Coffey received no response. Mr. Coffe¥ said Willow
Lake now owns two lots in Lakeside and if the Willow Lake developers are willing to pay their
fair share for road improvements, it is felt the other residents should be willing to do
likewise.
April 18, 1984 (Regula~ Night Meeting)
1'21
At 8:46 P.M., the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that the
plans proposed by the original developer of Lakeside are binding upon the current owners, but
if there is a plat of record which does indicate some legal rights and expectations then there
needs to be some determination that the Willow Lake proposal is consistent with that plat. Mr.
Lindstrom said that with the exception of the road which was never built to any standard, no
inconsistency appears to exist. Mr. Bowie noted that the comments regarding the road address a
road which is not even within the proposed Willow Lake development.
Mr. Tucker then referred to the Comprehensive Plan which states the maximum density for
the area in question as being two dwelling units per acre, the type of housing as being single-
family detached, or modular housing for two-family dwellings. It is not until the density
reaches four dwelling units per acre or higher that attached units are mentioned. The Compre-
hensive Plan for this area recommends low density, a range of one to four dwelling units per
acre; the applicant, at staff's request has tried to maintain an average of two and one-half
units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom said the proposal for Willow Lake would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan even if the developers placed four units per acre. Mr. Tucker said the
applicants requested R-4 zoning so they could build attached units.
Mr. Way asked the general price range of the houses. One of the members of the developmen'
team answered that the cost will vary, with the quadraplexes ranging from the high 40's to the
low 50's and the single-family units ranging between the high 50's and low 60's. Mr. Way said
he feels the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and only 2.5 units per acre are
being proposed. He sympathizes with the problems along Brookhill Avenue but feels it is not
the responsibility of the Willow Lake developers to correct a mistake that was made in the
past. Mr. Way pointed out that the applicants have stated their willingness to participate in
improving this problem and s~ggested the developers might even be willing to place additional
pipes under the road which will help improve the current situation. Mr. Way said he will
support the proposal.
Mr. Lindstrom concurred with Mr. Way adding that the Comprehensive Plan indicates a range
of density much higher than the present proposal. The developer has voluntarily tried to
accommodate the concerns of the adjoining property owners and although the density on the
Willow Lake property will be somewhat higher than the density in Lakeside Subdivision, Mr.
Lindstrom feels the Willow Lake proposal is compatible. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the
Comprehensive Plan does not call for all development to occur in the north and west sections of
the county which have absorbed almost all of the development in the past ten years. At this
time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-84-1 with the proffers as presented. This
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie who commented on how impressed he is with the proposed recre-
ational facilities.
Mr. Henley asked if it was necessary to obtain a commitment from the applicants relative
to units i, 2, 3, and 4, which are the units not specified in the proffer. Mr. Tucker said
yes, adding that due to an oversight, the proffer does not indicate the orientation of units 1,
2, 3, and 4 toward Route 20.~ Mr. Gilliam then came forward stating for the record that the
part of the proffer relative to orienting specific units to face Route 20 is to include ~
attached units 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want the public to think that he supports this application
simply because he wants to push development out of his district. Rather, he'feels this is a
good plan in and of itself and he supports the plan. Mrs. Cooke stated her support of the
proposal also. She is pleased that the Willow Lake developers are willing to help solve the
problem with Brookhill Avenue even though they did not create the problem.
Mr. Fisher said he wanted to support this request but subsequently changed his mind after
viewing the slides. Mr. Fisher is concerned about the visibility of the ridgeline coming down
Route 53 from Monticello, Ash Lawn and Michie Tavern. The slope of this ridgeline makes it
almost impossible for any development to take place without creating a signficant presence. He
commented that the brown tones proposed for the units may help, but future owners may not paint
their homes the same brown tones to camouflage their presence. He feels the Monticello, Ash
Lawn, Michie Tavern area has historical significance not only to the nation, but to the entire
world, and this area must he viewed as slightly di~ferent from the rest of the county. Mr.
Fisher feels he cannot support such significant ridgeline deYelopment in this area. He is also
concerned about the runoff ~hich will be created hy this development. While much of this
runoff will go into the lake, the lake cannot absorb all of the runoff. Mr. Fisher added that
there appear to be roads on the original plat of Lakeside approved by the County years ago,
which roads have been to.t~l!y~gnored in the plan for Willow Lake. Mr. Fisher pointed out that
Route 20 is a designated~ scenic highway and he feels that as such, should receive
special treatment. Mrs. Cooke commented that everyone is concerned about preserving the
county's historical landscape, hut she feels that Michie ~avern has become a commercial desecra.
tion on Route 53. Mrs. Cooke emphasized the tr~emendous parking lot and all of the commerciali?
zation that has t~ken place in that area. She does not feel that a place where people will
raise their families is any more objectionable than the highly commercialized drive up to
Monticello and Ash Lawn.
There being no further discussion, roll waa called on the foregoing motion to approve ZMA-
84-1 with the following proffers as shown on a site plan entitled "Willow Lake Residential
Community, Albemarle County, ¥~rginia", prepared by Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, Inc., dated
February 28, 1984, and revised April 3, 1984:"
122
April 18, 1984 (RegUlar Night Meeting).
Site drainage shall comply with the requirements of the County Stormwater
Detention Ordinance.
Ail roads shall be dedicated to public use and shall be designed to current
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards.
Water and Sewer shall be dedicated to Albemarle County Service Authority
and shall be designed and installed to meet its requirements.
Ail existing wooded areas shall be preserved except for clearing
necessary for construction of roads, drives, utility lines and dwellings.
Ail units will be constructed using wood siding stained with earth tones to
minimize visual impact.
Where natural or proposed screening does not exist, units will be oriented
to face Route.20. Specifically, these are the units on lots #19, 20, 21, 24,
25, 26, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and attached units 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Single-family, four-unit clusters will be designed with roof lines to appear~
as large single-family houses when viewed from Route 20.
Single-family, four-unit clusters adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community
College will utilize berming and low roof heights to reduce light and sound
'impact from Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Open space and recreational facility will be a Willow Lake Property Owners
Association.
The motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
At 9:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a short recess. The meeting reconvened at
9:18 P.M., with Mr. Lindstrom being absent.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-10. Louis S. Eaton. Request to locate low water bridge over
Little Ivy Creek on 20.350 acres zoned Rural Areas, RA. Located north side of Route 250 West
in Ivy, County Tax Map 58A(2), Parcel 24. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 3 and April 10, 1984).
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Low-water bridge in floodway (30.3.5.2.1.2)
20.35 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 58A(2), Parcel 24, is located
on the north side of Route 250 West, northeast of the Exxon
station at Ivy.
Character of the Area: Currently, Mr. Eaton shares an access to Route 250
with adjoining owners Rene and Marjorie Muller [Tax Map 58A(2), Parcel 22).
Vertical curvature of Route 250 severely restricts sight distance to the east.
The applicant proposes an additional entrance to the west which would improve
sight distance but necessitates bridging of Little Ivy Creek. Little Ivy Creek
runs through the applicant's property in a northeasterly fashion.
Summary and Recommendat'ion: This stream crossing would provide improved
access to Route 250 ~est for two properties. Following the writing of this
report, the applicant changed the design from a culvert .to a span bridge, which
is reflective of the' Watershed Management Official's comments. The Virginia
Department of HighWays and Transportation has made comment which would require
more expensive design, the participation of the Mullers in this petition and
re-advertisement/ additional hearings·
Staff Comment: As a part of the Crozet Interceptor project, the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority has obtained a site from the applicant to locate a sewer
pump station adjacent to the C & 0 Railroad behind t~he Exxon service station.
Access to the pump station would he by easement through the Exxon property. The
Virginia Department 'of HighWays and Transportation has approved an entrance to
Route 250 adjacent to and west of the bridge over Little Ivy Creek, based on one
vehicle trip per day to service the pumping station.
Mr. Eaton proposes to use the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority entrance as
access to his property west of Little Ivy Creek and to imp~r.ove access to the
Muller property and his home. [The existing access east~ of the creek would be
maintained for service vehicle use and as emergency access at time of flooding.)
The applicant is hopeful that the bridge could be built simultaneously with the
pump station by the same construction company. This would reduce the amount of
time that land would be disturbed in the area.
April 18~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
123
The County Engineer has made preliminary comment that due to the constrictions
of the Route 250 West bridge and culvert of the C & 0 Railroad, it is unlikely
that a low-water bridge in this area would adversely affect flood levels.
Likewise, due to these restrictions and narrow stream channel, public use (i.e.
canoeing) does not appear as a consideration on this stream segment.
The Watershed Management Official has commented that a span bridge would be
preferable to the proposed in-stream culvert construction in terms of minimizing
soil erosion; however, properly-designed, the culvert bridge would be acceptable.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended that the
bridge be constructed to accommodate all traffic including the heavier service
vehicles (i.e., garbage trucks, fuel trucks) and that the existing entrance be
closed. Also, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
recommends no further development with access to the new entrance. In regard
to the Highway Department's comments, staff would note that the Mullers' property
is not subject to this petition and no conditions could be imposed to restrict
development of that property.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends
the following conditions:
County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in flood-
plain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of
the Zoning Ordinance;
Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and
grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices
as outlined by the watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan and
State Water Control Board;
3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies.
Should the Commission and Board agree with the recommendations of the Highway
Department, these additional conditions are offered:
4. Bridge to be designed in accordance with the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation comments of letter dated March 30, 198~;
Existing entrance to be closed following construction of new entrance.
No further development with access to new bridge.
(NOTE: This condition five would require the Mullers to participate in this
petition.)"
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 10, 1984, voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the above-referenced special use permit subject to the
first three conditions recommended by staff but without the Highway Department's requirements.
The Planning Commission did, however, add a fourth condition reading as follows:
"4. No further development without Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Fisher commented that it is Mr. Eaton's intent to construct a span bridge although a
culvert bridge is already in place. He asked if this is a temporary bridge for use by the
Rivanna Authority. At this time (9:25 P.M.), the public hearing was opened. Mr. Louis S.
Eaton answered that he had originally intended to build a low-water bridge but after talking
with the County Engineer, decided that a span bridge would be more practical and will not be
significantly more expensive. Mr. Eaton commented on the Highway Department's requirement to
close the existing entrance should the bridge be constructed, saying that it would be very
difficult to build a bridge higher than the floodplain and would be very expensive. Mr. Eaton
said that the Mullers are elderly people who drive very little; they use the driveway infre-
quently and he will have no problem allowing them use of his driveway. Mr. Henley said he
cannot imagine that the' Highway .Department would want the other entrance closed knowing that
Mr. Eaton's entrance floods. Mr. Eaton said he had difficulty understanding this also. With
no one else present to comment on this application, the public hearing was closed at 9:35 P.M.
Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Eaton had invited him out to his property to review the
site. Mr. Fisher does not think it reasonable to close the existing driveway because Mr. Eato~
would have to_build a bridge~heavy enough to carry trash trucks and other vehicles. Mr. Fishe:
commented that the stream is not navigable and he recommends approval of this request with the
four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP 84-10, with the four conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission as set .out above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-84-2. Resolution of Intent to amend "Map 25: Albemarle County
Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002" to bring this map into compliance with the County's
Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in.the Daily Progress on April 3 and April 10, 1984).
124
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
"At its ~meeting on February 7, 1984, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend Map 25: Albemarle County Service
Authority Project Areas 1982-2002. The Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board
of Supervisors on January 5, 1983, removed land from the County's growth areas
that drained into a watershed impoundment. The only exception to this was the
village of Ivy where the Board established boundaries which encompassed existing
development only. In the summer and fall of 1983, the zoning and Service
Authority project areas were amended to comply with these amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
As stated in previous staff reports, "the Plan states that Map 25 provides only
a general outline of areas recommended for public water and sewer service in the
County. The Plan further states that in order for one to determine whether an
individual parcel of.property is recommended for service, the Albemarle County
Service Authority should be consulted.
With the changes required to bring the Service Authority project areas into
compliance with the growth areas, staff recommends that Map 25 be amended to
reflect this."
Mr. Tucker said that last year the project areas in which the Albemarle County Service
Authority can operate were amended to reflect the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The
amendment to Map 25 should have been made simultaneously, but was overlooked. Mr. Tucker
continued that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 1984, voted unanimously to
recommend adoption of CPA-84-2.
The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to address this amendment the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept the recommendations of
the Planning Commission and amend "Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas
1982-2002," to bring this map into--compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs.. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher referred to the April 13, 1984 Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper
and wished to thank Delegates George Allen and Mitchell Van Yahres for attending this meeting
with four Board members. In addition, Mr. Fisher wanted to thank Mr. Tucker and staff for the
presentation which, Mr. Fisher felt, was one of the best presentations ever prepared for him.
Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of. Minutes. January 18, 1984.
Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of January 18, 1984 and found no errors. Motion
was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes of January 18,
1984 with no corrections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way,
NAYS: __None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not On The Agenda.
Mr. Fisher referred to an urgent request from Ms. Cindy Taylor, representing the National
Organization of Women, to make a presentation before the ~oard at .this meeting.
Ms. Joyce McKeeman introduced herself and Ms. Vicki Smith, then made the following
presentation:
"I am Joyce McKeeman, representing the Charlottesville chapter of the National
Organization for Women, the American Association of University Women, the
Business and Professional Women's Club, the League of Women ¥oters, and the
Shelter for Help in Emergency.
We are here tonight because of our grave concern about the rape rate in
Albemarle County. As you know, last year's crime statistics showed a dramatic
increase in rape, while all other serious crimes decreased. We wish to bring
your attention to this problem, and to show that the community ~ants action,
directed specifically against rape and other forms of sexual assault.
We ask: (1) that you appoint a committee of citizens to determine the most
effective means for attaining the goal of eliminating rape from Albemarle
County; (2) that women be included on the committee since they are directly
affected by the problem; and, .(3) that the committee bring its proposals
before you within six months aftar its formation.
April 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
To accomplish the proposed goal, we must all work together. The organizations
supporting this statement tonight wish to stress their willingness to work
with community leaders, with public officials, with legislators, and with the
judicial system. We appreciate the efforts that have been made by those
responsible for public safety. Unfortunately, those efforts have not done the
job. We need a renewed commitment, made publicly and forcefully, to the
complete elimination of rape from our community."
Mr. Fisher asked if this same proposal had not been made to City Council Monday night.
Ms. McKeeman replied yes. Mr. Fisher suggested, since the other Board members are seeing this
request for the first time, that the Board take this matter under advisement and place this on
the agenda of May 9, 1984 and take questions at that time. Mr. Fisher further suggested that
Ms. McKeeman leave a list of names and telephone numbers of individuals familiar with the
situation in the event members of the Board have questions they may wish to convey prior to
meeting. Mr. Fisher said that he has wondered about the increased statistics relative to rape
and wonders how much of this increase is actually an increase in the number of rapes, how much
is increased awareness, or how much is increased reporting. Mr. Fisher and other Board member~
would like these questions to be addressed at the May 9 meeting. Ms. Vicki Smith said that
based on a statement from the City Police Chief, there has been an increase in reporting rapes
but the actual number of rapes has also increased. Ms. Smith continued that this is one of
reasons why groups have formed to work together with public officials in an attempt to answer
these questions and hopefully take major steps to prevent this serious problem from continuing.
It was agreed that this group of persons would return to the Board meeting on May 9, 1984 for
further discussion of the request.
Mr. Fisher referred to a letter dated April 12, 1984, from Mr. Warner Wood, Chairman of
the Greene County Board of Supervisors, notifying Albemarle County of its intent to submit a
proposal to the State Senate Subcommittee studying the establishment of a Virginia Horse
Center, seeking designation of Greene County as the site for development. Mr. Wood requests a
response and resolution of support from Albemarle County prior to submitting the proposal on
May 9, 1984. Mr. Way commented that there are a number of people interested in bringing this
Horse Center into Albemarle County and he referred to the letter from Jerry A. Brown, President
of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, dated May 3, 1984. Mr. Brown's letter
was accompanied by a preliminary study for this proposed Horse Center and a request for endors~
ment of the concept of such a Center being located in Albemarle County. Mr. Way said that Mr.
Brown asks to be on the agenda for the May 9, 1984 meeting at which time the Chamber of
Commerce will make a proposal soliciting the Board's support of this concept. Mr. Way sug-
gested waiting until the proposal for Albemarle County is presented before offering a resolu-
tion of support for Greene County. In addition, Mr. Way suggested that staff talk with Mr.
Brown to review the information Mr. Brown has available and perhaps make a recommendation at
the May 9 meeting.
Mrs. Cooke asked for an explanation of the nature of this Horse Center. Mr. Way explaine~
that this Center will hold horse shows, will contain an indoor arena for three to six thousand
people, a sales arena, outdoor show rings, a permanent stable with 500 stalls, a Grand Prix
ring, a cross country course, a steeple chase course, and more. Mr. Way commented that this
will be an extremely large center funded with State and Federal funds. Mr. Way added that
there is an Albemarle County c~tizen who is willing to donate land for this Horse Center. Mrs
Cooke and Mr. Bowie agreed it was necessary to determine whether this location and the Center
itself is feasible for Albemarle County before making any decisions to support such a concept.
Mr. Way reiterated that he only suggests the Board not support Greene County's proposal until
such time as it can be determined whether or not it is possible to locate the Horse Center in
Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher said he would respond to Greene County that the Board is not
ready to support any proposal.
Mr. Fisher then referred to a letter from the Solid Waste Commission, dated March 26,
1984, in which it is announced that a Low-Level Haste Management Workshop will be held on May
and 9, 1984 at the Hyatt Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. The letter asks if any person from
Albemarle County would like to. attend this workshop. Mr. Fisher asked the Board members if
anyone would care to art.end. There were no volunteers at this time.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker for recent information regarding the impact on traffic,
schools, services, etc., caused by the density of development that has occurred in the Hydrau-
lic Road area. Mr. Tucker said he would supply her with figures re~ati~e to this request.
Agenda Item No. 11.
adjourned at 9:53 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
CHAIRMAN