1981-02-18~_~ Re ular Ni ht Meetin~g~
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of S~pervisors was held on February
18, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton~R. McCann and Miss Ellen V.~Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 7:30 P.M., the meeting was called to order in
the foyer of the courthouse by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that
court was still in session at the present time. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn this meeting, and immediately reconvene in the Board
Room on the third floor of the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and MiSs Nash.
NAYS: None.
At 7:40 P.M., the meeting reconvened in the Board Room of the County Office Building.
Mr. Fisher stated that the following are separate applications which are interrelated
and therefore, will be heard simultaneously.
Agenda Item 2. ZMA-80-26. Dr. Jan Langman. Petition to amend 26.62 acres of Branch-
lands PUD to increase the number of units in that section from 246 to 312 thereby increasing
the total number of dwellings from 792 to 848 units. Located south of Charlottesville
Fashion Square on the east side of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcels
1 and iA, part thereof. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 4 and February 11, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation as follows:
Proposal: Amend 26.62 acres of Branchtands PuD to increase the number of
dwellings from 246 to 312 and to amend the road system.
Location: Property described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcels 1 and iA,
part thereof, is a portion of the Branchlands property adjacent to
Chapel Hills and Greenbrier subdivisions.
History and Staff Comment: In September, 1975, SP-446 was approved estab-
lishing Branchlands as a Planned Community to be developed with 782
dwellings and 16 acres of commercial area. In 1978, Charlottesville
Fashion Square purchased 10.74 acres of the commercial area to be
developed as a portion of the shopping mall. Concomitantly, the
church sought amendment of conditions of approval of SP-446 in regard
to phasing of improvements. This petition (SP-78-06) was approved in
March, 1978. Later, the church requested certain amendments to the
transportation plan, which was to be integrated with the shopping mall
and Squire Hill Apartments. This petition (SP-78-31) was approved in
August, 1978.
In addition, during this period, a site plan was approved for the Holy
Comforter Church itself. A grading permit was issued in 1976 on a
portion of the property adjacent to Greenbrier Subdivision to permit
grading of a portion of Westfield Road (off-site) and filling in the
flood plain for future residential construction.
In September, 1980, SP-80-63 (Dr. Charles Hurt) was filed requesting
amendment to Branchlands to increase the commercial acreage and reduce
the residential density. During review of SP-80-63, staff was made
aware that Dr. Jan Langman had optioned a portion of Branchlands from
Dr. Hurt. To avoid repeated amendments and provide opportunity for an
overall review of the plan, staff recommended that Hurt's plan be
amended to incorporate Langman's proposals. This was not done and
Hurt's original plan was presented to the Commission in November, 1980
(Dr. Langman made a verbal presentation at that meeting). Staff
expressed concern with regard to road and drainage considerations in
Hurt's plan. The Commission deferred SP-80-63 indefinitely; the
application remains active.
In December, 1980, Dr. Langman filed this current application (ZMA-80-
26) seeking to amend a portion of Branchlands. In Site Review and
subsequent discussions, the Planning staff and the Highway Department
emphasized the need of coordination and cooperation of the involved
parties, particularly in terms of road planning.
While Dr. Langman has addressed most issues in the Site Review comments
which are in his power to address and while staff has given the plan a
favorable review, staff is reluctant to recommend action by the Com-
mission at this time. Staff reasons are as follows:
1. In staff opinion, approval of this application would necessitate
amendment to other portions of Branchlands. While Dr. Hurt and the
church are in apparent agreement with such amendments, no proposal has
been submitted;
;:: 09'1
Februar 18 1981 (Re ular N~.ht Meetin~
2. Items 1, 2 and 3 under General Comments of the Site Review comments,
as well as the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
comments, have not been adequately addressed in staff opinion;
3. Branchtands currently has 20 conditions of approval developed
under the previous zoning ordinance. Since the entire PUD is not
presently for amendment, these conditions can be amended only in
regard to Dr. Langman's property. Dr. Langman's application has been
reviewed under the new ordinance. Therefore, the resulting conditions
of approval would be numerous and cumbersome with a basis in two
ordinances and relating to four approved plans.
Additional Staff Comment: When the church decided to market the majority
of its holdings in t~e Branchlands property, a determination was made
that it would be more appropriate and responsible to the community to
do so under a planned approach rather than under the conventional R-3
and B-1 zoning that existed on the property. At that time the only
available planned zoning designation was the Planned Community of the
previous zoning ordinance.
As staff has stated on previous occasions, the Planned Community
designation lacked adequate provision to insure the resulting devel-
opment would reflect the classic characteristics of a planned devel-
opment, particularly interrelationships of land uses, cohesiveness and
a communal atmosphere. When applied to Branchlands, the problems
inherent in the ordinance were compounded by problems of topography
and physical development of the property. (This is reflected by
previous requests by the church to amend conditions of approval to
provide a more marketable plan.)
To continue the divergence of proposed/approved land uses, now in
multiple ownerships, under the "umbrella" of a Planned Community
designation, in staff opinion, may not be the best approach. With
increased availability of planning tools (i.e. Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial; Planned Residential Development; conventional zoning
with proffers), staff opinion is that developmental concerns could be
adequately addressed while removing many of the complexities which
have become apparent (i.e., this current application is the fifth
county review).
Such an approach would require initial cooperation among the owners in
the development of "hardware" plans (i.e., road planning; an overall
drainage plan and stormwater detention plan; water and sewer; etc.).
These plans could be insured by conditions of approval in planned
designations and by proffers in conventional zoning designations.
SP-80-63. Charles W. Hurt. Petition to amend the Branchlands Planned Unit Develop-
ment, consisting of 86.2 acres with the following: 22.7 acres in net residential area for
345 dwelling units'; 16.7 acres in net commercial area; 32.7 acres in open space, recrea-
tion and buffer zones; and 11.2 acres in major street right-of-way. Located on the east
side of Route 29 North, south-o£ Charlottesville Fashion Square. County Tax Map 61Z~,
Parcels 3-1 and iA. Charlottesville District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4
and February 1i, 1981.)
Proposal: Amend 86.2 acres of approved Branchlands plan from 7.355 acres
of commercial useage and 782 dwelling units to 19.7 acres of commercial
useage and 345 dwelling units.
Location: Property described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcels 1 and iA
is located on the east side of Route 29 North, south and adjacent to
Charlottesville Fashion Square.
History: In September, 1975, SP-446 was approved establishing Branchlands
as a Planned Community to be developed with 782 dwellings and 16 acres
of commercial area. In 1978, Charlottesville Fashion Square purchased
10.74 acres of the commercial area to be developed as a portion of the
shopping mall. Concomittantly, the church sought amendment of conditions
of approval of SP-446 in regard to phasing of improvements. This
petition (SP-78-06) was approved in March, 1978. Later, the church
requested certain amendments to the transportation plan, which was to
be integrated with the shopping mall and Squire Hill Apartments. This
petition (SP-78-31) was approved in August, 1978.
In addition, during this period, a site plan was approved for the Holy
Comforter Church itself. A grading permit was issued in 1976 on a
portion of the property adjacent to Greenbrier Subdivision to permit
grading of a portion of Westfield Road (off-site) and filling in the
flood plain for future residential construction.
Comprehensive Plan: The land use proposals for the Comprehensive Plan in
this area were prepared with an awareness of the approved Planned
Community. Commercial and commercial office uses are recommended
adjacent to Route 29 North. Medium-density residential usage is
recommended for the remainder of the property. Using an average
density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre yields a total of about 650
dwellings.
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment: The Planning staff has not recommended favorably in recent
years any rezoning requests along Route 29 North between Hydraulic
Road and the South Fork Rivanna River which would increase traffic in
that area until improvements recommended in Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation's Route 29 North Corridor Study are re-
alized. While the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
has indicated that this segment of Route 29 North would not be restored
to its arterial function with the recommended improvements, staff is
reluctant to endorse increased burden on the facility until such
improvements are substantially complete. Staff has calculated current
request to be about 3,400 vehicle trips per day (this assumes the
commercial areas under each plan to be developed in retail clusters).
Therefore, the Planning staff does not recommend approval of the plan
as submitted. Based on the number of dwellings requested and an equal
acreage mix of commercial and commercial office, staff has calculated
a total of 15.4 acres in commercial/commercial office uses could be
developed without increased traffic generation.
Staff offers the following additional comments: First, when the
Church decided to market a portion of its holdings in the Branchlands
property, a determination was made that it would be more appropriate
to do so under a planned approach than under conventional R-3 and B-1
zoning. From a review of the history of these initial hearings it
appears that the physical development of the property did not receive
as much emphasis as other considerations. Since 1975, as reflected in
various ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan, consideration of the
physical development of property has received increasing emphasis.
Staff opinion is that given current considerations of physical devel-
opment, neither the original plan nor the current proposal reflect a
sensitivity toward accommodating development to the natural charac-
teristics of the land. Both plans envision considerable earth-moving
activity (cutting and filling), channetization and/or piping of
streams and filling of flood plain areas. The Planning staff is not
patently opposed to such development activity, 'however, development of
this type should receive more detailed engineering than has been
provided to date (in site review, the Soii Conservation Service
expressed concern that areas of development intruded on flood plainZfill
areas and suggested more detailed study. In addition, Soil Conservation
Service expressed concern that additional study be given to the flood-
carrying capacity of the various channels on this .property in view of
continue.d upstream development). Where filling of the flood plain has
already occurred, procedu~res outlined in Article 9A General.Flood
Plain of the Zoning Ordinance should be satisfied prior to any develop-
ment approvals. This property is also subject to the urban stormwater
detention ordinance.
Second, the preliminary plan does not adequately reflect site review
comments made by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Additional comment has been received which should also be incorporated
in the plan. These issues should be addressed as well as a deter-
mination of right of way widths and design specifications for internal
roads prior to action on the~preliminary, plan.
The current plan calls for less than half of the number of residential
units and a doubling of the commercial acreage of the original pro-
posal. Staff opinion is that the reduction to ~345 dwellings changes
th~s~proP~rty to a low-density residential usage as compared to a
medium-density residential usage as recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan.
In summary, staff recommends denial of this petition as submitted. A
reduction of the commercial area and a commercial/commercial office
mix would, be acceptable from a traffic generation. The natural
characteristics of the property should receive more attention in the
preliminary plan. Residential underdevelopment/conversion remains a
general concern in terms of effectuating the Comprehensive Plan.
ADDENDUM: ZMA-80-26, Dr. Jan Langman & Sp-80-63, Dr. Charles W. Hurt
At its meeting of January 27, 1981, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission deferred action on ZMA-80-26 and recalled SP-80-63 so both
petitions could receive simultaneous review. Staff has reviewed the
two petitions as essentially one submittal and has prepared recom-
mendations accordingly.
In initial review of SP-80-~63, Staff incorrectly calculated the
existing vacant commercial acreage in Branchlands (Staff had cal-
culated 5.27 vacant acres. Review of Fashion Square files revealed
that 7.355 acres of vacant commercial remain). This error combined
with a further traffic reduction of ZMA-80-26 compared to the approved
plan warranted recalculation of potential traffic generation. Staff
has calculated that the two proposals would generate less traffic than
development under the approved plan.
With about 10 acres in the Fashion Square Mall, remaining land uses in
Branchlands consist of 7.355 commercial acres and 782 dwellings with
eight acres reserved for the Church. Requested under the proposals
are a~totat of 19.7 commercial acres and 484 dwellings with 12 acres
reserved for the Church. Since the proposals are currently on two
separate plans, Staff has identified areas by letter code:
093
February 18, 1981 (R~gular Night Meeting~)
Area Use Owner
A 2~du's Dr. Hurt
B Church Bishop Sullivan
C 312 du's Dr. Langman
D 90 du's Dr. Hurt
E 1t.0 comm/serv. Dr. Hurt
F 8.7 comm/serv. Dr. Hurt
At this time, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
does not endorse conceptual approval of any roads other than the
Branchlands collector road and Access Road 2 (adjacent to Happy Clam).
Conditions of approval reflect the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation comment in regard to internal roads and access to Route
29 North. Given this background, Staff opinion is that road locations
in the commercial areas could be addressed at time of final approvals.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
A. General
1. Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential
densities shall comply with the Revised Application Plan. The Appli-
cation Plan shall consist of the individual proposals of SP-80-63
Charles W. Hurt and ZMA-80-26 Dr. Jan Langman as amended by the Board
of Supervisors.
2. For Areas A, C and D of the Application Plan, open space requirements
of 20.8.2 and recreational area requirements in 20.8.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance shall be met for each area individually. Modification: For
Area C, a minimum of 50 sq. ft./dwelling unit of recreational area
shall be developed for adult recreation purposes. No recreational
area for pre-school or elementary school-aged children shall be required.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans shall be obtained prior to final subdivision plat or site plan
approval for any phase to be developed. Ail on-site and off-site
water and sewer improvements shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the Service Authority.
4. No final subdivision plat or site plan for any phase of develop-
ment shall be approved by the Planning Commission until approval has
been obtained from the County Engineer of a stormwater detention
facilities/drainage plan in accordance with the urban stormwater
detention ordinance, the Flood Hazard Overlay District, and all other
applicable law. In such review the County Engineer may consult the
Soil Conservation Service or other agency deeme'd appropriate and shall
be mindful of past grading/filling activity in areas proposed for
development and of possible upstream enlargement of drainage facil-
ities.
5. Bike and pedestrian trails should be constructed along open space
corridors (stream beds) or sewer easements. Such construction shall
occur with each phase of development on the open space corridors and
sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase
of deveIopment; provided that the Planning Commission may require
reasonable extension of such bike/pedestrian trail through other areas
if such extension provides linkage to an existing or approved bike
trail. In addition to such other bike/pedestrian trails as may be
proposed by the developer or required by the Commission, the north-
south trail shown on the Application Plan shall be constructed to
connect to the bike/pedestrian trail in the Fashion Square Mall.
6. Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners' association
agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other
commonly-owned or common-use amenities.
Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F.
Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of'Area B (a 12.0 acre tract to
be reserved for church purposes end not sold as part of the planned
community property referred to hereinafter as the church property)
shall not be required to be members of the homeowners' association;
provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for the main-
tenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their
respective tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to
that level established in the homeowners' association agreements for
other such uses.
Should commercial development or sale of commercially designated
property occur prior to establishment of homeowners' association
agreements, the Planning Commission may require in the deed restric-
tions for such property, provisions for the maintenance of such
driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate
for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and for the
reasonable usage of such areas by future residents of the planned
community.
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall enjoy
the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space, etc.
within commercially designated areas and the church property as shall
be established by homeowners' association agreements for other such
uses within the planned community.
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
In addition to the foregoing, for Areas A, C and D, portions of the
open space and recreationaI facilities provided may be reserved for
the exclusive use of the residents of such areas, either ~n common or
individually, subject to Commission approval.
7. Approval by the County Attorney's Office of deed restrictions for
sections to be sold. The County Attorney shall review such documents
for provisions adequate to insure compliance with conditions of
approval contained herein.
8. Fencing adequate to discourage trespass to adjoining property
shall be provided by the developer along the Chapel Hill subdivision
boundary as shown on the Application Plan.
9. No final approvals shall be granted by the Planning Commission
until the Squire Hills Apartments site plan has been amended in regard
to the Branchlands collector road. Such amendment shall be subject to
Staff and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation appro-
vals.
B. Transportation System
1. Except as otherwise approved in Area C, all roads are to be
designed and built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation standards and dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway
System. Limitation of internal access to public roads should be
considered in the design of such roads only if the Application Plan is
amended to reflect such limitation of access.
2. in addition to the requirements of 8.5.6.4, no grading permit
shall be issued for public or private roads until road plans have been
approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
and/or the County Engineer, as the case may be.
3. There shall not be more than three entrances from Route 29 North,
inclusive of access to Greenbrier Drive. Access to Route 29 North
shall be subject to the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation approval, including but not limited to the possible requirement
of new crossovers and signalization. Internal intersections with
Route 29 North access roads shall be 200 feet or more from the right
of way of Route 29 North.
4. The Planning Commission has determined that the Branchlands
collector road is in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. The extension of Greenbrier Drive shall be designed in accordance
with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards to
accommodate traffic anticipated from Areas C and D.
Branchlands Collector Road
Section one shall be from Greenbrier Drive to north of the inter-
section with Access Road two. Section two shall be from south of the
intersection with Access Road two to north of the intersection with
the existing Branchlands entrance road. Section three shall be from
south of the intersection with the existing Branchlands entrance road
to the property line of Squire Hill Apartments.
C. Phasing of Development
Since no chronological phasing plan has been proposed by the appli-
cants at this time, conditions addressing phasing of development
intentionally overlap. Improvements will be required in accordance
with conditions contained herein in the order in which development
occurs. Improvements required shall not be deferred to a future phase
of development.
1. Except as otherwise provided herein, all features and impro~
vements within a delineated area of development shall be provided
concomittant with the development of the particular area (i.e. Areas A
through F of the Application Plan).
2. The extension of Greenbrier Drive, Access Road two from Route 29
North to the Branchlands collector road, and Section one of the
Branchlands collector road shall be constructed at the time of de-
velopment of Areas C and/or D.
3. Section two of the Branchlands collector road and Access Road two
from Route 29 North to the Branchlands collector road shall be con-
structed at the time of development of Area E.
4. The existing Br&nchlands entrance shall be relocated and con~
structed to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation prior to the issuance of any building permit for
any phase of development which would have access to and increase
traffic at the ex±sting entrance provided that the Planning Commission,
upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of develop-
ment upon a finding that the existing entrance would be adequate to
accommodate in a safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned by such
development.
February~l~lS~___~~~~h~ Meeti~
5. Section three of the Branchlands collector road shall be con-
structed at the time of development of Areas F and/or A.
6. The bike/pedestrian trail in Area B shall be constructed by the
owner of Area B concomitant with the construction of the trail in Area
A or C, whichever shall occur first.
D. Modification and Waiver of Zoning Ordinance Regulations
1. 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to existing structures
in Areas B and C unless the provisions of 32.0 require a site plan
prior to issuance of such permit.
2. 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shall be established at time
of final approvals as opposed to establishment at time of rezoning.
3. Section 20.4 Permitted Uses: Commercial/Service;
Section 20.9 Regulations Governing Commercial/Service Areas:
Section 20.4 shall apply to Areas C, E and F. For Area C, commercial/;~
service areas established in accordance with 20.9.3 shall be in
addition to uses to be located in the existing manor house. Limita-
tions of 20.9.3 shall not apply to Areas E and F.
Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not apply to Areas C, E and
ADDENDUM II: February 17, 1981
On February 13, 1981, Staff met with the applicants' representatives
to discuss conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Com-
mission. First, a change in the phasing of development is sought with
regard to roads. Under the proposal, Access Road two (at Ha~py Clam)
would be developed as a private road to serve the Branchlands Retire-
ment Community and upgraded to a public road with the development of
commercial areas. Also construction of Section one of the Branchlands
collector road would be tied to commercial development rather than
residential development.
Second, a change in the timing of grading is sought to permit the
development of commercial building sites. This change is intended to
result in a more marketable project than has been the case in the
past.
Proposed changes in conditions of approval are as follows:
B. Transportation System
2. In addition to' the requirements of 8.5.6.4, no grading permit
shall be issued for public and private roads until road plans have
been approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation and/or the County Engineer, as the case may be. Modification:
Grading for the development of building sites may be permitted in
Areas E and F prior to final subdivision plat/site plan approval.
(Note: It may be appropriate to relocate this condition, if approved,
to D. Modification and Waiver of Zoning Ordinance Regulations.)
C. Phasing of Development
2. The extension of Greenbrier Drive shall be constructed to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation standards and Access Road two
from Route 29 North to ~e-~a~e~&~-~~-~&~ Area C shall be
constructed to private road standards a~-~ee~e~-e~e-e~-~e-~a~e~a~
ee~ee~e~-~ea~-~a~-~e-ee~e~e~ at the time of development of Areas
C and/or D.
3. Sections 1 and 2 of the Branchlands collector road and Access Road
two from Route 29 North to the Branchlands collector road shall be
constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards at the time of development of Area E.
At its meeting of February 3, 1981, the Albemarle County Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of these petitions with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Staff.
Mr. Tucker noted that he had some additional information for the Board to review, but
Mr. Fisher felt the Board should have an opportunity at this time to ask questions re-
garding the staff report and the recommended conditions· Mr. Fisher asked for clarifi-
cation of condition D.4 referring to Section 20.9.4 "Building Permits"· Mr. Tucker said
this condition waives the requirement that 80% of the residential units be constructed
prior to developing the commercial and service areas of this .development. Mr. Fisher then
asked how much commercial development is proposed for area "C". Mr. Tucker said 20 square
feet per dwelling unit, which would equal 6,240 square feet which could be constructed
prior to any residential construction.
Mr. Fisher next asked about condition B.3 regarding the road and crossover located at
Greenbrier Drive and Route 29'North. Mr. Tucker said what was originally planned was to
relocate the present entrance and move the existing crossover to.the north to allow proper
distance between the entrance and the already existing entrance at Berkeley, because that
crossover did not meet Highway Department sight distance standards. Mr. Tucker noted that
since that original application, Highway Department standards have changed, and the
crossover at Berkeley now meets those required standards.
February_~18,~! (~Re~ular Night Meeting~
Mr. Lindstrom asked ab.out condition B.2. with respect to the grad~!~ Mr. Tucker
said that the present PUD section of the ordinance requires that no grading is permitted
until a site plan or subdivision plat has been approved. This condition would allow a
waiver of that section of the ordinance in order to make the commercial area more market-
able. Mr. Fisher said the Board has been working for some time to stop grading until a
site or subdivision plan is submitted, and this is in direct opposition to-that goal. Mr.
Lindstrom said he recalled the staff commenting that it might be better to deal with this
proposed development in some other fashion rather than a PUD. Mr. Tucker said that
suggestion was made last year, but the developer chose not to follow that course. Mr.
Lindstrom next asked if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation had any
reaction to the changing of the location of the collector road. Mr. Tucker said the
Highway Department is in favor of the shifting, and had no problem with the deferral of
construction of same. Mr. Tucker said the commercial entrance permit is still required.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Section 1 of the Branchlands collector is built, will it become
part of the State secondary road system or remain under private maintenance. Mr. Tucker
said he doubted if the State would accept the road until it was connected to some other
road system.
Mr. Fisher asked if the conditions presented today replace the earlier conditions for
the PUD, or if they are in addition to those original conditions. Mr. Tucker said they
replace all of the prior conditions.
Dr. !achetta asked what the justification was to allow the commercial area to go from
seven acres to 19 acres. Mr. Tucker said basically because traffic generation would not
change (i.e. residential traffic would reduce while commercial traffic would increase,
therefore creating a balance). Plus the fact that Areas E and F are limited to commercial
office.
Mr. Tucker next presented a letter dated February 13, 1981, from Mr. M. E. Gibson,
Jr., of Tremblay and Smith, representing Bishop Walter F. Sullivan as follows:
"I received a copy of your letter of February 4, 1981, containing the conditions of
approval of the captioned applications. Condition C.6. appears to impose upon the
owner of Area B, Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, the requirement to construct a bike/
pedestrian trail. I wish to have that condition clarified to avoid any future
misunderstanding. Bishop Sullivan is willing to permit the developers to construct a
bike/pedestrian trail in a suitable location on his property; however, he is not
willing to pay the cost to have such trail constructed. Since Bishop Sullivan is not
an applicant with respect to the changes requested in the captioned applications,
condition C.6. would not be binding on him. However, I would suggest that the
wording of condition 6 be changed to read as follows:
C.6. The bike/pedestrian trail in Area B shall be constructed
by the applicants at no cost to the owner of Area B concomitant
with the construction of the trail in Area A or C, whichever
shall occur first. The owner of Area B has consented to grant an
easement for the construction of the bike/pedestrian trail at a
location across Area B which does not interfere with the use of
Area B by the owner thereof.
I presume the foregoing reflects the intent of all persons concerned but
felt the condition should be more fully stated. The proposed revised
condition expressed above is consistent with the contractual agreements
between Bishop Sullivan and one of the applicants, Dr. Hurt."
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Dr. Jan Langman,
applicant under ZMA-80-26. Dr. Langman stated the many advantages and reasons for wishing
to locate his retirement village in the Branchlands community.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, Engineer for the project, was next to speak and said it.has been
decided that the collector road must be relocated from the center of the PUD. He said
with the change in plans made by the Church, leaving the road where it was~originally
planned would create great difficulties in that it would bisect the playground and run
through the middle of the best residential area. Mr. Roudabush said this plan calls for
private roads, which will aid in the control of entrances onto the property. In order to
meet requirements for two accesses as set by the Highway Department and.the Fire Marshal,
a second entrance (at the Happy Clam Restaurant) will be upgraded to state standards at
such time as the development warrants same. Mr. Roudabush noted that there are adequate
water and sewer facilities available to this site. He said water, sewer and storm water
runoff have been discussed with the County Engineer, and there seem to be no problems with
the plans as presented. Mr. Roudabush said the density is being increased from 9.23 units
per acre to 12 units per acre because of the net reduction in the number of people that
will reside in this development. He also noted that traffic volume will decrease by about
700 vehicle trips per day. ~
Mr. Ed Eichman, architect, presented a photograph of the manor house, and described
the renovations which will be made to this home to accommodate its role as the focal point
and center of this retirement village. He stated that the units to be constructed will
also follow the theme set by the architectual appearance of this manor house.
Mr. Jim Hill was present to Speak for Dr. Charles F. Hurt regarding S?-80-63. Mr.
Hill spoke regarding sections E and F and said they wish to have the waiver for grading
prior to the site plan mainly because of the water runoff and drainage problems the steep
terrain presents. He said it is Dr. Hurt's intention to place a box culvert on the site
to aid in directing the water away from the area, but he has no idea of the amount of Iand
this will consume.
Mr. Stuart F. Carwile, attorney representing Dr. Hurt, spoke next regarding the
phasing of the project. He said Dr. Langman's project wilt have primary access via
Greenbrier Drive, which under contract, must be brought to State Standards. Mr. Fisher
commented that the proposed road design sounds very nice,~ but he was not sure it Would
ever happen. Mr. Carwile said Greenbrier Drive will have to be built before Areas C and D
are brought for final site plan. Sections 1 and 2 of the collector road would have to be
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
constructed at the time section E is develope. Section 3 will be constructed when sections
F or A are developed, and Mr. Carwile felt this would assure development of the collector
road to state standards as the PUD is developed.
No one else wished to speak either for or against these petitions, and Mr. Fisher
declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not too concerned about the
construction of the road, because he feels the plan presented will handle that. He said
that sections E and F will require a tremendous amount of grading, and asked what the
Highway Department's feelings were on this subject. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Depart-
ment is endorsing the collector road, the access road and the improvements to Greenbrier
Drive at this time. Regarding the culvert, it is being required and is going require an
extreme amount of grading. Dr. Iachetta said the Board of Supervisors initiated the box
culvert project in this area, because of flooding problems in the area of Pizza Inn at the
entrance to Four Seasons and Berkeley. Dr. Iachetta said he would be reluctant to waive
the grading requirements on section E until there is a clearer picture of how this project
will be handled.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for a more detailed explanation of how the commercial area will
be almost doubled. Mr. Tucker said in addition to certain residential areas, open space
and filled areas will also be converted into commercial areas on this new plan. He also
noted that the Planning Staff and Commission feel comfortable with this new plan because
of the traffic generation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would be sufficient area for a
meaningful commercial venture. Mr. Tucker said it will be limited to smaller shops. Dr.
Iachetta said this is not yet a final plan. Mr. Tucker said it is a general plan, and the
final site plans will locate definitely where the roads and commercial and residential
uses will be. Mr. Tucker said the PUD ordinance requires that unless specifically re-
quested for shopping center type use, then the uses are limited to CO and C1 uses. Mr.
Fisher asked if it is the intent that roads constructed to state standards be accepted
into the state secondary system. Mr. Tucker said that is the intent but the Board may
wish to specifically state that in the conditions.
Mr. Fisher said he was not assured from the conditions listed that road construction
will start at the beginning of development for each section. Dr. Iachetta said he did not
feel that was accurate in that condition C3 ties the construction of sections 1 and 3 to
area E, and perhaps the Board could include area F in that condition. Mr. Fisher said
parcel E may never be developed because of the extreme topographic conditions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if condition A.6. regarding the maintenance agreement pertained
to roads as well as on-site facilities. Mr. Tucker said this condition is to assure the
comparable maintenance of such on-site facilities as driveways, open space, etc. and does
not involve the upkeep of roads since roads will be required to be state maintained.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 and that under
"Phasing of Development", conditions two.and three read as shown in the Addendum dated
February 17, 1981; that condition C.6. be amended to read as suggested in the letter from
Tremblay and Smith dated February 13, 1981. Mr. Fisher asked if the designation of areas
and uses could be included as part of the conditions, and also that wherever it is stated
that roads will be constructed to state standards, that it also state that those roads
will be submitted for acceptance into the state secondary system. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would accept those recommendations as conditions in his motion. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion, adding that he agreed with
Dr. Iachetta's earlier statement that the requested waiver on grading prior to site plan
submission is premature. Mr. Fisher said he was glad to see someone propose housing for
the elderly that is not in the high income bracket. Dr. Iachetta suggested to Dr. Langman
that his homeowner's association agreement include a clause about rights to the sun
(referring to energy rights). Roll was called, and the motion to approve ZMA-80-26
and SP-80-63 carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
The final conditions of approval are as follows:
A. General
1. Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential
densities shall comply with the Revised Application Plan. The Application
Plan shall consist of the individual proposals of SP-80-63 Charles W. Hurt
and ZMA-80-26 Dr. Jan Langman as amended by the Board of Supervisors.
2. For Areas A, C and D of the Applicat±on Plan, open space re-
quirements of 20.8.2 and recreational area requirements in 20.8.'3 of the
Zoning Ordinance shall be met for each area individually. For Area C, a
minimum of 50 square feet/dwelling unit of recreational area shall be
developed for adult recreation purposes. No recreational area for pre-
school or elementary school-aged children shall be required.
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans shall be obtained prior to final subdivision plat or site plan
approval for any phase to be developed. Ail on-site and off-site water and
sewer improvements shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the
Service Authority.
4. No final subdivision plat or site plan for any phase of develop-
ment shall be approved by the Planning Commission until approval has been
obtained from the County Engineer of a stormwater detention facilities/
drainage plan in accordance with the urban stormwater detention ordinance,
the Flood Hazard Overlay District, and all other applicable law. In such
review, the County Engineer may consult the Soil Conservation Service or
other agency deemed appropriate and shall be mindful of past grading/filling
activity in areas proposed for development and of possible upstream en-
largement of drainage facilities.
5. Bike and pedestrian trails should be constructed along open space
corridors (stream beds) or sewer easements. Such construction shall occur
with each phase of development on the open space corridors and sewer ease-
ments located within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development;
provided that the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of
such bike/pedestrian trail through other areas if such extension provides
linkage to an existing or approved bike trail.
In addition to such other bike/pedestrian trails as may be proposed by
the developer or required by the Commission, the north-south trail shown on
the Application Plan shall be constructed to connect to the bike/pedestrian
trail in the Fashion Square Mall and to the proposed Charlottesville trail
to the south.
6. Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners' association
agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other commonly-
owned or common-use amenities. ~
Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F.
Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of Area B (a 12.0 acre tract to be
reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the planned community
property referred to hereinafter as the church property) shall not be
required to be members of the homeowners' association; provided that these
owners shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the driveways,
open space, etc. located within their respective tracts, and that such
maintenance shall be comparable to that level established in the home-
owners' association agreements for other such uses.
Should commercial development~or sale of commercially designated
property occur prior to establishment of homeowners' association agree-
ments, the Planning Commission may require in the deed restrictions for
such property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways, open
spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering
and protection of residential areas and for the reasonable usage of such
areas by future residents of the planned community.
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall enjoy
the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space, etc. within
commercially designated areas and the church proPerty as shall be estab-
lished by homeowners' association agreements for other such uses within the
planned community.
In addition to the foregoing, for Areas A, C and D, portions of the
open space and recreational facilities provided may be reserved for the
exclusive use of the residents of such areas, either in common or indiv-
idually, subject to Commission approval.
7. Approval by the County Attorney's Office of deed restrictions for
sections to be sold. The County Attorney shall review such documents for
provisions adequate to insure compliance with conditions of approval con-
tained herein.
8. Fencing and/or appropriate screening along the Chapel Hill
subdivision boundary may be required by the Planning Commission at time of
final approvals.
9. No final approvals shall be granted by the Planning Commission
until the Squire Hills Apartments site plan has been amended in regard to
the Branchlands collector road. Such amendment shall be subject to Staff
and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approvals.
10. Designation of Areas:
AREA USE
A
B
C
D
E
F
82 dwelling units
Church
312 dwelling units, elderly
90 dwelling units
11.0 commercial service acreage
8.7 commercial service acreage
B. Transportation System
1. Except as otherwise approved in Area C, all roads are to be
designed and built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards and dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System.
Limitation of internal access to public roads should be considered in the
design of such roads only if the Application Plan is amended to reflect
such limitation of access.
2. In addition to the requirements of 8.5.6.4, no grading permit
shall be issued for public or private roads until road plans have been
approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and/or
the County Engineer, as the case may be.
3. There shall not be more than three entrances from Route 29 North,
inclusive of access to Greenbrier Drive. Access to Route 29 North shall be
subject to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval,.
including but not limited to the possible requirement of new crossovers and
signalization. Internal intersections with Route 29 North access roads
shall be 200 feet or more from the right of way of Route 29 North.
February i8~ 19~81 (Regu~lar Night Meetin~
4. The Planning Commission has determined that the Branchlands
collector road is in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The extension of Greenbrier Drive from the end of State main-
tenance to the Branchlands collector road shall be designated in accordance
with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards to ~
accommodate traffic anticipated from the Branchlands collector road and
Areas C and D, and dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System.
From the Branchlands collector road to Areas C and D, Greenbrier Drive
shall be designed in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards to accommodate traffic anticipated from Areas C
and D, and dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System~
Branchlands Collector Road
Section 1 shall be from Greenbrier Drive to north of the intersection
with Access Road 2. Section 2 shall be from south of the intersection with
Access Road 2 to north of the intersection with the existing Branchlands
entrance road. Section 3 shall be from south of the intersection with the
existing Branchlands entrance road to the property line of Squire Hill
Apartments.
C. Phasing of Development
Since no chronological phasing plan has been proposed by the appli~
cants at this time, conditions addressing phasing of development inten-
tionally overlap. Improvements will be required in accordance with con-
ditions contained herein in the order in which development occurs. Impro-
vements required shall not be deferred to a future phase of development.
1. Except as otherwise provided herein, all features and improve-
ments within a delineated area of development shall be provided concomitant
with the development of the particular area (i.e. Areas A through F of the
Application Plan).
2. The extension of Greenbrier Drive shall be constructed to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation standards and dedicated for
acceptance into the State Highway System, and Access Road 2 from Route 29
North to Area C shall be constructed to private road standards at the time
of development of Areas C and/or D.
3. Sections 1 and 2 of the Branchlands collector road and Access
Road 2 from Route 29 North to the Branchlands collector road shall be
constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards
and dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway System at the time of
development of Area E.
4. The existing Branchlands entrance shall be relocated and con-
structed to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation prior to the issuance of any building permit for any phase
of development which would have access to and increase traffic at the
existing entrance provided that the Planning Commission, upon recommen-
dation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, may waive
this requirement for a particular phase of development upon a finding that
the existing entrance would be adequate to accommodate in a safe manner
such traffic as may be occasioned by such development.
5. Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road shall be constructed
at the time of development of Areas F and/or A.
6. The bike/pedestrian trail in Area B shall be constructed by the
applicants at no cost to the owner of Area B concomitant with the con-
struction of the trail in Area A or C, whichever shall occur first. The
owner of Area B has consented to grant an easement for the construction of
the bike/pedestrian trail at a location across Area B which does not
interfere with the use of Area B by the owner thereof.
D. Modification and Waiver of Zoning Ordinance Regulations
1. Section 8.5.6.4 Building Permits shall not apply to existing
structures in Areas B and C unless the provisions of 32.0 require a site
plan prior to issuance of such permit.
2. Section 20.8.6 Setback and Yard Regulations shaiI be established
at time of final approvals as.opposed to establishment at time of rezoning.
3. Section 20.4 Permitted Uses: Commercial/Service;
Section 20.9 Regulations Governing Commercial/Service Areas:
Section 20.4 shall apply to Areas C, E and F. For Area C, Commercial
/Service areas established in accordance with 20.9.3 shall be in addition
to uses to be located in the existing manor house. Limitations of 20.9.3
shall not ~apply to Areas E and F.
4. Section 20.9.4 Building Permits shall not apply to Areas C, E and
F.
At 9:24 P.M., Mr, Fisher declared a brief recess.
at 9:31 P.M.
The meeting reconvened
Februar 18~ 1 81 Re ular Night Meet__~i~) ~
Agenda Item No. 4. Request to Purchase Former Berkeley Sewer Plant Site. Mr. Agnor
reported that this request was received in November, and was tied to SP-80-63 (Dr. Charles
Hurt). This request was forwarded to the Albemarle County Service Authority, and it was
the determination of the Service Authority that this property was not needed for public
use in its entirety, noting that an easement on the site needed to be retained as well as
an area designated for a street which would connect Branchlands with Greenbrier Drive. It
was recommended by the Service Authority that the request for purchase of the parcel be
deferred until this plan had been revised and approved.
Mr. Tucker explained that it is difficult to reserve the required right of way for
the proposed road at this time because it is not yet known where that road will be located
exactly.
Mr. Fisher asked how the property would be sold if the County chose to do so. Mr.
St. John said it could be sold at public auction, but also it could be sold privately if
the property has been appraised. Mr. Agnor asked if the adjacent property owner had any
priorities toward the purchase of this land. Mr. St. John said he has no priOrities, but
can certainly be sold the land if he offers the appraised value. Dr. Iachetta said he
thought the proper procedure was to take sealed bids on the property. Mr. St. John said
that is not necessary, that the only public concern is to get the fair market value. Mr.
Henley said if the property is sold at public auction, someone could buy it and hold up
the construction of the Branchlands and Greenbrier roads for years.
Mr. Fisher said he was inclined to sell the property, as long as the appraised value
is received and the easements and rights of way can be reserved. Dr. Iachetta asked
~f o~ce the property is appraised, how can the Board sell it to one specific person. Mr.
St. John said you can display a public advertisement and offer to sell the property, and
sell it to the highest bidder. Dr. Iachetta said that legally, the Board is obligated to
hold a public hearing on the sale of this property. Mr. St. John said not a public hearing,
only public notice that the property is for sale; that once the process reqiored that the
judge of the Circuit Court approve the sale without an auction based on an appraisal. Mr.
St. John· noted that the public notice takes the place of the judges decision.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for his recommendation. Mr. Agnor said the County no
longer needs this parcel and he would recommend that it be sold and placed back on the tax
rolls. Mr. St. John said the Board can instruct the staff or County Attorney to draw up a
contract to sell and obtain an appraisal. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the
County Attorney work out a written contract to sell the Berkeley Sewer Plant parcel, and
obtain a written appraisal for same. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by
the folIowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-1. Nettie Marie Jones. Petition pursuant to Section
10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, of the Rural Areas district, to divide a 674+ acre tract
into 16 parcels with an average lot size of 5.8 acres, leaving a residue of ~80~ acres.
Located south of Ivy at the intersection of Routes 637 and 786. County Tax Map 74 and 58,
Parcels 95 and 96. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February
4 and February 11, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission from its meeting of February 1t, 1981, as follows:
Request: 16 lot subdivision (5.8 acre average lot size)
Acreage: 674.67 acres (581.66 acre residue)
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Maps 74 and 58, Parcels 95 and 96, is
located south and west of Route 637 at Ivy.
History; Comprehensive Plan: The porti0n of property proposed for sub-
division is located within the Ivy Village in the Comprehensive Plan.
In developing the zoning map adopted in December, 1980, Staff attempted
to delineate growth areas with appropriate zoning. In the Comprehensive
Plan, the boundaries of the Ivy village south of Route 250 East are
described by vegetation and natural features. Since these boundary
features are not adequately reflected on the County tax maps, Staff
was unable to apply Village Residential zoning to the extent recom-
mended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: Special use permit criteria in the RA district is intended
to ~address rural development. Since the property to be developed is
within a designated growth area, Staff has not intensively reviewed
this petition under the special permit criteria. The applicant has
prepared an extensive presentation which refers to most of the special
permit criteria.
Staff observations are as.follows:
1) While this portion of the property is within a growth area, most
of the residue is outside the Ivy Village. Staff would recommend,
since review under the RA zone has not been intensive, that restric-
tion of development of the residue acreage would be appropriate;
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
2) By-right development of the entire property could result in 36
lots. The only reason a special use permit is required in this case
is due to lot size not number. Since the property to be developed is
in a growth area, the question of lot size in regard to rural develop-
ment is moot;
3) In regard to Criteria #8, Route 637 is listed as non-tolerable
and development of the property would increase traffic on that road.
As in the past, Staff recommends that the issue of road tolerability
should be viewed more liberally in growth areas than rural areas;
4) The density proposed is much less than the village density
proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that this is a
result of sensitive planning in regard to physical constraints of the
property, reservoir watershed considerations, and aesthetic concerns.
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Further division of the residue acreage shall require amendment
of this special use permit.
2. Subdivision development shall be limited to 16 parcels exclusive
of the residue. Such development shall occur within the Ivy Village
area as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan and shall be in general
accord with the preliminary plat entitled "Subdivision Plan - Spring
Hill," dated November, 1980, marked received "February 4, 1981, RSK."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with
the two conditions recommended by staff and the addition of the following third condition:
3. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation recommendations regarding dedications and slope easements on
Route 679, as described in the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation letter, dated February 3, 1981, to Ronald S. Keeler.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it was necessary to restrict the balance of the acreage.
Tucker said Condition #1 puts the applicant on notice of the correct procedure.
Mr.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Will Rielty
representing the applicant. Mr. Rielly presented a slide show of thirty slides viewing
the property, roads, slopes, vegetation, etc.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this application
and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-81-t with the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said the presentation was very
nice. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Rielly about specific
facts about water,~ roads and other essentials to the property. Mr. Rielly said there is
no public water or sewer facilities available, and private wells and septic systems will
be used. He stated that all roads will exceed State standards in every respect except
for the paved surface; the roads will remain private roads. Mr. Fisher said usually with
private roads, the Board requires a maintenance agreement and homeowners association to be
approved by the County Attorney's office. Mr. Fisher said if that is Mr. Rielly's intent,
an additional condition must be added before approval. Mr. Lindstrom said this could be
coVered during subdivision plat approval. Mr. Rielly said that condition is agreeable,
but he felt it would be covered under the subdivision plat as stated by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said the applicant has done a great deal of work in his presentation, and
he is very impressed with the subdivision. Roll was then called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include an Interim Parks and
Recreation Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker again reviewed the interim plan for parks and recreational facilities
prepared by the Parks and Recreation and Planning. staffs (previously read into the minutes
of January 7, 1981) as well as recommendations made by the-Planning Commission;
Mr. Fisher asked the meaning of the recommendation for price differential. Mr.
Fisher said he felt it would create a policy simi-lar to that which the City of Charlot-
tesville has by which a premium is paid by those citizens not residing within the loca-
lity. Mr. Pat Mutlaney of the Parks and Recreation Department, and Mr. Tucker, both
agreed that his interpretation was correct. Mr. Tucker said the premium would be paid by
any resident outside of Albemarle County for'all parks and recreation activities.
There were no other questions by Board members of Mr. Tucker or Mr. Mullaney, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Miss Rosalee Kunert speaking
for the Youth Service Council Recreation Subcommittee. She read a statement prepared by
the Youth Service Council (Copy on Permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors) and summarized same by saying the Counail offers three suggestions: 1)
consideration should be given to expanding recreation plrograms in the Broadus Wood, Stony
Point, Rose Hill, Scottsville and Red Hll areas where recreation programs are lacking, and
which, in the winter, are non-existent; 2) recreation programs be designed with broad
appeal for youth of different ages, interests and sex. At this time, the youth sports
programs are probably the best developed component of youth recreation in the County.
This serves the needs of many young people; however, the Council feels that the needs of
youth who are not interested in organized sports must be considered. The Council has
suggested starting a drop-in center for youth or even a local community center. 3) Other
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
.,102
uses should be explOred for existing buildings and facilities before they are torn down,
left unused, or replaced.
Mrs. Rosa Hudson spoke next and requested that the Board consider the upgrading of
Totier Creek Park in the southern part of the County. Mrs. Hudson said she has been
before the Board many times requesting recreation facilities for this area, noting that
the nearest facility is about 20 miles away. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Hudson what type of
facilities they would like to see at Totier Creek Park. Mrs. Hudson said mostly swimming,
which represented one of the greatest needs. Dr. Iachetta said this is a public, water
supply reservoir and swimming cannot be allowed. Mrs. Hudson said the James River also
runs through that area and possibly some sort of swimming facility could be established on
the James.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the Parks and
Recreation plan, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter from the Cove Garden Ruritan Club recommending
against the use of Lake Reynovia. The letter, from Mr. Edward Tayloe Wise, Vice-President
of the Club, indicated that such a use would benefit urban County and City residents only.
(Note: this letter, dated February 16, 1981, is on permanent file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Fisher noted that another letter was also re-
ceived from the Cove Garden Ruritan Club regarding the possible use of the old Red Hill
School as a recreational center. Mr. Fisher said that a copy of that letter was forwarded
to the School Board for its consideration. Regarding Lake Reynovia, Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Agnor for a report of his meeting with representatives from that facility. Mr. Agnor said
he did meet with representatives of Lake Reynovia to attempt to work out details for the
County to lease the facility for a period of five years as an interim project. Mr. Agnor
reported that it would be very difficult for the County to take over this facility, since
it is more than just a lake, and contains a large open area with over-night camping
facilities, etc. Mr. Fisher stated his concern that if the County were to take over Lake
Reynovia it would put off any development of a recreational site in the extreme southern
end of the County for a long length of time. Mr. Agnor agreed and added that it is
possible that the cost involved in running a facility such as Lake Reynovia could be more
than the County is capable of handling at the present time. Miss Nash said she felt Lake
Reynovia would answer the needs of the urban County area but also that a need is evident
in the extreme southern end of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not understand why
the County would only consider one facility in the southern part of the County. He said
Lake Reynovia is a super facility which can be taken over immediately and developed as a
public facility. He said to attempt to purchase such a facility in the future will be far
too expensive, and that the need for such a facility will grow rather than decline.
Mr. Fisher said the only swimming facilities developed by the County are Mint Springs
Park and Chris Greene Lake which were developed about ten years ago, and those facilities
are used to near capacity, and there is a definite need for additional space. Mr. McCann
said he is having difficulty separating the word "need" from the word "desire" He said
recreation is expensive and he doesn't believe the taxpayers can afford additional facil-
ities at this time. Dr. Iachetta said that there is another facility in the County
similar to Lake Reynovia, that being at Four Seasons. Mr. James Cosby, representing Four
Seasons, was present and requested a moment of the Board's time. Mr. Fisher said he would
reopen the public hearing briefly. Mr. Cosby asked the Board to consider the Four Seasons
facility which includes the swimming facility, club house and tennis courts as a possible
County recreational area. Mr. Cosby said the residents at Four Seasons would like to see
the County take this facility under consideration in the same fashion as it' is presently
doing with Lake Reynovia. Mr. McCann said he cannot see why the County would even con-
sider this type facility. He asked why the County should take over a facility which
private enterprise cannot make into a profitable venture. He asked if the County would
also consider taking over the old Keswick Country Club for County residents in that part
of the County so the citizens could play golf. Mr. McCann said such propositions would
put the County way over its head in debt. Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta argued that if
facilities such as Lake Reynovia and Four Seasons are not used, they will deteriorate.
Mr. Fisher said that recommendation three is specific about taking over present private
facilities such as Lake Reynovia. Mr. Fisher said possibly the wording should state the
County would encourage the present privately owned recreational facilities for continued
operation of their facilities; whether done through private owner, community organizations,
etc. Mr. Agnor noted that one problem Lake Reynovia has had is its competition with Chris
Greene Lake. Mr. Agnor said if the County should raise its rates for swimming at Chris
Greene Lake, it would make private enterprise much more feasible and easier to compete.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt that same statement could be applied to Four Seasons or any
other private facility in the County.
Mr. Henley said he would like to know what some of the adjoining counties are doing
as far as recreational programs are concerned. Mr. Fisher suggested that three of the
suggested Capital Plan recommendations be changed to reflect the concensus of the Board
resulting from discussions just held, noting that No. 1 be changed from Buford Middle
School Field to "Burley Middle School Field". In recommendation No. 3 eliminate the
present wording and replace it with "Encourage present privately owned recreational
facilities, to continue operation of those facilities". Lastly in recommendation No. 4,
rearrange the wording list to make the construction of a new swimming facility in the
southern part of the county a more urgent priority. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the Parks and Recreation Interim Plan as an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan with the changes suggested by Mr. Fisher. Mr. McCann said he would
not support the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
The final wording of recommendations and general policy guidelines for expanding
parks and recreation services in the County as submitted to the Board by'the Planning
Commission in Planning Report #5, adopted as follows:
.103
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
CAPITAL PLAN
1) Highest priority for funding: a community action program combined
with Department efforts to upgrade and develop existing County land,
primarily comprised of school sites, in an effort to provide an initially
low-cost, rudimentary system of parks and playfietds within the growth
areas.
This recommendation is based on the Planning Commission's feeling that
more should be done with existing County facilities in terms of upgrading
and maintenance before new park land is brought into the system. Past
methods of soliciting ideas and assistance from local parent/teacher
organizations for improving school sites should be continued. Parks
and Recreation Department efforts to improve playfields for recreational
leagues should be supported. Specifically, softball fields, which
could be used by the regional softball league, should be considered at
the following sites:
Burley Middle School Field
McIntire School Building Field
Jack Jouett Middle School Field
The Whitewood Road site, presently held in reserve by the Education
Department, should be made available to the community for small-scale
pathway and picnic facility improvements as a first phase for improve-
ments for the entire site serving the densely developed Hydraulic-Rio
Road Loop.
2) Continuation of informal contacts between local, school-centered,
neighborhood organizations and the Parks and Recreation Department for
evaluating the provision and maintenance of recreational facilities at
existing sites.
Citizen requests for improvements should be made to the Parks and
Recreation Department which will then coordinate their implementation.
3) Encourage present privately-owned recreational facilities to
continue operation of those facilities.
4) Consideration of programs for providing swimming facilities to
County residents in the extreme southern portion of the County (lying
outside the ten-mile service radius for Lake Reynovia); such programs
to include actual construction of a new, preferably self-supporting
swimming facility in the Scottsville-Esmont-Covesville areas; possible
expansion of the existing part-time shuttle program; granting of fee
waivers at existing County swimming facilities.
The Planning Commission feels that i.f capital expansion and site
acquisition is to be supportable at this time, it should answer the
need for a regional facility in the Scottsville-Porters-Covesville
area of the County. A regional, revenue-producing facility will place
the lightest burden on county taxpayers.
5) Coordination of all mini- and neighborhood park locations with
the County's Pathways Plans (under preparation), with new park con-
struction undertaken only after or at the same time as sufficient
pathways are provided serving developments within the park's service
district; and
6) Adoption of the priority listing for mini-park service districts
as follows: Neighborhood 1, Site 4 Whitewood Road Site; Neighborhood
7, Site 2 North of Barracks Road between Old Salem Apartments and
Georgetown Road; Neighborhood 5, Site 2 Oak Hill, Southwood Mobile
Homes, Sherwood Manor and Country Greene Apartments area; Neighborhood
2, Site 5 Branchlands PUD, Squire Hill area off Rio Road; Neighborhood
7, Site 3 Old Ivy Road; Scottsville; and Neighborhood 2, Site 2 West-
moreland and Northfields Subdivision area as high priority, with the
presently undeveloped districts in Crozet (Neighborhood C, site 5
proposed Lickinghole Creek Impoundment and Neighborhood C, Site 5 on
Powetl Creek), North Garden, and Piney Mountain as secondary priority
to be reviewed under the next update.
These last two recommendations point beyond the planning period
covered by this plan (1980-1983) and to the problems of supplying
recreational services to an even larger population than now exists.
Serious consideration should be given to pathway development over the
next five years ~efore new park construction is undertaken. The
locational analysis given in this plan should assist in setting
priorities at that time for determining cost-effective sites for both
mini- and neighborhood parks. The needs that will have to be met at
these new locations include: basketball areas, picnic areas, tennis
courts, softball and large playfield areas, playgrounds, and walking
and jogging paths.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING
The following recommendations present general guidelines suggested by
the analyses found in this plan. Programming should respond primarily,
however, to citizen interests and requests, and department constraints,
thus growing naturally in response to natural pressures for expanding
services.
February 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
1. Concentration of recreational programming for the elderly in the
rural service districts of Crozet, Stony Point, North Garden and
Scottsvilte and urban districts 1.4 and 5.2;
2. Establishment of a formal arrangement between the Parks and
Recreation and Education Departments making available County school
sites (including all operating schools, abandoned or idle buildings,
and outdoor facilities and playfields) as well as school buses for
recreational use;
A formal arrangement for scheduling Parks and Recreation activities in
school buildings may bring about more efficient utilization of avai-
lable space.
3. Establishment of cooperative agreements between the City and
County for scheduling of athletic leagues with common membership;
Mutual support of regional athletic leagues offers the best oppor-
tunity for City-County cooperation in the area of Parks and Recreation.
4. Utilization of differential pricing for admission to regional
parks for non-county residents, or revenue sharing agreements with the
City of Charlottesville and Greene County, for the purpose of financing
additional space at the facilities and alleviating crowded conditions.
Dr. Iachetta felt the Board should consider forming a committee to review the re-
quests made by Mr. Cosby and Mrs. Hudson and in the letter from the Coves Garden Ruritan
Club. Mr. Fisher said he would have no idea of what the charge for a committee of this
type should include, and asked Dr. Iachetta if he would be interested in reviewing this
idea further and bringing a suggestion back to the Board at a later date. Dr. Iachetta
said the committee could review possible locations, the level of community support and the
amount of capital outlay such facilities would require. Mr. Fisher suggested consideration
of appointing such a committee be placed on the March 11, 1981, agenda.
At 11:15 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 11:20
Agenda Item No. 11. Mr. Fisher said due to the lateness of the hour, he has asked
the Staff for a recommendation on a date to which this meeting can be adjourned in order
to discuss redistricting and the remainder of the agenda items. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St.
John has recommended handling the redistricting matter as soon as possible, and he would
then recommend that the Board adjourn to 3:15 P.M., February 19, 1981, in the County
Executive's Conference Room. Motion to that effect was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M.
Chairman