The URL can be used to link to this page

1979-07-30Ju~y 30, 1979 Afternoon Mee~ing (Adjourned from July 18, 1979) An~adjourned meeting of the Board of-Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 30, 1979 at 4:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from July 18, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F.. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Age~da Item No. 1. 'Fisher. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, The meetin~ was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Mr. Fisher did not feel it was of any benefit to delay this project any longer and recommended the execution of the contract. He asked if the appropriation should be made at this time. Mr. St. John said either the appropriation should be made at this time or a contract be entered into subject to the appropriation being approved at a later date. Mr. Agnor said the Capital'Budget is to be presented to the Board for approval on August 15 and felt that was the adequate time to make the appropriation. However, the contractor may prefer to have assurance that the appropriation has been made and perhaps it would be best to do so today. Members of the Library Board and the Library Building Committee were present and voiced their support for approval of this contract. Dr. Iachetta said hb received a suggestion from a constituent that a new facility be built instead of renovating this building. Mr. Agnor said the feasibility study for this 4 project in 1976 projected that there was a considerable savings in renovating this building instead of building a new facility for the Regional Library. At first, Dr. Iachetta felt the library was in the wrong location and should be located northwest of the City where the growth is occuring. However, he does support the project now since it will only be a central processing station with satellite facilities in the growth areas in the future. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. A gentleman was present in opposition. He stressed his concern that money was being spent in, renovating onlY a part of the building and the Library Board would return in a year or two requesting more funding for expanding the library. He felt a new library should be considered since it could be less expensive to operate. He also felt an inadequate analysis had been done to comp, are the cost of a new library versus renovation of the Post Office Building. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was that a great deal of time had been spent on this project and any further delays would cost more money considering the inflation factor. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board discussed the bids for renovation of the Post Office Building for the Reg~.onal Library at their ~eeting on Jul~ 18~ 19.79 an~ requested a meeting be held to determine if any additional savings could be found; said meeting to consist of the County Engineer, City Engineer, the architect, Mr. Rinehart and a representative of Alekna Construction Company, the low bidder for the project. Mr. Agnor said Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer attended the meeting on July 26. Mr. Bailey said two items considered to be luxuries in the project were the marble in the building,and the glass railing around the mezzanine. After discussing these items, it was felt that they should be retained. Although, a substitute stone could save $17,000 it was recommended that the present marble be retained since it matches the existing marble that does not have to be removed. A substitute for the glass railing, or wrought iPon, would..be~'equal in cost. Mr. Agnor said the largest items in the total bid were the mechanical and electrical systems. Mr. Bailey was informed this morning by Mr. Rinehart's office that there was a duplication on the cost of one piece of equipment and this reduction results in an $8,500 savings. Previously, it was felt that the flooring on the m~zzanine should be terranzo tile to match the other flooring, but in reviewing the bid it was determined that this is not needed, and this.change will result in a $3,000 savings. The other item discussed was the ramp for the handicapped located at the intersection of MarMet and Second Streets in front of the Post Office Building. It had been suggested that the ramp be moved to the present loading dock at the side of the building. After reviewing such a change, it was felt that the ramp should be retained in front of the building for the benefit of the handicapped and to eliminate an additional entrance since many people wander in the Library for shelter. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Bailey did not feel any significant reductions could be found in the review or would he suggest that the bid be rejected and the project be rebid. In conclusion, Mr. Agnor recommended that a contract with Alekna Construction Company be executed based on the bid of $2,260,285.00 with the following alternates 1, 4 and 8 being approved: Alternate # 1 - Construct Mezzanine as indicated on the drawings including Elevator Stop (for one elevator). This work shall be performed in lieu of construction shown for Base Bid. Alternate # 4 - Install Smoke Alarm System as indicated on the Electrical Drawings. Alternate # 8 - Provide storm sash glazing for all windows levels One and Two. Since the County has already appropriated $400,000, additional funding from the County is required in the amount of $630,143. The City is being requested to appropriate a like amount, $1,030,143, with citizen donors to the library providing $200,000. Agenda Item No. 2. Library Bids. July 30, 1979 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from July 18, 197~ Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $630,143.00 be, and the same hereby is., appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 19G.1--Main Library. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher expressed his appreciation for the work that the Library Board members, Library Building Committee and staff had done on this project. Mr. Robert Stroh, Chairman of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board, stressed the appreciation of the Library Board members and others affiliated with this project for the Board's action today. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not On the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of memorandum from the Virginia Association of Counties requesting nominations for the Jefferson Cup Award to be given at the 'VACo Annual Meeting in November. A letter dated July 17, 1979 from Mr. Robert C. Fitzgerald was also received, recommending that Mr. Daniel A. Robinson be nominated for this award. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to nominate Mr. Robinson. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that this request was unfamiliar to the Board and more consideration should be given to a nomination. Mr. Roudabush withdrew his second. Without any second, the motion died. No further action was taken. Agenda Item No. 4. At 4:55 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to August 1, 1979 at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. N AY,~; ,None. ~~~ /~'~~ CHAIR~A'N August 1, 1979 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from July 30, 1979) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 1, 1979, at 2:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from July 30, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 2:35 P.M.) and W. S. ROudabush. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Absent: None. The meeting was called to order at 2:07 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. -.Officers Present: County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Expansion of Clerical Staff-Planning Department. In March, an additional Planner was approved for the Planning Department. At that time, the probability of expanding the clerical staff was discussed and deferred until the need was apparent. Mr. Agnor said the need is now evident and a Secretary I is being requested by the Director of Planning, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Currently, there are seven administrative positions with ~two clerical persons serving them. With the volume of paper work generated, a third clerical position is needed to act as a receptionist. Mr. Agnor supported the request. Mr. Fisher also supported approval of the request. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve one additional employee, a Secretary I, for the Planning Department. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $7,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 10E-109, Compensation--Assistant's, Planning Department. 42O ~ Au u~t 1 1 Afternoon Meetin Adiou~o~ ~ul-.~ ~'-0_ 1~-=-~_~_~ ~ Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Capital Improvements Budget and Revenue Sharing. The following memorandum dated July 26, 1979 from Mr. Agnor was presented: "Forwarded herewith is the proposed five year Capital Improvement Program for FY 79-80 through 83-84. It totals $95.6 million, with $37.0 million in projects that require $19.1 million in County funds, and $58.6 million in projects that do not require financial participation with County funds, but are considered a part of the total Capital Improvement Program. The program relies on $6.0 million of an estimated $9.6 million General Fund balance. The remaining $3.6 million in the General Fund is retained for operational cash flow requirements. The program also relies on continuing an appropriation of $0.5 million each year from the General Fund, as was begun this fiscal year. Borrowing from the Literary Fund of $4.5 million for school projects is anticipated at a rate of $1 million for each of four major projects, plus $0.5 million for the Albemarle High School gymnasium project. Other revenue sources include $425,000 from sale of property, and potentially $3.25 million from semi-annual collection of real estate taxes. The following summarizes projects and resources: County Funds Needed Prior Years Funding Additional Funding Required $19,092,979 - 2,601,876 $16,491,103 Existing Funds Available Estimated Future Funds Potential Funds Available $12,113,300 4,200,000 3,250,000 $19,563,300 The format is similar to the previous capital budgets. I.t is awkward and dif.ficult to understand. Efforts to revise it into a simpler form were unsuccessful. It therefore requires explanation in order to .understand its contents. The following are documents in the Capital Improvements Program: EXPENDITURES--Summary of all project requests divided into two parts, Part I being projects requiring County funds, and Part II being those projects not requiring County funds. This summary indicates total project cost, the County's share, prior year's funding, the additional County funds required over and above the prior years' funding, and then three columns which are entitled Proposed Projects, Alternative Projects and Deferred Projects, defined as follows: Proposed Projects - recommended for approval from existing sources of funds available 1979-1982. Alternative Projects - recommended for approval from estimated future sources of funds available 1983-84. Deferred Projects - not recommended for funding in this revision, but retained in the program for future consideration from potential sources of funds. REVENUES (Resources)--Summary of financial resources for the Capital Improvements Pro~mmm divided into three categories: Existing - Funds currently on hand or known to be available for appropriation to finance Proposed Projects 1979-82. Possible - Funds which are anticipated to be available during the five year program to finance Alternative Projects 1,983-84. Potential - Funds which will require legislative action by the Board of Supervisors in order to be available for the program, to finance Deferred Projects. DEBT SERVICE--Summary of the County's total debt as of now, and projections of this indebtedness over the five year period. OTHERS--The documents include also a brief narrative statement on each project, an analysis of cash flow 1979-82, a bound copy of the School Board Capital report, detailed sheets on Albemarle County Service Authority and Airport capital projects, and memorandums of Planning Commission recommendations. Significant efforts have been made in this revision cycle to prepare cost estimates from more reliable sources than used in previous estimates. It is the staff's belief that these efforts will require more than this one annual revision cycle to correct all of the deficiencies in earlier program estimates, but there is no doubt that improvements in estimating have been made." Mr. Agnor then explained the following schedule showing t~e availability~f funds and source for funding in the Capital Improvements Program for 1979-84: "I. Sources and Amounts Available for Immediate Funding (1979-82) (1) From General Fund Reserve Available for Appropriation 6/30/78 Per Audit Estimated Increase 1978-79 Fiscal Year Transfer Per Budget (1979-80) $ 8,700,000 900,000 500,000 $10,100,000 421 ............. Aq~us~ 1, 1979 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from Jul~ Less - Reserve for Operation Capital (3,600,000) NET AMOUNT FOR C.I.P. $ 6,500,000 (2) From Revenue Sharing Monies Cash Balance 6/30/79 $ 2,428,300 Less: Existing Appropriations (1,715,000) Transfer to School Fund Per Budget (500,000) Plus: Estimated Receipts Through 9/81 1,250,000 Interest on Investments 200~000 NET AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1,663,300 (3) Land Sale (440 acres - Priddy Creek) 450,000 (4) Literary Fund Loans (Anticipates $1 million of three new projects plus $0.5 million on Albemarle High School) 3,500,000 TOTAL $12,113,300 II. Possible Sources Available to Fund Alternate Projects if Funds Available (1983-84) (1) General Fund Appropriation of C.I.P. $ 2,000,000 (2) Revenue Sharing - Extension of Law 9/81 (3) Literary Fund Loan (4) Building and Land Sale (McIntire School) III. Possible Sources for Future Projects and Revisions TOTAL 1,200,000 1,000,000 (1) Split tax billing windfall $ 3,250,000 (2) Sale of Scottsville School ? (3) Repayment of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority ? GRAND TOTAL ¢ $c 92oo,ooo $ 3,250,000 $19,563,300" Mr. Roudabush asked if the Priddy Creek land had been examined for a recreational area. Mr. Agnor said the Comprehensive Plan did not anticipate nor recommend the land being used for recreational needs. The Parks master plan which was started about two years ago has never been completed and the land may be considered for such use in the Plan. Mr. Roudabush felt this idea should be investigated thoroughly before the land is sold. Mr. Agnor then reviewed the following projects and programs listed in the five year capital improvements program: Administrative and Court Renovations Lane Building - Phase I--Renovation of main building of former Lane High School; conversion to Central Administrative Office building; development of site with off-street parking. Project to begin December 1979; completion October 1980. Total Project Cost-$5,216,34; Proposed-S4,216,345. Lane Building - Phase II--Renovation of gymnasium building of former Lane High School; conversion to office building; completion of site development and parking areas. Project to begin 1981. Funding of preliminary design work is requested. Total Project Cost-$35,000.; Proposed-S35,000. Court Square Building (Present County Office Building on Court Square)--Renovation of building for General District Court and related services. Project to begin 1981. Funding of preliminary design work is requested. Courthouse--Renovation of building for Circuit Court, providing two court rooms. Project to begin 1982. Funding of preliminary design work is requested. Renovation of the County Office Building and the Courthouse are combined for the architects fees only. Total Project Cost-S100,000; Proposed-S100,000. Juvenile Court--Renovation of .ground floor to provide holding cells and detention area for prisoners awaiting trial. Project to begin 1979. Reliable cost estimates not available at present. Design plans currently being prepared. Project will be given to Board for funding when cost estimates are available later in 1979. Total Project Cost-S50,000; Proposed-S22,500. (This is a joint project with the City and $22,500 is to be paid by the City). Dr. Iachetta felt the cost of Phase I of the Lane Building should be reexamined to compare th'e estimated cost against the cost of a new building before a decision on Phase II. As well as the comparative cost, he also requested information on how much such a delay would cost. II. Airports Obstruction and Removal--Clearance of air space in the approach area involving some earth moving and tree removal. Project has begun and is 85% complete. Total Project Cost-$447,500; County share has been funded in prior years. Security Fencing--Installation of fence near the terminal building to 422 AmE~st 1, 1979 Afternoon Meet_~ng~_(~dj~urned from July 30 1979) Runway Overlay--Repairing of runway. Project 95% complete. Total Project Cost-$1,3~53,484; County share has been funded in prior years. South Taxiway and Apron--Construction of a runway parallel to the main runway for use as a taxiway separate from the main runway. Project has begun and is 10% complete. Total Project Cost-$1,196,160; Proposed-S49,763. Master Plan Revision--Five year update of Master Plan. Project has begun and is 5% complete. Total Project Cost-$75,000; Proposed-S3,750. III. Education Scottsville--Planned to begin construction in October, 1979. Will be a 300 pupil school consisting of a cafeteria, physical education facilities, music room and a library. At present, there are no spaces in the old building for the above. Once this school is constructed, the use of the old school in the Town will be eliminated. Total Project Cost-S1,400,000; County funding in prior years-$60~O00; Proposed-S1,340,000. Red Hill--Construction to begin in May 1980. Renovation of the original wing and razing of some additions made prior to the construction of the POD. Total Project Cost-$1,560,000; County funding in prior years-S100,000; Proposed-S1,460,000. Meriwether Lewis/Murray--Construction proposed for May 1980. Will be a new building on the existing site for 350 pupils and once it is completed and ready to be occupied, the existing building will be razed and removed. Total Project Cost-$1,980,000; County funding in prior years-S50,000; Proposed-S!,930,000. Greenwood/Crozet--Action has not been taken by the School Board. Total Project Cost-$2,385,000; County funding in prior years-S60,000; Alternative- $2,325,000. School Bus Maintenance Shop--This has been transferred from the Educational Projects to other projects principally because it is a joint project for County school buses as well as County vehicles in terms of a maintenance facility. Energy Conservation Funds--The Five Year Building Update Committee recommended that a sum of $500,000 be placed into the capital improvements budget over the next three years to enable the School administration to secure federal energy conservation dollars for projects which are eligible for funding. This is a 50/50 matching fund project. Total Project Cost-S500,000; Proposed-S250,000. Future Site Acquisition--The staff felt funds for this item should be deferred until a specific location is needed. No specific acquisitions are proposed at this time. Total Project Cost-$350,000; Deferred-S350,000. Miscellaneous Repairs--It was suggested during budget work sessions last year that $35,000 per year be set aside for repairs to school-buildings which are unknown at the time of budget preparation. Total Project Cost-$175,000; Proposed-S105,000; Alternative-S70,000. Albemarle Track Renovation--Proposed to be constructed in the spring. Renovation to provide an eight lane track. Total Project Cost-S130,000; Proposed-S130,000. Albemarle/Burley Renovation--Request for recognized need of some structural as well as mechanical repairs to Albemarle High School and the Burley building. Until the exact renovation costs are known, a portion of the funding is recommended to be deferred. Total Project Cost-S500,000; Proposed-S50,000; Deferred-S450,000. Broadus Wood--Addition to the school of five classrooms and a gymnasium to replace four mobile units.. Until more definitive timetables have been completed by the School Board, deferral is recommended. Total Project Cost-$450,000; Deferred-S450,000. Mr. Fisher.was unsure if the existing Meriwether Lewis site was the best for a new structure since growth is occuring more in the Ivy Village and northward than around this site. Therefore, he felt the Meriwether Lewis/Murray situation should be examined further to determine if the existing site is the best location for a new school. Dr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Education, was present. He noted that the School Board has given a great deal of thought to this and the feeling is that growth is occuring in the Meriwether Lewis area and the school will be filled. Dr. McClure said renovating the existing school would be equal in cost to construction of a new facility in order to meet current Code requirements. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher. Dr. McClure said the Comprehensive Plan has been complied with in this instance. Dr. Iachetta felt renovation would cost less than building a new facility. After some discussion, the Board members felt a further review was needed and sufficient evidence for construction of a new facility should be submittted to the Board for its consideration. Dr. Ronald Baurele was present. He said a new Meriwether Lewis school would be 95% full when it was opened. In making plans for Greenwood/Crozet, the School Board needs 4Z3 Discussion then followed on the Broadus Wood renovation. Dr. McClure said the enrollment in the school has declined during the last few years. However, next year it could be a top priority item if growth occurs in the area. Dr. Baurele said there are two problems at Broadus Wood; the need for space and complaints received from parents about the crowded condition of the existing building. He felt the latter could be solved by better allocation of space. Hopefully, the internal reorganization in the school building this year will alleviate some past problems. V. Fire Rescue and Safety Fire Engine--This project is for replacement of one fire engine stationed at the Charlottesville Fire Department. Staff recommends that funding for this project be withheld until the long-range fire services agreement between the County and City has been completed. Total Project Cost--$95,000; Deferred-S95,000. Fire Hydrant Installation Project--This project involves the installation of hydrants with some water line improvements. The staff supports the continuation of funding for hydrants. Staff recommends however that the water line improvements be funded by the Albemarle County Service Authority, with one exception. That exception involves the replacement of the water line that serves the Western Albemarle-Henley-Brownsville School complex. Replacement of this water line will insure adequate fire protection for schools. The Planning Commission recommends that only one hydrant project requiring line installation be funded, in addition to the school complex. That project is in Northfields and is considered the only one that is cost effective. Hydrahts--need line installation-Total Project Cost-$15,600; Proposed-S1,200; Deferred-S14,400. Waterline-Hydrants--Total Project Cost-$98,150; Proposed-S8,400; Deferred- $89,750. vi. Waterline-Schools--Total 'Project Cost-$21,750; Proposed-S21,750. Emergency Phone-911 System--Staff does not recommend funding of this project until a more definite proposal of operation and cost figures have been prepared. Total Project Cost-S107,000; Deferred-S35,000. Radio Tower--Installation of a mountain top relay tower to make radio communications possible between the Scottsville Fire Department and other County fire departments. Total Project Cost-$27,000; Proposed-S20,000. Highways VII. Hydraulic Road--This project involves the four laning of Hydraulic Road with provisions of curb and gutter, sidewalks and bike trails in certain areas. Total Project Cost-$2,958,400; Proposed-S151,700. Georgetown Road Pedestrian Walk--This project will construct an asphalt surfaced walkway on the west side of Georgetown Road between Hydraulic and Barracks Roads, connecting to the sidewalk on Barracks Road at Rickey Drive. Total Project Cost-$27,500; Proposed-S27,500. Libraries VIII. Main Library--Conversion of Market Street Post Office building to main library of Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.' Project to begin August 1979, completion October 1980. Total Project Cost-$2,260,285; Prior Year's Funding (includes the price paid for building) $400,000; Proposed-S630,000. Bookmobile--Replacement of one or two bookmobiles in Jefferson-Madison Regional Library system. Vehicle used primarily in Albemarle County. Total Project Cost-S50,000; Prior Year's Fundlng-$40,000; Proposed-S10,000. Other Microfilm-Circuit Court Clerk's Office--To purchase micofilm equipment in lieu of expanding records vault. Prior Year's Funding was $22,715. An additional amount is required because the State Compensation Board would not participate in the costs. Total Project Cost-$42,000; Proposed-S19,285. Data Processing--To purchase the equipment needed to develop a data processing capability in the County administrative organization. Total Project Cost-S300,000; Proposed-S300,000. Qommunity College Expansion--This project will provide funds for site improvements associated with State funded classroom building at Piedmont Virginia Community College. Staff supports this project subject to funding of State's share by 1980 General Assembly. Total Project Cost- $2,488,322; Deferred-S150,000. County Vehicle Maintenance Shop--This item was taken out of the Educational projects since it serves both schools and general county vehicles. No site selection has been made. ToTal Project 0ost-$986,000; Prior Year's Funding-S120,000; Proposed-S866,000. Au ust 1 197__~ Afternoon Meetin Ad ourned from Jul 0 Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that the acquisition of property for watersheds needed in future years had not been included in this budget. The Comprehensive Plan identifies two tributaries of the South Fork Rivanna River in the northern part of the County which may be needed for future impoundments and he did not feel any recommendation has been made for them to be available by the year 2020. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, noted that in order for any value to be placed on what needs to be purchased, further review has to be made. Three things would have to be examined: 1) The geology of the land to see if it is suitable or could be modified for building an impoundment; 2) the quality of the water; and 3) how far in the future the impoundment would be needed. Mr. Bailey felt a consultant with knowledge of dams and reservoirs would have to be hired for this examination. Mr. Lindstrom asked if someone should be placed on the County staff with expertise in this.field. Mr. Agnor felt the responsibility for such a determination belongs to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and he would bring it up at the next Rivanna Board meeting. X. Parks and Recreation Chris Greene Comfort Station--Construction of a year round restroom facility in the vicinity of the picnic shelters. Total Project Cost-$35,000; Prior Year's Funding-S17,000; Proposed-S18,000. Chris Greene Parking Lot and "Tot" Lot--Parking lot expansion and tot lot relocation and renovation near the comfort station, picnic shelters. Total Project Cost--S11,500; Proposed-S11,500. Ivy Creek Natural Area, Site Development--Development of the site of the Rann Preserve (Ivy Creek Natural Area) for passive recreation use, funding with County, State and City funds. Total Project Cost-$85,000; Prior Year's Funding-S30,000; ~Proposed-$12,500. Tennis Court-Walton Middle School--Expanding the existing surface area to accommodate a double tennis court for use by the school and the recreation Department. A program to develop tennis courts at middle schools. Total Project Cost-S15,000; Proposed-S15,000. Hollymead-Recreation Activities--Addition of play area, walks, soccer goals, picnic tables to increase recreation opportunities. This program will rotate to other County school locations as needs are determined. Staff supports expansion of recreational use of County schools. Total Project Cost-S21,000; Proposed-S21,000. Albemarle High School Tennis Court Lights--To provide lights for extended use of heavily utilized tennis courts. This item was transferred from Educational Projects to this category since night use bf the tennis courts would prinicipally be a recreational function. Total Project Cost-S10,000; Proposed- $10,000. Future Projects--There are no known costs or programs. Total Project Cost- $310,000; Deferred-S310,000. Mr. Dorrier said a recreational facility is needed in the Esmont area. Last year, several members of the Parks and Recreation staff and himself met to discuss improving the existing playground area at the B. F. Yancey School. There was opposition because the citizens feel that if money was spent on the school playground, that would eliminate chance to get a County park in the area at a later time. The residents do not object to improving the playground if the project is listed as an educational project instead of a project for the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Fisher felt any improvements made at B. F. Yancey School would have to be funded from this section of the budget. He suggested that some specific proposals be developed and funding be considered for improvements at the playground, if the Esmont residents can agree. Mr. Lindstrom did not object to upgrading the existing playground facilities if an agreement is reached with the residents. Dr. Iachetta introduced Mrs. Marilyn Posten, Chairman of the Hotlymead Elementary School Grounds Committee. Mrs. Posten presented a landscape drawing by Mr. Allen Stovall, showing recommended facilities at the Hollymead School. Mrs. Posten said the Hollymead Parents Advisory Council and the Grounds Committee would like for Mr. Stovall to complete his study of the site and she then requested funding from the County to continue this study. (Copy of letter from Mrs. Posten on file in the Clerk of the Board Office.) Mr. Fisher questioned whether funding recommended in this budget for Hollymead recreational activities would cover this request. Dr. Iachetta felt the request should be reviewed further. XI. Solid Waste Resource Recovery--County share is unknown. Total Project Cost-$7,314,000. Ivy Landfill Access Road--This project includes improvements to Route 637 from 1-64 to the Ivy Landfill and the entrance to the Landfill. The road is under construction and is fully planned. (City of Charlottesville is to pay one-half of the cost.) Total Project C0st-$1,540,000. Prior Year's Funding-S679,000. XI. Utilities Extension of Water Lines to Scottsville Shopping Center--The Albemarle County Service Authority is requesting that the County of Albemarle extend a water line from Scottsville to the Stoney Point Subdivision since the well 425 August 1, 1979 Afternoon Meetin~ (Adjourned from July 30,_.1979) Mr. Agnor said this project is shown in the budget under the "deferred" column because it is possible that in the next cycle of the HUD housing program the County may be able to obtain money for an elderly housing project in Scottsvllle. If that happens, perhaps the utility'.line extension can be incorporated into such a project using HUD funds. Mr. Dorrier requested that the extension of the water line be placed under the "proposed" column. The Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department is relocating next year and will build next to the Scottsville Shopping Center. The Fire Department contemplates digging a well to supply needed water. Since it is anticipated that the line will be extended some time in the~future, it should be extended now so the fire department will not have to dig a well.~ .Mr. Dorrier said the shopping center does not have the necessary funds to pay for extension of the line and all the businesses there are currently on wells. In the summer, there is not adequate water for the stores. The sewage problem also exists in the shopping center since all of the businesses are on septic tanks. He requested that the line be extended now and that a hydrant be placed at the intersection of Route 6 and Route 726. Mr. Roudabush did not feel one hydrant would provide much fire protection for the shopping center because the hydrant would be located at too great a distance from the Shopping Center to afford any substantial help. Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. He felt the hydrant could be located where it could be used successfully for the shopping center. Mr. Fisher said he understood the problem but was concerned about asking the entire County to fund a water line to serve this shopping center. Mr. Henley said there are other areas in the County with similar problems. He did not feel the County should fund this extension for the shopping center if the same is not done for other areas. Mr. Roudabush felt it would set a bad precedent· for a governing body to pay for this waterline extension. It was the consensus of the Board to retain this project in the deferred column. Mr. Fisher asked if the Scottsville Sewage Treatment facility is near its'operating capacity. Mr. Thompson said yes and sometimes over capacity depending on the weather. The old sewage system has a great deal of infiltrati~on and is in need of repair. The system is under a Consent Order with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and when funds become available, the facility will be upgraded. Mr. Bailey said the consent order is because of the degree of treatment which is accomplished. Mr. Dorrier said he would still like to work on the extension of the waterline to see if there is any possible way to get matching funds. Mr. Lindstrom then presented the following proposal for the Crozet Interceptor: "As you are acutely aware, Dr. Iachetta and I have made some suggestions which involve the Crozet Interceptor. My proposal and reasons for it are set forth belows. The proposal-is made now because I believe it would be logical to fund any County share of the local funding I propose out of the capital improvements budget. Proposal--Create a six member committee composed of: 1) George Williams as Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA); 2) Treva Cromwell as chairman of RWSA; 3) A representative selected by Morton's; 4) A RWSA board member named by City Council; 5) A RWSA Board member named by this Board; 6) A representative selected by this Board not on the RWSA.. Charge the committee with responsibility for: 1- investigating the possibility ~of State Health Department and State Water Control Board (SWCB) approval of a package treatment plant in the Crozet area capable of treating phosphates and nitrates; 2- if approval of the above is possible, obtain cost figures for such a plant; 3- bbtain updated figures on the cost of interceptor construction; 4- consider and recommend a formula for sharing the cost of either a package plant if possible, or an interceptor; 5- determine whether there is available any grant money, either State or Federal, for assisting us in the construction of either alternative, which money would be available in the reasonably immediate future. Place an October 1, 1979 deadline on the Committee's response time. Rationale--1. The date upon which SWCB funding for the interceptor will be available has been steadily receding into the future. It is now estimated as being available no sooner than 1985. It is reported that allocation of available SWCB funds is becoming increasingly political. Charlottesville-Albemarle has already received substantial funds for the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The interceptor is viewed by the SWCB as a planning tool more than a sorely needed sewage treatment device such as many localities require. Finally, both Federal and State monies seem to be getting harder and harder to come by. Ail of these factors make it appear unlikely that the interceptor will actually be funded in 1985. 2. Even if funding does become available in 1985, engineering studies will have to be completed and right of way required, a process which could involve a substantial amount of time in itself. 3. Pipeline construction costs are increasing at a rate of 15% to 20% per year according to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). If we delay six years or more in getting the contract for this project, it is likely that the local share of the inflated future cost will approach the present cost of a totally locally funded project. 4. The Betz study showed that Morton's is contributing nearly 13,000 lbs. of phosphates per year to the Reservoir, or 25% or more of total phosphate loadings. During the summer months when rainfall is lower, the percentage of phosphate contribution from Morton's approaches 95% of the total. RWSA and the County has expended significant time. moneF (in the hundreds of thousands August l, 1979 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from July 30, 1979) Unfortunately, we have only dealt with about 15% of the total source of pollution. An interceptor, or equally effective package plant, could immediately and completely eradicate another 25%. It seems only fair that if we have it within our power to make such a significant improvement, we ought to do so. I believe it would significantly and meaningfully underscore the sincerity of our concern and legitimacy of~ the existing Reservoir Protection (Run-off Control) Ordinance that is, in some cases, a significant burden to landowners and developers in the watersheds of the County's reservoirs. 5. A six year, or longer, delay in eliminating the Morton and Crozet pollution sources in the South Rivanna Reservoir can only exacerbate the deterioration of that reservoir. As we all know, the cost of piping water from the James River, even if legally feasible, would approximate $42 million. If the threat of this possibility were significant enough to justify the imposition of the restrictions of the Reservoir Protection (Run-off Control) Ordinance upon developers and landowners in a watershed covering nearly 245 square miles of the County, it ought to justify the giving of serious consideration to spending local funds to accomplish the removal of such signficiant sources of pollution as exist in the Crozet area. 6. The justification for direct County participation in local funding of such a project is that without such a project Crozet can never fulfill its role in the Comprehensive Plan. The growth occuring in that area now is by large lot subdivision tending to inefficient use of what is primarily agricultural land. The fundamental tenants of the Plan and any new zoning ordinance will be weakened without a public sewerage capacity in the Crozet area. 7. One of the negative aspects of the installation of an interceptor along the 250 corridor would be the pressure for strip development along the sides. For this reason, I hope that serious consideration will be given to a package plant in the Crozet area. However, even if the interceptor were constructed, it seems to me that local funding of such a project would give this locality some measure of increased control over the "tapping" on policies which would prevail. I realize that there are no sigificant revelations contained in my arguments. Admittedly they are a compilation of arguments others have made. Obviously, I believe that they are, nevertheless, compelling. It seems to me that if we are serious about reservoir protection we simply cannot continue to permit an interceptor to be pushed further and further into the future by forces over which we have no real control. It will be quite easy to repeat on an annual basis the position that we should "wait for another year and see how we fair with the SWCB". I believe if we knew for certain that there would not be an interceptor available for 10 years we would act now. I think there is compelling evidence that it is very likely there will be no interceptor for at least 10 years." Mr. Lindstrom said if nothing can be done to start construction of the interceptor, then he feels the Comprehensive Plan should be revised to lower densities for the Crozet area. He felt that with the burden which has been placed on other landowners in the watershed the County should be willing to do something to take care of this problem. He proposed that a committee be established. Mr. Agnor said when the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed by the City and the County, and the five-year pollution abatement program was adopted by the localities and the State, this program provided that seven major projects woUld be under construction during the period of time. Six of those projects have been started in five and one-half years. The only project left is the Crozet interceptor. Mr. Agnor said if the A.C.S.A. had a contract with Morton's to hook into that interceptor and this contract were presented to the State Water Control Board, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would be in a much stronger position for funding of the interceptor. Morton's is now operating their plant under a consent order from the State Water Control Board and the State Water Control Board will not be able to ignore that fact when a contract is presented. Secondly, this community has agressively pursued the clean up of the pollution in the Reservoir. With a contract from Morton's, the major pollutor of the Reservoir will be removed, but only after the interceptor is funded. Morton's has a deadline of August 31 to consummate an agreement and meet the requirements of the consent order. Mr. Agnor said, at Mr. Fisher's request, he has been working on a report to the Board on the question of the interceptor, but the report is not ready for distributiOn today. '~ Mr. Henley did not oppose the establishment of the committee suggested by Mr. Lindstrom, but felt it should work within the lines of what Mr. Agnor has stated. Mr. Lindstrom~said he had not discussed this matter publicly because he felt the State Water Control Board would then have an excuse not to do anything. However, the Planning Staff made a recommendation to the Planning Commission at the public hearing on the Capital Improvements program that local funding be considered for this project. Mr. Agnor said Mr. James Skove, a Planning Commission member, had raised the issue. In discussing the matter with Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., he advised him to respond, if asked, that the County should seek any source of funding available, but, since telling Mr. Tucker this, he has found that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff has sought other funding unsuccessfully. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board discussed this question at their June meeting. Mr. Agnor said he suggested that the RWSA Board itself examine the status of this project and decide whether it should be funded locally, by the state or other. The entire RWSA Board was not present at that time so the matter was deferred. The State Water Control Board staff has been favorable to the project, but has not recommended funding because of the number of delays which have~urrred since its inception. ~Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support having the County spend any money if funding could be obtained from the State but asked if this meant the project would have to wait through another cycle of public hearings. ~r. Agnor said yes. The first opportunity to present this project again will be in the early months of 1980. The committee suggested aOl~ld ~wnmf~ fih~ m~ ~ ~=~e ....... ~* ~ _ ............. ~ust 1, 19_ _ 79=Afternoon M?etinE (Adjourned from Jul-.=:0~ Mr. Bailey said, up to this time, there was no advantage to constructing the Crozet Interceptor because there was no advanced wastewater treatment plant to treat the sewage from the interceptor. Now the major portion of the AWT plant has been under contruction for some months. The second phase of the AWT plant is ready to be reviewed by the reviewing authorities and in several months will be ready to go to bid which removes any impediment on the part of the locality for pressing for these funds to build the Crozet Interceptor. Mr. Bailey did not feel the State Water Control Board will abandon the South Rivanna Reservoir and the Crozet Interceptor is the only instrument which will reduce the loading on the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said the presentation today by Mr. Agnor was news to him. He has been very concerned that nothing was really going to happen. He felt if the contract does not materiali something else will have to be done. The Board agreed to wait until the contract has been presented to the State Water Control Board before taking any action on Mr. Lindstrom's request. Mr. Agnor then continued his presentation by listing the following items of which a majority are not county funded in the Capital Improvements Program: Utilities Extension of Sewer-Scottsville Shopping Center--Total Project Cost-$118,050. Extension of Water-Stoney Point Subdivision--Total Project Cost-$133,760. Health Esmont Community Facility--This project converts and existing building to a health clinic facility for outreach health programs sponsored by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department, funded by a HUD grant. Total Project Cost--S51,000. H~ghways Secondary Road Improvements--This project involves the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's six year plan for secondary ~oad improvements with biennial revision in 1980. Total Project Cost--$11,561,100. Hydraulic Road--This project involves the four laning of Hydraulic Road with provisions for curb and gutter, sidewalks and bike trails in certain areas. Total Project Cost-~L~$~Dp; Proposed-S151,700. Georgetown Road-Pedestrian Path--This project will construct~ an asphalt surfaced walkway on the west side of Georgetown Road between Hydraulic and Barracks Roads, connecting to the sidewalk on Barracks Road at Rickey Drive. Total Project Cost-$27,500; Proposed-S27,500. Housin~ Housing Rehabilitation and Self Help Program--This project ~is a one year grant program funded by U.S. Housing and Urban Development to supplement the Albemarle Ho~sing Improvement Program (AHIP). It provides grants to homeowners for purchase o'f materials in the AHIP program. The self-help housing project is a one year grant program for purchase of land and installation of streets and utilities to develop one or two, four-lot subdivisions. The lots will be transferred as a grant to a homeowner needed to build a residence with family or volunteer (AHIP) labor. Total Project Cost-$270,210. Utilities Albemarle County Service Authority Hessian Hills Sewer Collector-Phase II-Total Project Cost--S140,000. Westmoreland Sewer Collector Phase I-Total Project Cost--$250,000. Westmoreland Sewer Collector Phase II-Total Project Cost--$391,800. Old Forge Road Sewer Collector--Total Project Cost-$366,248. Albemarle County Service Authority proposes to provide sewer service to these areas where a need for this service exists. Camelot Sewer Plant--Tota~l Project Cost--$1175,000. The Camelot Plant is Albemarleproposed for in early expansion 1979. through private funds as approved by the County of ~West Leigh--Phase II--Total Project Cost--$28,000. West Leigh--Phase III--Total Project Cost--$34,000. West Leigh--Phase IV--Total Project Cost--$16,800. The Albemarle County Service Authority proposes in Phases II and III to replace ~a 4" waterline with a 12" line to increase the pressure and fire protection capability in West Leigh, Meriwether Hills, Meriwether North and Lewis Hills .Subdivisions. Phase IV is proposed to complete a 12" waterline loop from Lewis Hill to West Leigh. Georgetown Green Sewer Pumping Station--Total Project Cost--$33,000. This project is proposed to replace an existing but inadequate pump station. Urban High Pressure Water System--Total Project Cost--$28,000. This system is needed to increase the availability of storage capacity of the Stillhouse Mountain storage tank facility to parts of the Urban Area. Mr. Thompson said the Albemarle County Service Authority has not decided on the best *~ ~ ~~~ ~e ~.~ ~.~.~ ~n~ ~1~ wb~ab will be reouired when the Augm~t 1, 1979 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from Ju~ 30, 1979) Road as recommended by the County Engineer in the Comprehensive Fire Hydrant System Study. Mr. Fisher felt since the County pays for the installation of f~re hydrants, the costs should be examined before the final decision is made. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Water--System Storage and Interconnection--Total Project Cost--S1,500,000. Water--System Waste Disposal Facilities--Total Project Cost--S500,000. Wastewater--AWT Plant--Total Project Cost--$26,000,000. Wastewater--Rivanna Interceptor--Total Project Cost--$10,092,000. Wastewater--Crozet Interceptor--Total Project Cost--$7,125,600. System Storage and Interconnection is to expand the storage of treated water in the urban water system by the addition of a tank on Pantops Mountain, interconnecting the Observatory and South Rivanna water plant distribution system with a transmission line loop from Pantops tank, east and South of the City. Waste Disposal Facilities--Construction of facilities at Observatory and South Rivanna Water plants to treat water used to backwash (clean) filters at the plant; required by State Water Control Board. Plant Improvements (Crozet)--Improve treatment operations of plant. AWT Plant-Construct new plant at Moore's Creek. estimated three years construction time. Project began January 1979; Rivanna Interceptor-Sewage line parallel to South Rivanna River from Route 29 to Moore's Creek plant. Project constructed in four phases; all phases under construction; completion in 1980. Crozet Interceptor-Sewage line from Crozet to Moore's Creek plant. schedule to commence 1983-84. Project Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to advertise the public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program as presented for August 15, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush then presented a petition dated July 24, 1979 from the residents of Routes 606 and 850 expressing their concerns and suggested measures to be taken to handle problems at the Chris Greene Lake Park. (Petition on file in the Clerk of the Board Office). Mr. Agnor said he would review the petition and respond to the concerns expressed. Agenda Item No. 11. At 5:40 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom requested an executive session to discuss personnel matters and offered motion to that effect. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. A~gust 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia-, was held on August 1, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:43 P.M. by the Chairman, who asked for a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2., SP-79-36. Everett L. Sipe. To locate a mobile home on 40.38 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 22 approximately two miles west of the Louisa County line. County Tax Map 66, Parcel 10E, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 19, 1979.) The applicant was not present at this time, therefore, this agenda item was temporarily skipped. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: To consider amendments to the 1977-1995 Comprehensi% Land Use Plan with respect to the following eight villages: Ivy, Esmont/Porter's, Earlysville North Garden, Nix, Stony Point, Scottsville and Keswick; and the following two communities: Crozet and Hollymead. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and July 25, 1979.) Mr. Fisher said this meeting tonight is for the purpose of receiving public comments on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He did not expect the Board to take any action on recommendations, but rather to set work sessions on these amendments for other dates. Mr. Tucker said the following reports are to detail and/or implement aspects of the 1977 adopted Comprehensive Plan. Ail of the reports include a listing of relevant goals and objectives along with applicable standards as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan PropOsals and Plan Implementation chapters. The reports also include review of the data base, data analysis, alternative responses, and conclude with either a statement of findings or a series of recommended actions on policies. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of a balance of land uses, the locati¢ of land uses so as to efficiently conserve energy and fully utilize service facilities, and the general maintenance of the living environment through conserving open space and 'clustering development. These goals address both economic and environmental issues including the supply of jobs available to County residents as well as the protection of critical environmental areas. A major aspect of the Plan is the attempt to direct growth outside of the Urban Area into the communities of Hollymead and Crozet. These communities would be encouraged to reach and then be limited to a population sufficient to support a comprehensive set of public facilities and services. These land use plans, prepared by the consultants for the Comprehens Plan, represent an attempt to accomplish this goal as efficiently as possible. Establishing these land use plans is, of course, only the first step in implementing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The provision of necessary services, such as water and sewer, are also important for drawing population increases into the communities. Plan policie and guidelines vary between the two communities. A section outlining these policies is included in each separate plan section. Mr. Tucker then proceeded %o give the staff's report for the Hollymead Community as follows: The ~ommunity of Hollymead is one of two communities designated in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate a high percentage (10,000 in population) of the County's growth over the next 15 to 20 years. Hollymead is located approximately two and one-half miles northeast of Charlottesville via Route 29 North. Land use in the community area consists primarily of single-family residences in the planned development of Hollymead, a mobile home park, smaller subdivisions and scattered residential development, an elementary school, a cemetery, and commercial development near the inter- section of Route 649 with Route 29. The area designated as the Hollymead Community is predominantly vacant at this time. The topography varies from rolling to steep and over 50% of the area is wooded. The following text presents the overall policies and guidelines, as amended, from the adopted 1977 Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES The Community of Hollymead is the new designation for what was previously called North Rivanna. The highlights of the Plan proposals for the Community of Hollymead are: Design year increase 10,000 persons. Design year capacity 12,000 persons. Logical expansion and addition to the approved Hollymead ye 430 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) The Community, although related to the Urban Area by proximity and transportation linkages, is designed to be a community of its own with balanced employment, service, and recreation opportunities. As indicated on both the Hollymead and the Urban Area Plans, the South Fork Rivanna River flood plain and valley slopes must serve as a greenbelt and open space buffer between the two areas. Differences between the 1971 plan boundary and the revised plan are based upon ~several factors: Reduced population pressures for community development and a more intimate community scale. , Focus on the Planned Unit Development of Hollymead (with planned changes in the nature of those indicated on the Community Plans.) Desire to avoid having Route 29 North split on the residential community. Use of a natural boundary rather than roads and railroad on the east. Definition of employment areas on the west side of Route 29 as related to the community. Existing residences west of Route 29 should be maintained and completed, but expansion of these areas should be discouraged. The highway commercial area at the Airport intersection should remain. Industrial plans envision capitalizing on the disadvantages of the Airport environment for other uses. Most of the land in the Hollymead Community area west of Route 29 is proposed for the future. This also allows all community functions (residential, commercial, education, and recreational) on the east side to be easily accommodated without entering or crossing Route 29. Proposed c.ommunity facilities: Two elementary schools will be needed over the long run in addition to the Urban Area/Hollymead area combined middle and high school need. 100 acres of local community parks should be provided based on 10 acres/ 1000 population. One governmental substation to include a health center, library, fire station and police station. Timing - the five year perspective: The private sector should be used where possible to both design and implement the necessary infrastructure for the area in conformity to the Plan. A fine tuning of the service area and distribution system for water and sewer should be accomplished to reflect the eventual expansion of the Hollymead PUD and the industrial development anticipated in conjunction with the Airport. Road improvement plans for the area should be designed and roads built as development occurs as a prerequisite to same. Housing tools and funding should be made operational and used as a stimulus to the private sector. Mobile home park development should be stimulated by the private sector or undertaken by the public sector to facilitate plan implementation. Industrial park lots should be developed and made available to users. Crossings of Route 29 should be limited to three points: Route 643 on the south, Route 649 on the north and the Hollymead development grade separated primary entrance. Industrial and residential growth will eventually necessitate a grade separation interchange at the bypass intersection. New commercial development along Route 29 should be limited to the general vicinity of the approved Hollymead community area or as otherwise indicated on the Plan. Further community development should be accommodated in that area but should be accompanied by a grade separation interchange with no direct commercial access to Route 29. Three plans, "land use", "community facility" and "environmental cons~a~m~" have been combined to form a visual picture of the plans for the Hollymead Community. Any variance in land use action from the proposed plan should be compared and coordi- nated with possible changes in facilities and environmental considerations. E'×IS'TING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of more detailed study and community involvement, the following Plan amendments have been developed. The following text presents planning guidelines under the headings of community boundaries, environment, land use and community facilities. Community Boundaries The eastern boundary of the community is the natural stream boundary of Powell Creek and its tributaries extending from Route 643 on the south to Route 649 (Proffit Road). Beyond this point the eastern bou~v ~ ~wt~ ~ 43[ August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) The northern boundary is designed to include existing development north of Route 649 and allow for limited exyansion of development in this area. This boundary, as noted above, is roughly parallel to Route 649 at a distance of about one-half mile. The western boundary of the Community, west of Route 29, generally follows the alignment of Route~643 and 606 (except in_the center of the area where the boundary leaves Route 643 and follows a wooded are~rallel to Route 29 until it meets Route 606. The southern boundary of the Community is Route 643 on both sides of Route 29. It is intended that the area between this southern boundary of Route 643 and the South Fork of the Rivanna River remain in an open state as a very substantial buffer between the Urban Area and the community of Hollymead. The majority of this area is subject to flooding, and development should be limited to not more than low density residential development along the south side frontage of Route 643. This boundary is extremely critical since it is being depended upon to preserve the distinct identity of the Hollymead Community from the Urban Area and prevent continuous development from the City of Charlottesville to the vicinity of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Environment Existing vegetation at the entrances to the community, especially at the northern and southern boundaries on Route 29, should be preserved to create a visual indication of the boundaries of the Community. The major feature of the environmental plan for Hollymead is an open space network which is comprised of the stream valleys and their tributary drainage ways plus adjacent areas with very steeply sloping terrain. This network is designed to tie in with and complement the lakes that have been or will be created as part of the overall Hollymead Planned Unit Development. This planned open space network creates an environment where development can occur on a neighborhood type basis with logical natural separations from adjoining neighborhoods in the large (approximately 2.5 x 1 mile) area of the Hollymead Community on the east side of.Route 29. The Community plan also delineates areas outside of this formal open space network where there is existing vegetation which should be preserved to provide additional organization and visual amenity as the Community develops. Such other wooded areas to be preserved are indicated on the plan map along both major and minor roads in strategic areas throughout the Community as well as in the vicinity of the existing mobile home park. This preservation area is designed in conjunction with planned expansion of the mobile home park - the forested areas serving to break up the mass of the expanded area into four nodes. In addition to existing vegetation, the Community plan designates specific areas where new landscaping should accompany development. The majority of these areas are indicated along .Route 29. Other areas reflect existing needs to improve the attractiveness of developed areas within the HollYmead Community and to buffer future residential uses from both commercial uses and varying residential densities. Due to the dominant wooded character of the entire Hollymead Community area, it is a matter of emphasis that as much vegetation be preserved as possible during the growth and development process. Land Use The basic premise of land use planning for the Hollymead Community is to avoid division of residential portions of the Community by Route 29. Therefore, the area on the west of Route 29 is planned for industrial use as an employment area for the future. Existing residential areas on the west side of Route 29 in the northern port.ion of ~he Community are recognized as low density residential areas on the land use plan. Planning for the area of the Community on the east side of Route 29 begins from the premise that the approved plans for Phase I of the Hollymead Planned Unit Development would set the.land use patterns for that particular area. This approved plan was expanded upon during the process of developing the Community plan and results in the creation of five neighborhood areas. These neighborhood areas are organized by creating activity centers composed of medium and high density residential concentrations, neighborhood commercial, and elementary school. Each center is surrounded by lower .density residen%ial development. As indicated in the environmental section, each of these neighborhood areas is organized and separated by planned open space, networks. The main commercial area on Route 29 would be a community center serving the dual purposes of shopping for the Hollymead Community and for the surrounding area. This location ensures that residents from surrounding areas will not have to ~enetrate the Community in order to gain access to the community shopping center. The area around the existing restaurant and club facilities has also been designated as a commercial area based on its existing and probable ~future use. Two neighborhood commercial areas have been designated within the Community: one in the southeastern corner on Route 643 in close proximity to planned medium and high density development, and the second on Route 649 in the northern portion of the Community (also related to medium and high density development). August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Additional commercial areas are planned for the intersection of Route 649 with Route 29. These areas may be developed as highway-oriented commercial to serve residents of the Hollymead Community as well as travelers on Route 29. The Plan designates three quadrants for such commercial use and the fourth quadrant for high density residential use. The purpose of this is to reduce peak traffic loads at the intersection in comparison with the situation that will develop if all four quadrants are developed for commercial use. The Hollymead Community plan recognizes the mobile home park off Route 29 on the east side and proposes that this type of development be allowed to expand in that area conditioned upon the creation of open space (wooded buffers) to separate components of the expanded mobile home park and to buffer surrounding high and low densi~ty development. The land use plan is geared to permit the Community of Hollymead to grow to a population level within the range of 10,000 - 12,000. Community Facilities Education Two new elementary schools are proposed in addition to the existing school. The new schools will serve the growing Community of Hollymead as well as outlying areas. These schools are located in activity centers on Route 643 at the extreme southeast edge of the Community and on Route 649 near the northern edge of the Community. A major site is provided near Route 29 in the southern portion of the Community for a middle/high school campus. These facilities would serve the Community Of Hollymead and would also accept students from surrounding areas including possible overflow from the northern portions of the Urban Area. Other Facilities A location is provided for a county government subcenter in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 29 and Route 643. Th~s facility should accommodate library, health and police services and would function to serve Hollymead and surrounding areas. A fire/rescue station is to be located in the commercial area on the south side of the main entrance within approximately 1000 feet of the proposed .interchange at Route 29. This station is located to provide protection to uses on both sides of Route 29 and would serve the entire Hollymead Community. Parks and recreation sites have been delineated as playgrounds, playfields, and stream valley parks. It is expected that most of the facilities will be developed as recreat±onal and open space amenities by developers active in building the community. The location for county parks, if any, should be selected in con- sultation with the County Parks and Recreation Department as development and land use decisions are made in greater detail. Similarly, tot lots should be located in conjunction with development as it progresses. The stream valley parks are intended primarily for passive enjoyment, and it is envisioned that some of these may be private areas which act primarily as a buffer and are not necessarily accessible for public use. The pedestrian systems should focus on the stream Yalley parks and should connect all. major facilities in the Community. They should include connection with the lakes in the Community and the thought should be kept in mind that, since the stream valleys drain to the South Fork of the Rivanna, the pedestrian systems should be geared to providing access to this area since it is a logical place for a large County park in the future. Additional pedestrian walkways should be created within sections of the Community along public streets and through open space areas as appropriate. At the present time, the main north-south spine road for Hollymead (south of ~49] and Route 785 (north of 649) intersect with Route 649 in the northern part of the Community at divergent points. Both roads intersect with Route 649 on a curve and a dangerous situation exists as a result of the placement of these ~ntersections and the location of the old country store. It is proposed that Route 649 be realigned to alleviate the horizontal alignment problem through the means of re~l~gbb~ht~he spine road and Route 785 to create a four-way intersection. It is also proposed that the previous alignment of Route 6~9 be retained with the addition of cul-de-sacs to both the east and the west of Route 785 with access to the cul-de-sacs being from Route 785. ~n the so'uthern portion of the Community, the north-south spine road is extended from below the Hollymead Elementary School in a southerly direction to form a T- ~ntersection with Route 643. This creates a complete north-south linkage through the Community from Route 643 on the south ~to Route 649 on the north which 'is essential for traffic circulation in a community of this scale. ~n the west side of Route 29, the Route 29 bypass originating in the Urban Area is located parallel to Route 643 and intersects Route 29 at the proposed clover- leaf interchange and main entrance to the residential portion of the Hollymead Community. The decision to create a separate alignment from Route 643 for the bypass is based upon extensive vertical and horizontal alignment problems assoc±ated with Route 643 in this area. 433 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) An additional proposal is to extend Route 606 in a southwesterly direction to join with the proposed Route 29 bypass. This creates an alternate route to the Airport and, more importantly, provides alternative access and circulation to Route 29 for industrial traffic stemming from industrial development of the areas on the west side of Route 29. Route 643 on the west side of Route 29 should maintain its present alignment, but a connector be built to the proposed Route 606 extension. This would allow easy access from Route 29 to both Routes 606 and 643 and facilitate north-south movements via the proposed interchange. The proposed interchange at the intersection of the main Hollymead entrance and the proposed Route 29 bypass at Route 29 is a~standard interchange. The inter- change does not need to be built all at the same time. It is proposed that the present northerly exit from Hollymead be replaced with an exit that is moved approximately 800 feet to the north: this allows northbound traffic from Hollymead to avoid commercial and commuter traffic in the interchange, provides a larg~commercial area without the division of an exit through the shopping center, and also provides additional access to the proposed community shopping center for traffic that is heading north withou~ the necessity for such traffic to mix in the interchange. : Gardens Community of Hollymead ~ Scale 1'--2000' Key [~ Low Density Res. ~ Med. Density Res. [~ High Density Res. L~ Commercial ~ Public Institutions [~ Industrial ['-1 Open Space August 1, 1979 (Regular Night~Me~t~g) Plan Impacts Residential - Low (1 to 4 du/ac) Residential - Medium (5 to 10 du/ac) Residential - Mobile Homes (10 du/ac) Residential - High (11 to 20 du/ac) Commercial Industrial Public and Conservation Total Acres Population Dwellin~ Units 7026 2346 1466 488 832 277 1932 638 434 Mr. Tucker than gave the Planning Commission recommendations for the Hollymead Community as follows: l) Land in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 29 and Route 649, proposed for high density: the Commission redesignated this commercial. 2) Land along the east side of Route 29, north of Route 649, proposed for industrial; the Commission redesignated this low density. 3) Land south of a line drawn across the Community f~om the western border to the east, below the existing mobile home park and along the edge of the southern boundary of Phase I of the Hollymead PUD development; the Commission wished to exclude this land from the Community and provide additional buffer space between the Urban Area Neighborhoods 1 and 2 and Hollymead. In effect, this moves the southern border to the north approximately 3000 feet. Land in the north central portion of the Community, east of Route 29 and south of Route 649, proposed for Iow density and medium density residential; the Commission redesignated the land along Route 29 commercial, land to the east of the commercial, high density, and the residue low density residential. Land along the southern side of Route 649 east of Route 29 near the proposed i~nstitutional land, proposed for medium density residential; the Commission recommended that this be redesignated institutional as well in order to supply land for the high and middle school complex deleted from the southern portion of the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker said the Jefferson Village Community Association had suggested the change recommended under No. 4 above. The Association asked that the medium density be moved further from Jefferson Village and that a buffer be provided between Jefferson Village ~nd any future elementary school. The Commission agreed with this request. Also, it was requested that the land in the north central portion, east of Route 29, shown as low density be moved (or reversed) with the medium density and that the land along Route 29 be designated as commercial. The Commission agreed with this request because they felt it would be wrong to have all of the traffic from the higher densities feeding through low density properties, therefore, they felt these categories should be reversed. The Commission also agreed to extend the commercial area along Route 29 in front of the high density area. Concerning recommendation No. 2, the Commission received a request from Virginia Land Company concerning the land shown as industrial on the east side of Route 29 across from Airport Acres. The land is presently zoned commercial and Virginia Land requested that the land be shown as commercial, however, the Commission did not feel that any additional com- mercial or industrial land was needed in this area and redesignated the land for low denaity residential. The major recommendation of the Commission dealt with the boundaries of the Hollymead Community. The Commission did not feel there was adequate buffer, or separation, from the Urban Area just across the Rivanna River and Route 643; the southern boundary of the Hollymea~ Community. Under recommendation No. 3, the Commission recommended that the boundary be moved northward to correspond with the existing southern boundary of the Hollymead PUD, taking in the' mobile home park. This will delete about 3000 feet of land from the Community and create a buffer that does not consist of just the River and flood plain. This change will delete an area proposed for the middle/high school and one area proposed for a~ elementary school. In order to compensate for this loss, the Commission recommended that an area near Jefferson Village be expanded to include an elementary/middle/high school complex similar to Brownsvil!c However, the Community would still be short one elementary school site as well as some medium and high density residential areas. Mr. Tucker said the staff has not had time to evaluate what impact this change will have since a decision will have to made on whether to reduce the design year capacity of population for the Hollymead Community that was lost when this boundary was changed. Mr. Fisher asked how the boundaries of the proposed Hollymead Community compared to the boundaries of the North Rivanna Community (designation for this area used in the '71 Compre- hensive Plan). Mr. Tucker said they are very similar. Mr. Fisher said he did not realize that. the boundaries extended so far north of Route 649. Mr. Tucker said this expansion was requested by the citizens committee which hel~ed to draft the plan~ They wanted to include some of the existing development in the area. Mr. Fisher said, since the population projecti¢ used in the '71 Comprehensive Plan were over-estimated, he had thought the Hollymead Community would be scaled down. Mr. Tucker said th~gi~!~an called for a population of 18,000 by the year 1995, but this plan has lowered that population projection to 12,000. Dr. Zachetta noted that the land on the west side of Route 29 has been changed to non- residential uses. Mr. Tucker said this was done because it was felt that to have the industri area on one side of Route 29, and the residential, s~o~n~_ ~~ e~*~ .... ~ Acreage 1078 81 35 65 48 555 1287 3149 ~S August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Roudabush asked if the iow density residential area on the south side of Route 649 near the Airport was Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Tucker said yes. At this time, the public hearing was opened, with comments being limited to Hollymead Community. Mr. James Hill, representing Virginia Land Company, said the action taken by the Planning Commission came as a complete surprise, particularly recommendation No. 2, because he thought what was presented to the Planning Commission was a workable plan. Mr. Hill said he could not imagine anyone wanting to live in a low density area directly on Route 29. He also was in disagreement with the buffer placed between the River and the southern boundary. Mr. Hill said the Hollymead PUD has already been scaled down in density and probably will be scaled down further. He then presented to the Board a copy of a revised Hollymead PUD plan. (See next sheet.) Mr. Hill said it has been his experience that high density areas are not acceptable at the rear of a property because all of the traffic must travel through through the low density areas and residents are opposed to this. Mr. Hill said the biggest surprise was the property changed to low density above Route 649 (land presently zoned commercial). He feels this is a mistake because of the way the land is presently being developed. Mr. Hill said he feels the plan he presented to the Board tonight is more suitable for all concerned. Mr. Roudabush asked if Virginia Land Company controls all of the land shown o~ the plan submitted by Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Hill his projection of the population increase for this plan over the next five years. Mr. Hill said they have been working with figures from the County Planning Department and have estimated there will be 65 families per year over the next five years. Mr. Hill said when the Hollymead PUD was first conceived, it was hard to get the concept of such a plan across to the public, however, that is now changing and a good community is developing. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Tucker to explain the reasoning behind the artificial shift in the Hollymead boundary. He said there are some natural boundaries, which may not be as uniform, but which would lend themselves to use particularly on the part west of the natural drainage area along Route 643 behind the proposed school site. He asked what defined the boundaries as shown on the map in the staff's report. Mr. Tucker said the only thing the Commission had to use was the present boundary of Phase I of the Hollymead PUD and they also wanted to include the existing mobile home park, The Planning. Commission even discussed shifting the boundaries further to the north so that the intersection of Routes 649 and- 29 would be the focal point of the community, however, that is not recommended at this time. Also discussed was designating the Camelot area as a village because of the public utilities which are already in place. Dr. Iachetta said he did not understand the Planning Commission' use of the word "buffer" in this instance. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission felt this area should be developed at something like a two-acre density so there would be a change from the densities in the Urban Area. Dr. Iachetta said Carrsbrook Subdivision, on the opposite side of the River, is developed at a rather low density so he could see no reason for shiftin the boundaries of the Hollymead Community. Also, the original Hollymead boundary was easily de.fined. Mr. Roudabush noted that by shifting the boundaries of the Hollymead community northward thie whole Community will be limited to one ownership and he felt this should be given some consideration. SP-79-36. Everett L. Sipe. At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: Mobile Home 10.38 acres A-i, Agricultural Tax Map 66, Parcel 10E, located approximately one mile west of Cobham on Route 22 on the north side of the roadway. R.equest: Acreage: Zoning: Location: Character of the Area: The applicant's property is located in a wooded area alongside a straight, level stretch of roadway. The topography of the parcel is level to slightly rolling in stream bott0mland. Route 22 is sparsely developed in this area with single-family structures occuring at intervals along the north side of the roadway and in the woods away from the road. Land to the east of the parcel has been subdivided into approximately ten lots on open land with many of those lots already developed. Land to the south of Route 22 is primarily in pastureland with some forest. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to locate a mobile home in a wooded area. A mobile home located anywhere on the property would not be visible from the roadway if existing vegetation is maintained. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Compliance with Section 11-4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The maintenance of existing forest as a visual buffer of approximately 50 feet between the mobile home site and Route 22. 1) 2) Mr. Tucker said, the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 24, 1979, recommended approval of this petition with the conditions recommended by the staff. The Planning Commission did receive several letters in opposition to this application, but no one was present to speak at the public hearing. (Letters from Mrs. Peggy L. Winchester, Mrs. Bessie Guy, Mrs. Mildred G. Mitchell, and Mrs. Sally G. Turner, are on file.) August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 43~ EAD 437 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Sipe was present in support of the petition. He has requested this mobile home permit so his son will have a place to live while he is building a house. A septic system and well have been installed. There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if there are any other dwellings on this property. Mr. Sipe said no; this is a vacant piece of land. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-79-36 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the followi.ng recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board then returned to the public hearing on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Community of Crozet is one of two communities designated in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate a high percentage (8000 population) of the County's growth over the next 15 to 20 years. The Community of Crozet is located approximately 10 miles west of Charlottesville via Route 250 West and Route 240. Land use in the Community consists of a balance of industrial/employment uses, commercial uses serving the local community, and single-family residential development. Most of the residential development has occurred in the form of subdivisions which surround the older parts of the Community at the junction of Route 240, Route 250 and the C & 0 Railroad. The topography ef the Crozet area varies from rolling to steeply sloping. The Crozet Community area is divided into several drainage areas which are tributary to Parrott Branch, Powells Creek, Lickinghole Creek, and the Slabtown Branch of the Lickinghole Creek. The Crozet Community area is predominantly open with scattered patches of wooded land concen- trated predominantly in the northwest and southe~ste~n:~ portions of the area. Mr. Tucker then said the following text presents the overall policies and guidelines, as amended, from the adopted 1977 Comprehensive Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES The highlights of the Plan proposals for the Community of Crozet are: Design year increase of 8000 persons. Design year capacity of 12,000 persons. The community center is a logical expansion of the existing business/service center. Development is limited primarily to the Lickinghole Creek watershed: For protection of the Beaver Creek Dam Reservoir water supply. To create an impoundment on the Lickinghole to control erosion/sedimentation (i.e. Rivanna Reservoir impacts) and for community recreation/amenity. The boundaries include Route 250 on the south and, for the most part, the railroad on the north. Development north of the railroad is to be discouraged for water supply protection reasons. Differences between the 1971 Plan boundary and the revised plan are based upon several factors: Reduced population pressures for community development and a more intimate community scale. Reflection of current utility plans. Water supply protection considerations. Desire for encouragement of compactness emphasizing filling in of internal open areas. Industrial expansion needed for a balanced community is planned along the railroad as an extension of existing development.. Highway commercial is planned at the intersection of Routes 240 and 250 to serve highway oriented business. One new neighborhood center, adjacent to the highway commercial area, is planned since the community center is strategically located to serve combined neighborhood and community needs. Proposed community facilities: One new elementary school will be needed as well as capacity for approximately 380 middle school and 180 high school pupils. 80 acres of local community parks should be provided based on 10 acres,/ 1000 population. One governmental substation to include health center, library, fire station and police station. Apartment development may be considered at any location within one-fourth mile of direct pedestrian link to community center or neighborhood centers. Townhouses, patio homes, and mobile homes above five dwelling units/acre may be consider. at any location within one-half mile of direct pedestrian link to community center or neighborhood center. August !, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Single-family detached density above two dwellings/acre may be considered within one mile of community center or within one-half mile of community center or neighborhood center. Building and all improvements including fences should be setback fifty feet from the center of all-weather streams or the t00-year flood plain, whichever is the greater. Clustering will be allowed for areas not in the flood plain. Pedestrian "public" rights of way should be acquired on all stream boundaries in developed areas. Ail dwelling units above a density of two per acre should have unobstructed pedestrian access to community center, neighborhood center and public recre- ation spaces. Trailer parks should be available in Crozet to accommodate no less than 125 families and no more than 300 families, and no one park should exceed 60 trailers without adequate intervening open space. Timing - the five year perspective: The entire infrastructure to facilitate planned growth should be reviewed and modified and supplemented as necessary. The fine tuning of service area and distribution system for water and sewer should be accomplished. The service a~ea should become smaller and lines should be planned to stimulate development in the areas planned for the 20-year population increase. Housing tools and funding should be made operational and used as a stimulus for the private sector. Mobile home park development should be stimulated in the private sector or undertaken by the public sector to facilitate plan implementation. "community facility" and "environmental The three Crozet plans "land use", , considerations" have been combined to form a visual picture of the plans for the Crozet Community. Any variance in land use action from the proposed plan should be compared and coordinated with possible changes in facilities and -~nvironmental considerations. Key r~ Low Density Res. [] Med. Density Res. [] Commercial Q Public Institutions Community of Crozet August 1, 1979 (Regular Night. Meeting) EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATION~S As a result of more detailed study and community involvement, the following' Plan amendments have been developed. The following text presents planning guildelines under the headings of boundaries, environment, land use, and community facilities. Community Boundaries The southern boundary of the Community is adjacent and parallel to Route 250. This boundary, in addition to being a defined roadway, approximatesr the souther~ boundary of the sewer service area based upon gravity -- watershed planning consideration. The western boundary is a natural stream valley of streams tributary to the Lickinghote Creek beginning at Route 250 on the south and following the stream valley north to within approximately 1000 feet of the C & 0 Rai!road~ From this point, it extends northward across the railroad and Route 240 to include sUbdivision development related to Crozet and follows wooded edges as much as possible until the line intersect~ with Parrott Branch. The northern boundary is the natural stream valley of Parrott Branch from the eastern boundary in a westerly direction until it approaches Route 810, which is the main north-south road serving the area north of Crozet. At this point, the boundary turns in a northwesterly direction parallel to and including land on both sides of Route 810. The boundary includes subdivision on this northern edge of Crozet located on the west side of Route 810. The western boundary of the Community begins from the subdivision described above using stream valleys, ridge lines, and woode~d edge lines as natural boundaries wherever possible. In addition to the overall Community boundary described above, there are two additional boundaries delineated within the Community which reflect the historical development of Crozet. The first of these inner boundaries is called the historic center boundary. This_area contains the buildings within the original mercantile center of Croz~t related to the occasion of the coming together of the railroad, its supporting facilities, and Route 250. The second inner boundary, surrounding the historic center, is called the expanded town center boundary. This boundary encompasses most of the first large influx of residential and supporting commercial development that was responsive to the opportunities produced by the transportation crossroads and initial mercantile activity. These inner boundaries are delineated for the purpose of creating an awareness and protection of the respective characters of these areas. The boundaries are, however, not intended to limit the viable use of buildings within these areas. Environment The key environmental consideration is to preserve the atmosphere and identity of Crozet as a Community in a natural setting during the process of growth and expansion. There are a number of hilltops and ridge top areas that are visible from numerous vantage points throughout the Community. A number of these higher elevations have been identified. The policy of the Plan regarding these higher elevations is to preserve and protect the existing vegetation where it exists. In addition to the hilltops with existing vegetation, several hilltops which are cleared have also been identified; these areas are especially sensitive to development in terms of visual impact on the balance of the Community, and every effort should be made to prevent development on these areas through use of cluster and other incentive provisions i~ the land use regulations. In the event that this cannot be accomplished, significant vegetation should be established on the adjoining slope to soften the poten- tial impact on such development on these open hilltops. Because of the relative lack of existing vegetation throughout the Community, emphasis has been placed on preserving a number of wooded areas. These include all vegetation along existing stream valleys and drainage ways as well as preservation of vegetation at the existing edges of wooded areas. It is felt that development can occur within these wooded areas as long as the edges are retained and maintained to preserve the appearance and contrast which they provide. The environmental element of the Plan provides for preservation of all the stream valleys as an open space network. The Plan ~alls for minimizing the amount of new development that will occur in the Parrott Branch watershed due to the fact that it is tributary to the Beaver Creek water supply reservoir. Conversely, most new development is planned for the area that is tributary to the Lickinghole Creek and its tributary ~owells Creek. As a combined environmental and ~ecreational element, an impoundment of the Lickinghole Creek is planned in the southeastern portion of the Community. This impoundment will serve as protection against erosion and sedimentation as well as being a visual ~and recrea~~asset to the Community. 440 August 1, 1979 ~Regular Night Meeting) Land Use The land use plan for Crozet builds upon existing patterns of development through expansion and also reflects the creation of a secondary activity center in the area of the intersection of Route 250 and Route ~240. The majority of the area around the perimeter boundary of the Community is planned for the low density residential category. The use and density will, to some extend, provide a reasonable transition between the Communit~ and surrounding lands adjacent to the border which are expected to be in either agricu!t~al use .or rural residential type densities for quite some time to come. Exceptions to this include the industrial area located in the extreme northeast portion of the Community which reflects the presence of existing industry and sewage treatment fac-ilities as well as area for expansion of employment opportunities. There are six distinct areas planned for medium density residential development in the Community. The southernmost location is within the southeast and southwest quadrants of the Route 240/250 intersection. This location is in close proximity to Western Albemarle High School and provides a non-commercial use in these quadrants that forms part of a combined education/residential/commercial activity center. A medium density residential area is planned adjacent to the middle school/elementary school complex on the west side and fronting upon Route 240. This is part of the activity center as described above. ~ de~s±ty~ . ~ The existing mobile home park is recognized and planned for memium/reslaen~ia± with an expansion area indicated on the map. A large medium density residential area is Planned adjacent to and immediately west of the expanded town center. Th'ere are natural features in the area which permit buffering from adjacent residential development, and it provides a logical extension of and support for the downtown area. The fifth medium density residential area is located west of Route 240 in the western portion of the Community on an open site within one-quarter mile of the downtown area. It will be especially imPortant to create strong pedestrian and -vehicular links from thi's area to the downtown area and to Route 240. The sixth medium density area is located between the planned commercial expansion~ of the downtown area and the industrial area to the west. It adjoins Claudius Crozet Park on the north and the railroad on the south. It should be noted that the locations of' these medium density residential areas reflect existing land use, physical conditions, and desires of community participants in the planning process. The main thrust of land use planning for commercial uses is to strengthen the downtown area of Crozet as a shopping area. An area has been designated (almost all of the historic center and a substantial portion of the expanded town center) to enable the central business area of downtown Crozet to increase in size and, therefore, be the shopping center for Crozet. Unless such commercial expansion is encouraged, the downtown function will be supplanted by a suburban type shopping center located somewhere outside of the Community. The area designated in the downtown for commercial use is intended to include commercial office uses as well as the traditional retail and service uses characteristic of a central business district. An additional ingredient to the future success of strengthening the downtown will be the County's position with regard to commercial zoning on Route 250 outside of the Community; it will be necessary to limit such development to commercial functions that' are solely oriented to the highway and not to local ~' and convenience shopping/services or offices. New commercial development in the downtown area will be a combination of filling in between existing buildings, conversion of buildings from other uses to commercial, and development of new building complexes. Commercial development is proposed in both the northeast and northwest quadrants of the intersection of Route 240 with Route 250 which reflects some existing commercial and potential for additional commercial on the west side. This develop- ment should be primarily highway oriented and will provide additional commer~iai area to serve the growing community. It is grouped with the school and medium density residential uses as part of a community activity center area. Land use concerning parks, schools and other public facilities are discussed below under community facilities. Community Facilities The areas along the stream valleys should be preserved and serve as stream valley parks both on the boundaries of the Community and also within the Community to provide a measure of organization for new development. These areas should include public easements for hiking and walkways so that pedestrian connections can be made between the residential, commercial, and community f~bl~.~h~dmg~.out Crozet. In addition to Claudius Crozet Park, several new parks are recommended. These are at locations adjacent to the middle/elementary school complex and proposed medium density residential near Route 240, adjacent to the medium density residential area bordering the expanded town center on the west, and surrounding the proposed impoundment of Lickinghole Creek. Emphasis should be placed on recreational development of play fields at the existing schools. A series of neighbor~hood-parks-between one-half acre and one acre in size should be developed in conjunction with new resid~ ~~*- ~ ~^ A~st 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A community government subcenter should be located in Crozet in or very close to the historic center to reinforce the commercial downtown functions. A location has been suggested on the western edge of the commercial land use area. There is and will continue to be a need to improve the amenity of the downtown area. This should include landscaping, street furniture, sidewalk/pedestrian ways and parking. If such improvements are neglected, it is highly probable that the competitive ~p~ition of this business area will suffer and the business area will be con- siderably weakened. Roadways and Numerous roadway improvements are planned to correct existing problems/to assist the Community in accommodating traffic from future growth. These improvements are delineated on the map and are described below. The Plan proposes an alternative to more drastic (and costly) solutions to the difficulty at the railroad overpass. The solution~involves the realignment of Route 240 and Route 788 to the north to move this intersection away from the immediate vicinity of the overpass. This will involve dreating a reverse frontage situation for existing buildings and will considerably lessen sight distance and related safety problems in this area. Another circulation improvement proposed is the extension of Route 691 across and east of Route 240 to eliminate the problems that now arise as a result of the offset or jog~ that occurs. This will provide a clean connection to the road serving the eastern residential areas and Claudius Crozet Park. In conjunction with the Route 691 extension, a lo0p road has been proposed from the designated commercial area in an easterly direction and thence south adjacent to the eastern boundary of Claudius Crozet Park. This loop road will serve the proposed new medium density residential area and provides a connection with the proposed new southeast link to Route 250. In conjunction with this loop road proposal and the extension of Route 691, a north/south connector from the commercial area to Route 240 (extension) has been proposed which serves the existing residential areas and permits traffic to access Route 240 south without going back through the center of town. This proposed extension/connector £orms an intersection with a proposed new loop road on the west side of Route 240 which is designed to serve the new medium density resi- dential area and to provide a needed connection with Route 691, thereby creating a needed connection for development in the western part of town to Route 240. An 800-foot long relocation and realignment of Route 240 is planned at a location beginning approximately 1800 feet north of the Route 240/Route 250 intersection. This will require a new bridge over Lickinghole Creek. The proposed realignment is designed to correct extreme, horizontal and vertical alignment problems which become much more critical as the Community grows and traffic flow increases. In addition to the Route 240 realignment project, an extension of the road serving the mobile home park is proposed out to Route 250. This route will serve the southeastern quadrant of the Community and provide access to the Charlottesville area without the necessity of traffic backtracking to Route 240. Because of the land mass and amount of development that will occur in this quadrant, this addi- tional access to Route 250 must be created. In addition to the foregoing improvements, it should 'be noted that Route 240 between its intersection with Route 250 and its intersection with the proposed new loop road (approximately 4500 feet) will need to have alignment improvement and to be widened eventually to a four-lane section to handle increased traffic from the Community to Route 250. The Community facilities aspect of the Crozet Community plan are extremely important. The success of County policy to have significant growth occur in the Community is in large measure dependent upon provision of sewerage facilities and roadway improvements to handle increased traffic. Plan Impacts Population Residential - Low (1 to 4 du/ac) 12,628 Residential - Medium (5 to 10 du/ac) 3,412 Residential Mobile Homes (average 10 du/ac) 509 Residential - High (11 to 20 du/ac) Commercial Industrial Open Space Total Acres Dwelling Units 4146 1120 167 Acreage 1918 168 25 0 79 265 371 2826 August !, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) r- Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Crozet Community plan as follows: l) Land along the north side of Route 250 proposed for low density residential; the Commission redesignated this commercial. 2) Land in the northwest quadrant of the Route 250/Route 240 intersection proposed for commercial; the Commission redesignated this low density residential. 3) Land in the west-central portion of the Community near Houte 240 proposed for public institution or "park"; the Commission cut back on the amount of land designated institution and 'confined it to the existing stream area. Land near the southwestern quadrant of the Route 250/Route 240 intersection proposed for low density residential; the Commission redesignated this commercial. Mr. Tucker said the environmental considerations are the same throughout the plans being presented tonight; protection of stream valleys. For the Crozet Community, an impoundm~ is showm on Lickinghote Creek which would act as a sedimentation basin. This feature was als~ shown in the '71 Plan. Where natural vegetation is lacking, it is recommended that a natural buffer be provided as development occurs; particularly along ridgeways. Six distinct areas for residential growth are outlined for the Crozet Community. The consultants had recom- mended residential along Route 635, but it is not felt that the land can develop that way because of steep topography in this area. The expanded downtown area is the focal point of the Crozet Community. Several parks are located in the Community and in most cases, these parks are adjacent to proposed medium density residential areas. Claudius Crozet Park is also recognized in this Plan. The industrial area has been expanded Somewhat, although it is limited along Parrot Creek because of drainage into the Beaver Creek Reservoir. There is a community center located where the truck stop was located. Referring to transportation needs, Mr. Tucker said this Plan recommends that Route 240 west from Morton's be realigned behind the stores to the north of Route 240 to come into the intersection at Mint Springs Road further to the north. As development occurs, Route 240 will need to be four-laned from Route 250 back to Route 691, and also realigned near The Meadows. A new road is proposed to loop from Route 691 to feed the medium density residential back to the downtown area. A major road improvement is recommended near the Basket Shop in the commercial area so you would not have to go back Route 240 to get to Route 250. R~rring to the Planning Commission's recommendations, Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission received a request that the area around the basket shop, service station and the surrounding area on Route 250 be recognized as commercial. The Commission agreed to this request. It was also suggested that the property in the northwest quadrant of the westernmost intersection of Routes 240 and 250, presently shown as commercial, be deleted and be re- designated as low density residential. The Commission agreed to this request, but in so doing, shifted the commercial area to an area across frmm the school complex where the western Albemarle shopping center was recently approved. The Commission also received a request that the area for parks along streams be cut back to conform with an earlier plan. The Commission also agreed to this request. Mr. FiSher said he has one basic problem with the amendments proposed to the Compre- hensive Plan. The Plans are drawn for a design year of 1995 and all of the plans show ultimate development for that year. He asked if it is the intent of the staff and the Commission that the new zoning map will reflect all.of these uses for the ultimate density proposed for 1995. Mr. Tucker said the Commission has not dealt with that problem yet. The staff has shown the communities at a low (one acre) density, and feels that the Plan should at least outline the boundaries of the communities so that anyone looking at the Plan will know that this is an area where the County wants t~ encourage growth; but the land should not be rezoned at this time. Mr. Fisher asked what the staff and Commission propose for the year 1985. Should development occur from the center outward as utilities expand? If so, how do you convey that to a landowner who owns land on the periphery of the Community? Mr. Tucker said that densiti~ could be provided close to the center of the Community so development can occur in an orderly fashion from the center outward. Mr. Lindstrom said how fast an area develops will depend on utilities, and the medium density areas shown for Crozet cannot develop without public utilities. Mr. Henley said he did not necessarily agree since he feels utilities will be placed where the density is provided, unless the County is going to install utilities. Mr. Fisher said in the Hollymead Community and the Urban Area, water and sewer wi'll be available within a few years. Is it expected that the Board will recognize on any application presented, the density shown in the Plan for 19957 Mr. Tucker said the text of the Plan provides for timing of development. The County will have to do something definitive if the timing aspects of the Plan are to be followed. The location of water and sewer utilities will provide an incentive for and ~ulate growth to an extent. At this time, the public hearing was opened on the Crozet Community plan. A gentlemen asked a question relating to water and sewer which the Clerk could not hear. Mr. Fisher said he thought the question concerned the proposed Crozet interceptor line stimulating growth patterns along that line which the County will not be able to control. Mr. Fisher said this has been of concerm to him in trying to implement ~a plan that provides an Urban Area on the west side of Charlottesville, an Zvy village, and a Crozet Community, and how development ~ can be stimulated in Crozet without com~rom~ ~ ~~*~ ~* ...... nt 443 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) The same gentleman said it would seem that by the year 2000, another road would be needed coming into Crozet, possibly from 1-64. This road could be located somewhere between Route 677 and where the railroad bridge crosses. This could change the whole pattern of development for Crozet. Mrs. Joanne Stanley said the Plan before the Board tonight for the Crozet Community is as it was approved by the Citizens Committee now that the Planning Commission has made some changes. She then asked Mr. Henley what sort of solution he proposed for developers to put in for sewage disposal. Mr. Henley said he felt if the County wanted growth to take place in a specific area, the density should be placed in that area and the developer would then put in the connectors for the water and sewer lines. He was not referring to the treatment of sewage; only connection to the line once it is installed. He does not feel the County should have to install utilities. Mr. Alan Freeman spoke next. He said in talking about installing the interceptor line, the assumption is that growth can be stimulated in a particular area. However, he understan~ that there are a number of septic systems that have failed in the Crozet area and he asked if these people will get first priority of where the lines will go in Crozet. Mr. Fisher said the first priority will be to remove the raw wastewater discharge from Morton's that is goin~ into the Rivanna Reservoir. The collection system beyond that point is a separate issue and will most likely have to be funded locally. First priority is to obtain Federal funding which will extend treatment capacity to existing polluters and to have contracts that will require those polluters to use the Crozet interceptor. Beyond that, capacity will be avail- able not only to places that have marginal septic systems, but to new development. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how priorities will be established and asked Mr. Agnor to speak. Mr. Agnor said the interceptor is the main trunk line and the collector system collects sewage and brings it to the main trunk line and eventually to the treatment plant. The pollution abatement program and the Federal Clean Water Act provide funds through the Environmental Protection Agency and these ~unds are geared to abatement of pollution on a regional basis. It is anticipated that the Crozet Interceptor will be funded from these funds. The collection system will be a local responsibility; the users of that collector system, through the rate structures, would pay the indebtedness that would be required to "front-end" the capital investment in a collection system. First the collector system will be used to abate pollution and if there is a declaration that a health hazard exists, the system would get a higher priority than just for abatement of pollution. Mr. Agnor said he feels the collector system will go where the existing residential developments are rather than be placed for future residential communities. Dr. Iachetta said two areas in the Charlottesville District are having problems with failing septic systems. Under current regulations, there is no help available to these people. A developer can extend utilities to an area he is developing because he is paying the bill, but, if you follow this theory, the person who is already having problems, will never get any help. Mr. Lindstrom said, at this time, the COunty is dependent on State Water Control Board funding for the interceptor and unless there is a break soon on that funding, he feels the Board will have to give serious consideration to some other means of funding. The Board was apprised this afternoon that there have been indications in the past couple of weeks that there may be a break soon. Mr. Freeman said if that break does not come, he feels the County may have to think about package treatment plants for the Crozet area. He asked if there has been any investi- gation of sites in the Crozet Community for a package plant or for some other system other than the interceptor line. Mr. Fisher said the County has been told many times by the State Water Control Board that they will not approve such a plan as a permanent solution to the sewage problems in Crozet. Until the County knows definitely that the State w~ll not fund the interceptor line, it would be a waste of time to make an in-depth study. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think the State Water Control Board has been questioned recently on instal- lation of a tertiary treatment plant for Crozet. For that reason, the Planning Commission has not made any recommendations concerning same. Mr. Roy Patterson said he was a member of the Crozet citizens committee that drafted the Crozet plan. Their major mission was to find areas where higher density growth could occur, but they also recognized that this cannot happen until public sewer is available. Mr. Patter said he endorses the plan presented to the Board. Mrs. Joanne Moyer asked for more details on road improvements and also asked if there could be better maps printed. Mr. Tucker said an extension of Route 691 east of Route 240 is proposed and a loop road from the commercial area in an easterly direction adjacent to the park. An extension of Route 691 in a north/south direction as a connector from the com- mercial area to Route 240 is proposed. It is proposed that Route 240 be realigned and extended to serve the mobile home park. Mrs. Moyer asked for a timetable for these road improvements and also how property owners would be affected. Mr. Tucker said since the County does no~ built or maintain roads, these wouId basically be built as development occurs. Mrs. Moyer asked who would be responsible for building the new roads proposed. Mr. Tucker said at the present time, the developer is responsible. Mr. Roudabush said the need~ for new roads will come about as development occurs. The roads shown on this plan are in- tended as a guide to someone wanting to develop a .particular area. Dr. Iachetta said he feels there will not be any money for new roads in Albemarle County for at least 20 years. Mrs. Moyer asked if the land recommended for parks will be reserved for that purpose or if this designation is binding legally on what a property owner may do with his land. Mr. Tucker said the parks category is similar to the roads category. Since most of .the proposed parks are adjacent to medium density development, provisions should be made for parks in those areas as development occurs. At the present time, the County has only purchased land for regional type parks and not for neighborhood parks. Mrs. Moyer asked if the new zoning ordinance will prohibit a property owner from putting something else in an area earmarked for a park. Mr. Tucker said he would assume that the land will be zoned for whatever category ~ ~ ~l~ fn~ ~ if a rezonin~ did occur, the proposed park land would not be acquired ~on 444 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) proposed for parks is in areas which would not be developable for residential uses, such as stream valleys and flood plains. Mrs. Moyer said she owns about three acres of trees between her house and a private cemetary and that area is designated for park use on this plan. She would be very unhappy to lose those trees. Mr. Henley said he did not think Mrs. Moyer had anything to worry about if she owns the land. Mr. Lindstrom asked the total acreage of the industrial area shown for the Crozet Community. Mr. Tucker said he would check. At 9:05 P.M., the Chairman called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:16 P.M. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan shows that there is a need for 130 acres of industrial land in the area. The Crozet Community plan outlines about 265 acres which would be conducive for industrial development. It is not intended that t~his land will be rezoned and utilized in the next 20 years. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how the Board will deal with this identification when two to four times the acreage that is expected to be developed is identified. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the County's Industrial Development Policy will address how the transition from identification to actual rezoning will come about. There being no one else present to speak on the Crozet Community Plan the Board proceeded to the next category. Mr. Tucker gave the following introduction for the village plans: The land use plans for the Type 1 villages, in the words of the Comprehensive Plan, "combine the concerns discussed in the Land Use section with particular emphasis on agriculture, conservation, and visual quality." Villages are particularly vulnerable to the effects of development. The scale of most rural settlements is so small that new growth has a great potential for disturbing the character of the existing man- made and natural environment. Visual quality is thus more important in the villages than it is in the more heterogeneous Urban Area. Village plans were prepared by both the consultant for the Comprehensive Plan and the County Planning Staff. As with the Community Plans, they are divided into sections dealing with boundaries, environment, land use and community facilities. The discussion of existing conditions is included in the section outlining plan recommendations. Overall policies and guidelines for the villages, as amended, unlike the policies for the neighborhoods and communities, apply to all villages in a general form. These guidelines are discussed in the following section. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES "Villages" in the context of the Plan, refers to a number of population centers which vary in size from a rural crossroads to such centers as Ivy and Earlysville. The highlights of the Plan proposals for the Villages are: Design year increase of 6000 people. No design capacity. Logical infill and limited expansion of the existing villages. Limitation of new roadside development to within one-half mile of center village, crossroads, or one-quarter mile of existing development or as depicted on individual plans. New development of any village not to exceed a 100% increase of the existing population without special study. Identification of seven villages (Type 1) to receive a high percentage of the total village development. Village planning should take these criteria into consideration: Individual sewage disposal and water supply system viability. Public and private institutions. Relative accessibility to public facilities and employment centers. Relative accessibility. Desires of local residents and landowners. Development opportunities. Development impacts. Village plans of the Type 1 Villages should be developed in the following order of importance. Ivy North Garden Earlysvil!e Nix Esmont Stony Point Scottsville Commercial development including general stores to service convenience shopping for the village and surrounding area is encouraged. The following development guidelines should augment other adopted policies: Subdivisionsin ~illages should be encouraged at small to medium scales. New residential subdivisions in excess of five dwelling units should have limited frontage on existing village roads. Infill development should be encouraged by modification of standards to conform to existing character. Location of rural public service facilities should be used to strengthen the village ~~v_ 445 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Timing - The Five Year Perspective: Detailed viliage plans for Ivy, North Garden, Earlysville, Nix and Esmont should be completed. Ordinance modifications to deal with infill development should be accomplished at an early date. Study should be undertaken with the State Water Control Board in an attempt to facilitate small blocks of low and moderate income housing and mobile homes in all villages. The County should develop a multi-disciplined staff assistance team to assist villages and landowners in villages in accomplishing a coordination between private and public objectives in new development. A review procedure to monitor public, quasi-public, and institutional development and direct such development from rural to village locations should be prepared and adopted. Plan Impa. cts All Type 1 Villages Proposed Residential Development Populat.ion Dwelling Units Acreage 3960 1237 2014 Mr. Tucker said the Village of Ivy is one of seven country villages designated in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate a high percentage of desiredf~re village development. Ivy is located approximately four and one-half miles west of Charlottesville at the confluence of Route 250 and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. The major secondary roads serving the Village are Route 732, Route 637, Route 786 and Route 676. The division of the Zvy Village by Route 250 and by the railroad is one of its most prominent characteristics. Also, significant is the extent and steepness of topography in the Village area and the variations between open and wooded land. Most of the land in the Village area drains to the Little Ivy Creek or its tributaries. Land use in the Ivy Village consists primarily of both older and new subdivisions .and older commercial development which is located on Route 250. Institutional uses within the Village area consist of one church; schools serving the area are outside of the immediate Village to the north and to the west. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of more detailed studies and community involvement, the following Plan amendments have been developed. The following text presents planning guidelines under the headings of boundaries, environment, land use, and community facilities. Village Boundaries Two sets of boundaries are created in order to define appropriate policies with respect to the "old village" and the "expanded village." These boundaries reflect historic development as well as differences in physical features, age and character of the buildings, and susceptibility to impact from new development. Old Village The boundary of the "old" village basically encompasses the area of Ivy as it existed prior to modern subdivision development. An exception to this is the open area on either side of Route 676 north of Route 250 which is included due to the fact that its exposure makes it sensitive to development. It was put in the old village so that appropriate policies could he applied in these areas. Wherever feasible, the old village boundary follows roads and existing vegetation to reinforce existing development boundaries. These vegetative boundaries, whether wooded areas or hedgerows, should be preserved and strengthened during the course of the village's future growth. Expanded Village. The northern boundary is designated at the closest point to the old village where there is a transition or change from wooded to open areas, on Route 676. To the east, the expanded Village boundary takes advantage of the railroad as a logical boundary and proceeds south using hedgerows and vegetation until a natural drainage way is reached. The southern boundary of the Village follows the natural drainage way which includes existing vegetation. The western boundary consists of the transitional edge between heavily wooded and open areas in the southern portion which is followed up to the railroad which is used as a boundary in the southwestern August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) portion of the Village; it should be noted that the boundaries of the old and of the expanded villages are very-close to each other and in some cases co- terminous in this vicinity. The western boundaries, in addition to the railroad, are designed to encompass the open areas (some of which have been developed) and the steeply sloping wooded lands to the north as a natural boundary and buffer from Route 250 to the north. It should be noted that the boundaries to the north centering on Route 676 have been designed to exclude most of the new subdivision development (Meriwether Hills) since inclusion of such development would cause the boundaries to be extended far beyond any reasonable limits in terms of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Environment Entrances The entrances to the Village via Route 250 and via the secondary roads should have existing vegetation preserved. The transitions from open to wooded land provide a visual boundary for the Village. Although these boundaries do not transmit a strong "sense ofpl~a~oe" at this time due to the character of the roads and topography of the area, they will increase in importance as the Village grows and develops. Areas Sensitive to DevelopmentL The open areas on the north side of the Village tributary to Route 676 are sensitive to development because of their visibility, and development should be provided with substantial vegetative buffers as indicated on the Plan. Develop- ment of the open area in the western part of the Village on the north side of Route 738 should include preservation of the existing vegetation to the east and to the west of the open area. The extreme changes in topography which affect both building site and circulation in Ivy also allow a great diversity in the quality of development without seriously impacting the Village's overall appearance. This characteristic will assist in maintaining pleasing development forms and, therefore, major strategies for siting new development are not deemed to be essential. Vegetation Vegetation plays an important role in defining the Village boundary areas and is also a key ingredient in preventing different types of development from "running into each other" within the Village. Therefore, it is important that new develop- ment be designed to accommodate preservation of wooded areas and edges as well as hedgerows, clusters of trees and important individual trees. It should be emphasized that a large percentage of the perimeter of the cid village boundary needs additional vegetation, and the same is true to a lesser extent for the boundaries of the expanded village. It is recommended that the embankments surrounding the railroad overpass of Route 250 be landscaped both for aesthetic reasons and to create a visual awareness that one is about to pass through an enclosure. It is further recommended that this impression be reinforced on the eastern approach of Route 250. by landscaping the intersection of Little Ivy Creek with Route 250. Other new landscaping is proposed along the railroad to buffer existing and new development, along Route ~250 west of the overpass to improve the appearance of the highway, and, as previously mentioned, along Route 676 to the north in conjunction with new development. It is recommended that the commercial area on the south side of Route 250 just east of the overpass be landscaped so that the area is better defined, coordinated with curb cut controls, and improved in appearance. In conjunction with the proposal to realign Route 676, it is recommended that landscaping be provided both along Route 250 and at the end of the new cul-de-sac to reinforce this aspect of change. There are a number of streams in and a'round 'the village. However, topographic and other access restrictions prohibit their use as linear parks and these areas are not endangered by development due to topographic considerations. Building Character The Village church in the northeast quadrant:f of the railroad and Route 250 is a visual focal point from several approaches to the Village and also from numerous vantage points through the Village. It is important that this building be preserved and protected since it is one of the few visibly significant buildings in the Village. Although the general store/post office complex on the south side of Route 250 is not in excellent physical condition at the present time, the buildings and area could be restored and improved to provide a better blend of the old and the new and strengthen its role as a meeting place for Village residents. The row of houses along Route 738 is distinctive in terms of the fact that they are descriptive of the evolution of the Village and of times past. They are felt to be valuable to the Village collectively, but not necessarily as individual structures. 447 August !, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Land Use The division of the Village by the railroad and Route 250, which is reinforced by areas on either side being in separate elementary school districts, permits a variety of land use policies to be applied in different sections of the Village. Residential development within most of the old village area is subject to severe topography and sporadic vegetation, and therefore large standard subdivisions are not anticipated. It is felt that the natural features will soften the effect of the development that will or can occur. The area in the extreme northwest of the old village is open and relatively flat and therefore should be well-deSigned to complement the village character. As a general~guide to density and setbacks within the old village, it is recommended that future development in the northern portion of the Village be based upon the character of development of adjoining land; in the southern portion of the old village, due to topographic and natural features, it is recommended that larger lots would be more appropriate except in cases where new development is directly adjacent to more compact existing development. Residential development in the expanded village area is also limited by natural features and to some extent by existing development. The exceptions to this are in the south and east where some potential exists for standard subdivisions. In these cases, improved treatment in terms of preserving woodlands, hedgerows, and other natural features should be part of the development process. It should be noted that much of the southern portion of the expanded village is separated from the old village by a ridge, and therefore development in this area will not have great impact on the old village area. Residential development in the eastern portions of the expanded village is critical largely due to its role and visibility as an "entrance" to the Village of Ivy. The commercial area on Route 250 east of the railroad including the gas station, general merchandise store, and post office should remain inasmuch as it provides some community focus. It would be desirable for this area to be upgraded in terms of the provision of convenience goods and in terms of visual improvements. The area on Route 250 west of the railroad is designated for use and expansion as a commercial center serving the Village. Its location, in conjunction with the relocation of Route 676, provides convenience by way of being a right-hand turn access on return trips from Charlottesville and points east. Functions such as convenience store, restaurant, motel, and open air market would be appropriate for this location and in context with its dual role of serving the Village and being located on Route 250. Community Facilities The Village is currently severely lacking in community facilities except for the commercial activity areas. The potential for an integrated pedestrian network in the Village is severely limited by the intrusion of Route 250 and the railroad. It is recommended that the pedestrian walkways be located in conjunction with existing and future streets in the Village. There is an existing need for definition of a walkway along Route 738 and from Route 738 to the raitrokd overpass pedestrian bridge. It is recommended that the area on the south side of the railroad near the pedestrian bridge become a community park -- community center complex. It would be desirable if the old boarding house could be obtained as a community building -- recreational center. The area immediately east of the building offers possibilities for playgrounds and athletic fields. Because of its location, it is felt that a Village center would serve the entire portion of the Village south of Route 250. Several significant changes are planned for the local road system. It is proposed that Route 786 be mealigned to the west and that its intersection with Route 250 be moved approximately 650 feet west of its present location. The existing alignment would be terminated in a cul-de-sac approximately 150 feet northeast of the present intersection. This change reflects the dangerous location of the present intersection on a curve, the need to handle increased traffic loads from existing and future residential development to the north, and creation of © opportunities for the commercial area designated on the north side of Route 250 between the existing and proposed Route 250 intersection with Route 676. On the south side of the railroad and Route 250, the Plan suggests a relocation of the road which connects Route 786 with Route 250. This involves moving the present intersection with Route 250 (which is almost right at the railroad overpass) in an easterly direction about 350 feet for purposes of improving safety, avoidance of splitting the existing commercial area, and improved access to the proposed recreation/commercial center area. The plan also designates areas along Route 250 commercial development for place- ment of landscaped islands. The purpose of these is primarily to improve safety factors by limiting curb cuts and access points to .these commercial areas. The secondary purpose of these islands would be to improve the visual appearance of the commercial areas through landscaping of these Ourb cut islands. August 1, 1979 [Regular Night Meeting) 448 . _ -CEA. Key Low DenSity Res. Commercial Public Institutions Open Space Type I Village Ivy Scale 1 "- 2000' Mr. Tucker said the only amendment made by the Planning Oommiss±on to the Ivy Village map was to redraw the western border to the east of the Murray Schb~l site. Mr. Tucker said in this amendment the size of the village was reduced substantially from that proposed in the 1971 Plan. Where the '71 Plan had proposed that Ivy have community status with a population of 16,000 people, this Plan has changed Ivy to a village designation with a proposed populatio of from 1000 to 1500 people. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission did not include some of the one-acre development which now exists to the north of the proposed village boundary a~he is not sure why they did not. Mr. Fisher asked if there are not about 200 houses located north of the proposed boundary. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked how far Meriwether Lewis School is from the proposed eastern boundary. Mr. Tucker said it is approximately three miles beyond that border. Mr. Roudabush said it appears that all of the commercial area for the Ivy Village will be highway oriented. Mr. Tucker said it is essential that way at the present time. The Planning Commission recognized existing commercial uses such as the Exxon service station and the buildings surrounding same, the Gulf service station the old Ivy Market and commercial use for the old motel and the area west of the motel. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended two improvements-to roads in the Ivy Village. One is the realignment of Route 786 behind the Gulf Station and the old Ivy Market, so Route 786 will come onto Route 250 west of the Exxon Station to give a greater distance from the railroad underpass and improved sight distance. The Comm±ssion also suggested that Route 676 be real±gned as it passes Meriwether Hills Subdivision to tie in west of the motel, with the present Route 676 being ended in a cul-de-sac just west of the railroad underpass. Dr. Iachetta asked what type of housing is just outside of the northeastern portion of the boundary. Mr. Tucker said it is Meriwether Hills and Meriwether North Subdivisions; both being one-acre developments. These subdivisions were excluded by the citizens committee because they felt these are more suburban type developments. At this point, the public hearing was opened on the Ivy Village plan. Mr. Ginneaux asked the location of proposed commercial areas. Mr. Tucker again explained the commercial areas. A~gust .1~. 1979 ~Regular N~ght Meeting). Mrs. Jessie Haden said Meriwether Hills backs up to Wes't Leigh Subdivision and asked if it is..~,not envisioned that someday Meriwether Hills will continue to the other side of the road. Mr. Tucker said yes, ~t2~,~e~t]~~ is a two-acre density. He did not know why the citizens committee excluded Meriwether Hills from the village plan when it is a one-acre density~; Mrs. Haden asked the location of Murray School. Mr. Tucker pointed to the School on the map, but noted that the Planning Commission had redrawn the Village boundary just to the east of the school. Mrs. Haden felt it would make more sense to include Murray School in the Village if the County is attempting to cluster development. Mrs. Haden then asked why a Comprehensive Plan is needed and what the citizens will have once these ~mendments are adopte~ Mr. Fisher said the County is required by State Law to have a Comprehensivee Plan. Also, the County's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan are to agree with each other to an extent. Mr. Lindstrom said when the revised Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1977, it was contemplate that action would be taken to omtline the communities, the urban area and the villages. Since that work was not completed in a timely manner, it ~ecame apparent when working on the zoning map that something more definite, was needed. This process is to complete the process which began some time ago. Mrs. Haden said she did not believe the majority of citizens understand what is being proposed for their areas. Mr. Fisher said there was a~citizens committee which worked with the consultant on the plans being presented to the Board. These revisions have been worked on for two years. Although, Mr. Fisher understood Mrs. Haden's concern about the small attendance at this public hearing~ these amendments have been adverti~ for public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board and there is no way the Board can force citizens to attend these meetings. Mr. Tucker said the Village of Earlysville is one of seven country villages designated in the 1977 Comprehensive Plan to accommodate a high percentage of desired future village development. Earlysville is located approximately six miles due north of Charlottesville and is about four road miles west of Route 29 North. Routes 743 and 663 are the two main roads which provide access to and within the Village. Land use in the Village consists of older residential development of homes either close to the main roads or well set back in the case of farm houses, new ~e~i'de~~d~¥e~o!~m~ht in ~gdarn~ aubd~M±S~,~s, several small clusters of commercial uses, churches, and the elementary s Earlysville is located on a ridge line with gently to moderately rolling topography. Both open (cleared) and wooded areas are found in the Village and its immediate environs. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of more detailed studies and community involvement, the following Plan amendments have been developed. The following text presents planning guildelines under the headings of boundaries, environment, land use, and community facilities. Village Boundaries Two sets of boundaries are created in order to define appropriate policies with respect to the "old village" and the "expanded village." These boundaries reflect historic development as well as-differences in physical features, age and character of buildings, and susceptibility to impact from new development. Old Village The boundary of the "old" village encompasses much of the open land bordering Routes 743 and 663 and includes most of the village's'older buildings as well as some of the newer ones. The southeastern boundary on Route 743 is established in recognition of the facts that it is an open area at the intersection with Route 660 following an approach frOm the east which is heavily wooded on both sides, i.e., a sense of place is evident because of thi's change and the combination of both old and new (commercial) development on either side of the-road at this point. The old village,boundary along the east edge of Route 743 reflects ex- clusion of the modern subdivision as not being of the same character as older portions of the Village and this boundary is assisted by the existence of the excellent evergreen buffer planted by the developer along the road. The northern bld village boundary is placed at a point on Route 663 where there is a marked break in vegetation going from open to wooded and which is also near the inter- section with Route 764. The northeastern approach boundary (Route 743) is also located at a break in vegetation which is reinforced by differences in building setbacks on opposing sides of this boundary. The areas included within the old village boundary have been established with the particular thought in mind that new development in the open areas has potential to detract from the character and ~'appearance of the old village and, therefore, must be very sensitively done. Since existing development in the old village is largely served by the old roads (Route 663 and Route 743), the .introduction of any new roads must be sited as carefully as new buildings. The old village boundary is to consist of a protective buffer of existing vege- tation ranging in width from fifty to two hundred feet,. Expanded Village The boundary of the "expanded" village reflects several considerations. The northern boundary on Route 663 is extended to include the Village's elementary school which has been and will continue to be a focal point in the community's life. The southeast boundary on Route 743 is coterminous with that of the old d ~hool. , 50 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) village at Route 660 on the south and extended on the north, for reasons given previously. The northeastern boundary on Route 743 is established about one-half mile from the crossroads (Routes 743/663) focal point of the old village. Other boundary lines for the expanded village have been located parallel to and about one-quarter mile from Routes 743 and 663 to orient development to these traditional access ways and the old village, to limit the scale and hence impact of development on the Village, to take advantage of the more favorable topography available, and to reflect desires of community participants in the planning process. Environment Entrances The three entrances to the ~illage at the old village boundaries (Route 663 north and Route 743 south and easti) should have existing vegetation preserved. The transitions from open to woo,ded land provide a sense of identity and a visual boundary that serve to alert the traveller that he has arrived at a distinct place. The Route 743 south entrance (at Route 660) is particularly important due to the long uninterrupted woodlands leading to the opening and the beginning of village development. Destruction of trees in this area would cause a significant change in the approach and character of this portion of the Village. Areas Sensitive to Development The open areas along Route 743, especially those on the south side between Route 660 and Route 663 in the ol4 village, are sensitive to development. Standard subdivisions in these high Visibility areas are not desirable. Development in open areas in the vicinity qf the school within the expanded village should be encouraged, but buffering along Route 663 and careful design/siting of buildings and landscaping should be incorporated in any new development. Ve.g.etation Vegetation plays a very important role in defining the old village and will play a major role in permitting sympathetic development to occur in both the old and expanded village if adverse effects are to be avoided. Hedgerows, fence and tree lines, clusters of trees and individual trees should be maintained to provide continuity and to prevent effects of "sameness" and "sprawl" as a result of new development. It should be noted that some of these elements will need strength- ening as new development occurs. In addition to existing vegetation, the Village plan designates specific areas where new landscaping should accompany development. The evergreen buffer created on Route 743 adjacent to the new subdivision is an example of how this can be done. The areas recommended for landscaping primarily reflect the need to soften the probable effect of newer development on the Village. Other wooded areas to be preserved are those along drainage ways and streams and all wooded areas along roads. As a general rule, in addition to specific mapped recommendations, it is important to conserve as many trees as possible during development wherever it occurs in the village areas. An example of the value of this policy is immediately evident in the treatment given wooded areas in and around the development between the school and Route 764 (The Pines). Buildi~.g Character There are a number of buildings in the Village which, due to their location, style, architecture, and/or age, are an integral part of the character of the Village and reflect its development over time. The growth history of the Village is reflected in its buildings with varying architectural styles and functional designs reflecting the needs and fashions of their day. The uses of these impor- tant buildings include houses, stores, churches, and barns/outbuildings. The old general store/post office at the crossroads of Routes 743 and 663 is the Village's single most important landmark. The character of the building and its site, with its lack of landscaping, paving, or formal parking, is characteristic of the utilitarian approach. The older buildings in the Village should be treated~with sensitivity both in terms of facade or addition changes and with respect to adjacent development. Land Use One of the import~ant land use characteristics of the Village is the mixture of activities which should be continued. The majority of the Village area is planned for residential use at densities which are compatible both with existing development and with health requirements for individual disposal systems. If typical modern subdivisions are permitted to locate on existing road frontages in the old village, its character will be destroyed. New residential development fronting on Routes 743 and 663 in the old village should imitate existing buildings in terms of building setbacks and separation, i.e., variations in setback, tight clusters of buildings separated by open areas, etc. The commercial concentration at its present location of the intersection of Route 743 with Route 660 should be strengthened. The commercial area at the Route Z43/Route 663 intersection in the center of the Village should be maintained. The older buildings should retain as much of their character as possible. The new and expanding commercial area should be treated with additional landscaping devices 455 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) including berms and shrubbery to soften the visual impact of this new activity center. The new ~commercial area should be allowed to expand within a defined area as indicated on the plan. Home occupations and small service/professional buildings should be encouraged in the old village along major roads. Additional institutional uses should also be permitted in appropr±ate locations a.s the Village grows. Community F.acilities Community facilities should be geared to retaining existing activities and adding to them. New facilities recommended include athletic/play fields and equipment at the elementary school, and the use/convers~-~ of the old church and its site (west side of Route 743) as a community center area. The community center recom- mendation is based on the facts that ~t is a centraI location, the building is a recognized landmark that is part of the Village's heritage, and is very close to the historic crossroads center of the Village at Routes 743 and 663 where con- venient services are available at the general store. The activities, in close proximity to each other, will have a tendency to strengthen the viability of both functions. It will, at the same time, better define the Village's cultural center. A system of combination walkways/trai!s is proposed to provide access as well as recreation. Pedestrian wa!kways are proposed along the Village's main links of Route 743 and 663 to connect the school, commercial, and community center activities. This should be defined to encourage use and for Safety purposes. A combination pedestrian/cycle/horse trail is proposed in a location that corresponds to the boundary of the old village on wooded edges. It is anticipated that the combination trail will be a part of the buffer between the old and expanded village and will help to tie the two together as well as provide access and recreation opportunities for residents of both areas. Actions needed include working with the Virginia Department of Highways and abutting property owners to create the defined walkway along Routes 743 and 663, and working With property owners along the old village boundary to secure easements for the combination trail. It is likely that' much of the combination trail may be implemented as part of new subdivisions during the development process. An additional community facility recommendation is obtaining beneficial use of the pond located east of Route 743. This area could be used for passive recreation enjoyment as well as skating and fishing. A pedestrian walkway is proposed to tie this area into the overall system and more closely connect it to the village center. It is recommended that Routes 743 and 663 continue, to be two-lane rUral section roads without 20th Century sidewalks and curb/gutter to maintain the rural ~ character. Since most traffic is local in nature, selective widening of existing pavements, only where necessitated, should serve to accommodate future increases in traffic stemming from growth of the Village., %¢;7 Key .... ~ Low Density Res. ~ Commercial ~ Publiq .Institutions r'-] Open Space Type I Village Earlysville Scale 1"-2000' August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 452 Mr. Tucker noted that the Blanning Commission had made a correction to the northwestern border of the Earlysville Village map by extending the boundary beyond the existing cemetery to the north of Route 663. Mr. Roudabush questioned the areas on the map designated for "open space." Mr. Tucker said the areas ~hich~a~e-mo~e~conducive to development a~e~s.h~wn~a~low density (one-acre development) because no public utilities are available. The areas shown as "open space", although still developable, contain more sensitive soils and are not conducive to a one-acre density. Dr. Iachetta suggested that the density definitions be printed on each map since the words "low density" are being used for two different definitions on these plans. Mr. Fisher asked if any portion of the Earlysville Village is within the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if all of the Ivy Village is within the watershed. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher said the BOard has discusse using a sediment basin in the Crozet area to control erosion and nutrients which go into the Reservoir. He asked how this problem will be handled for Ivy and Earlysville. Mr. Tucker said there is a difference between Crozet and the villages. Crozet is proposed for a much higher density if public sewage disposal is provided in the future. In the villages, the lot sizes are larger. At this time, the Runoff Control Ordinance is the only vehicle for con- trolling runoff. Mr. Fisher said that most one-acre lots will be exempt from t~e provisions of the Runoff Control Ordinance, but he assumes that these lots will have a relatively low impact on the Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta did not think Mr. Fisher's assumption is valid because he does not think the 5% exclusion under the Runoff Control Ordinance is Valid. He said there is an impact on the Reservoir even from relatively low density. At this point, the public hearing on the Earlysville Village was opened. Mrs. Jacqueline Huckle said there were 92 dwelling units in Earlysville in 1976. This plan proposes 226 dwelling units. Since there are already problems with septic systems in this area, she asked how this number of dwelling units can be proposed safely without public water and sewer facilities. Mr, Tucker said he thought Mrs. Huckle was referring to Earlysville Heights which basically'has one-quarter acre lots and was put to record before the County had the present County and Subdivision Ordinances. He does not envision that kind of development occuring again in the Earlysville area. An unidentified woman asked what is meant by "compact development" in villages. Mr. Tucker said "infil.1'' would be a better word. He said as you drive along Route 743 there is a lot of vacant land between houses. It is proposed that this land "infill", or ~e developed, first thereby compacting development somewhat. Mr. Tucker said the Village of North Garden, the largest in land area of the Type 1 villages, lies approximately eight miles south of Charlottesville on Route 29 South. The designated growth area is actually comprised of two small communities centered around commerci areas at either end of the village. One of these is located just north of the Red Hill School on Route 29, and the other is located at the intersection of Virginia Route 692 and U. S. Route 29. The land within th~ Village is largely devoted to agriculture, with cleared space alternating with lightly wooded areas. The vast majorit~ of the area is cleared, however, making it important to control the location of future development. The largest cluster of existing residential development is located at the heart of the Village near the intersection of Virginia Routes 692 and 712. Secondary roads serve almost the entire area. The roads fan out in five different directions from the point where Virginia Route 712 travelling north enters the Village area. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Bounder±es Boundaries for the North Garden Village area are a combination of natural borders and recommendations for inclusion of specific areas by the Village citizen's committee. The growth area extends north beyond the commercial area approximately one-half mile, and south of the southern commercial area approximately three- quarters of a mile. This was considered sufficient to establish residential areas surrounding each of the two village centers. The eastern border running north from Zion (BaptiSt) Church at the extreme southern end of the Village follows the South Branch of the North Fork of the Hardware River, passing behind the Trinity (United Methodist) Church on Virginia Route 692. The western border runs north to a point on Virginia Route 692 one- half mile west of Route 29 then follows the extreme slopes west of this road to the Mooreland ~Baptist) Church where it turns back south to meet Route 29. The Village is thus constrained from east to west by natural features, yet must be constrained by land use planning at the northern and southern extremes of the community. Environment Entrances North Garden is centered around a curve in Route 29 that supplies the spine to the community as well as forming a barrier between the two halves on each side. The nature of this corridor is such that there is no sense of actually entering a separate community as one passes along it traveling either north or south. By expanding the commercial centers that already exist along this roadway, it is hoped that a sense of arrival can be generated, providing core areas by which the Village will be identified. 453 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Areas Sensitive to Development The soils in this area of the County are generally of good quality for building (moderate limitations for development) and for agriculture (limited for intensive use by slope and shallowness). The area along the western border of the Village and other smaller.areas of 15% slope or more are the most constrained areas in terms of their soil composition and potential for erosion. However, east of Route 29 the more level areas of upland soils are particularly good for agri-~ cultural purposes and it is recommended that as little of this land as possible be transferred to residential or commercial uses. The ~rth Garden area has a high proportion of cleared, vacant land that is highly visible from the roadways in all parts of the Village. Residential development should be located in wooded areas rather than in these open fields to prevent potential disruption of the Village character that now exists. This also prevents additional agricultural land from being taken out of that use. ~Vegetation Over the large area that the Village of North Garden covers, it is difficult to ~-~ pinpoint all the areas needing maintenance or improvement of existing vegetation. Two major improvements that are necessary are the landscaping of the two commercial areas with curbing an6 curb cuts and vegetation which would more clearly define the parking areas and entrances. Other areas where additional attention to landscaping would be desirable are: (1) the length of Route 29 where necessary as it passes through the village area in order to both reduce noise and make the roadway less obtrusive to nearby residents; (2) the area between the commercial sector to the west of Route 29 and the residential area behind it; and (3) along the southern and western border of the residential area to the south of Mooreland Church. Land Use Future residential development in the North Garden Village is recommended for the wooded areas around each of the village centers, at a density of one unit per one and one-half acres on 0 - 15% slopes, to one unit per five acres on more steeply sloped land. It is hoped that the natural scenic beauty of the area will be retained by placing new residential development away from the roadways while retaining the areas as essentially wooded. Seven such areas are indicated on the plan map, three in the northern half of the neighborhood and four surrounding the southern commercial core. As mentioned above, two areas are designated as commercial village centers, one at the intersection of Route 29 and Virginia Route 710 and the second at'Route 29 and Virginia Route 692. The northern commercial area stretche, s for approxi-. mately 0.-3 mile along the eastern edge of Route 29 from Collins Store to the "Clark farm driveway." The southern commercial area includes the existing commercial to the east and land to the north of Route 692 and west o~Route 29 opposite. Improvements to the intersection may be desirable in the future. Communit~ Facilities Recommended facilities improvements for the neighborhood include: (1) upgrading. the recreational facilities at the Red Hill School as a neighborhood park; (2) a bikepath/footpath connecting the southern village area with the school and northern area residences (suggestions include constructing the path along the South Branch floodplain, along existing roads, and along the 01d Route 29 roadbed to the side of existing Route 29); and (3) road improvements, specifically Route 712 from Route 29 to Virginia Route 692 through the center of the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker said corrections were made by the Planning Commission to the North Garden Village map by extending the southern border below the Zion Church approximately 2000 feet, recognizing existing commercial at the southeastern quadrant of the ROute 29~irginia Route 692 intersection, shifting the public institution at both the Trinity Church site and the Red Hill School site to the east. Mr. Tucker said North Garden was a very difficult area to work with because Route 29 runs down the middle and splits it ~nto two areas. Also the commercial is located in two entirely separate areas. The citizens' committee worked hard to try and identify areas based on slope and soils, and tried to use wooded areas as much as possible for low density.resident al uses. Other areas presently used as open pasture lands, farm lands, and areas of steep terrain, could not be developed at one-acre densities, but could provide a viable village area if developed at even lower densities. The committee identified for commercial use Collins Market and recommended that this area be extended to the south. They also r~ecommended that the northwest quadrant of Routes 692 and 29 be recognized as commercial. Mr. Fisher said he was shocked that the commi~ttee recommended an extension of the commerc ~al at Collins Store because a~~ this point the ground is at least 20 feet h±gher than Route 29. Also, he questioned the size of this village plan, commenting that the village must run f~r at least two miles along Route 29, and this does not fit in with the concept of having small villages. Mr. Dorrier did not feel this area will develop very fast regardless of what is put on the map. Dr. Iachetta said it is a hard area to work with. At this time, the public hearing was opened on the North Garden Village. There was no member of the public present to make comments. 454 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) -i/" :.-::' ,, Key Low Density Res. Commercial Public Institutions Open Space Type I Village North Garden Scale 1"- 2000' At 10:03 P.M., Mr. Fisher announced that he had to leave the meeting and asked that Mr. Henley take over the Chair. Mr. Tucker said the Village of Nix is located on Route 53 approximately s~x miles south- east of Charlottesville at the intersection of Route 53 and Virginia Route 729. Its proximit to the City's employment and retail cenvers make Nix a logical area for continued, limited growth within the next twenty years. Land uses in the Village are limited to Single family detached residential, agricultural and small scale commercial. The neighborhood is split in half by a high tension wire corridoz running north to south crossing Route 53 to the east of the village center. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Boundaries The designated growth area in the Nix Village region extends from the intersection of Route 53 and Virginia Route 729 approximately 0.3 mile to the south, 0.7 mile to the east, 0.7 mile to the north, and 0.6 mile to the west. This remains close to the recommendation guidelines stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The high tension line is significant as an interior boundary marking the division between the northeastern, undeveloped section of the Village and the western, developed section. 455 August 1, 1979 (Regular Night½Meeting) Environment Entrances Entrances to the Village area are well established from three directions, north, east, and south. On these three sides, the road passes through forested areas before coming out into the open space surrounding the Village center. Route 53 west, however, is developed continuously beyond the border of the neighborhood and thus does not present a clear entrance. Landscaping at the western boundary to the village could establish this entrance and clearly mark the edge of the neighborhood area. Areas Sensitive to Development Certain areas wi'thin the Route 53 corridor west of the Village center are highly visible open fields, which, if developed, would have a substantial impact on the existing visual quality of the Village. Development in these areas is not. recommended unless accompanied by careful site design and thorough landscaping. An area of relatively steep slopes occurs in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood near the stream bed. Such areas of steep slope in combination with the poor drainage capacities of the Manteo-Nason-Tatum soil association can pose severe limitations for construction within the Nix Village area. Vegetation As mentioned above, Nix is divided into two areas by the high tension line running through the center, of the neighborhood. To the west of this line, existing development and small agricultural operations have cleared away forest from each side of the roadway. To the east, the lack of new development has left unbroken woods throughout. When development does occur in this eastern portion, it is recommended that it be away from the roadway and buffered by eXisting trees. The Village center area, designated for improvement, also nee~to maintain its existing vegetation to the extent possible. To the west of Virginia 729 north of Route 53 exists a residential area without vegetative borders or road frontage improvements. Because this area lies opposite the designated village center, landscaping may be necessary to buffer the residences from increased activity at the site. Land Use Not unlike the plan for the Esmont/Porters Village area, land uses already existing in the older section of the Nix neighborhood, west of Route 729, are recognized while new development is encouraged to locate in vacant lands primarily to the east of Route 729. With the known soil constraints in mind, the Albemarle County Health Department and the~Soil Conservation Service have recommended a maximum density of one dwelling unit per two acres for all residential development. Three main areas are recommended for such development: (1) a large area to the east of Virginia Route 729 north of Route 53; (2) an area to the south of the Village center, west of Virginia Route 729; and (3) scattered areas within the older, western section of the Village in wooded locations.~ The three acre tract at the Villag~ center which is presently wooded would provide a convenient point for additional convenience type businesses and perhaps a self-service postal kiosk. Community Facilities Along with the above facilities other recommendations include~ (1) proposed developments served by secondary roads of limited access onto either Virginia Route 729 or Route 53; and (2) improvements to two roads serving future residential development off Route 53. 458 August t, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) . _ ' Key [~ Low Density Res. ~]' Commercial .~ Public Institutions F1 open space Type I Village Nix Scale 1"- 20-0'0' Mr. Dorrier asked how many persons served on the citizens' committee for the Nix plan. Mr. Tucker said four persons attended the meetings. Mr. Dorrier asked, if they were all in agreement with the Plan. Mr. Tucker said yes. The public hearing was opened on the Nix Village plan. No member of the public was present to speak. Mr. Tucker said the,Village of Stony Point is located approximately five miles north of Charlottesville at the intersection of Routes 20 and 600. These are the only two major roads serving the area, other than Virginia Route 784 which forms the northwestern boundary of the Village. Land uses in'the Village include agriculture, low density residential, neighborhood commercial, and institutional. The area has its own school, fire department, and church, and also contains a chapter of the Ruritan Club. Residential development is scattered throughout the neighborhood rather than being clustered at any one point. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Boundaries The Village area that has been designated for future growth extends approximately 0.4 to 0.5 of a mile in each direction away from the central village area at the intersection of Virginia Route 600 and Route 20. These borders comply with the guidelines stated in the introduction to the village plans and do not necessarily represent natural borders. West to east, the area runs roughly from Virginia Route 784 to the point where Route 20 breaks off from Virginia Route 600 and turns north. 457 August 1, 1979 (Regular N~ght Meeting) Environment Entrances Entrances to the larger Village area occur just south of the Village border on Route 20, and at the eastern border also on Route 20. The approach to the village center itself passes through open fields to the south and west and takes an abrupt 90 degree turn onto the stretch of roadway that passes in front of the commercial area, the school, and the church. A similar abrupt turn is also found at the eastern end of this strip. In effect, this slows traffic passing through this Village center area, a result compatible with attempts to establish the sense of "arriving" in a place. On the western boundary of the larger Village area, there is no sense of an entrance, or cut-off between land lying outside the boundary and the growth area itself. Zt is recommended that landscaping be required at this edge of the village area if development occurs. Areas Sensitive to Development The open field areas near the central Village area to the south and west, and the system of fields stretching beyond the border to the west are highly visible from the roadway and other points and should therefore be deemed inappropriate for development. Soils limitations in the neighborhood vary from moderate in the western portion to only slight in the half to the east of Route 20. One area of the Village to the northwest is underlai~ by an amphibolite dike, an igneous rock which is very dense and from which the extraction of ground water is very difficult. If possible this area should be avoided for development. Vegetation Areas of dense vegetation most suitable for development occur in the southwestern, northwestern and southeastern corners of the neighborhood. A smaller area stands north of the existing commercial area. Future development should occur in such areas in order to minimize its visual impact on the neighborhood. Areas in need of landscaping exist along Route 20 as it approaches the Village center from the south, and also in the village center itself around the existing commercial area. Landscaping and possibly curbing would not only define the area more clearly but would also improve the appearance of the Village core. Land Use Recommendations for location of possible future development in the Village of Stony Point derive from the above conditions. Residential development, at a density of one unit to 1.5 - 2.0 acres, is recommended in four basic locations in each corner of the designated growth area where existing vegetation would soften the impacts. The area in the northwestern corner is placed in the lowest priority due to groundwa%er_¢ difficulties possibly requiring off-site wells. A 5.5 acre area of commercial is set aside on the southwestern corner of the intersection to be added to'the existing one acre site to the north of Route 20. The area would have to be thoroughly landscaped in order to minimize its impact on the visual quality of the neighborhood when approached from the south and west. Community Facilities. Facilities recommended to serve an expanded population in the Stony Point Village include: (1) a self-service postal kiosk in the village center; (2) a system of bike and footpaths connecting residential areas with the school and commercial areas at the village center; (3) improvements upgrading the park facilities at the elementary school; and (4) in the event of residential development in the northwestern residential area, improvements to Virginia Route 784, including resurfacing, to support the increase in usage. 458 August 1, 1979 [Regular Night:.~Meeting) 'Key [~ Low Density Res. commercial ~ Public. Institutions ~ Open Space Type I Stony Village Point Scale= 1"- 2000~ The public hearing on the Stony Point Village was open~. present to speak. No member of the public was Mr. Tucker said in drafting a land use plan and recommendations for development in the portion of the Scottsville Town area within the County of Albemarle, consideration was given to existing land use, topography and soils, future plans and improvements as outlined by other County offices, and the guidelines established in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing land uses in the area include a number of si.ngle family dwelling units, three agricultural operations, approximately eight commercial establishments, a shopping center, a manufacturing plant, an abandoned high school, a Centel (Central Telephone Company of Virginia, field office, and a newly erected flood control dam. A series of roads fan out from the town proper. These include: (1) Virginia Route 726 running southwest; (2)Virginia Route 737; (3) Route 6, a major east/west artery; (4) Route 20 a major north/south artery which provides the main access to the County center; (5) Virginia Route 795 also traveling north; and (6) VirBinia Route 637 which travels east. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Boundaries The growth areasx.~ boundaries will encompass one mile of Virginia Route 795 north' from the Town of Scottsville, one mile of Route 20 North, three quarters of a mile of Route 737 West and three quarters of a mile southwest on Route 726. This is essentially an artificial limit imposed to prevent development from spreading beyond the Plan's limits of one quarter mile beyond e~isting development. August 1, 1979 (Regular Night,Meeting) Environment Entrances The Scottsville area contains wide belts of forested land alternating with belts of open land fanning out from the Town proper. This follows the stream configuration as well as the roadways.- There is little sense of arriving in Scottsvilla until one comes out onto the short plain at the edge of the James River that is the town proper~ This feeling o~ place is due to the physical and visual constraints of the main street and the confluence of the three different roadways at the foot of the slope. In the County portion of the Town area, entrances to the neighborhood should be established, through landscaping or reduced speed limits on each of the roads as they pass the outside boundary going toward the Village. Specifically, (1) the point behind the shopping center on Route 20 where there first is an indication of increased levels of development; (2) the point just south of the Scottsville cemetery where medium density housing is proposed under the plan; and (3) on Route 6, just as it crosses the stream bed into the residential zone to the south. Areas Sensitive to Development The topography of the Scottsville area is comprised of rolling pasture and forest land alternating with steeply sloped drainage areas and roadways. SOils in the area change from the Bucks-Penn Association to the west to the Manteo-Nasum-Tatum Association to the east. This latter association is considered very limited for septic tank use and only fair for agricultural uses. The Bucks-Penn Association has the highest agricultural suitability of all the Albemarle soils, and has only slight developmental limitations. Much of the cleared land to the west of Virginia 726 is in this association and is presently in agricultural use. Any steeply sloped areas in the eastern half of the County/Town area should be carefully surveyed before they are utilized for septic fields. Highly visible areas where development is not recommended occur in the very northern portion of the growth area on either side of Route 20, to the north and south of Virginia Route 726 as it travels west and north of the Scottsville Cemetery along Virginia Route 795. These areas are either recommended for open space or for agricultural uses. Vegetation Areas of clear land that have been set aside for development and are highly visible from roadways include: (1) the proposed medium density residential area to the northwest of the Town center; (2) the proposed medium density residential near the Scottsville Cemetery; (3) the northern part of the low density area across from the commercial between Virginia Route 737 and Route 6; (4) the commercial area between Route 737 and Route 6; and (5) the northern residential area to the north side of Route 737. Vegetative borders will be necessary in these areas to minimize the impact Of further construction on the town's atmosphere. Necessary landscaping in the established commercial areas is also encouraged due to their close proximity to residential areas. Land Use The resident'iai development that is proposed is set in areas of forest or grassland where natural vegetation can contribute to li.miting its.impact on the community. Low density residential (one dwelling unit per two acres) is centered in three areas surrounding the shopping center in the north central portion of the growth area. Medium density (up to five dwelling units per acre) is recommended for three areas near the older town core nearer the established water!l~:. Commercial land uses are essentially limited to recognized existing areas plus an additional parcel of land between Route 6 and Virginia Route 73'7. Industrial land area is limited to the lan~ surrounding the existing plant. New public land is proposed surrounding the Mink Cr.eek Flood impoundment area to the east of .Scottsville proper. This land is rugged and comprised of shale soils unsuitable for residential construction. Community Facilities The above mentioned Mink Creek area has been proposed as a park containing a swimming area, boat dock, picnic area, and softball and basketball facilities. The water quality test undertaken in 1978 for the lake at this site did not recommend use of the lake in the above manner, thus this proposal is in abeyance. Other facilities are or will be primarily supplied by area wide groups and town agencies. A bikepath and pedestrian path is also recommended for Route 795 to connect the medium density residential area with the park and the town center. August 1, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) ,'f, /C:':";' cotts~ill? Key [~ Low Density Res. [] Med. Density Res. [~ Commercial [] Public Institutions l~ Industrial E] open space Type I Village Scottsville Scale 1"- 2000' Mr. Tucker said the citizens com~.lt~ee which worked on the Scottsville Plan could not reach any decision as far as development~of the area is concerned. One part of the committee was sensitive to what occurs around the perimeter of Scottsville; the other part of the group was in favor of some development in Scottsville. The committee did feel that some type of industrial use would be beneficial to the area, but could not agree on a location of an industrial site. The existing industrial area (Uniroyal) is located within the flood plain, so basically the committee decided to recognize that site and recommend a limited expansion of same. Mr. Dorrier said he believes the Uniroyal site was recommended only so there would be room for expansion of Uniroyal itself. The site would be too limited for any additional industrial use. Mr. Dorrier said he is not happy with this plan because it does not show a realistic area for industrial use. Mr. Tucker said some of the committee members ~ad suggeste splitting the industrial area, and picking an additional site on Route 20 or near the shopping center. Mr. Dorrier said villages are to self-sufficient, particularly ones which already have public utilities. Planning for some growth in Scottsville is the only way to make the utilities cost-effective. Mr. Dorrier also mentioned the comments on Mink Creek Lake. He said this lake was built as a flood prevention measure, but it can be used as a park, and contains 60+ acres. The Town Council was willing to give the lake to the County last year if the County would maintain it. Mr. Dorrier said, although there was a preliminary statement made by the Health Department that the water flow was not enough to use the lake as a swimming area, he does not think the County has really studied the question in depth. Dr. Iachetta asked if the data developed for the Mink Creek flood impoundment project contained hydrologic data for the area, runoff rates, and so forth. Mr. Agnor said he thought that was the data used by the Health Department when they made their analysis last year. Mr. Roudabush asked the size of the surface area of the impoundment. Mr. Dorrier said it is about five acres~~'~ Mr. Agnor said t'he terrain from Route 795 down to the lake is very steep. Mr. Henley said he had remarked last year that this would be a pretty expensive property to develop as a swimming beach. Mr. Dorrier said the beach area itself would not be expensive to develop. In fact, the Town was prepared to bring in the sand. There were plans drawn that would have make it cost-effective, but the question of wheth r not there is a large enough water flow was not resolved. Mr. Dorrier said a · ~ or .... ~ ~e a~ ~~t ~eeds for this area of the County. Mr. Henley suggested 481 August !, 1979 ~Regula~ N~ght Meeting) no member of the pu~b~lic present to speak for or' against the' plan. Mr. Tucker said the Keswick Citizens Committee had recommended that Keswick be withdrawn from consideration as a Type 1 rural Village growth area. The Planning Commission agreed wit~ the Committee. Mr. Roudabush said the citizens felt that the area was growing so slowing that the zoning ordinance would accommodate any potential growth. The public hearing on the Keswick part of the plan was opened. A citizen asked if this meant that Keswick would not be designated as a village, but simply remain a part of the open County area. Mr. Tucker said if the Board of Supervisors adopts the recommendation of the committee, development would not be encouraged in the Keswick area. There was no other membe~ of the public present to speak about Keswick. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had made the following textural amendments to the written portion of the above material: Un.der "Timing - the rive .year~.perspecti.ve'' in the Hollymead Plan, delete the word "u'n.dert'aken" in the phrase "Mobile home park development should be stimulated by the private sector or undertaken by the public sector..." and substitut~ the word "encouraged." Under "Timing - the five year persp~ctive" in the Crozet Plan, delete the word "unde'rtaken" in th~ phrase 'rMObile home park development should be stimulated by the private secton or undertaken by the public sector..." and substitute the word "enco~raged." Under Prqp.osed community facilities in the Crozet Plan, paragraph reading: "Building and all improvements including fences should be setback 50 feet from the center of all-weather streams or the 100-year Flood plain, whichever is the greater.", add the words "As the community develops an urban character,'? ~ at the beginning of this paragraph. On the Hollymead Community Plan between the proposed school site and Jefferson Village, land between the institutional land and the existing low density residential land to the east; the Planning Commission indicated, that a buffer be provided between the two to alleviate the potential impacts of the institutional area on the neighborhood. Agenda Item No.. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said the items which wer~ not finished on the afternoon agenda will be rescheduled for August 8. Dr. Iachetta mentioned that he had received a letter from the Ear!ysville Volunteer Fire Department and he then met with their executive committee to explain this Board's recent actions on behalf of the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company. He feels that some of their questions have been answered, even though they might not agree with the Board's actions. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board have an executive session to.discuss matters realting to the Pianning Commission and Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Henley ~ggested that Mr. Agyor discuss this with .the Chairman, who will se2--an appropriate date. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that the Local Government Officials' Conference will be hel~ at the University of Virginia and Ramada Inn on August 27 and August 28. Mr. Dorrier requested a report from the County Engineer on previous testing:~of the Mink Creek Lake at the August 8th meeting. Agenda Item No. 5. At 10:32 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. ~/~Chairman