1979-09-05NSeptember 5, 1979. (Regular - Night Meeting)
O17
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 5, 1979, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arriving at 7:49 P.M.), 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.
silence.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. with a moment of
Agenda item No. 2. SP-79-40. Shannon Stinson. To locate a mobile home on 5.15 acres
zoned A-1. Property located on southwest side of Route 795 approximately four miles north
of Scottsville. County Tax Map 123, Parcel 12A, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progess on July 17, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had not acted on this petition and
requested that this public hearing be deferred until September 19, 1979. Motion to this
effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing:
to the seven urban area neighborhoods.
August 29, 1979.)
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan with respect
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and
(Note: Mr. Fisher announced that because of the weather this date (flooding in various
parts of the County), this public hearing will be held open for at least two weeks and
public comments will be taken at the work sessions which are to be held in the following
weeks.)
Mr. Tucker began by presenting the following introduction to the urban area plans:
"One of the primary goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to prevent the expansion
of the Urban Area into nearby rural, or agricultural land. This is considered
important for two reasons: First, to preserve the rural character of the
County, and second, to promote efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally
sound delivery of services such as roads, water and sewer.
In order to accomplish this goal, these plans define more clearly the boundaries
of the Urban Area along with land use patterns that efficiently increase the
density of development within the neighborhoods. The Urban Area should absorb
more of the County's future population increase as growth is encouraged within
these borders rather than in scattered development throughout the countryside.
Each of the Urban Area neighborhoods have specific policies for development.
These are stated as recommendations in the introductions to each of the plans.
The plans are divided into three sections: (1) existing conditions, including
borders, hydrology, soils and geology, forestation and vegetation, slope and
relief, population, land use, community facilities, and housing; (2) land use
plan and area recommendations; and (3) plan impacts. A final section shows
impacts over the entire Urban Area.
These plans should serve the function of a guide and handbook for all develop-
ment decisions in the Urban Area."
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ONE
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood One is in the densely settled urban area to the west of Route 29,
north of the City of Charlottesville and south of the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir. The neighborhood has already absorbed a major share of the ~
residential, commercial, and industrial development within the County, and can
be expected to develop even further in the near future. Suitably zoned vacant
land and community facilities and services are presently available. One
important consideration in the area is the proximity of the reservoir and the
fact that a major portion of the neighborhood lies within an impoundment
district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Specific recommendations taken from the Plan for Neighborhood One are:
"High intensity development is shown along the Route 29 North
Corridor to accommodate concentrated industrial, commercial,
and major institutional uses."
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
"A major employment cluster is recommended at the intersection
of Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive."
"The importance of the northern boundary of the Urban Area - the
South Fork of the Rivanna at Route 29 - cannot be overemphasized."
Tables 4 and 9 under Standards in the Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Neighborhood One is basically a triangle of land bordered on the east by Route
29 North, on the west by the South Fork of the Rivanna and Ivy Creek, and on
the south by a line which runs from a point just south of Jack Jouett Middle
School to the City-County line along Hydraulic Road. This line, separating
Neighborhood One from Neighborhood Seven, is somewhat artificial, yet establishes
a dividing point between the Barracks Road area and the Hydraulic-Rio Road
loop.
Both the Creek-Reservoir border and the Route 29 border are major consider-
ations in any development plans for the area. Regulations have been established
controlling development within the Rivanna watershed; and recently, the Board
of Supervisors adopted a Route 29 North Corridor Study calling for the limitation
of access-cross lanes on Route 29 and the improvement of certain intersections.
These two actions affecting the borders of Neighborhood One also affect the
disposition of the neighborhood's land uses.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
Neighborhood One is evenly split between the Rivanna Watershed and
the South Fork Rivanna Watershed along the line of the Hydraulic-Rio
Road loop. Ivy Creek, which runs along the western border, flows
north directly into the South Fork Reservoir. Small drainage areas
leading into this system exist in the Lamb's Road area. Inside the
Hydraulic-Rio loop and east of the S.P.C.A. Road (Route 659), drainage
flows east into Neighborhood Two where the Rivanna itself is formed
of Meadow Creek and the extension of the South Fork. Different
regulations apply in the different areas.
Soils and Geology
The neighborhood is also evenly divided between two similar soil
associations: (1) the Cecit-Lloyd-Appling Association, and (2) the
Culpeper-Albemarle-Louisburg Association. The latter association
has limited potential for agricultural uses due primarily to its
shallowness, and has moderate limitations when analyzed for building
suitability and percolation. The Cecil-Lioyd-Appling has only
slight limitations for development.
A series of geological formations with multiple faults can be found
in the area. They include: (1) the Lovingston Formation, (2) the
Rockfish 0onglomerate, (3) the Lynchburg formation (restricted), and
(4) an amphibolite dike. Of these formations, the Rockfish
Conglomerate is the only formation which produces adequate supplies
of water.
Forestation and Vegetation
Neighborhood One is marked by areas of,open space alternating with
areas of forested land. In general, forest becomes more prevalent
as one approaches the Ivy Creek-Reservoir stream system. However,
large areas of trees exist inside the Hydraulic-Rio Road circle
between Four Seasons and Whitewood Road, and large open areas exist
outside the loop, primarily at Ivy Farms off Lamb's Road.
Important vegetative borders exist surrounding the reservoir in
various locations, the elementary, middle and high school sites, the
two industries on 29 North, and surrounding Four Seasons. These
serve to create areas within the neighborhood of different character
and to define their boundaries.
Slope and Relief
The neighborhood in relief is essentially a shallow ridge that leads
north from the Hessian Hills subdivision near the City-County line.
Hydraulic and S.P.C.A. Roads follow the ridge line north to the
reservoir dam and filtration plant, and define the dividing line
between the two different watersheds. The highest elevation, which
occurs on a peak within a curve of the Ivy Creek on the western
border, is in excess of 620 feet. The lowest elevation is 400 feet
and occurs along the border of the reservoir. The ridge top has 600
foot elevations at either end of the Hydraulic-Rio Road loop.
There are no areas of critical slope within the neighborhood. The
Ivy Farms peak described above does fall off to Ivy Creek on the
western side, dropping 200 feet over 750 feet for a slope of approxi-
mately thirty percent in a limited area near the stream.
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
Population
Neighborhood One is among the more densely and heavily populated of
the Urban Area neighborhoods. Using the 1977 aerial photographs in
conjunction with apartment and attached single family unit counts,
one arrives at a figure of 2011 dwelling units for the neighborhood.
This is then multiplied by the persons per unit factor of 3.1 (1980)
to obtain an estimated neighborhood population of 6234 persons in
1977.
This population is distributed in three major concentrations: (1)
the Berkeley-Four Seasons complex at the heart of the neighborhood
on Commonwealth Drive; (2) the Jefferson Towne, Tudor Court, and
~estfield Club complex off Greenbrier Road; and (3) the combined
apartment and townhouse complexes of Berkshire, Barter Court,
Solomon Court, and Georgetown Green, all of which are off Hydraulic
Road in the southern portion of the neighborhood.
Census enumeration districts 7A, 7B and 8A are used to approximate
the characteristics of Neighborhood One. Map IA illustrates the
correspondence between these borders and those established in the
Comprehensive Plan. In 1970, Neighborhood One had a total population
of 1662 living in 652 units. It appears to have been a neighborhood
comprised of young families with a preponderance of children below
the age of fifteen and persons in the twenty-five to forty-four year
age bracket. The area was comprised primarily of owner tenants..
,%
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Map iA Urban Area
Neighborhood One
Existing
Land Use
Scale
020
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Land Use
Approximately two-fifths (1090 acres) of the close to 2500 acres of
Neighborhood One are developed. Residential development includes
the three concentrations listed above in Population, plus some low
density areas including: (1) north of Hydraulic Road near the
Georgetown Road intersection; ~2) along Lamb's Road leading toward~
Ivy Farms; (3) near the intersection of Hydraulic and Rio Roads; and
(4) along the S.P.C.A. Road leading north to the Reservoir. Existing
commercial uses are located: (1) near the Hydraulic-Lamb's Road
intersection, (2) the Hydraulic-Rio Road intersection, (3) along
Greenbrier Drive, and (4) along Route 29 North at Hydraulic, Greenbrier
and Rio Roads. Industrial uses exist both on Route 29 North and Rio
Road. Institutional uses are represented by Greer, Jack Jouett, and
Albemarle High Schools located along Lamb's Road off Hydraulic.
Existing zoning for the neighborhood is depicted on Map lB. R-1 and
RS-~ areas are located at Berkeley Subdivision and on Lamb's Road.
R-2 covers a large area surrounding S.P.C.A. Road and also a central
area within the Hydraulic-Rio loop. R-3 zones stretch in a band
from Berkeley across Hydraulic Road to Georgetown Green, and also
surround the Hydraulic-Rio Road intersection. Two planned residential
neighborhoods exist, one already developed at Four Seasons and
another undeveloped off the extension of Hydraulic Road.
Densities allowable in each zone are as follows:
A-! - Agricultural District .5 du/acre
R-1 - Residential, Limited 5.0 du/acre
R-2 - Residential, Limited 8.5 du/acre
R-3 - Residential, General 20.0 du/acre
R-3 - Residential, General (with special use permit) 34.0 du/acre
RPN - Residential Planned Neighborhood/R-1 5.3 du/acre (gross)
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Map lB Urban Area
Neighborhood One
Existing
Zoning
Scale
021
September ~, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Commercial is scattered throughout in B-I zones, the largest
being on Greenbrier Drive and on Route 29 North on either side
of the Rio Road crossing. Industrial M-1 zones exist in five
locations: (1)'at the Reservoir Filtration plant location; (2)
at the Rio Road/Route 29 North intersection; (3)'along Rio Road
before the intersection with Hydraulic Road; (4) across Lamb's
Road from the high school; and (5) on Route 29 North, north of
the intersection with Hydraulic Road.
Map lC illustrates the proposed, generat land use plan for
Neighborhood One as found in the Comprehensive Plan. Land uses
that are included range over the entire spectrUm from open
space to industrial.
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
[] High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Neighborhood Center
Open Space, Park (P), & Industrial (I)
Map iCUrban Area
Neighoorhood One
Proposed Land Use- Plan
Scale
.N¸.
~ ~ 1"-20.00?
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Community Facilities
Each school level is represented in Neighborhood One. Greer
Elementary, which had a 1976 capacity of 800 students, is
projected to decline in enrollment and remain well within its
limits. Jack Jouett Middle School with a projected enrollment
for 1980 of 645 (Planning Department, April 4, 1978) also is
well within its capacity of 800. Albemarle High School projects
ahead of its 1976 capacity for 1980, 2250 students compared to
a capacity of 2230. There are no established parks in the
neighborhood. Ail health, library, police and fire protection
services are centered in the City of Charlottesville or on
Route 29 North.
The road network of Neighborhood One is of major importance to
any land use plans for the area. Major primary roads include:
(1) the Hydraulic-Rio Road loop; (2) the Greenbrier-Whitewood
Road bisecting the loop east-west; (3) the Commonwealth and
Berkmar Drive north-south bisections; (4) the S.P.C.A. Road
which connects the loop with the filtration plant at the
northernmost edge of the neighborhood; (5) the Lamb's Road
access to Ivy Farms at the western edge of the neighborhood;
and (6) the Dominion Drive-Four Seasons Drive combination,
which, along with the extension of Hydraulic Road, makes up the
last major route leading east-west through the neighborhood.
Major intersections on Route 29 North, as identified in the
recently adopted Route 29 North Corridor Study, are found at
Hydraulic Road, Sperry Marine Systems road entrance, Greenbrier
Drive, Branchlands entrance, Shopper's World-Fashion Square
south, Fashion Square north, Rio Road, Albemarle Square (pro-
visional), Woodbrook Drive, and Carrsbrook. Other existing
crossovers will be closed.
The State Department of Highways and Transportation has plans
for the expansion of Hydraulic Road .to four lanes from the
intersection with Route 29 to a point between Rio Road and the
Reservoir.
The neighborhood is presently served wastewater treatment by
the Meadow Creek plant which presently is below capacity.
Water is supplied to the area through mains leading from the
Rivanna storage and treatment plant in the north of the neighborhood.
HoUsing
The average value of owner occupied units in Neighborhood One
is below the median for the Urban Area as a whole ($25,969
compared to $35,104). However, the neighborhood is primarily
renter occupied (Z6.3%). The substandard indicators suggest
that the neighborhood does not have a major housing problem.
It averages below or near the Urban Area scores in all three
areas.
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
Ma~ iD illustrates the recommended land use plan for Neighborhood One. This
map is the product of a series of meetings between the planning staff and a
citizens' committee composed of neighborhood residents and Planning Commission
representatives. This map should be utilized as a guide for development
decisions by private developers, county citizens and public officials.
Neighborhood One has a variety of proposed land uses within its boundaries
including: high, medium and low density residential, commercial and commercial
office, industrial, institutional, and open space. The area should continue
to absorb much of the growth of the Urban Area due to its existing commercial
~amenities, the availability of services, and the projected improvements in
transportation. It will also remain in high density development with low
density residential proposed for Berkeley subdivision and the Lamb's Road
area only.
Open space recommendations include public land on Whitewood Road, a strip
running from Four Seasons to Route 29, and two areas to the northwest
stretching along the edge of the Ivy Creek flood plain and the Reservoir.
Suggested road improvements are also illustrated on Map ID. They include:
(1) expansion of Hydraulic-Rio Roads to four lanes; (2) improvements to the
Whitewood-Lamb's-Hydraulic Road intersection; (3) the extension of Greenbrier
Drive to the Rio-Hydraulic intersection. The citizens' committee did not
recommend the extension of Commonwealth Drive from Berkeley to Rio Road.
'023
September' 5 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
KEY
Low Density Residential
Map ,iD : Urban Area
Neighr)orhood One
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
Open Space, Park (P), & Institutional_ ~I)
Proposed Land
7 I Scale
:: "' 2000'
PLAN IMPACTS
Densities of development used to determine the impacts of the detailed Land
Use Plan are as follows:
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
2.5 du/acre
7.5 du/acre
15.0 du/acre
Undeveloped low density residential equals approximately 230 acres or 575
dwelling units; undeveloped medium density, 310 acres or 2325 dwelling
units; and high density undeveloped, 80 acres or 1200 dwelling unit's. This
represents a total potential new population of 12,300 (see Table iA) using a
population factor of 3.0 persons per unit.
Commercial undeveloped acreage equals 40 for business and 20 for office.
Industrial acreage decreases from the amount presently zoned industrial.
024
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
TABLE lA
Impacts of Land Development
Neighborhood One~
Residential - Low (1 - 4 du/acre)
Residential - Medium (5 -10 du/acre)
Residential - High (11 - 34 du/acre)
Residential - TOTAL
Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
TOTALS
Population
Dwelling Units
Acreage
1725 575 230
6975 2325 310
3600 1200 80
12300 4100 620
- - 40
- - 20
-- -- 0
12,300 4100 680
Mr. Tucker said the Neighborhood One Committee, in general, recommended that existing
zoning be recognized. That recommendation holds true for the area within the watershed that
falls within the Urban Area boundaries. The Committee members felt that the area wit.hin the
watershed would be substantially limited In density by the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr.
Tucker then presented the recommendations made by the Planning Commission regarding Urban
Area Neighborhood One:
1)
(Submitted in written form, William W. Stevenson, July 17, 1979.) Property
located directly opposite Georgetown Road where it intersects with Hydraulic,
shown on the present proposal as "low density residential." Request is for
changing property to "commercial" designation. The Planning Commission did
not recommend granting this request, feeling that it was more of a zoning issue.
2)
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property located on northwest side of
Rio Road shown on present proposal as "medium density residential." Request is
for recognizing existing use and zoning of "industrial." The Planning Commission
recommended granting this request.
3)
(Submitted in written form, David J. Wood, Jr., August 7, 1979.) Property
located along both sides of Berkmar Drive shown on present proposal as
"commercial office." Request is for recognizing present development trend
toward "commercial." The Planning Commission recommended granting this
request.
4)
(Submitted in written form, Charles E. Echols, July 26, 1979.) Property located
to the north and south of Commonwealth Drive shown on present proposal as
"commercial office." Request is for recognizing existing zoning as "commercial."
The Planning Commission did not recommend granting this request, feeling that it
was more of a zoning issue.
5)
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property located on both sides of SPCA Road
shown on present proposal as "medium density residential." Request is for shiftin
densities from west of the road to the land to the east, possibly lowering land to
the west to "low density" and extending the proposed "high density" area further
to the south and west. Planning Commission recommended a combination of "medium"
and "high density" represented by a checkerboard in this area.
{Submitted orally at public hearing). Property located southeast of water
treatment plant, shown on present proposal as "open space." Request is for
recognizing property as "commercial", compatible with nearby commercially
designated land. This was a graphical error which has been changed.
7)
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property located west of Hydraulic Road
just to the north of Lamb's Road, shown on present proposal as a combination
of "commercial office" and "low density residential." Request simply states
concern over creating a nonconforming use in an area presently occupied by a
quasi-industrial use. The Planning Commission recommended granting this request.
8)
(Submitted in written form, League of Women Voters, July 23, 1979, and supported
by Bedford Moore, August 12, 1979.) General concern that amendment as proposed
"may not reflect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in the area of "conservation
of water supply impoundment watersheds, forest, steep slopes; hilltops/ridges
and water quality in streams." Request is for consideration of conservation
designation for property within the South Fork Watershed impoundment. The Plannin
Commission recommended a one dwelling unit per acre density for all watershed
areas. The Commission also recommended that the Board of Supervisors conslder a
belt of conservation for an area immediately adjacent to the reservoir, possibly
to be purchased by the County from the landowners. Another possible alternative
recommended by the Planning Commission was a timber management system to maintain
existing trees and vegetation.
9)
(Submitted in written form, David W. Carr, August 27, 1979.) Property to the soutl
of the intersection of Whitewood and Hydraulic Roads, and to the east of the inter~
of Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive, all presently zoned B-I, shown on present
proposal as Commercial Office or High Density Residential. The Planning Commissio~
recommended a combination of "commercial" and "commercial office" in this area
represented by a checkerboard.
.~ction
~___ Sep_ _ _ tember 5~ 1979 (Reg~ular - N___ight Meeting~)
Mr. Tucker then noted that the maps presented to the Board had not yet been changed
to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Mr. Fisher said he had received so many communications concerning these amendments
that he could not read all of them into the record. (Mr. Dorrier arrived at 7:49 P.M.)
Dr. Iachetta asked if these amendments contain the proposal from the CATS study for a
western Route 29 bypass. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commiss~onJaas recommended that the
western bypass be shown on the urban area maps. This ~~ad would begin just after
crossing the South Fork Rivanna River, go in a westerly direction almost concurrent with
the S.P.C.A. Road, go behind the school complex just to the west of Montvue, cross Barracks
Road, go east of Colthurst, and tie into the Routes 250/29 bypass just west of Belfield
School. Dr. Iachetta asked if anyone had done a land use impact study of this proposed
route. Mr. Tucker said no. It is proposed that the road have limited access and as
presently recommended, the proposed road would not affect any dwelling units.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Joseph Wood, III,
who said he is one of several persons owning property on Berkmar Drive that is shown as
commercial office. The Planning Commission (recommendation #3) agreed to their request
that the property be shown as commercial. This property was bought and a road constructed
at great expense and the present zoning is B-1. They request that the Board concur with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wood also mentioned property on Whitewood Road which is presently zoned B-1 which
has been shown on the map as commercial office (Planning Commission recommendation #9).
He requested that this be changed back to commercial. He said it was proposed that Green-
brier Drive would go straight through to the Rock Store on Hydraulic Road and that White-
wood Road would then go straight into Wynridge Subdivision which is being developed at
this time. However, the developer decided not to open his subdivision onto Whitewood
Road. Consequently, the two corner lots which are zoned B-1 are blocked off from Wynridge.
These two lots are one and one-half acres each. The Planning Commission has recommended
that they be shown as commercial office and Mr. Wood requested that these lots be shown as
commercial. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had recommended a mix of com-
mercial and commercial office on these parcels.
Mrs. Charlotte Humphris said she lives in Neighborhood 7 and she feels that reservoir
pro~ection is of the utmost importance to the future of the County. Citizens have spoken
to the Board many times in favor of such protection. If higher densities are allowed in
the reservoir area, it could cause irreversible damage to an already sick reservoir. She
asked that the Board take the steps necessary to keep the reservoir permanently protected.
Mr. Bill Stevenson said he was confused about the Planning Commission's recommendation
on property on Hydraulic Road (Planning Commission recommendation #1) and for property on
Commonwealth Drive (Planning Commission recommendation # 4). He said the Comprehensive
Plan is a general guide, ~et the map is very specific as to these properties. There are a
number of nonconforming uses on Rio Road. On the map originally presented to the Commis-
sion, a red dot indicating a neighborhood center was shown on the west side of Rio Road,
but was moved to the east side. Mr. Tucker said in reference to the one acre parcel
directly across from the end of Georgetown Road, the Commission was concerned about showing
commercial on a generalized p!an.~or such a small parcel. They expressed the same concern
about the parcel on Commonwealth. The Neighborhood Committee felt that in general,
existing zoning should be recognized in this neighborhood. Mr. Stevenson said he felt the
parcel on Commonwealth Drive would take some of the commercial off of Route 29 when such
uses do not attract high traffic volumes. Mr. Tucker said there is a provision in the
proposed zoning ordinance for a commercial district that is more service oriented.
Mr. Wendell Wood said he was a member of the Neighborhood One Committee. It was the
consensus of the committee not to downzone any land in the watershed. The Committee felt
the Run-Off Control Ordinance Provides the necessary protection. It now appears that the
Planning Commission is recommending a downzo~H~g. ~r. Tucker said the Planning Commission
has recommended a density of one dwelling unit per acre in the watershed. Mr. Wood said
he hoped the Board would honor the request of the Neighborhood One Committee and not
downzone any of the area.
Mr. Wood also asked that the Board recognize the commercial zoning which presently
exists on land north of Jim Price Chevrolet on Route 29 North. He said the zoning is
about 300 feet deep and he thinks there is a need for more highway-oriented commercial in
that area. This particular strip has been changed from commercial to commercial office.
This land has be~en graded and prepared for commercial usage and he requested that the
property be shown as commercial. Mr. Tucker said the mixture of commercial and commercial
office uses were shown so there would be variances in traffic intensities. Mr. Wood then
requested that no changes in zoning be enacted anywhere. He said the owners of properties
paid commercial prices and have been paying commercial taxes. To change the zoning at
this time would play havoc with investments and savings.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin spoke in reference to large tracts of land north of Rio Road bounded
by the S.P.C.A. Road and by Route 29 North. He said the area is presently zoned for 8.4
dwelling units/acre. He said the property is served by public utilities and schools. He
asked if the land is recommended for high density development. Mr. Tucker said the
Planning Commission has recommended a mixture of medium and high densities.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, member of the Charlottesville City Council, was present to read
the following letter dated September 5, 1979, from Mayor Laurence A. Brunton:
"As you know, the City Council has on several past occasions publicly
stated its support for measures considered and undertaken by the
County to insure preservation of the South Rivanna Reservoir as a
useable public water supply for both the City and the County. The
last formal public action taken by the Council in this regard was the
resolution adopted by City Council on May 23, 1977, a copy of which is
enclosed (Clerk's Note: Resolution is set out in full on pages 216-
217 of Minute Book 15). The Council has been advised that you are
considering, in your proposed comprehensive plan for the urban area of
the County, additional measures which will afford the reservoir a
026
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
This matter was discussed at our regular meeting last night, September
4, 1979, and the Council instructed me to convey to you our continued
concern that the reservoir be protected, and our hope that you will
give favorable consideration to the inclusion of these additional
protective measures in your comprehensive plan.
Thank you for your continued concern and cooperative attitude regarding
this matter which is so vital to the future of both our jurisdictions."
Mr. Francis Fife said he lives in the City, but feels he can speak for some 50,000 to
60,000 drinkers of water from the South Fork Reservoir. The community leaders have been
told for the last I0 years that if strong measures are not taken to protect this major
water supply, the only alternative is to go to the James River. Mr. Fife said he feels
the citizens of the County and the City should be willing to spend some money to protect
the investment they already have in the Rivanna Reservoir. He urged the Board to protect
this water supply.
There being no one else present to speak on Urban Area Neighborhood One, Mr. Fisher
said the public hearing would be held open for a couple of weeks.
Mr. Tucker proceeded with the staff's report on Urban Area Neighborhood Two:
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TWO
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Two, to the east of Route 29 North and south of the Rivanna River, is an
area of primarily single family detached housing at suburban densities. Together
with Neighborhood One it comprises the entire northern urban area, the most highly
developed area within the County. In the near future, it will also become the prime
commercial area for the county as well with the completion of the second of two malls
at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 north. This factor, plus the relative
availability of services and transportation continue to place developmental pressures
on the area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Specific recommendations from the plan for Neighborhood Two are equivalent to those
for Neighborhood One:
"High intensity development is shown along the Route 29 North corridor
to accommodate concentrated industrial, commercial, and major
institutional uses."
"A major employment cluster is recommended at the intersection of
Route 29 and Greenbrier Drive."
"The importance of the northern boundary of the Urban Area - the
South Fork of the Rivanna at Route 29 - cannot be overemphasized."
Tables 4 and 9 under Standards in the Plan.
One additional policy not mentioned previously is consideration of "a landscaping
program to enhance the Route 29 approach to the Urban Area ... initiated in con-
junction with the private sector."
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Neighborhood Two is clearly demarcated on all of its sides. The South Fork of the
Rivanna River borders it on the north, while the Rivanna itself borders it on the
east. The Charlottesville City line borders it on the south and it is constrained on
the west by Route 29 North.
Unlike that for Neighborhood One, the discussion in this section of Neighborhood Two
will not include the flood plain of the river on its eastern bomder. This flood
plain is to be considered as open space, or nondevelopable land. Less intensive uses
such as agriculture or recreation are suitable for land of this type. The flood
plain was excluded from this plan simply due to the size limitations of the 8 1/2" x
11" format on the 1" x 2000' USGS quad base maps used for the study.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
The entire neighborhood lies within the Rivanna watershed to the east of the
impoundment district for the reservoir. A central ridge line which forms a
break in the watershed, follows Rio Road south from Route 29 to a point just
west of the Southern Railway line.
All land directly to the south of this ridge drains to Meadow Creek on the
southern border. All land to the east of this ridge drains to the Rivanna. The
area to the north within the neighborhood boundaries, which contains the four
subdivisions of Carrsbrook, Woodbrook, Westmoreland, and Northfields drains
north to the South Fork of the Rivanna after it has crossed under 29 North. Out
of these subdivisions, only Woodbrook has centralized wastewater treatment in
the Woodbrook Lagoon.
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
027
Soils and Geology
Neighborhood Two is composed of two general soil associations: (1) the Culpeper-
Albemarle-Louisburg Association which covers all except the extreme southeastern
corner of the neighborhood; and (2) the Davidson-Starr Association. The latter
has a more clayey surface soil than the former and is more productive when used
for agricultural purposes. The Davidson-Starr Association is the only associa-
tion rated as having only slight limitations'for both construction and septic
field use. The Culpeper-A!bemarle-Louisburg is rated at moderate limitations in
both categories.
Geological formations underlying the region include from west to east (1) the
Lynchburg formation; (2) the Johnson Mill formation; (3) an amphibolite dike;
(4) the Charlottesville formation; (5) the Swift Run formation; and (6) the
Catoctin formation. Ground water yields from the Lynchburg, Charlottesville,
and Catoctin formations average only a few gallons per minute. Water extracted
from the Johnson Mill formation is unpalatable due to the concentrations of
pyrite. Amphibolite dikes are too dense and hard to be easily drilled and
supply little water. The Swift Run formation provides excellent ground water
supplies when drilled close to its contact with the overlying green stone of the
Catoctin formation (see Neighborhood Four).
Forestation and Vegetation
The forests in Neighborhood Two are either located in undeveloped areas o~ stand
as buffers between the subdivisions that already exist. The area in the ~outh-
western corner of the neighborhood is thickly wooded and should be maintained to
the extent possible during the construction of the proposed Branchlands Planned
Unit Development. The areas to the east of the Southern Railway line that are
primarily undeveloped are also heavily wooded. One other system of forests runs
throughout the northwestern area of the~neighborhood forming buffers between the
four subdivisions. These buffers also follow stream ways and should be treated
with great care in any development of the area.
Vegetation or landscaping should be encouraged along the central Rio Road
corridor throughout the neighborhood and specifically near the commercial areas
by the mall, and at the railroad intersection, and along the road near Squire
Hill.
Slope and Relief
Neighborhood Two is one of the more level neighborhoods in the Urban Area,,
falling from a height of approximately 500 feet above mean sea level at Rio Road
and Squire Hill to something below 400 feet at the Rivanna River, over a dis-
tance of 7000 feet at its shortest point. Areas of relatively steep slope occur
at the edge of the flood plain on the sides of the shallow plateau which com-
prises the largest portion of the neighborhood. This represents a fairly gentle
terrain for development purposes.
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
Population
Using the 1977 aerial photographs of Neighborhood Two and the 1976 Land Use
Survey, a count of 1259 dwelling units is obtained for an estimated population
of 3903 persons in that year. This population was concentrated in the multi-
family development of Squire Hill and Stonehenge and the large subdivisions in
the northern area of the neighorhood.
Census Enumeration District 6 is used to approximate the characteristics of the
population in Neighborhood Two. The district extends beyond the Neighborhood's
borders to the east and includes the rural subdivision of Key West on Route 29
North. The count of persons equaled a total of 2528 in 1970. There was a high
percentage of very young children (36.8%) and a very low percentage of young
adults (12.4%) suggesting an established family neighborhood. This is further
corroborated by the large figure (86.9%) representing owner tenancy. The
neighborhood is also predominantly white, ranking second behind Neighborhood Six
in percentage in this category.
OZ8
September 5, 1979' (Regular - Night Meeting)
Urban Area z~ap 2A
Neighborhood Two
Existing Land Use
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Open Space
Scale
1"- 2000'
,4
./
~,l~'"J, ¥
18
Land Use
Neighborhood Two is primarily an area of single family detached residences
contained in subdivisions (Carrsbrook, Woodbrook, Northfields, and Westmore-
land), and stretched along the Rio Road corridor from north to south. Higher
density residential land uses are found in Squire Hill (behind the Fashion
Square Mall) and in Stonehenge (extreme southern section of the neighborhood).
Neighborhood commercial land is located at the intersection of Rio Road and
Greenbrier Drive. Regional commercial land runs along Route 29 North contin-
uously from the southern edge of the Neighborhood to the edge of the Woodbrook
subdivision. There are three schools within the neighborhood (Woodbrook Ele-
mentary, Holy Comforter, Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical) representing
institutional uses, and one established park (Penn Park) in the southeastern
corner of the area.
O29
Septembe~_~_~ (~egular - Night Meeting)
Urban Area Map 2B
Neighborhood Two
Existing
KEY
Zoning
· 3&8
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Planned Residential
Neighborhood
AgricUltural
Scale
1"- 2000'
B
19
1750 acres out of 2600 have already been developed,
zon for the neighborhood includes four areas of A-1 zoned land:
north of the Westmoreland subdivision; (2) the open space between Woodbrook and
Northfields; and (3) the area surrounding Penn Park. One large area, including
all the subdivision in the northwestern section is zoned R-1. R-2 zoning exists
in three general areas: (1) the major portion of the land east of the Southern
Railway; (2) a small portion behind the Branchlands Planned Unit Development;
and (3) two small portions surrounding the Fountain Court apartment complex
across from the neighborhood commercial on Rio Road. R-3 is found in four
areas: (1) behind the Albemarle Square shopping center; (2) in the area of
Squire Hill; (3) Fountain Court; and (4) in the extreme southern part of the
neighborhood near the City/County line. Four areas are presently zoned for
commercial uses: (1) a strip running along the length of Route 29 from the
neighborhood's northern border to the entrance to Branchlands; (2) the area
beginning on the other side of Branchlands to the southern border of the neigh-
borhood; (3) the neighborhood commercial area at the Rio-Greenbrier intersection;
and (4) an area surrounded by the R-3 district in the southern portion of the
growth area near the end of Rio Road. Two planned unit developments exist: (1)
Branchlands on Route 29; and (2) Wildwood near the southern end of Rio Road.
Proposed land use under the Comprehensive Plan calls for low-medium and high
density residential, large scale commercial, two neighborhood centers, and open
space.
030
September '5,1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Urban Area Map 2C
-Neighbbrhood TWo
Proposed Land Use- Plan
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
commercial
Neighborhood Center
Open Space
348
Scale ~
1"- 2000' -"-
20
Community Facilities
As previously mentioned, Neighborhood Two contains its own elementary school
(Woodbrook). The remainder of the children attend Jack Jouett and Albemarle
High in Neighborhood One. Penn Park, on land owned and maintained by the City
of Charlottesville, is located in the southern corner of the area. Ail health,
library, police and fire protection services originate from the City.
The road network in Neighborhood Two is ancillary to the two main carriers,
Route 29 and Rio Road. Secondary roads serving all residential areas break off
from these roads making them the major collectors. As a result of the high
traffic counts and unsafe conditions on Rio Road, plans are being prepared for a
major collector which will carry this large traffic demand from north of the
City into Charlottesville. This collector will most likely tie into Rio Road
and run parallel to the Southern tracks south into the City. Final plans have
not yet been completed. This road should provide a major source of access for
all types of use, pedestrian, bicycle and automobile.
Of the many developments in Neighborhood Two, Stonehenge, Rio Heights, Squire
Hill and Wildwood are served by the Meadow Creek wastewater treatment plant.
The Woodbrook subdivision has its own lagoon, and Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and
Northfields are served by septic systems. Water lines serving the neighborhood
run along Route 29 and Rio Road. Northfields, Westmoreland and Carrsbrook
subdivisions form a loop from Rio Road back to Route 29.
_ ~SePt~.m~er__~5 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Housing
The average value of owner occupied housing in Neighborhood Two ($39,471) in
1970 was the highest of the seven urban neighborhoods. Ninety-one and two-
tenths percent of the housing was valued at over $25,000. The neighborhood also
has the highest percentage of owner occupied units (72.4%). The area does have,
however, a high count of units that are overcrowded and lack one plumbing
facility (11.9%).
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
Map 2D illustrates the recommended land use plan for Neighborhood Two.
Urban Area ~p 2o
N~ghborhood Two
Proposed Land Use - Detail
Low Density Residential
Medium Densi~y Residential
High Density Residential
KEY
Low-Medium Density
CommerCial
Commercial Office
Open Space
Scale
1"- 200O'
21
The plan calls for low density residential where it presently exists in the north-
western corner of the neighborhood, and in an area in the southeastern corner west of
Rio Road. A medium density residential area with a recommended density of six dwelling
units per acre is suggested for the vacant land to the east of the Southern Railway
and northeast of Rio Road. Other medium density (10 dwelling units/acre maximum)
areas are recommended behind Albemarle Square, in the Branchlands northern section,
and on the southern part of Rio Road to the west. High density is recommended to be
recognized at the Squire Hill complex. Commercial space is located on Route 29 at
the northern border, near the Rio Road intersection, south of Branchlands, at the
Rio-Greenbrier Road intersection, along Rio Road to the north across from the Char-
lottesville-Albemarle Technical School, and in the extreme southern portion just at
the end of Rio Road. ComMercial Office space is located along Route 29 North at the
northern border of
03!
032
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Nig~ht Meeting)
area north of Westmoreland, the area between Northfields and Woodbrook, the area
between Northfields and Rio Road, the southern portion of the Branchlands area, and
the proposed McIntire Road extension corridor. The area in the flood plain and along
the slopes is also recommended as open space.
Suggested road improvements include the McIntire Road Extension and a road loop
around the Albemarle Square shopping area tying Branchlands together with Squire Hill
and the land north of Rio Road.
PLAN IMPACTS
The Plan impacts three different residential categories not including high density.
The two medium density categories are differentiated in the Table. There is no
recommended industrial land in Neighborhood Two.
Table 2A
Impacts of Land Development
Residential - Low (1-4 du/acre)
Residential - Medium-Low (6 du/acre)
Residential - Medium (5-10 du/acre)
Residential - Total
Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
TOTAL
People Dwelling Units
1500 5OO
7380 2460
510 170
939O B130.
Acres
200
410
20
-~30
3O
2O
0
Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning Commission's recommendations on Neighborhood Two as
follows:
(Submitted in written form, Virginia Land Company, July 26, 1979.)
a. Property located to the north of the South Fork of the Rivanna
River to the east of the Southern Railway, shown outside of the
Urban Area boundary. Request is for one unit per acre or "low
density residential."
b. Property located to the east of the Southern Railway north of
Rio Road, shown on present proposal as "low-medium density
residential." Request is for "low density residential" designation.
c. Property located to the north of Penn Park off Route 768, shown on
present proposal as "low-medium density residential." Request is
for designating this property "high density residential."
The Planning Commission did not recommend granting any of these requests.
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property along Route 29 North
adjacent to Branchlands PUD, shown on present proposal as "commercial
office." Request simply stated concern over designation of land in t'he
PUD area, calling for "commercial" uses along the portion facing
Route 29 North. The Planning Commission recommended a combination of
"commercial" and "commercial office" in this area represented by a
checkerboard.
(Submitted in written form, Margaret B. Pullen, August 3, 1979.) Property
to the north of Woodbrook Shopping Center, east of Route 29 North, shown
on present proposal as "low density residential." .Request is for
recognizing existing zoning of "commercial." (Also submitted by J. W.
Wright, Jr., August 3, 1979.) The Planning Commission recommended that
land immediately adjacent to Carrsbrook Drive be designated "commercial
office", and that land to the south be designated as "commercial" and
"commercial office" in combination.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much commercial zoning there would be on both sides of Route
29 North if the Planning Commission's recommendations are followed. Mr. Tucker said he
was not sure, but would check.
The public hearing was opened on Neighborhood Two. Mrs. Nancy O'Brien asked if the
proposed Meadow Creek Parkway extends past the urban area boundaries. Mr. Tucker said the
CATS study is showing under Alternative Four an eastern bypass that extends from the
Meadow Creek Parkway all the way to Hollymead.
There was no other member 0f the public present to speak on Neighborhood Two.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report on Urban Area Neighborhood Three:
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD THREE
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Three, directly east of the City of Charlottesville, is primarily a
commercial/industrial area. The neighborhood is cut off from the rest of the County
Urban Area by the riverbed of the Rivanna and has adopted a somewhat separate identity
.more similar to the commercial/industrial area within the City itself. The combined
City, County, and rural areas within this corridor leading eastfmake up the 1-64/
Route 250 East development area. The importance of this corridor in the past has
depended heavily on its use as an "entrancei" to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Urban
Area from 1-64 East and Richmond. In the future, activity in the area will depend
more on local industrial or large scale commercial traffic, creating a wider range of
land uses than are presently found in the neighborhood.
September~5_ 1 _'9 (Re_~r - Night meeting_)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Two specific plan objectives are outlined for Neighborhood Three:
"Special planning efforts will be required to retard the expansion
of the Urban Area east into the 1-64 east corridor."
"A major employment cluster is recommended at the 1-64 and Route
250 East interchange."
Standards are located in Tables 4 and 9 in the Comprehensive Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Neighborhood Three is bordered on the north, west, and south by the Rivanna River,
which represents the City/County line. The area extends east as far as the 1-64/
Route 250 East intersection. On the northeastern side, the Southwestern Mountains
provide a barrier of steep, wooded terrain, squeezing the neighborhood into an area
of shallow slopes leading to the River. The neighborhood also extends up Route 20
North to an arbitrary point south of the Key West Subdivision. This cut-off was
suggested by the nature of existing development; south of this line, commercial and
institutional uses are found, while north of the line, large, rural home lots are
more prevalent.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
Neighborhood Three lies in the Rivanna Watershed. The drainage patterns of the
area reflect the general slope off the Southwestern Mountains west and south to
the Rivanna itself. Pantops Mountain, at the center of the neighborhood,
separates the area into two minor watersheds, one flowing northwest, the other
south. The largest stream is Hickman's Branch which flows roughly parallel to
Route 250 in the southern area of the neighborhood, and passes under 1-64 to
join the Rivanna at the southern border.
Soils and Geology
Two soils associations can be found in the area: (1) the Davidson-Starr Assoc-
iation; and (2) the Davidson-Stony Land Association. This latter association
occurs in the neighborhood only on the steeper slopes of the Southwestern Moun-
tains. The Davidson-Starr Association has good suitability for agriculture, but
is limited by its slope. The Davidson-Stony Land Association is of marginal
value for agriculture.
Development restrictions are slight for the former association and severe for
the latter in both categories.
The geology of the area is a Catoctin Greenstone formation, which extends the
entire length of the County. This rock is very dense and produces low yields of
water. According to the Geology and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County,
1962, by the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, '"t'h~ numerous estates
located on the eastern side of Southwestern Mountain ... receive their water
from the many springs located (on the mountain)."
Forestation and Vegetation
The neighborhood has a large amount of open land. Vegetation exists primarily
along the River, and along the slopes at the bottom of the Southwestern Moun~
tains. Other areas that are covered include: (1) a large square forested
section in the center of the neighborhood; (2) an area of forest between Route
20 north and the River; (3) a small area of forest to the north of Route 250 as
it ascends Pantops Mountain. This latter cover extends from the mountains to
the roadway at the top of Pantops Mountain and serves as a border or visual
cutoff between the northern and southern portions of the neighborhood. Commercial
areas on the western side of Pantops are for the most part unscreened.
Slope and Relief
As discussed in the section on Hydrology, the neighborhood generally slopes off
from the mountains to the river, northeast to south/southwest. Pantops Mountain
at the center of the neighborhood creates what amounts to a ridge line separating
the northern side from the southern. The River, where it flows through the
neighborhood, is at a line less than 300 feet above sea level, while Pantops is
greater than 600. The drop between the two closest points thus falls 300 feet
over about 2200 feet of horizontal difference.
Steep slopes, as mapped in the plan, occur on the Southwestern Mountains and,
south of the neighborhood, on Carter Mountain. These slopes affect runoff into
the neighborhood, yet do not exceed its borders.
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
Population
Neighborhood Three is the least heavily populated of the seven urban Area
neighborhoods. According to aerial photographs there were 38 dwelling units in
the neighborhood in 1977, for an estimated population of 118. The main concen-
trations occur near the 1-64/Route 250 East interchange, and near the Route 250
East/Route 20 North intersection. Commercial traffic in the area is of course
034
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting) ......
Census information for 1970 on Neighborhood Three is provided by Enumeration
District 13. This district includes not only the neighborhood area, but also
land east of Route 20 well beyond the northern neighborhood border, and also
some additional land south of the neighborhood. This district has evenly
distributed age cohorts with a smaller than average 15 - 24 group and a larger
than average below 15 group. The area has a very high proportion of nonwhite _
(31.4%) and has a higher renter occupancy than the Urban Area average (44.6%
compared to 39.4%).
Land Use
1500 acres in Neighborhood Three, 440 acres are presently
Out
of
approximately
developed in some form or another (see Map 3a). The major portion of this land
includes the commercial land along Route 250 on the western side of Pantops
Mountain, and the commercial office land surrounding the State Farm Insurance
Building and Worrell NewspaPers off.Route 2~0 to_the south.near the.Rive~. The
residue of developed land is taken up in scattered residential uses.
KEY
- !
\
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Co~nercial
Commercial Office
Institutional
Open Space
28
BM 53~
Map 3A Urban Area
Neighborhood Three
Existing
Land Use
Scale
1" - 2000'
Existing zoning (see Map 3b)'calls for commercial over a large portion of the
neighborhood, commercial office at the State Farm site, industrial south of 1-
64, high density residential between the River and the commercial sections, and
along Route 20 North, and agricultural over the remaining land.
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
0:35
..!
KEY
High Density Residential
Comme rc ial
Commercial Office
Industrial
Agricultural
Map 3B Urban Area
Neighborhood Three
Existing
Zoning
Scale
1" - 2000'
Plan proposals for general land use include commercial, industrial, low density
residential, and open space near the River. The industrial (see Map 3c) is
located north of 1-64.
036
KEY
Low Density Residential
Co ero±a
Industrial
Open Space
Proposed
Map 3C Urban Area
Neighborhood Three
Land Use - Plan
Scale
1" - 2000'
Community Facilities
30
Children in the neighborhood presently attend the Greer Elementary, Jack Jouett
Middle School and Albemarle High School, located in Neighborhood One. There are
no established parks in the area.
Transportation in the neighborhood is centered around Route 250 from which
various secondary roads spinoff. Route 20 travels north to Stony Point, and
along with Virginia 1421 which turns back toward the River, provides a northern
loop within the Neighborhood. A loop consisting of private roads runs south
from the Route 250/Route 20 intersection to the State Farm site and back again
to Route 250. The Glenorchy development near the 1-64/Route 250 East interchange
contains the remaining state roads in the neighborhood.
The area is also served by JAUNT (Jefferson Area United Transportation), a
rural, fixed-route, mass-transit service. Routes within Neighborhood Three
include Route 20 twice a week, and Route 250 five times a week. Special requests
for pick up and delivery can be made of this service.
The area is presently not served wastewater treatment by the Service Authority.
The neighborhood does, however, represent the area in the County farthest to the
east that can still be served by sewage treatment at the proposed Moore's. Creek
Plant without additional expenditures for pump back. Water mains supplying the
area follow Route 250.
Housing
Data from the Census indicates that the neighborhood contains housing somewhat
below the value of housing in the Urban Area generally ($24,348 compared to
$35,104). It has the highest percentage of all the neighborhoods (33%) of
owner-occupied housing valued below $10,000. A quarter of all housing units
contain more than 1.0 person per room and lack a plumbing facility. The neigh-
borhood also contains the highest percentage (4.1%) of overcrowded dwelling
September 5 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
Map 3D illustrates the recommended land use plan for Neighborhood-Three. This map
should be used as a guide for development decisions which concern the area.
KEY
H±gh Dens±ty Res±dentlal
Commercial
Commercial Office
'Industrial
Open Space
Map 3D Urban Area
Neighborhood Three
Proposed Land Use
-Detail
Scale
1" - 2000'
31
Neighborhood Three will remain primarily commercial and commercial office/industrial.
High density residential is also recommended as appropriate. Commercial uses will be
confined primarily to the Route 250 corridor. Commercial office and industrial uses
will straddle 1-64 in the southern portion of the neighborhood. Residentia~ uses
will exist along the slopes of the Southwestern Mountains and on top of Pantops
itself. The northern portion of the neighborhood will be low density residential,
along with two areas in the southern portion. Open space areas follow the border of
the neighborhood near the Rivanna River.
Road improvements include: (1) the upgrading of Route 250 East from the city line to
the 1-64 interchange, as recommended in the Plan; and (2) the creation of a loop from
the Route 250 East/Route 20 North intersection, south and east to run into Route 250
just west of the Worrell property.
PLAN IMPACTS
Table 3A shows the impacts of this plan on total acreage and population figures.
038
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Table 3A
Impacts of Land Development
Neighborhood Three
Residential - Low (1 - 4 du/acre)
Residential - Medium (5 - 10 du/acre)
Residential - High (11 - 34 du/acre)
Residential - TOTAL
Commercial
Commercial Office
Industrial
TOTAL
Population Dwelling Units
Acreage.
1350 450 180
4275 1425 95
5625 1875. 275
160
70
75
58O
Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Commission's recommendations on Neighborhood Three as follc
(Submitted in written form, Richard P. Cogan, August 2, 1979.) Property to the .a
east of the intersection of 1-64 and Route 250, shown, on the present
proposal as lying outside the Urban Area boundary. Request is for an
extension of the boundary and the recognition of existing "commercial" uses
beyond the border on Route 250. This would extend the Urban Area as far
east as Shadwell Creek. The Planning Commission recommended granting this
request.
(Submitted in written form, Virginia Land Company, July 26, 1979.) Property
north and west of Route 250 east along the Rough Mountain range. Request is
to extend Urban Area border to recognize existing high density zoning. The
Planning Commission did not recommend granting this request.
The Planning Commission recommended that land to the south of 1-64 be
designated a combination of "commercial office" and "low density
residential."
Mr. Lindstrom requested that the staff calculate how much commercial acreage is shown
in Neighborhood Three and break that figure down into developed and vacant acreage.
The public hearing was opened on Neighborhood Three. Mr. James M. Hill was present
to represent Virginia Land Company. He said that Virginia Land has completed a lot of the
engineering work on their property on Pantops Mountain. Also~ water and sewer lines have
been installed through the whole area. Virginia Land does not agree with the Planning
Commission's recommendations and he asked that the Board reconsider their request (Recom-
mendation #2). Mr. Hill also said that there is a possibility of getting a rail siding on
the industrial site near !-64 and they are looking for an access out toward 1-64. There
is already an access under 1-64 to this property. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission
was not aware that the industrial site could obtain a rail siding.
There was no other member of the public present to discuss Urban Neighborhood Three.
Mr. Tucker proceeded with the staff's report on Urban Area Neighborhood Four as
follows:
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD FOUR
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Four is primarily a rural, undeveloped area to the south of the City of
Charlottesville. Due to the lack of services, includ~ing commercial, public and
transportation facilities, the neighborhood has not experienced the type of population
expansion occuring in other sectors of the Urban Area. Future development appears
likely, however, as the Fifth Street Extension and the new regional wastewater treat-
ment facility are completed sometime around 1982. These together will provide the
necessary infrastructure for channeling some of the County's growth south of the
City.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Specific recommendations taken from the Plan include:
Along with Neighborhoods 5 and 6, Neighborhood 4 offers "the best
opportunities for well-organized (land use) due to (its) predomi-
nantly undeveloped nature. No public development decisions should
be made prior to preparation of detailed plans involving residents,
parties of interest, and the County."
"...an area (where borders) are not well defined and where special
efforts will be required to retard the sprawl of the Urban Area
exists along the Route 20 South corridor."
Standards in Tables 4 and 9 of the Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Neighborhood Four stretches from the Rivanna River in the northeast to Biscuit Run on
the southwest. The area is bordered on the north by Moore's Creek and its flood
plain, on the east by Carter Mountain, on the west and south by Lake Reynovia and
Biscuit Run. and ends at an arbitrary point along Route 20 South approximately two
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
on the north and east. Expansion south of the neighborhood is still possible, however,
necessitating an artificial border for the purposes of containment. Neighborhood
Four runs directly into Neighborhood Five to the west eliminating any need for a
natural or imposed border for development in that area.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
Neighborhood Four drains northward into Moore's Creek which in turn flows east
to the Rivanna River. It lies within the Rivanna Watershed which is not an
impoundment district. The largest stream, Biscuit Run, a major stream fed
partially by Lake Reynovia, comprises the neighborhood's western border. Smaller
streams running parallel to each other are spread' through the interior of the
neighborhood.
The Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the northeast corner
of the neighborhood. This is the location of the future regional wastewater treat
merit plant which will consolidate much of the sewer treatment in the County.
Soils and .Ge.o~o~y
There are two main soil associations in Neighborhood Four, and traces of a third
on Carter Mountain just outside the eastern border of the area. This latter
association is the Davidson-Stony Land Association. The reader is referred to
Neighborhood Three for details on its characteristics. The two primary associa$
tions are (1) the Davidson-Starr Association, and (2) the Culpeper-Albemarle-
Louisburg Association. The former aSsociation has excellent agricultural pro-
ductivity especially as grassland, while the latter is usually limited by soil
depth and slope.
Developmental limitations, dealing with construction capacity limits and suita-
bility for septic fields, are slight for the DaVidson Association and moderate
for the Culpeper Association.
The neighbOrhood is underlain by two geological formations:
and (2) the Swift Run Formation.
(1) the Catoctin,
"Wells drilled into the eastern belt of the Swift Run formation produce excellent
yields of water if drilled into the lower 600 feet of coarse quartzitic sandstone,
or if drilled through the contact between the Swift Run and the overlying
Catoctin greenstone." (Note: Geology. and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County,
Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1962.) Wells drilled in the Catoctin
formation itself produce very low yields of water.
Forestation and Vegetation
The neighborhood has three different zones of vegetation: (1) the western strip
running southwest-northeast which is heavily wooded extending as far as Virginia
Route 742; (2) the middle section, from Virginia Route 742 to Route 20, comprised
of alternating open and covered areas, which., however, is primarily unwooded;
and (3) the section to the east of Route 20, where the Southwestern Mountain
starts, and which is again heavily wooded. The major portion of development
occurs within the middle of the three sections. 'If new development were to
occur in the outlying section, it would be possible to maintain the existing
vegetation as borders and buffers, thus mollifying the impact of the development
on the neighborhood.
Slope and Relief
A series of shallow ridges running southwest to northeast, parallel to the
existing streams, separates the western half of the neighborhood into three
drainage areas. The portion of the neighborhood east of Route 20 consists of
the shallow bottom slopes of Carter Mountain. The highest points in the area'
occur along this slope, somewhat in excess of 600 feet, and on a small peak in
the southwest central area of the neighborhood, also somewhere in excess of 600
feet above mean sea level. The lowest point, 300 feet above mean sea' level,
occurs at the site of the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Slopes that are "critical", as defined and mapped in the Comprehensive Plan,
occur on Carter Mountain outside of the neighborhood's boundaries.
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
P.opulation
From a count of 71 dwelling units in Neighborhood Four in 1977, an estimated
population of 220 persons is derived. The population is scattered in small
pockets throughout the area, and along Virginia Route 742.
Census data for the neighborhood is taken from Enumeration District 12 which
extends as far south as Virginia Route 708 and. includes almost three times as
much land area as is found within the Urban Area neighborhood's boundaries. The
major deviation from Urban Area percentages is found in the 45 - 64 age category
where the neighborhood doubles the Urban Area percentage (25.4% compared to
12.8%).
Land Use
Neighborhood Four contains a wide variety of existing land uses ranging from
industrial to low density residential (see Map 4A). Approximately 500 out of
the 2100 acres in the neighborhood show some development, or approximately one-
fourth of the area. This estimate is high for this neighborhood due to the v~v
040
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Virginia Community College on Route 20, and along Route 20 South on the hills
below Carter Mountain. Commercial uses are located on Carter Mountain at the
Michie Tavern complex, and scattered in the southern area of the neighborhood
where Virginia Route 742 and Route 20 approach their intersection. No well-
defined neighborhood commercial area exists for Neighborhood Four. Industrial
uses are located just north of 1-64 on Virginia Route 742; and on the piece of
land lying between Virginia Route 742 and Route 20 South in the southern portion
of the neighborhood. A number of institutions operate in the area including:
(1) the Blue Ridge Sanitorium; (2) the Piedmont Virginia Community College; (3)
the Tandem School~ (4) the National Guard Armory; and (5) the AlbemarleCharlot-
tesville Joint Security Complex.
%
Existing zoning (see Map 4B) for the neighborhood is overwhelmingly A-1 for
agricultural uses. Industrial zoning exists north of 1-64 along Virginia Route
742, and in the area between Route 742 and Route 20 in the southern area of the
neighborhood. Across from the former zone stands a large Planned Unit Devel-
opment that straddles the City/County l~ne. Some small RS-1 zones exist near
the intersection of Virginia Route 742 and Route 20 South.
September 5~19_79 (Regular - Night Meeting)
04-!
0 0
,-q 0 Il}
Proposed land use under the Comprehensive Plan (see Map 4C) includes a com-
mercial center between medium density residential and industrial areas on
Virginia Route 742. Other areas in the neighborhood are low density resid-
ential, institutional, and park open space.
042
September'Sm_~9_7_9_ (R~e~_ular - ~N_i~eting~)
Community Facilities
There are no parks or schools in Neighborhood Four. Children from the area
attend Rose Hill Elementary School (physically located in the City), Jack Jouett
Middle School and Albemarle High School, both located in Neighborhood One. Ail
health, library, police and fire protection services are supplied to the Urban
Area neighborhoods by facilities located in the City of Charlottesville or on
Route 29 North.
The neighborhood's road system, along with the topographical character of the
area, runs northeast-southwest with two roads, Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street
Extended) and Route 20 South (Monticello Road). Very few roads run perpendicular
to this system, making access to the three interior sections of the neighborhood
difficult. Access from the industrial area on Virginia Route 742 in the northern
part of the neighborhood to the interstate highway is also difficult as a result
of this pattern. Route 53 travels east up the side of Carter Mountain and
serves Michie Tavern and Monticello.
Additional wastewater treatment for the neighborhood is presently under a mora-
torium, and will probably remain so until the completion in 1982 of the new
regional Moore's Creek facility. Public water is available on the northern
sections of Virginia Route 742 and Route 20 South.
Housing
The Census information for Neighborhood Four includes a number of dwelling units
found outside of the Urban Area to the south. The average value of owner-
occupied units is the lowest of the seven neighborhoods ($18,652). The neigh-~
borhood also contains a large number of units lacking one or more plumbing
facilities (see Table Al).
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
0'4'3
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
The guide for land use in Neighborhood Four, as formulated in meetings between staff
and citizens, contains lands in seven different categories: (1) low density residential
covering the vast majority of the neighborhood; (2) medium density residential along
Virginia Route 742 south of 1-64; (3) high density residential north of 1-64 and west
of Virginia Route 742; (4) commercial to the south of 1-64 and east of Virginia Route
742 and west of Virginia Route 7'42 north of 1-64; (5) industrial in its two existing
locations on Virginia Route 742 and in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood;
(6) institutional also in pr~esent locations; and (7) green space west of Virginia
Route 742 and in small areas north of 1-64.
PLAN IMPACTS
Table 4A illustrates the impact of this plan on acreages in the different categories
of land use, and the projection of potential populations.
Table 4A
Impacts of Land Development
Neighborhood Four
Residential - Low (1 - 4 du/acre)
Residential - Medium (5 - 10 du/acre)
Residential - High (11 - 34 du/acre)
Residential - TOTAL
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
Population Dwelling Units Acres
4275 1425 570
78? 263 35
2025 675 45
60~7 2363 -E;5O
5
45
7OO
04'4
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Nig_ht Meetin~
Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning CommisSion's recommendation on Urban Area Neighbor-
hood Four as follows:
(Submitted in written form, Virginia Land Company, July 26, 1979.) Property locat~
between Avon Street Extended and Route 20, shown on present proposal as "low
density residential." Request is for "medium density" designation for the major
portion of this property with some "commercial" located on the Avon Street
Extended site. The Planning Commission recommended granting the request for
"commercial" land, however, did not change the "low density" to "medium density
residential."
Mr. Tucker said the CATS study is proposing a new road running from Route 20 South to
Avon Street Extended (Route 742) and then continuing from Avon Street to Fifth Street
(Route 631). That connection has been added to the map for Neighborhood Four. Mr. Dorrier
said he felt that the industrial and residential areas as shown on the map are compatible.
At this time, the public hearing was opened on Urban Area Neighborhood Four. Mr.
Bill Stevens said he has an interest in the Willoughby property and asked if there are any
changes in density proposed for this property. Mr. Tucker said no; this map reflects the
overall densities approved under the PUD plan for Willoughby.
There was no other member of the public present to speak on this neighborhood plan.
Mr. Tucker continued with the staff report on Urban Area Neighborhood Five as follows:
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Five, south of the City, is primarily a residential area, alternating
wooded and open space with developments that vary from rural suburban to high density.
The importance of the area stems largely from its proximity and access to the Univer-
sity and the downtown business district. In the future, Neighborhood Five, along
with Neighborhoods Three, Four, and Six will absorb a larger share of the residential
and commercial expansion within the 'Urban Area. As is pointed out in the Comprehen-
sive Plan, any present planning of the land use and service infrastructure in the
neighborhoods will alleviate many of the adverse impacts that become possible when
developmental pressures exist.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Plan objectives for Neighborhood Five include:
"No public development decisions should be made prior to preparation of
detailed plans involving residential, parties of interest, and the County."
'A major employment cluster is recommended at the 1-64 and Route 29 South
intersection."
Standards in Tables 4 and 9 from the Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Neighborhood Five extends from Biscuit Run, which is the border between Neighborhoods
Four and Five, to Route 29 South, the border between Five and Six. The northern
border of the neighborhood is a line which follows the flood plain for Moore's Creek,
while the southern border is a line which breaks off from Biscuit Run, turns directly
west toward Piney Mountain, and then runs northwest to Route 29 following the edge of
the critical slope areas on Piney and Britts Mountains. The area is thus contained,
in major part, by distinct natural or man-made borders.
An interior border of undeveloped wooded land and moderately steep slopes cuts off
the Sherwood Farms Subdivision in the western half of the neighborhood from Oak Hill,
Country Green, and Sherwood Manor in the eastern half. The Southwood MObile Home
Park is also bordered by woods on all sides. These borders have created "sub-neigh-
borhoods'' within the existing Urban Area neighborhood.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
The neighborhood, as mentioned above, can be divided into two sections, east and
west, with the dividing line being a ridge of hills halfway between Virginia
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) and Route 29 South. West of the line the neigh-
borhood drains north directly to Moore's Creek. East of this line the neighbor-
hood drains east into Biscuit Run, which in turns flows north to Moore's Creek.
The neighborhood does not lie within an impoundment district, but is a part of
the Rivanna Watershed.
Soils and Geology
Neighborhood Five has two soil associations within its boundaries: (1) the
Culpeper-Albemarle-Louisburg Association; and (2) the Hayesville-Dyke-Tusquittee
Association. Both associations are limited for agricultural use by their slope
and shallowness.
Both soils have moderate limitations when analyzed for building capability and
Sept~m~_er 5__1979 (Regular - Nig~in~-'~! .......
045
The geology of the neighborhood resembles that of-Neighborhood Two both in its
complexity and its makeup. There are six different formations in the area,
including: (1) the Charlottesville Formation (with six or more metapyroxenite
dikes) in the eastern half of the neighborhood; (2) the Johnson Mill Formation;
(3) the Lynchburg Formation (restricted); (4) the Rockfish Conglomerate; (5) the
Lovingston Formation with injections of igneous rocks; and in between the
Johnson Mill and Lynchburg Formations (6) an amphibolite dike. The latter five
formations lie in the above order east to west beginning just to the east of
Piney Mountain. The Johnson Mill Formation produces no palatable water; the
Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Lovingston formations produce only limited
quantities; and the Rockfish Conglomerate produces a fairly high yield of water.
Amphibolite dikes are very dense in structure, making wells possible only at
their contact with adjacent metamorphic rocks where "numerous joints and fractures
generally exist."
Forestation and Vegetation
Many of the important stands of vegetation were discussed in the Borders section.
Different sections of the neighborhood are divided by large stands of timber
which tend to isolate the separate developments. Traveling east to west within
the neighborhood on Virginia Route 631, one first passes through a single-family
detached neighborhood which is cut-off from a high density apartment complex to
the east and two mobile home courts to the west and south by thick stands of
timber. A band of open fields runs south from the apartment complex toward the
lake system to the east of Piney Mountain. The remainder of the neighborhood is
forested, which, in turn, separates the Sherwood Farms Subdivision in the
western part from the development described above. Borders in these areas
should be maintained, first as green space, and second as boundaries protecting
the character of the subneighborhoods.
Slope and Relief
The neighborhood abuts Piney and Britts Mountains to the southwest, both of
which are mapped in the Plan as having a critical slope in excess of 15%.
However, the slopes do not exist within the boundary of the neighborhood itself.
The extension of this ridge into the neighborhood marks the highest elevation
(714 feet above mean sea level) in the area. From this point the land slopes
east and west to the stream beds at either end of the neighborhood. The lowest
elevation, equalling something less than 400 feet above mean sea level~ can be
found at the Biscuit Run stream on the eastern border. This represents a drop
of 300 plus feet over an approximate distance of 8000 feet.
M~n-Made Land Use De~ilerminants
Population
Neighborhood Five had 861 dwelling units in 1977 (aerial photographs, development
information) for an estimated population of 2669 persons. This population is dis-
tributed in four major areas: ~(1) the Oak Hill Subdivision along Virginia Route 631;
(2) the Country Green/Sherwood Manor apartment/townhouse complex on 01d Lynchburg
Road~ (3) the Southwood Mobile Home Park on Old Lynchburg Road in the southern part
of 'the neighborhood; and (4) the Sherwood Farms subdivision in the western part of
the neighborhood off Route 29 South.
1970 Census data for the neighborhood includes land south of the present Urban Area
boundaries as well as the urban neighborhood itself. The appropriate enumeration
district is district number 11. The area has a very high percentage (30.1%) of
children below 15 years of age, and a very low percentage of young adults between 15-
24 (16.4%). The neighborhood has the highest proportion of~nonwhites (21.5%) Within
the Urban Area. The neighborhood is also primarily comprised of owner families.
Land Use
Out of approximately 1960 acres in Neighborhood Five, 480 are presently developed, or
25% of the total land area has been taken out of the land stock. Other than the two
small scale commercial centers, one in the Southwood Mobile Home Court and the other
across from Country Green, only residential uses exist in the neighborhood.
~~_ _ ........... _.= SeP.temb~er. 5~!979 _[Regular - Ni,gh~t _~eeting)_i
KEY ~
E]
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Open Space
44.
The existing zoning (see Map 5B) for Neighborhood Five shows:
Map 5A Urban Area
Neighborhood Five
Existing Land Use
Scale
- N - 1" - 20 00'
(1) large tracts of R--
3, high density residential, on both sides of I~64 and vi~gInia Route 631; (2)
commercial B-1 zoning near Oak Hill in two locations along Virginia Route 631 to the
north; (3) a small section of R-2, medium density residential to. the east of Virginia
Route 631 south of the intersection with Virginia Route 781; and (4) the residual
area, including Sherwood Farms and Southwood, in A-1 or agricultural zoning.
047
~eptember 5, 1979 (Re_gular - Night Meeting)~
KEY ~
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Open Space
45
Map 5B Urban
Neighborhood
Area
Five
Existing Zoning
Scale
1"- 2000'
Land uses proposed under the Comprehensive Plan include high density, medium density,
and low density residential all in their approximate present locations (see Map 5C).
Commercial, neighborhood centers are placed south of Route 631 and near the Sherwood
Farms subdivision. The remainder of the land is left in green space use.
O48
Co..m~unity Facilities
...... ;~Sept~m~er 5~:1979 (R~ular - Night Meeti_~_~_~--=
~ )Vl .
&4
Map 5¢ Urban Area
Neighborhood 'Five
Proposed Land Use- Plan
Scale
-N- 1"-- 2000'
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Neighborhood Center
Open Spacer Park (P)~ and
Institutional (I)
As in Neighborhoods Three, Four, and Six, all south of the City, no schools or estab-
lished parks can be found in Neighborhood Five. Students from the area attend Rose
Hill Elementary'School (physically located in the City of Charlottesville) and Jack
Jouett Middle School and Albemarle High School both located in Neighborhood One. Ail
health, library, police and fire protection are supplied by facilities located in the
City.
Roads in the neighborhood divide into two zones also. One set of roads serves the
Sherwood Farms subdivision. The second network, with access in three places in the
City, centers around the Country Green Apartment complex where 01d Lynchburg Road
turns south, parallel to Biscuit Run. These two systems are separated by the forested
ridge in the west-central part of the neighborhood.
As in all other neighborhoods south of the City, there presently exists a moratorium
on sewer connections pending the completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
plant on Moore's Creek. Water is supplied to the neighborhood by a 12-inch line
on Old Lynchburg Road which goes as far as Sherwood Manor and serves Country Green.
Housing
Neighborhood Five has a high percentage of owner-occupied units (45.6%) that are
valued at a low $20,007 per unit. It has the second highest percentage (28.8%) of
units valued below $10,000. The area also has the highest percentage of units
lacking one or more plumbing facility and units overcrowded lacking one or more
plumbing facility (23.8% and 41.3% respectively).
September ~5_, 19~(Reg~lar - Ni_ght Meet_ in_g)
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
Use Plan for Neighborhood Five is the result of a series of meetings~between
The
Land
planning staff, citizen committee members, and Planning Commission members. Their final
recommendations include (see Map SD): (1) Iow density residential in wide be2ts across
the southern and central portions of the neighborhood and in the triangle bordered by
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road), and 1-64; (2) medium density residential north of 1-64 to
the east of Sunset Avenue; (3) high density residential on either side of Route 631 near
the existing apartment complex; (4) commercial across from its present location on Route
631 and also on the eastern border of Sherwood Farms; and (5) green space in stream land
lake areas and as a buffer between Neighborhoods Five, Four, and the City.
Other recommendations include alterations to the aiig~ment o~ Route 631 and the construction
of a road linking the eastern half of the neighborhood with the west.
~1~ ' r
:~L.~ .'.~..'
. . . ,..o,,
KEY ~
PLAN IMPACTS
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Open Space, Park (P), &
Institutional (I)
47
Map 5D Urban Area
NeighborhOod; Five
Proposed Land USe- Detail
Scale
- 2000'
Table 5A illustrates the
Residential - Low (1-4 du/
Residential - Medium (5-1£
mpacts of the plan on acreages in each land use category.
Table 5A
Impact of Land Development
Neighborhood Five
acre)
du/acre)
Residential - High (11-34 du/acre
Residential - Total
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
Population
6675
675
1800
9150
Dwelling Units
2225
225
6OO
3050
Acres
890
30
40
9-~
7
050
Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning Commission's recommendation on Urban Area Neighborhoo~
Five as follows:
(Submitted in written form, Gaston and Mattie Lee Fornes, July 26, 1979.)
Property located north of 1-64 along Route 780 (Old Lynchburg Road), shown on
present proposal as "medium density residential." Request is for recognizing
existing zoning with a "high density residential" designation. The Planning
Commission recommended granting this request.
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property located south of 1-64 at the
Fifth Street interchange, shown on present proposal as "low density residential."
Request was for consideration of this property as future "commercial" land. This
would also recognize existing zoning in the area. The Planning Commission did
not recommend granting this request.
(Submitted in written form, Ben Minor Miller, August 7, 1979.) Property
located on the east of Route 29 South, south of 1-64, between Route 29 and Sunset
Avenue; shown on present proposal as "low density residential." Request is for
changing this to a combination of "commercial," "commercial office~" "high
tensity residential," and "low density residential." Presumably this is the
order of development from west to east with commercial at Route 29 and residential
facing Sunset Avenue. The Planning Commission did not recommend granting these ~a~
requests.
(Submitted in written form, Jan L. Perkowski, August 8, 1979; Robert
F. Selden, Jr., August 12, 1979; and C. E. Haney, August 15, 1979.)
Property surrounding the existing Sherwood Farms including a proposed
connector route between Route 29 and Route 631. Requests are for
maintaining the rural density that exiSts in the area, and for removing
the proposed connector from the detailed plan. The Planning Commission
recommended retaining the connector, establishing a buffer zone of
one-acre density to the south of the connector, and the exclusion
of the Sherwood Farms Subdivision from the Urban Area.
At this time, the public hearing was opened on Urban Area Neighborhood Five. Mr.
Gaston Fornes endorsed the idea of an east/west connector road south of the interstate.
He also felt that Old Lynchburg Road should be abandoned and a new road constructed. He
said that at present there are no houses on land on which the new road would be built and
no houses on the land where the proposed east/west connector road would be built.
There was no one else from the public present to speak on Neighborhood Five.
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SIX
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Six, on the western edge of the Urban Area, is one of seven urban neighborhoods
designated as prime growth areas for the accommodation of future County population. The
Plan points out that the neighborhood is one of three (4, 5, and 6) that offer the best
opportunities for land use organization due to their predominantly undeveloped nature.
These three neighborhoods together comprise the portion of the County south, southwest of
and contiguous to the City; they have not up to now been affected by the development
pressures apparent in the Route 29 North corridor. Their location near the 1-64 highway
corridor, however, and the depletion of the supply of developable land in other Urban Area
neighborhoods will make future development of these neighborhoods more probable.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Neighborhoods within the Urban Area are slated for a total combined population growth of
13,800 in three different residential density categories (see Table 9 in "Standards").
Ail development must be supported by public water and sewer and public roads (see Table
4).
Specific recommendations taken from the Plan for Neighborhood Six are:
"No public development decisions should be made prior to preparation of detailed
plans involving residents, parties of interest, and the County."
"A major employment cluster is recommended at the 1-64 and Route 29 South intersection.
"... an area (where borders) are not well defined and where special efforts will be
required to retard the sprawl of the Urban Area exists along the Route 250 West
corridor."
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Tha borders of Neighborhood Six, which is roughly equivalent to 1970 Census Enumeration
District 10, are a combination of natural and man-made boundaries. The neighborhood is
bordered on the north by Route 250 West, and on the south by Route 29 South. Lewis
Mountain and Mount Jefferson separate the neighborhood from the University area on the
east, while the Ragged Mountain forms its western border. The C & 0 Railroad parallels
Route 250 on the northern border, and the Southern Railway parallels 29 South.
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
051
Presently, the forested slope of the two mountains between the University and the neighbor-
hood provides a solid green belt separating the two areas. Steep wooded slopes on Ragged
Mountain fulfill the same function, limiting expansion of the Urban Area west into rural
agricultural lands surrounding the community of Ivy.
Natural Land-Use Detarminants
Hydrology
The majority of Neighborhood Six lies within the Rivanna Watershed which encompasses
all of the-City of Charlottesville and portions of the County's Urban Area. The
neighborhood area drains inward from the mountain ranges to the east and west to
Morey Creek, a small system of lakes and streams that cuts the neighborhood in two.
The Morey runs south to a confluence with Moores Creek and, as Moores Creek, runs
east to flow into the Rivanna.
The border between the South Fork Rivanna Watershed, which serves the South Fork
Reservoir, and the Rivanna Watershed occurs at the northern border to the neigh-
b~orhood. A small portion of the northwest corner of the neighborhood lies within the
South Fork Watershed and thus is governed by the regulations controlling runoff in an
impoundment district. The southwestern border of the neighborhood skirts the Ragged
Mountain impoundment area but does not exceed its border.
Soils and Geology
Soils information for the County is general. Information from the Albemarle Resource
Conservation Inventory, 1970, suggests that two soils associations can be found in
Neighborhood Six: (I) the Hayesville-Dyke-Tusquittee Association marked by deep,
well-drained, gently sloping to steep soils on foothills and col!uvial foot slopes;
and (2) the Cecil-Lloyd-Appling Association marked by deep, well-drained, gently
sloping to moderately steep soils on dissected Piedmont uplands. The latter as-
sociation has good productive potential for a wide range of agricultural uses, while
the former association has potential limited to grassland and orchards.
Development limitations for both soils associations are moderate at most with con-
struction constraints considered slight for the Cecil-L!oyd-Appling Association.
The neighborhood is underlain by two basic geological formations: (1) the Lovingston
Formation composed of coarse-grained quartz monzonite, variable in composition; and
(2) the Rockfish Conglomerate, 1,200-6,000 feet in thickness, composed of basel 100
foot boulder conglomerate followed by coarse metamorphosed sandstone. The Rockfish
Conglomerate, according to the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Bulletin on the
Geology. and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County, "produces a much higher yield of
water per well than the wells from any other formation with the exception of (one),
"while the Lovingston Formation has a much lower yield, sometimes producing only dry
wells.
Forestation and Vegetation
Close to two-thirds of the neighborhood are covered by forests of varying density.
A large area of open land runs south from the Route 250 West border to the 1-64
corridor, with the existing forestation running up the slopes to the east and west.
Some thinning of existing forests or new planting has occurred in the three sub-
divisions within the area (see Land Use).
In some areas, this vegetation provides a definitive border for the neighborhood.
Along the Route 29 South Bypass, residential areas to the west of the roadway are
thoroughly screened from traffic, as are those residences in the Bellair subdivision
near Route 250 West. Both limited access roads, Route 29 Bypass and 1-64, are
screened the length of their passage through the neighborhood.
~lope and Relief
The Rivanna Watershed flows east from the Urban Area. Morey Creek and Moores Creek,
which drain into the Rivanna from Neighborhood Six, flow south from the Ednam Forest
subdivision to the southern border between the County and the City. From north to
south, a distance of approximately 12,000 to 13,000 feet, the fall in elevation is
approximately 140 feet. The highest points in the neighborhood are Lewis Mountain in
excess of 860 feet, Mount Jefferson, also in excess of 860 feet, and two peaks on the
western border on either side of 1-64 both in excess of 840 feet.
Slopes in excess of 15%, as mapped in the Comprehensive Plan, occur in two sections
of the neighborhood: (1) the slopes of Lewis Mountain and Mount Jefferson to the
east of Route 29 Bypass; and (2) a small area in the southwestern portion of the
neighborhood, between 1-64 and Route 29 South.
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
Population
Population for the Urban Area neighborhoods is estimated by multiplying the number of
dwelling units observed in aerial photographs by a factor representing persons per
unit. This factor is taken from a table on household size found in the Plan, and
equals 3.1 persons per unit in 1980 and 3.0 persons per unit beginning in 1985.
Using 1970 Census information one can calculate a base ratio of 3.22 persons per
unit.
According to aerial photographs and a count of rental units in Albemarle County
prepared by the Planning Department staff in 1977, there are 673 dwelling units in
Neighborhood Six, or an estimated population of 2,086 people. This population is
distributed within the neighborhood in two distinct sections: (1) University Heights
Apartments near the commercial sector on Route 250 West, containing close to two-
thirds of the total; and (2) the larger space between Route 250 West and 1-64 con-
September 5, 1979 (Regular - night Meeting)
Data for Census Enumeration District 10 includes the population resident at the
University and thus is somewhat skewed toward those demographic characteristics.
When one subtracts the group quarters population of 2,896 from the of 1970 population
of 4,065, one arrives at a reasonable figure of 1,169 people in Enumeration District
10 outside of the University in 1970. A similar figure of 1,166 is obtained when one
multiplies the number of multi-family units completed under Phase I construction for
University Heights (136 - in 1969) plus the 226 single-family units by the 3.22 1970
persons per unit average. The major portion of population growth in the neighborhood
is due to the additional multi-family construction during the 1970's.
Land Use
Approximately one-third of the 2,800 acres (including stream/conservation areas) that
comprise Neighborhood Six are developed (see Map 6A). Residential developments
include the single-family subdivisions of Ednam Forest, Bellair, and Buckingham
Circle, and the multi-family apartment complex of University Heights. Developed
commercial land exists in four locations: (1) the south side of Route 250 West
approaching the University area; (2) on State Route 702 near the junction of 1-64 and
Route 29 Bypass; (3) on Route 29 just south of the intersection with 1-64 on the
northwestern side of the roadway; and (4) at the Boar's Head Inn complex and com-
mercial area-south of Route 250 West. Institutional land uses are represented in the
area by a facility located to the west of the Route 29 Bypass just to the north of 1-
64.
KEY ~
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space
Map 6A Urban Area
Neighborhood Six
Existing
Land Use
Scale
1"- 2000'
September 5~ 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting~)
053
Existing zoning (see Map 6B) calls for R-1 over a large central portion of the ne±gh-
borhood including the area across Route 29 Bypass on the slopes of Lewis Mountain and
Mount Jefferson. R-2 areas exist both off Route 250 West and State Route 702. One
R-3 district encompasses the existing multi-family development of University Heights
off Route 250 West, and one area of Residential Planned Neighborhood exists near the
R-2 district on Route 250. The remainder of the residential land in the neighborhood
is zoned A-1.
There are currently four areas in the neighborhood zoned for commercial uses: (1)
near the University Heights complex'on Route 250; (2) near the Ednam Forest sub-
division on Route 250; (3) on State Route 702 near the I-6~,Route 29 interchange; and
(4) in the triangle formed by Route 29 South and 1-64 West. There is no industrial
zoned land in the area.
KEY E~
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Commercial Office
Planned Residential Neighborhood
Agricultural
54
Map 6B Urban Area
Neighborhood Six
Existing
ZOning
Scare
f'- 2000'
Proposed land uses under the Comprehensive Plan (see Map 6C) include institutional
open space, low density residential, medium density residential, and commercial in a
neighborhood center on State Route 702.
054.
i
KEY E~'.
D
Low Density Residential
Medi~tmDensity Residential
Neighborhood Center
OPen Space~ park (P), and InStitutional (I)
55
;~p 6C Urban Area
Neighborhood Six
Proposed Land Use-Plan
Scale
1"-2000'
Community Facilities
There are no parks or elementary schools in Neighborhood Six. Children in the neigh-
borhood attend Greer, Jack Jouett, and Albemarle High School. Ail health, library,
police and fire protection services are supplied to the urban neighborhoods by
facilities located in the City of Charlottesville, or in the Route 29 North corridor.
The neighborhood has an abundance of primary and limited access roadway, but fe~.
secondary roads opening up the large areas of undeveloped land.
The neighborhood is presently served wastewater treatment by a sewer trunk line
feeding the regional Moores Creek Treatment Plant. The additional capacity of this
plant has been depleted for Albemarle County, however, and new connections have been
placed under a moratorium. Water is supplied to the area by a series of lines
located near Route 250 which have been extended south into the neighborhood.
Housing.
The majority of owner-occupied units (86%) in Neighborhood Six are valued, in 1970,
at over $25,000.00. Only three units out of a total of 501 lack any plumbing facil-
ities; only three units have 1.51 or more persons per room (used as an indicator of
overcrowding); and there are only 11 units that average more than one person per room
and also lack plumbing (an indicator used to determine need of housing assistance).
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
The Land Use Plan for Neighborhood Six is the result of a series of meetings between
planning staff, citizen committee members, and Planning Commission members. Their final
recommendations (see Map 6D) include: (1) low density residential throughout,~e majority
O55
the intersection of Route 29 and Virginia Route 702; (3) high density residential existing
along Route 250 West in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood; (4) commercial existing
at Ednam Forest, along Virginia Route 702, and south of 1-64 and west of Route 29 South;
(5) industrial on the north side of I-6~ at the interchange; (6) institutional existing
along the eastern side of Route 29 Bypass and north of the section of the Bypass between
Virginia Route 702 and the 1-64 interchange; and (7) open space along the stream and lake
system bordering the residential in the heart of the neighborhood and along the Steep
slopes to the west.
"7 o,,,~ 4C, ¥
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Open SPace, Park (P) f and
Institutional (I)
57
Map 6D Urban Area
Neighborhood Six
Proposed. Land Use - Detail
Scale
" 2 '
- 000
RecomMendations.under the Comprehensive Plan include the establishment of an employment
cluster at the 1-64/Route 29 South interchange, an area well-served by facilities including
water, sewer (after completion of Advanced Wastewater Treatment plant in 1983) and roads.
The committee felt that if industry were recommended it should be a light, research-
technical operation, well buffered by existing trees in order to maintain the residential
character of the area.
Road improvement suggestions include: (1) upgrading of Virginia Route 702 in the event of
increased traffic to a major employer; (2) improvements to the intersection at the entrance
to Bellair Subdivision off Route 250 West to eliminate a growing safety problem; and (3)
in the event of development of University owned property in the heart of the neighborhood
for residential dormotories, a separate exit directly onto Route 250 West to minimize the
impact on existing neighborhood residential streets. No connection between subdivisions
within the neighborhood is recommended.
PLAN IMPACTS
Table 6A illustrates the impacts of the above plan on acreage and population figures for
the neighborhood. Low density was averaged at two units per acre, while medium density
was averaged at 7.5 units per acre.
}56
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Table 6~
Impacts of Land Development
Neighborhood Six
Residential - Low (1-4 du/acre)
Residential - Medium (5-10 du/acre)
Residential - High (11-34 du/acre)
Residential - Total
Commercial
Industrial
TOTALS
Population
3810 351
788
0
4598
4598
Dwelling Units
1270
263
0
1533
1533
Acres
35
55
4o
Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning Commission's recommendation on Urban Area Neighborhood
Six as follows:
(Submitted in written form, E. A. Moskalski, July 23, 1979;
supported by written remarks of D. S. Wallace, August 8, 1979~
and Judith M. Bracken, August 13, 1979; opposed by Henderson
Heyward, July 23, 1979.)
a. Property located immediately adjacent to 1-64 to the north
off Route 702, shown on present proposal as light, research
industry or "industrial." Request is for changing the designation
on this property to "low density residential."
b. Property located to the south of Route 702 to the east of
Route 29 South, shown on present proposal as "medium density
residential." Request is for changing the designation on
this property to "low density residential."
The Planning Commission did not recommend granting either of
the above requests.
(Submitted in written form, Virginia Dryden Kellogg, August 15,
1979.) Request for area of Ednam to be shown as medium density
rather than low density. The Planning Commission did not recom-
mend granting this request.
(Submitted in written form, Virginia Land Company, July 26,
1979.) Property located along Route 702 to the east of Route 29
Bypass, shown on the present proposal as "medium density residential."
Request is for consideration of commercial frontage along this
property to a depth of 250 feet. The Planning Commission did not
recommend granting this request.
At this time, the public hearing was opened on Urban Area Neighborhood Six. Mrs.
Henderson Heyward spoke in favor of the industrial area shown at the 1-64 intersection.
She said this is a very noisy area and this use would make a buffer from Route 702. She
also noted that there is a neighborhood center on the map which appears to be on her land
and a road extending right through her farm. Mr. Tucker said the commercial area is shown
to recognize the commercial around the Chinese Dragon Restaurant.
Mr. Bill Stevens was present for Mr. & Mrs. Marion Kellogg, owners of the Ednam
property. He said the owners have advertised, at considerable expense, sale of this
property. (He then handed out a brochure advertising the property.) He noted development
which has occured on adjoining properties; Ednam Village, Boar's Head complex, and com-
mercial office uses, and on the other side of Route 250 West, the Institute of Textile
Technology. He said the Ednam property should not be shown as "low density" thus down-
zoning the property. Mr. Tucker explained that "low density" on this map is one to four
dwelling units/acre. Mr. Lindstrom said the brochure indicates that Ednam is zoned for
over 180 residential units. Dr. Iachetta said the approved RPN plan for this property
will not be changed by what is shown on this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Fisher said the designation on the map conforms to what the owner and applicant requested
on the RPN plan that was presented to the Board several years ago.
Mr. Marion Kellogg said in June, 1976, this property was rezoned to RPNZR-1 conditioned
on the filing of a final site plan, and that site plan has never been filed. He thought
they had 5.3 as a maximum density until that final site plan was filed. Mr. Fisher said
when the Board voted to approve the Ednam RPN, the zoning was changed at that point. He
then asked the County Attorney if that was correct. Mr. St. John said yes; Mr. Kellogg
would have to file to either abandon the RPN plan or have the plan amended, but the rezoning
that took place in 1976 stands. A]~though a final site ~lan is a condition ~recedent to
development taking place, the applicant has an absolute right to approval of the final
site plan if it comports with the preliminary plan. The vesting of rights under the
rezoning takes place when the preliminary plan is approved.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch was present to represent Retirement Homes of Virginia, Inc. He
~said his clients have an option on the Ednam property and wish to build a retirement home
containing 180 units. That is approximately six units per acre and they do not want these
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to preclude the filing of an amendment to the RPN
plan at a later t~me.
There was no other person from the public who wished to speak on Neighborhood Six.
Mr. Tucker then proceeded to give the Planning Staff report on Urban Area Neighborhood
Seven as follows:
September___~5 1979 (Regula~ _ _ ~ - Nig_ ht.Meetin~)
05i
URBAN AREA NEIGHBORHOOD SEVEN
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Seven is one of the three most densely populated neighborhoods in the Urban
Area. Neighborhoods One, Two and Seven make up the highly developed northern portion of
the City/County area surrounding the Route 29 North corridor. This area combines residential
commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. Due to existing zoning, the Compre-
hensive Plan's general recommendations, and the relative availability of facilities both
private and public, this area will continue to absorb the major portion of short-range
future development in the County. The fact that Neighborhood Seven lies contiguous to the
University explains much of its own importance as a development area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
Two of the specific objectives apply to Neighborhood Seven: (1) an "area not well-defined
by natural features where special planning efforts will be required to retard the sprawl
of the Urban Area (exists) along the Route 250 West Corridor;" and (2) the standards in
Tables 4 and 9 from the Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Borders
Route 250 West provides a dividing line between Neighborhoods Six and Seven. The
eastern border of the neighborhood is the City/County line, the western border a line
running roughly from the Institute of Textile Technology on Route 250 West along the
flood plain of Ivy Creek to a point south of the Jack Jouett Middle School, and the
northern border line following the drainage swale below the middle school to a point
on the City/County line near Hydraulic Road. Most of these represent natural borders.
The cut-off on Georgetown Road in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood is
somewhat arbitrary, however, and simply represents the convenient division between
subdivisions in the area. The low density residential area surrounding the Farming-
ton Country Club is. not included within the borders of the Urban Area due both to its
distance from the City and its large-lot, rural character.
Natural Land Use Determinants
Hydrology
Neighborhood Seven is split down the middle between the South Fork Rivanna Watershed
impoundment district, and the Ri~anna Watershed. The area to the northwest of a
ridge line extending from the Institute of Textile Technology across Stillhouse
Mountain down Garth Road and then north on Georgetown lies within the impoundment
district. Hessian Hills, Canterbury Hills, St. Anne's-Belfield School and areas near
the University all lie outside the impoundment district boundaries. The northern
half is thus governed by the regulations applying to run-off in the impoundment
zones.
The northern area of the neighborhood drains into Ivy Creek which constitutes the
northern border of the neighborhood. The southern half drains in two directions:
(1) the area east of St. Anne's-Belfield School draining into Meadow Creek which runs
through the City; and (2) the southeast portion draining toward Neighborhood Six and
Moores Creek south of the City.
Soils and Geology
Neighborhood Seven lies entirely within the Cecil-Lloyd-Appling Soils Association.
This association has good productive potential for a wide range of agricultural uses,
only slight limitations to building capacity, and moderate limitations for septic
tank use.
The geology of Neighborhood Seven includes four separate formations: (1) on the
western side of the area, the Lovingston Formation; (2) running across Stillhouse
Mountain in the center of the neighborhood, the Rockfish Conglomerate; (3) in the
eastern part, the Lynchburg Formation (restricted); and (4) running through the
Lynchburg Formation an amphibolite dike. Of these four formations, only the Rockfish
Conglomerate produces a yield of water greater than a few gallons per minute.
Forestation and Vegetation
A wide belt of open farmland and pasture land running through the Colthurs~ Farm
Subdivision extends from Route 250 West to the northwestern corner of the neighborhood.
The remainder of the area is either partially or completely wooded. Stretches of
undeveloped forest stand between Colthurst Farm and the Canterbury Hills Subdivision
south of Garth Road and in the area between Jack Jouett Middle School and Montvue
Subdivision. The former is an area of relatively steep slopes on Stillhouse Mountain.
Vegetative borders exist around many of the residential developments in the area
including Colthurst Farm, Montvue, Canterbury Hills and Hessian Hills, providing a
green space buffer that should be maintained in the future.
Slope and Relief
As mentioned above in the Hydrology section, Stillhouse Mountain forms the top of a
ridge creating the dividing line between watersheds in Neighborhood Seven. Everything
.south of this point, along with Hessian Hills, slopes back toward the City, while
everything north of this point slopes out toward Ivy Creek. Stilthouse Mountain is
also the highest point in the area, in excess of 800 feet above mean sea level. The
lowest points, below 500 feet above mean sea level, occur both in the southern part
of Canterbury Hills, and along the flood plain of Ivy Creek. The maximum drop in
elevation is 300 feet over 2500 feet of distance horizontally between Stillhouse
Mountain and Montvue.
058
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Man-Made Land Use Determinants
Population
Using the 1976 Land Use Survey and the 1977 aerial photographs, one obtains a count
of 1543 dwelling units in Neighborhood Seven for an estimated population of 4783
persons. There are a number of subdivisions and apartment complexes within the
neighborhood: (1) the Old Ivy Road area, Ivy Gardens, housing primarily University
population; (2) the Canterbury Hills subdivision off Barracks Road contiguous to the
City; (3) the Hessian Hills, Old Salem, and Georgetown complexes surrounding George-
town Road; and (4) the Colthurst and Montvue subdivisions near the center of the
neighborhood off Barracks Road.
1970 Census Enumeration districts utilized to approximate the characteristics of
Neighborhood Seven are 8B, 8C, 9A, and 9B. They include a portion exceeding the
northern boundary of the neighborhood. The area had 4132 people in 1970 and 1217
families. The 15-24 age cohort was smaller in percentage than that cohort for the
area as a whole (24% compared to 34%), and the 25-44 was larger (33% compared to
25,3%). The area was predominately white-a~-d r~nte~ occupied*(96.t% and 60.5~re-
spectively).
o
/(
a.ml,be~h
KEY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Map 7A Urban Area
Neighborhood Seven
Existing Land Use
Commercial ~ Scale
Institutional
Open Space 62
Land Use
Almost one-half of Neighborhood Seven is presently developed or 890 of approximately
1980 acres have been taken out of the land stock. Much of this development is resi-
dential, including all of the above mentioned subdivisions and apartment complexes.
Commercial land use exists: (1) near the Old Salem complex on Barracks Road; (2) near
the intersection of Route 29 Bypass and Route 250 West; and (3) along Old Ivy Road.
Commercial Office uses exist along the northern side of Georgetown Road. Institutional
Sep~ber_~5~ 197_ ~9 (Re_~ular
Existing zoning (see Map 7B) calls for: R-1 Residential at Colthurst, Canterbury
Hills, Hessian Hills and Montvue; (2) R-2 Residential in the multi-family section of
Hessian Hills; (3) R-3 Residential at Old Salem, the Georgetown complexes and Ivy
Gardens; (4) M-1 Industrial at its present location; and (5) Commercial on land in
the Route 250 West corridor. Agricultural zoning extends over the residue.
\
O
KEY
z~ De~;±~y ~e$~de~t±e[
~e~ Densely ~es±~e~[
High Density Residential
Commercial
Ihdustriai
Agricultural 63
.a~, 7S urban Area
Neighborhood Seven
Existing
Zoning
Scale
1"- 20'00'
The Plan calls for iow density residential development o~er-the major'portiOn of the
neighborhood with high density residential near Old Salem and Ivy Gardens c~mplexes
along with commercial centers in the same locations. Open space exists in the Ivy
Creek area and institutional open space in the University area.
Community. Facilities
The Greer Elementary, Jouett Middle, and Albemarle High School complex is located
just across the northern border of the neighborhood. The cut-off between districts
occurs at the neighborhood's western border (Ivy Creek) so that all children within
the area attend the above schools. There are no established parks in the neighborhood,
and all library, health, fire and police services are centered in Charlottesville or
on Route.29 North.
The road network in Neighborhood Seven is already established as primarily a loop
system, with subdivisions entering off major arteries with few through roads connecting
those subdivisions. The main roads are: (1) Route 250 West on the southern border
providing access to the multi-family complexes off Old Ivy Road; (2) Virginia Route
654 (Barracks/Garth Road); (3) Georgetown Road (Virginia Route 656); and (4) the
limited access Bypass 29/250. Access into the largely undeveloped area near the St.
Anne's-Belfield School is provided by Virginia Route 855.
060
September 5~ 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Wastewater treatment is provided in an area east of the Stillhouse Mountain ridge
line and north of St. Anne's-Belfield by a line running to the Meadow Creek treatment
pla~t north of the City. Water is provided by lines running along Route 250 West,
Barracks Road, and Georgetown Road.
Housing
Neighborhood Seven had a very low percentage (26.1%) of owner-occupied dwelling units
in 1970. Of the owner-occupied units (425), however, 371 or 87.3% were valued at
greater than $25,000, and their average value was $38,905. Statistics on substandard
housing show that the condition of the units in Neighborhood Seven is very good.
LAND USE PLAN AND AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
The plan for Neighborhood Seven divides the area into two basic parts: (1) the eastern,
more densely populated area which is closer to the urban area, planned for higher densities;
and (2) the area to the west, which is more rural, planned for low densities. The line
dividing the neighborhood runs from the Route 29/250 Bypass intersection north over Still-
house Mountain and follows the eastern edge of the Montvue Subdivision north to the Neigh-
borhood's border. This is roughly comparable to the areas served and not served by present
wastewater treatment facilities.
./
,
All.~m.rl,, f ' Lincc
High .~,h. Cern
KEY
Low Density Residential
High Density Residentia~
[] Commercial
Neighborhood Center
Open Space - Institution~i
e: i
Map 7C Urban Area
Neighborhood Seven
Proposed
64
Land Use-Plan
Scale
Specifically, low density residential (2.5 units per acre) is planned for the area sur-
rounding St. Anne's-Belfield School, along the eastern edge of the Montvue Subdivision,
and just to the south of the Greer, Jouett, Albemarle High School complex. High density
residential is planned for the area off 01d Ivy Road and the area between Old Salem Apart-
ments and Georgetown Road. Rural residential (maximum of one unit per acre) is recommended
for all areas west of the line running over Stitlhouse Mountain.
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
061
Commercial Office is recommended for the remaining undeveloped land to the south of 01d
Ivy Road. Ail existing commercial, industrial and institutional land uses are recognized.
.1 '7, L
L
7
a'mOeth ';
KEY
Map 7D
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Proposed Land
Commercial
Commercial Office ~-Open Space- InSti~uti6~ai~
Suburban Res idential 65
Urban,-Area
PLAN IMPACTS
The impacts of the Neighborhood Seven Land Use Plan are primarily in the area of low
density and rural housing. These categories are divided in the plan impacts table for the
purpose of determining potential future populations. Averages are 2.5 dwelling units per
acre in low density, 7.5 in medium, and 15 in high. Rural densities are:ia~v~ra.g~;:at. 9ne
dwelling unit per acre.
Table 7A
Impact of Land Development
Neighborhood Seven
Population
Dwelling Units Acres
Residential - Rural (I du/acre) 1'155 385 3-~
Residential - Low (1-4 du/acre) 2100 700 280
Residential - Medium (5-10 du/acre) 0 0 0
Residential - High (11-34 du/acre) 1800 600 40
Residential - Total 5055 1685 705
Commercial Office .... 15
TOTALS 5055 1685 720
Mr. Tucker then gave the Planning Commission's recommendation on Urban Area Neigh-
borhood Seven as follows:
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
(Submitted in written form, Donald A. Holden, July 25, 1979; F. G. Lankford
and T. A. McEachern, July 30, 1979.) Property on both sides of Route 654
(Barracks Road), shown on present proposal as "suburban density," or maximum
of one dwelling unit per acre. Request is for a maximum density of one unit
to 1.5 acres or "rural density residential." The Planning Commission did not
recommend granting this request.
(Submitted orally at public hearing.) Property located to the west of the
Urban Area border beyond Ivy Creek. Request is for consideration of inclusion
of this property in a "low density residential," urban area designation.
The Planning Commission did not recommend granting this request.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is also reviewing the possibility of
relocating the population removed from the reservoir area to the southern (Biscuit
Run) section of the Urban Area. The Planning Commission also recommended that the
western by-pass (being reviewed by the CATS Committee) be shown on the urban area
neighborhood plans.
The public hearing on Urban Area Neighborhood Seven was opened. First to speak
was Mr. Donald Holden. He asked why the map does not show the density which has
actually developed in areas such as Colthurst and Montvue Subdivisions; these subd-
ivisions are already fully developed. Committee #7 felt the "blue area" shown on the
map should be shown as one dwelling unit per two acres based on the developed charac-
teristics of the area. However, a compromise was reached and the area shown as
"Residential Suburban" or one dwelling unit per one and one-half acres. When the
Planning Commission began their work on these amendments, information was received
from the Health Department which indicated that a well and septic system could be
supported on lots of 40,000 square feet. The Planning Commission then redesignated
this area for one dwelling per one acre. Mr. Holden said there is a lot of undeveloped
land beyond Colthurst and Montvue and to increase the density beyond that point will
change the character of the area. He felt this was the wrong thing to do and asked
that the density be changed back to what the committee had recommended.
Mr. Frank Lankford, a resident of Colthurst Farm, said there were twenty resi-
dents from Colthurst present at this meeting. He said these residents are concerned
about the Planning Commission's recommendation to double the density in this area
because the whole area is in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. He said the quality
of water ~from the Reservoir has been deteriorating for the past few years and he
pleaded with the Board to protect this water supply. He said the residents of
Colthurst are not opposed to development, but believe that development should be
controlled, They do not feel there are adequate controls in this area to allow for
the doubling of the density.
Mr. Kendrick Dure was present to represent a landowner to the west of Farm-
ington. He said that to the west of Route 601 (21 curves)~ all the way to Ivy Creek
behind Farmington, the zoning is R-1. Under the proposed zoning ordinance, the
designation will be RR, which is a downzoning. He said the Comprehensive Plan takes
into consideration the urban spread in all directions with the exception of the area
to the west of the urban area. He said this ignores the Farmington and Flordon areas
which have R-1 zoning at present. He requested that the Board recognize the existing
R-1 zoning north of Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher said he understands that most people
in Flordon, Farmington and West Leigh do not want that density, but would prefer a
lower density.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin asked about the line delineating Neighborhoods 1 and 7. Mr.
Tucker said the line essentially splits the West Gate Apartment area. Mr. Rotgin
said it is important in revising the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to show
a sufficient amount of land in each category to accommodate future growth. It is
also important to consider the impact of utilities.
Mr. John Nassau, a resident of Colthurst, asked why the Planning Commission
recommended a one-acre density for that area. Mr. Tucker said there is a difference
between what Mr. Holden felt the Committee recommended and what the Planning Com-
mission and Planning staff felt the Committee recommended. The Planning staff
thought the Neighborhood #7 Committee had agreed to a one-acre density and Mr. Holden
and Mr. Rinehart do not agree. The Planning Commission felt that this is an urban
area and it should receive an urban type density. This Board will have to decide if
the area is to remain as part of the Urban Area.
Mr. Robert Gilliam, a resident of Colthurst, said he had moved to Charlottes-
ville from~a village in New York state and he had watched that village go from 60,000
to 350,000 in population. He said he is fearful because from what he has heard
tonight, there is no overall plan. He feels that the Plan is going to put more
people on each acre, and if the area has to be deleted from the Urban area to avoid
this, it should be deleted. He said it is the older residents who pay for develop-
ment; seldom do the younger people pay.
With no one else from the public present to speak about Urban Area Neighborhood
Seven, Mr. Fisher noted that the Board would receive oral and written comments for at
least the next two weeks. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Board begin ~ork
sessions on the Neighborhood Plans on September 19, 1979 at 2:30 P.M. in the Board
Room. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
September 52 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
063
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 10:15 P.M., the Board recessed.
The Board reconvened at 10:20 P.M.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Status. Dr. Iachetta said he is this Board's representative on the Executive Committee
of the Planning District Commission. He thought the three members of the Board who
are not members of the Planning District Commission might like to have an update on
the situation which has developed relative to the Counties of F!uvanna, Greene,
Louisa and Nelson withdrawing as members of the Planning District Commission. The
rural counties do not feel that their thoughts and recommendations have been given
any consideration. Dr. Iachetta said he does not personally agree with their anal-
ysis. Albemarle County's representatives were totally unaware that the rural counties
were contemplating action to withdraw. None of the rural county representatives
attended the Planning District Commission meeting last night and as a practical
matter, while they have only stated their intention to withdraw, they have in fact
crippled the Planning Disctict Commission because no quorum can be obtained with one-
half of the members absent. That means that the Planning District Commission is
essentially without any function. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to suggest that
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, as a Board, ask the Boards of Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa and Nelson to do two things: 1) to carefully reconsider their stated
intention to withdraw as members of the Planning District Commission because he
thinks it is vital to the area that they remain as members; or 2) at least to return
and finish their terms as members so the Planning District Commission can continue to
function and so there will be an opportunity to help correct those difficulties that
the four counties perceive to be serious enough to warrant this kind of action.
Dr. Iachetta said although Albemarle County receives a lot of attention because
of its growth problems, Albemarle is essentially a rural county and is not unmindful
of the rural counties' difficulties. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the remaining
members of the Planning District Commission have been left without much information
as to how they might help to make the situation better.
Mr. Fisher said it is clear that the way the Planning District is organized, the
rural counties have much greater voting power per capita then Charlottesville and
Albemarle. He also had not heard anyone say what was wrong, except that they do not
think that anybody is listening to their problems.
Mr. Roudabush said as a member of the Planning District Commission he would also
like the opportunity to listen to what the rural counties percive to be the problems.
He felt the rural counties should reassess what benefits they have derived from the
Commission.
Mr. Dorrier said he feels the whole frustration is with the A-95 review process,
because it does not seem to make any difference as to how the Planning District
Commission votes on these projects; they just "go on through" anyway. Dr. Iachetta
said he sometimes gets upset with the fact that there are various Federal programs
which seem to run whether or not they are wanted in the locality, but if the Federal
government is going to put money into these programs, the Planning District Com-
mission has an obligation to try and get some of that money for the member counties.
~f regional planning is done well, and the needs are known, and the counties band
together to work on the worst problems, the Planning District Commission must have a
stronger approach asa group than any of the counties would have separately. Dr.
Iachetta then offered motion that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors formally
ask the counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson to: 1) reconsider their
action to withdraw as members of the Planning District Commission; and 2) come back
to the table, wherever that table may be, and set down to discuss mutual problems to
see if there is some way to improve the situation as the rural counties see it. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
064
September 5, 1979 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5.
matters to discuss.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other
At 10:39 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Chairm~an