Loading...
1979-10-17AOctober 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) Ad~.ou~n~ed fr?m~iQ~cto ~r 1 ~ _ _ _ _ An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on_©ctober 17, 1979, beginning at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 16, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 2:40 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher~ ~ J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 2:45 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush (arriving at 2:32 P.M.). Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John (arriving at 4:30 P.M.); and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ~Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:42 P.M. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan re: Villages and Communities. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present to give the following report: STUDY OF AN IMPOUNDMENT ON LICKINGHOLE CREEK FOR USE AS A SETTLING BASZN RELATIVE'TO THE OPERATION OF THE RUNOFF CONTROL ORDINANCE This study was undertaken by the County Engineer's Office at the request of the Board of Supervisors. The Board desired to know the relative values of a large settling basin which would treat run-off from multiple properties~ Compared to the use of individual structures as the properties were developed. The staff has developed a tentative plan using the geologic survey map of the area and the plans for development of the Crozet community that are contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Cost estimates have been computed by comparing the proposed dam with Beaver Creek dam, using the Engineering News Record Cost' Index to project Beaver Creek costs to present day estimates. We also ~°mpared those costs with the costs of the Buck Mountain Creek dam which were estimated by Camp, Dresser and McKee. Land costs were computed using the assessed value of the land involved. The County's Comprehensive Plan suggests a multi-purpose dam on Lickinghole Cr'~'ek. We have included recreational use in our estimates. By discarding any use other than run-off control, the cost of a structure could be greatly reduced. A so-called dry dam would probably cost no more than 67% as much as a multi-purpose dam with the normal surface area herein provided. No attempt was made to estimate a cost to the private sector, for piece-meal development of run-off control structures, because of the numerous variables of such a procedure. We do not believe that the use of a structure to achieve wholesale treatment will relieve individuals of all requirements under the ordinance. However, it is likely that individuals would be relieved of the necessity of building expensive structures.. Certain advantages are inherent in the use of a major structure as a run-off control treatment device. Such a structure would be effective in the control of run-off from already developed areas and from agricultural and undeveloped areas which may never be developed. There is no reason to suppose that the efficiency of the large settling basin would be less than that of multiple small basins, so far as their benefit to the South Rivanna is concerned. The cost of the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment will be borne by the public. It is suggested that the portion of cost attributed to recreation should be from the general public; the portion attributed to water treatment, to the water users. A REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A DUAL-PURPOSE DAM FOR LICKINGHOLE OREEK IN CROZET General Information The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan calls for "an impoundment on the Lickinghole Creek to control erosion/sedimentation (i.e. Rivanna Reservoir impacts) and for community recreation/amenity" in the Crozet urban area neighborhood. The purpose of this report is to investigate the relative merits and costs of constructing such an impoundment on the Lickinghole Creek. For design consideration, the main purpose of the dam and impoundment will be assumed to be for sediment removal through retention and settling. However, a secondary purpose will be assumed to be recreational uses such as fishing and possibly swimming. An adequate permanent pool of water will be retained to provide for such purposes. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the use of the Crozet area as an "Urban Area" neighborhood. Most of this area falls within the Lickinghole Creek Watershed. This designation means that Crozet will receive considerable commercial, industrial and residential development within the next twenty years. As has been documented in the Occoquan Watershed in Northern Virginia, and in other areas, this kind of development increases the .phosphorus loading rates by as October 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from October 162 1979) much as ten times over that of forestlands. Presently the six percent of the average annual flow contributed to the Reservoir by Lickinghole Creek is matched by a disproportionate 29% of the average annual phosphorus load to the Reservoir. Of course, 24% is contributed by a point source, but urban development will very probably mean that Lickinghole Creek will continue to contribute more than its proportionate share of phosphorus to the Reservoir. Also, with increased urbanization and a projected 200% population increase by 1995, the limited recreational facilities at Mint Springs Valley Park will be overtaxed. Additional facilities could be provided in conjunction with the proPosed erosion/sedimentation impoundment. A conservation district surrounding the impoundment would be required, making the area a potentially attractive community park. Description of Dam and Impoundment A structure very similar in size and construction to the existing structure at Beaver Creek Reservoir would be required for the dual-purpose impoundment. It would be 60 feet high and 450 feet long. The impoundment at normal pool elevation would cover 92 acres and at a 10-year flood level would cover 140 acres. It would drain a watershed of 10.6 square miles which includes most of the Crozet urban area neighborhood. A standpipe intake structure similar to that of the Beaver Creek impoundment would be used for the normal flows along with an emergency spillway designed to discharge the probable maximum flood for the area. The impoundment would provide 114 acre-feet of storage for sedimentation over a 50-year life, along with 1250 acre-feet of storage for recreational purposes and 1330 acre-feet for flood control and sedimentation. The more frequent summer storms of one to five-year return intervals cause the scour and erosion problems that lead to pollution of the Reservoir. The proposed impoundment would provide detention times of well over two days for these storms with sediment removal efficiency of about 50%. Storms larger than the 10-year storm would be passed through the emergency spillway. An alternative to a dual-purpose impoundment would be an impoundment for stormwater detention only. This impoundment would be designed to retain all storm flows up to the 10-year storm and would pass the normal flows of Lickinghole Creek and also the larger storms. Such a dam would be 45 feet high and would require 1330 acre-feet for flood control storage. Effect of Impoundment on the South Rivanna Reservoir The following table shows clearly the beneficial effects on the South Rivanna Reservoir of such an impoundment. After the development called for in the Comprehensive Plan, Lickinghole Creek would produce 878,000 lbs./yr, of suspended solids and 3060 lbs./yr, of phosphorus, if no run-off control measures were used. If the present run-off control measures are used along with the impoundment, the sediment load would be 440,000 lbs./yr, and the phosphorus load would be 1530 lbs./yr. ANNUAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS CONTRIBUTED BY LICKINGHOLE CREEK FOR VARIOUS CONDITIONS Condition P'°st-development w/o run-off control Post-development with run-off control (assumed as 50% effective) Post-development with proposed impoundment (assumed as 50% effective) Suspended Solids (lb/yr) 878,000 Phosphorus (lb/yr 3,060 814,000 2,540 439,000 1,530 With an impoundment, the loading rate of sediment from Lickinghole Creek would be reduced by 46% over the rate realized if only the present run-off control measures are used. A like reduction of 40% of the phosphorus loading would be realized. The reason for this large reduction is that several non-point sources of pollution that are not regulated by the Runoff Control Ordinance would be controlled by an impoundment. Those sources are forests, farm land and developed land with less than five percent of impervious surface area. Cost of the Impoundment A detailed cost analysis of the impoundment would require a detailed design to be done. For the purpose of this report, the costs of the proposed Buck Mountain Creek impoundment contained in the July, 1977, "Report on Alternative Water Supply Sources," have been adjusted for inflation and size of structure and have been used as an indicator of the Qosts for this impoundment. The costs included in purchasing land and constructing two different impoundment structures are summarized below. As can be seen in the table, a 41% savings in construction costs and a 31% savings in land costs could be realized if a stormwater detention impoundment were constructed instead of a dual-purpose impoundment. 167 October 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) ~ ~ed from Octqber ~1.6_~ !9~9) RELATIVE COSTS OF SINGLE AND DUAL-PURPOSE IMPOUNDMENTS Construction, Materials, Engineering & Contingencies Land Costs Total Costs Stormwater Detention Impoundment $2,438,000 257,000 $2,695,000 Dual-Purpose Impouhdment $4~144,000 370,000 $4,'514._,0D0 Mr. Fisher asked how much of the area proposed for development in Crozet falls within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Bailey said almost all of the area proposed for development.~ Mr. Fisher said he felt this report gives helpful information for planning for this part of the County. He asked Mr. Tucker his reaction. Mr. Tucker said this is generally a more in-depth study of what was proposed in the 1971 Comprehehsive Plan for such an impoundment, both for use as a sediment basin and for recreational uses. Mr. Fisher said he was most interested in the statement that the Crozet community can be served by one impound- ment. Mr. Bailey said such an impoundment would not eliminate the u~e of the Runoff Control Ordinance, but might save developers of small parcels from constructing smaller run-off control structures. Mr. Roudabush asked if the percentage of reduction could be-higher than what has been estimated. Mr. Bailey said yes. Mr. Fisher asked the next step in determining the feasibility of constructing such an impoundment. Mr. Bailey said a site specific would have to be selected and then the .~. necessary surveys and explorations made. Mr. Fisher said he felt the County should begin to investigate ways to fund such a project. Mr. Henley and~Mr. Dorrier felt the estimates for construction of this impoundment called for "a lot of money." Mr. Roudabush asked if the staff could proceed , but separate the funding and engineering aspects, since something might be uncovered in the investigation that would make the project impossible. Mr. Henley did not think the County would have a good chance of obtaining funds for the recreational aspects since Mint Springs Park is less than three miles away. Mr. Agnor asked if the City Council should be asked to become a part of this p~anning process. He said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is already working on an examination of a dam site along Buck Mountain Creek as proposed in the Camp, Dresser and McKee report. Ultimately, the RWSA Board will come to City Council and the Board of Supervisors with a time schedule to examine the need for that facility. Mr. Agnor said he can see that the two projects might get tied together. Mr. Fisher said the County should be looking at a Buck Mountain reservoir because of the possibility of using same as a drinking water supply impoundment. However, the question of building an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek affects not only the drinking water supply, but also affects the future development of the Crozet area. He felt that City Council should be advised of the Board's willingness to investigate an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek and ask for their recommendation on same to be returned within a few months. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Engineer's Office could proceed with preliminary engineering as to Whether these is a feasible site geologically. Mr. Agnor said no; there would need.to be a core drilling analysis made by a geological engineer. At this~time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to send this along to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and City Council to let them look at it and see what response they make. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindst~om and Roudabush. None. Mr. Tucker said the staff has made corrections to all of the village and community maps as same have been corrected by the Board through these work ~essions. Changes made on the Crozet Community map will also cause the following changes in the text for Crozet: Land Use, tenth paragraph, should read: Commercial development is proposed in ~e~h the northeast aR4-Re~%hwee% quadrants af ~he ~e~eee~e~ of Route 240 with Route 250. wh~eh-~e~ee~s-~eme-e~e~-~ eemme~e&a&-a~4-~e~e~&a~-~e~-a44&~&e~a~-eemme~e~a&_e~_~he_wee~_e&~e~ A second area is located in the .southwest quadrant. In both these areas, commercial development is already occurring. This development should be .... October 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from October 16, 1979) Key ~ Low Density Res.' (1-4du/ac) ~ Med. Density Res; (5-1Odu/ac) [] COmmercial [] Public Institutions ~ :.Industrial r-'] Environmentally .SensitiVe .... ......... ~. \ Community ,of Crozet Scale "- 2000' Mr. Tucker said this change almost makes a change in the table under "Plan Impacts" by changing the amount of commercial acreage from 265 to 205; and changing the total acreage to 2,766. Ivy Village. Mr. Tucker said the only item left in the Ivy Village which is still to be decided is the location of a school site. Also, no comments have been received from the Highway Department relative to road improvements in the Ivy Village. Mr. Tucker noted that the text for the Ivy Village has been changed under "Village Boundaries - Expanded Village" by deleting the part of the last sentence which read: "since inclusion of such development would cause the boundaries to be extended far beyond any reasonable limits in terms of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan." October 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) ~_~journed ~rom _Ostobe? 16: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1977 - 1995 K~y Low Density Res. t max ldulac) Commercial Public Institutions [~ Environmentally Sensitive Type 1Village Ivy Scale  1 "- 2000' North Garden Village. Mr. Fisher said he had met with Mr. Eckel of the Planning Staff to talk about the proposal for North Garden'. The Committee which had worked on this proposs wanted to save agricultural land, so had designated an area on th~ northern end of the village for higher density residential use. Mr. Fisher said it made more sense to him to just leave out the area of open fields which are now in agricultural use, so this area has been deleted from the map. The area on the south side of Route 692 is very steep on both sides and the only development in the area is in a channel that runs down both the new highway and the old road just to the east. The only area that is suitable for development is an open area with smaller slopes just north of Zion Church. There are only about ten houses existing south of Zion Church. The proposal from the Committee and from the Planning Commission put the boundary about 2000 feet south of Zion Church, and Mr. Fisher said he did not think this is an area where development should be encouraged. Mr. Fisher said on the west side of the village, old development patterns have left the agricultural areas virtuaIl~ untouched since most development seems to have occurred on the slopes. The newer developmen' patterns are beginning to move into those areas. The proposal to extend the boundaries one- half mile into the agricultural area will use up a significant amount of agricultural land that is flat and now being used for agricultural purposes. Also, there are some significant streams running through the area. Mr. Fisher said his proposal is to place the southern boundary just below the Zion Church, thus leaving an area of about three-quarters of a mile in each direction from Crossroads along Route 29 South. Mr. Tucker t~en presented a new map of North Garden which had been prepared since the last meeting on this village. October-17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from October 16, 1979) 170 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1977-1995 Key Low Density Res. ~ max ldu/ac). Commercial Public Institutions ~vironmentally Sensitive Type 1 Village North Garden Scale 1,,_ 2000' Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Dorrier agreed that this proposal is a much better plan. Mr. Tucker said this new proposal also makes the following changes in the text for the North Garden Village: INTRODUCTION The Village of North Garden, She-Aa~ee~-&R-Aaa~-a~ea-e~-~Ae-~E~e-~-~AA~a~e~ lies approximately eight miles south of Charlottesville on Route 29. The designated growth area is ae~a~-eem~&se~-e~-~we-ema~-eemm~e~_ ee~e~e~-a~e~-ee~e~e&a~-a~eae-a~-e&~he~_e~_e~_~e_~&~age=__~e_e~_ ~eee-&e-~eea~e~-~e~-~e~-e~-~e-~e~-M&&~_ge~ee&_e~_~e~e_~¢~_a~_~e_ e~e~-&e-~eea~e~-a~-~e-~e~eee~&e~-e~-~&~g&~&a_6¢~_a~_Re~e_~¢~ located at the intersection of Route 692 and Route 29, centered around an existing commercial area. ' Boundaries Boundaries for the North Garden Village area are a combination of natural borders and recommendations for inclusion of specific areas by the village citizens' committee. The growth area extends north beyond the commercial area approximately e~e-ha~ three quarters of a mile and south of the ee~e~ commercial area approximat&ly ~ee-~a~e~e-e¢-a one mile. This was considered sufficient to establish residential areas e~e~~-eae~-e~-~Ae-~we-~&&~a~e-ee~e~e~ which would accommodate future growth. October 17, 1979 (Afternoon ~eeting) (Adjourned~'from October 16, 1979) 1 The eastern border running north from~Zion Church at the extreme southern end of the village follows the South 'Branch of the North Fork of the Hardware River, passing behind the Trinity Church on ~&~&~&a Route 692, and follows Route 711 north to Route 29. The western border runs north to a point on V&~a Route 692 one-half mile west of Route 29 then follows~ the extreme slopes west of this road to ~e-Mee~e~-~h~e~ ~ point directly west of the Route 711 and Route 29 intersection where it turns back se~ to meet Route 29. Vegetation, second paragraph Other areas where additional ... (1) the length of ... (2) the area between ... the residential area behind it~ a~-~-a~e~-~e-ee~e~-a~-wes~e~ ~e~e~-e~-~e-~ee&~e~&a~-a~ea-~e-~e-ee~-e~-Mee~e~a~-~e~ Land Use Future residential development in the North Garden Village is recommended for the wooded areas around each of the village centers, at a density of one unit per one and one-half acres on 0 - 15% slope to one unit per five acres on more steeply sloped land. It is hoped that the natural scenic beauty of the area will be retained by placing new residential development away from the roadways while retaining the areas as essentially wooded. ~e~e~ e~e~-a~ea,-a~e-&~&ea~e~-e~-~e-~a~-ma~w-~h~ee-&~-~e-~e~e~-~a~-e~e ~e&~e~ee~-a~-~e~-e~e~&~-~e-se~e~-eemme~e&a~-ee~e~ Four such areas are indicated on the plan map.. Ae-me~&e~eg-a~e~e?-~we-a~eae-a~e-~ee&~a~e~-ae-eemmeme&a&-~&&&a~e-ee~e~ew e~e-a~-~he-&~e~eee~&e~-e$-Re~e-~¢-a~-~&~&~&a-~&~-a~6-~e-seee~-a~-Re~e-~¢ a~-~&~&~&a-~¢~--~he-~e~he~-eemme~e&a&-a~ea-e~e~ehee-¢e~-a~e~&ma~e&~ e~8-m&Ae-aAe~-~he-eae~e~-e~e-e~-Re~%e-~¢-¢~em-~e&~&~e-2~e~e-~e-~e-a~a~ ~e-~e-eae~-a~-Aa~-~e-~e-Rem~-e$-Re~e-6¢~-a~-wee~-ef-Re~e-~¢-eDpee&~e= ~mD~e~emeR~e-~e-~e-&~e~eee~&eR-ma~-~e-See&~a~&e-&~-~e-S~e= The commercial area includes the existing commercial to the east and land to the north of 692 and west of Route 29 opposite. Improvements to the intersection may be desirable in the future. Community, Facilities Recormmended facilities improvements for the neighborhood include: (1) upgrading the recreational facilities a~-~e-Re~-M~&~-~e~ee& behind the commercial zone as a neighborhood park; (2) a bikepath/footpath .... Scottsville Village. Mr. Tucker said the Scottsville Citizens committee met and reviewed all five sites proposed by the staff for industrial development. During that discussion, a sixth site was recommended and most of the committee members feel it is a much better site for this purpose. This site contains 30 acres of open land and is in the southeast quadrant of Routes 795 and 622. The land is in close proximity to future planned extensions of water service up to Route 795 to the Stoney Point Subdivision. (Note: See map of five industrial sites in minutes of September 26, 1979.) The committee chose Sites 1 and 6 as first priority~ sites 2 and 3 as second priority;~wi~h Sites 4 and 5 as third priority. At the previous work session, the Board had asked the staff to determine if Site No. 4 drains into Totier Creek. The staff has determined that both Sites 4 and 5 drain into Totier Creek. The other sites drain into Mink Creek. Mr.. Tucker said the boundaries of the Scottsville Village will have to reworked if either Si'te No. 1 or Site No. 6 is choosen. Mr. Dorrier said he also met with the committee. He felt that the water line could be extended to either Site 1 or site ~ and at some time in the future, site No. 6 might receive sewer service. Mr. Fisher said that last year Mayor Raymon Thacker had talked to him about the County investigating Mink Creek for recreational use. ¥If this is done, the Connty must be careful about what is planned upstream from the Mink Creek impoundment. Mr. Fisher said he was agreeable to designating both sites 1 and 6 for industrial use, but was not sure about expanding the village boundaries to take in small chunks of land outside of the presently proposed boundaries. Mr. Dorrier said it would not take a large extension to take Site #6 into the village boundaries. Mr. Roudabush agreed that it was a good site geographically. Mr. Fisher asked if the site had access from Route 20 or Route 6. Mr. Dorrier said there is a bad intersection at the corner of Routes 726 and Route 20, but Scottsville has in their six-year highway plan to pave Route 795 and at that time, the intersection may be corrected. Mr. Fisher said this site is not served by either water or sewer and it does not have good access. Mr. Dorrier said the other sites were recommended based on utility services, but if the water line is ever extended to this area, this is the best site. Mr. Roudabush suggested that Site #6 be included in the village boundaries, with Site #1 being listed as an alternate in the text, but not included in the boundaries at this time. Mr. Dorrier said that inctudi~ Site #6 within the village boundaries may help the County get Federal funds for extending the water line since the extension would be tied to new jobs. Mr. Fisher said a fairly large area which lies in the Totier Creek watershed has been shown within the village for development. Part of that area is shown for low density development and the remainder is listed as "environmentally sensitive." Mr. Dorrier said the waterline is already installed along Route 726 and it makes sense to him to designate that area as low to medium density. Mr. Dorrier said he feels that the Runoff Control Ordinance can handle any development that will occur in that area. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that all areas lying in a watershed should be treated in the same manner concerning density. He said a low density designation (1 - 4 du/ac) implies an increase in density for October 17, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) (Adjourned from October 16, 1979) this area. He asked how many potentially developable acres there are in the "environmentally sensitive" area. Mr. Tucker said he would guess there are between 50 and 75 acres. Mr. Dorrier said to shrink the size of the village will "hem" it in too much and not allow room for future expansion which is needed for the viability of the village. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with adding more area if it is not in the Totier Creek watershed. Mr. Rouda- bush said that on the drainage swales running into Totier Creek there is an opportunity to put in impoundments if they are not too close to the Creek. Mr. Lindstrom said if the topography is such that a couple of impoundments could be installed to serve a number of acres, and the County could maintain those devices, he might agree, but if the idea is to have a number of privately constructed, privately maintained devices, then his feelings about the Urban Area apply to this area of the County also. He asked Mr. Tucker if there were other areas in the village which might be designated for higher density rather than this area. Mr. Tucker said the terrain is poor to the east of Route 795 toward Totier Creek. There are not too many areas outside of the watershed that have buildable areas. Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that if development is encouraged in this area, it is a mistake. Mr. Dorrier said he did not want to ruin the water supply of Scottsville, but he feels the Planning Staff should be able to make some recommendations on how to allow low density development and still preserve that water supply. Mr. Fisher said he did not want to send this plan back to the staff again and suggested that Site #6 be included in the village boundaries, cutting off the boundary along the power line to make a more compact plan, and changing low density along Route 6 to "environmentally sensitive." Mr. Roudabush asked if most of the area along Route 6 is not already developed. Mr. Dorrier said yes, and added that his only problem with these changes is contracting the village boundaries. Mr. Roudabus~ said if more area is needed for low density development, there is the area on the south side of Route 726. That area drains away from Totier Creek Reservoir, has a shorter run to the James River, and the drainage also passes through a large industrial site. Dr. Iachetta said it is also closer to the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Roudabush said it also has a better potential for sewer service. Mr. Dorrier said that is the site that Balzer and Associates had picked as an industrial site, but the topography is bad. Mr. Fisher asked if the terrain is adequate for 1 - 4 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Tucker said it is probably better for a one-acre type density. Mr. Roudabush said the whole area may not be usable, but selected sites could be picked out. Mr. Dorrier said this suggested change makes sense. This area has water service, it is closer to the Town of Scottsville, and it would make a compact village. Mr. Fisher said it seemed to be the consensus to go forward with the recommendation~ made today. Mr. Tucker said he had failed to mention previously that on September 10, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended that the village of Esmont be shifted from a Type I village category to a Type II village category. This recommendation was based on the consensus of the citizens participating in work sessions who preferred to be deleted from any planning activity during this planning period. Mr. Dorrier said he felt it would be a mistake to eliminate the "downtown" area of Esmont from the village plans. He said the area has stores, houses, people, and lots more. Although he realizes that the people in Porters don't want development in that area, he feels it would be better to contract the borders and designate just enough area to cover the "downtown" portion of Esmont as a village. Mr. Tucker said if just the area proposed by Mr. Dorrier were made a village, it would only be recognizing an existing village because there is no room for expansion. Mr. Dorrier asked about Esmont being made a Type II village. Mr. Tucker said that is generally what the Planning Commission has recommended. Mr. Tucker said the Board had agreed to eliminate Nix and Keswick from the village plans. As for a suggestion that Milton be made a village, the staff had looked at the soils in the area and they are not very good. The soils are excessively drained and depth to bed rock is shallow. Mr. Roudabush said he had not found much support for making Milton a village and agreed that there was no use to proceed further with this idea. Mr. Tucker said that covers everything worked on to date until comments are received from the Highway Department on improvements to roads in village areas and until a school site is selected for the Ivy Village. Mr. Fisher said the Board will ask the School Board to do further investigation of one school versus two schools. Mr. Fisher said he felt the community and village plans were now complete except for the Highway Department's comments. Mr. Dorrier said he had sent a letter to Mr. Roosevelt about improvements to Route 20 South and he wanted to be sure that these plans include a bikepath. At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion that once the comments from the Highway Department are received, that the staff proceed to finalize the village plans and bring them back to the Board for final consideration. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 4:29 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:35 P.M. 4:30 P.M.) (Mr. St. John arrived at Agenda Item No. 3; Appeal: North Pines Final Plat. Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: Location: Property described as part of Parcel 19 on Tax Map 20, Rivanna Magisterial Districts; located on the west side of Route 606 on the north side of the Rivanna River. Acreage: 358.67 acres Zoning: A-1 Agricultural History: The preliminary plat was approved for 154 lots on February 20, 1979. The soil scientist's report eliminated 30 lots. Proposal: For 124 lots with an average size of 2.89 acres leaving 89+ acres residue. Topography of Area: Gently to moderately rolling. Conditions of Roads Serving Proposal: The 1978 traffic count oH ~h~ ~~ 173 October 17, 1979 (Afternoon meeting) (Adjourned from October 16, 1979) Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that most of the soils on the si~ are favorable. However, the more shallow soils on the steep slopes make the location of roads, house site~., and septic fields important. Cpmprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation, other rural and .a small portion of the land in the critical slopes area. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of about 72 students. Staff Comment: The plat will meet the requirements of the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinanca and staff recommends approval, subject to: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; b. An additional 30-foot access to Route 606 for emergency vehicles shall be shown on the plat; c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County Engineer approval of road plans and drainage easements; 2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements; d. County Engineer and Virginia ~epartment of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and drainage easements for State standard' roads; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; f. Written Health Department approval; g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and emergency access on Route 606; and improvements to Route 606 from Lot 123 north to the limit of the General Electric upgrading project placing the shoulder catch point at 15 feet from the existing centerline and the ditch at 18 feet. Mr. Tucker said on September 27, 1979, the Planning Commission approved this plat with the conditions recommended by the staff and added the following conditions: h. Staff aPproval of revised plat should the school site be required by the Board of Supervisors for ZMA-79-32 (Briarwood RPN); i. Correct signature panel; j. Provide evi~dence to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Attorney of approval of the plat by appropriate officials of the United States General District Court. Dr. Iachetta said he had asked that this plat be reviewed by the Board because he did no feel that the improvements required on Route 606 are consistent with what has been required ol the General Electric site. In talking with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Roosevelt, it appears that the~e was a misunderstanding as to what should have been required. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt what the Highway Department had actually recommended. Mr. Roosevelt said they had recommende, that the road from the intersection back to General Electric should be built to standards for the traffic that will run across that section. The current traffic count is 101 and with 123 additional lots in the area, the traffic count on this short section of gravel road is expect d to be 960. The condition placed by the Planning Commission would have the applicant widen th road to 30 feet, shoulder to shoulder, or 36 feet, ditch to ditch, but do nothing to the surf ce. The Highway Department recommends that the base and surface of this road be such that it will carry the expected traffic load. Mr. Fisher asked the length of the section being discussed. Mr. Roosevelt said it is between 300 and 500 feet in length. Mr. Fisher asked what base and pavement width the Highway Department would recommend. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not have exact specification with him today, but their recommendation is based upon the traffic cate y into which the road will fall. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, for comments. Mr. Wood asked if he wo .id receive any credit for the existing base on the road. Mr. Roosevelt said by the time the roa is graded out there will probably not be much base left, but if there is any base left, the applicant can add to it. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Wood if he objected to such a condition bei placed. Mr. Wood said he objects in principle only. With the Briarwood application next to property, and with the possibility of a school site in this area, it makes sense to improve t At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the North Pines Final Plat, with th conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but rewording Condition #1g to read: Virginia Department of ... Route 606; and improvements to Route 606 ... upgrading project sba bring the road to a Category IV." Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department did not want Mr. Wood to build the road to a standard that is not needed and suggested that the motion be rewo to state that the road will be built to a category commensurate with the traffic that this subdivision will generate. If the category is lower on the base, the developer will not have build a Category IV road if it is found later that there is still some base left after the grl is finished. Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion that Condition #1g be reworded as folloWs: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of Commercial entrance and emerg access on Route 606; and improvements to Route 606 from Lot 123 north to the limit of the Ge~ Electric upgrading project will be brought to category commersurate with the traffic projecte to be carried from this subdivision." The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried ~ the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. At 4:49 P.M., Mr. Fisher said that the County Attorney had requested an executive session to discuss legal matters and property acquisition. Motion to go into executive session was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:35 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 2:30 P.M. ~i~man - g ;his le road. 1 ~ded to ~ding racy .~ral